The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About06/02/1997BOOK 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, June 2, 1997 7:00 PM City Hall Council Chambers 1830 County Road B East Approval of Minutes May 19,1997 4. Approval of Agenda 5. New Business a. Conditional Use Permit - Storm water facility (Century and Margaret Avenues) b. Conditional Use Permit - Medt Chevrolet (165 Century Avenue) 6. Unfinished Business a. US West Telecommunications Tower Conditional Use Permit (500 Carlton Street) b. In-fill Development Study - Subdivision Code Change c. Tree Preservation Ordinance 7. Visitor Presentations 8. Commission Presentations o a. May 27 Council Meeting: Mr. Kittridge b. June 9 Council Meeting: Mr. Pearson c. June 23 Council Meeting: Mr. Frost Staff Presentations Adjournment WELCOME TO THIS MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION This outline has been prepared to help you understand the public meeting process. The review of an item usually takes the following form: The chairperson of the meeting will announce the item to be reviewed and ask for the staff report on the subject. Staff presents their report on the matter. The Commission will then ask City staff questions about the proposal· The chairperson will then ask the audience if there is anyone present who wishes to comment on the proposal. This is the time for the public to make comments or ask questions about the proposal. Please step up to the podium, speak clearly, first giving your name and address and then your comments. After everyone in the audience wishing to speak has given his or her comments, the chairperson will close the public discussion portion of the meeting. · The Commission will then discuss the proposal. No further public comments are allowed. The Commission will then make its recommendation or decision. All decisions by the Planning Commission are recommendations to the City Council. The City Council makes the final decision. jw/pc~pcagd Revised: 01/95 MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION `1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA MAY '19, `1997 I. CALLTO ORDER Chairperson Fischer called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. I1. ROLL CALL Commissioner Bunny Brueggeman CommIssioner Barbara Ericson Commissioner Lorraine Fischer Commissioner Jack Frost Commissioner Kevin Kittridge Comm~ssmner Gary Pearson Comm~sstoner William Rossbach Commissioner Milo Thompson III. APPROVAL OF .MINUTES Present Absent Present Present Present Present--arrived at 7:04 p.m. Present Present IV. May 5, 1997 Commissioner Kittridge moved approval of the minutes of May 5, 1997, as submitted. Commissioner Frost seconded. Ayes--all The motion passed. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Rossbach moved approval of the agenda as submitted. Commissioner Frost seconded. Ayesmall The motion passed. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS 7 P.M. 1998-2002 Maplewood Capital Improvement Plan Ken Roberts, associate planner, read the public hearing notice and presented the staff report. Mike McGuire, city manager, showed an 18-minute video that highlighted the capital improvement plan. Mr. McGuire and Dan Faust, finance director, answered questions about the proposed improvements. Ken Haider, city engineer, answered questions about an experimental storm drainage project that was completed last year in the Gladstone area. Commissioner Rossbach had questions and comments on the two park complexes planned for the Hazelwood area. VI. Planning Commission Minutes of 05-19-97 -2- Commissioner Frost moved the Planning Commission recommend approval of the 1998-2002 Capital Improvement Plan. Commissioner Pearson seconded. Ayes--all The motion passed. NEW BUSINESS A. US West Telecommunications Tower Conditional Use Permit (500 Carlton Street) Ken Roberts, associate planner, presented the staff report. Mr. Roberts distributed an updated conditional use criteria statement from CB Commercial (the representative for US West)) and a letter from Jill Smith of 3M. The letter from Ms. Smith stated that 3M has provided a summary of its analysis and advised US West of 3M's concern about possible interference. The 3M company asked for a meeting with US West to discuss potential problems. Mr. Hollenbeck shared information from the FCC that states cities cannot regulate pole placement on interference issues. That is a function of the FCC. The commission discussed various options as to how this request should be handled. Commissioner Rossbach moved the Planning Commission table the request by US West to install a 90-foot-tall monopole for telecommunications equipment at 500 Carlton Street until the next Planning Commission meeting on June 2, 1997. Commissioner Brueggeman seconded. Commissioner Kittridge requested that staff invite a representative from 3M to the June 2 planning commission meeting. Chairperson Fischer cladfied that the motion tables this item with the assumption that staff will endeavor to have this request appear on the June 9 city council agenda. The planning commission will presumably reach a decision at its June 2 meeting in order to give a recommendation to the city council. Ayes--all The motion passed. B. Conditional Use Permit--Rear Yard Setback (2431 Carver Avenue) The staff report was presented by Ken Roberts, associate planner. Donald Telin, the applicant, said he had read and was in agreement with the staff conditions. Commissioner Rossbach moved the Planning Commission recommend approval of the resolution which approves a conditional use permit to construct a house on the lot at 2431 Carver Avenue in the rear yard setback area. This permit shall be subject to the following conditions: 1. All construction shall follow the plans dated May 1, 1997, as approved by the city. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 2. The proposed house construction must be started within one year after council approval or the permit shall end. The council may extend this deadline for one year. Planning Commission Minutes of 05-19-97 -3- 3. The owner should connect the new house to the city sanitary sewer. 4. The city council shall review this'permit only if a problem develops. Commissioner Brueggeman seconded. Ayes--all The motion passed. Outback Steakhouse Conditional Use Permit (Beam Avenue and Southlawn Drive) Ken Roberts, associate planner, presented the staff report. Mr. Roberts answered questions from the commission. The commission discussed a citizen complaint about cooking odors from a nearby restaurant. Chairperson Fischer asked staff to check on complaints about the Chili's restaurant, located on the southeast side of Beam and Southlawn, before this item goes to the city council. She also asked about the resolutions to any of these complaints. Mark Kronbeck of Dovolis, Johnson and Ruggieri, Inc. (an architectural firm) said he read the staff report and had no comments. Commissioner Rossbach was concerned about the location of the traffic lane along the south edge of the property near the residential area. Commissioner Pearson moved the Planning Commission recommend: A. Adoption of the resolution which approves a conditional use permit for a restaurant at the southwest corner of Beam Avenue and Southlawn Drive. Approval is based on the findings required by code and subject to the following conditions: 1. All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 2. The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the permit shall 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 developer shall control cooking odors so they are not noticeable to adjacent residences as code requires. 5. The maximum closing time shall be 11:30 p.m. Commissioner Kittridge seconded. Planning Commission Minutes of 05-19-97 VII. Commissioner Rossbach thought the hours of operation should be consistent with the Chili's restaurant which is 11 p.m. It was noted that other food operations in the area which do not have a conditional use permit close at different times. Ayes--Brueggeman, Ericson, Fischer~i Kittridge, Pearson, Thompson ~ Nays--Frost, Rossbach The motion passed. Commissioners Frost and Rossbach objected primarily because of the 11:30 closi,ng-fime. Summer Tour Ken Roberts, associate planner, suggested that June 30, 1997, might be a good~d, ay to have the annual Maplewood tour. The commission was in agreement with this date. The tour will probably begin at 5:30 and end about 8:30 p.m. UNFINISHED BUSINESS In-Fill Development Study Melinda Coleman, director of community development, said the tree preservation cod~w~s prob~ably turned down by the city council because it was complex and will require a lot of staff tiihe to implement. Ken Roberts, associate planner, said that much of the tree preservation Co'de is patterned after the ordinance recently adopted by the city of Oakdale. There was discussion on,the rr~rit~ of replacement vs. preservation and ways to implement compliance with a tree preserva{~on c~de; The commissioners considered various options, i.e. requiring a specific caliper replacemerlt for har ~dwood trees, size tree to be protected or a minimum size tree for replacement. ' . Commissioner Brueggeman moved the Planning Commission recommend approval ~f the Administrative Policy on Neighborhood Meetings of the In-Fill Development Study dated May ,f2, 1997. Commissioner Rossbach seconded. Ayes--all The motion passed. Commissioner Frost moved the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Ordinance aboUt Conditional Use Permits for Planned Unit Developments (PUDs) as outlined in the In-Fill Development Study dated May 12, 1997. Commissioner Kittridge seconded. Ayes--all The motion passed. Commissioner Frost moved the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Ordinance of Maplewood, Minnesota Changing Parts of the City Code about Minimum Residential Lot Sizes, Subdivisions and Preliminary Plats dated May 12, 1997 with the following changes: Planning Commission Minutes of 05-19-97 -5- VIII. Sec. 36-69. Lot dimensions. (2) For lot sizes in subdivisions or platting sites, see Section 30-8 (f) of the city code for minimum lot size information. (Delete "up to ten (10) acres in gross area.") Sec. 30-5. Preliminary plat procedure. (a) 1 .... As such, a subdivider or owner of a site for a preliminary pat shall submit complete... (Add "for a preliminary plat" and delete "10 acres or less.") Sec. 30-5. Preliminary plat procedure. (a)5 .... document the size, species and location of all six (6) inch or greater diameter deciduous trees..." Sec. 30-8. Minimum subdivision design standards. (f)(1)a. 4. Delete "The following minimum lot size standard shall apply for new lots in a tract or property of ten (10) gross acres or less:" Commissioner Kittridge seconded. Ayes--all The motion passed. Mr. Roberts confirmed that the tree preservation ordinance portion of the In-Fill Development Study would most likely be on the agenda for the next planning commission meeting. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS There were no visitor presentations. IX. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS Ao May 12 Council Meeting: May 27 Council Meeting: June 9 Council Meeting: Ms. Fischer reported on this meeting. Mr. Kittridge will attend this meeting. Mr. Pearson will attend this meeting. Commissioner Frost commented on the road construction taking place on White Bear Avenue near 1-694. X. STAFF PRESENTATIONS There were no staff presentations. IX. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 9:40 p.m. MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: PROJECT: LOCATION: DATE: City Manager Ken Roberts, Associate Planner Conditional Use Permit and Design Approval Ramsey/Washington Watershed District Water Treatment Site Northwest comer of Century and Margaret Avenues May 27, 1997 INTRODUCTION Project Description Cliff Aichinger, representing the Ramsey/Washington Metro Watershed District, is proposing to build a storm water treatment facility. This project would be on the northwest coroner of Century and Margaret Avenues. (See the location and property line/zoning maps on pages 5 and 6.) The proposed project includes a 20-foot by 20-foot brick equipment building and excavating a storm water settling pond on the property. (See the project plans on pages 7 - 9 and the applicant's project statement on page 10.) Requests The applicant is requesting that the city approve: 1. A conditional use permit (CUP) for the facility. City code requires a CUP for public utilities, public services or public buildings in the city. 2. The project plans including the site and building design plans. DISCUSSION The city council should grant this CUP. This facility will help improve the quality of the water going into Tanner's Lake. The building is attractive and will not affect any of the neighbors. RECOMMENDATIONS Approve the resolution beginning on page 11. This resolution approves the conditional use permit to build a storm water treatment facility on the northwest coroner of Century and Margaret Avenues. The city bases this permit on the findings required by the code and 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. Bo Approve the plans dated May 19, 1997, for the proposed storm water treatment facility on the northwest comer of Century and Margaret Avenues, based on the findings required bp the City Code. The developer shall do the following: Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this structure. 2. Complete the following before the city issues a building permit: Submit a grading, drainage, utility and erosion control plan to the city engineer f~r approval. The erosion control plan shall be comply with ordinance requirementS*. b. Submit to city staff a certificate of survey for the property. 3. Complete the following before occupying the building: a. Replace property irons that the construction or contractor removes. b. Restore and sod damaged boulevards. c. Install all required landscaping, paving and an address on the building. 4. If any required work is not done, the city may allow temporary occupancy if' a. The city determines that the work is not essential to the public health, safety or welfare. bo 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. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may'- approve minor changes. Appeals Anyone may appeal the community design review board's (CDRB) decision to the city council. The city must receive any appeals within 15 days of the CDRB's action. REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Site size: 69,762 square feet (1.6 acres) Existing land use: Undeveloped SURROUNDING LAND USES North: Commercial center and McDonalds Restaurant East: Former Harley-Davidson store across Century Avenue in Oakdale South: A house across Margaret Avenue West: Houses on Margaret Avenue PLANNING Land Use Plan designation: OS (open space) Zoning: R1 (single dwelling) ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS Section 36-437 of the city code requires a CUP for public utilities, public services or public buildings in the city. CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL Section 36-442(a) states that the city council may approve a CUP, based on nine standards. (See findings 1-9 in the resolution beginning on page 11.) Section 25-70 of the city code requires that the CDRB make the following findings to approve plans: That the design and location of the proposed development and its relationship to neighboring, existing or proposed developments, and traffic is such that it will not impair the desirability of investment or occupation in the neighborhood; that it will not unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring, existing or proposed developments; and that it will not create traffic hazards or congestion. That the design and location of the proposed development is in keeping with the character of the surrounding neighborhood and is not detrimental to the harmonious, orderly and attractive development contemplated by this article and the city's comprehensive municipal plan. That the design and location of the proposed development would provide a desirable environment for its occupants, as well as for its neighbors, and that it is aesthetically of good composition, materials, textures and colors. p:sec36/alumpond.mem Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Property Line/Zoning Map 3. Proposed Site Plan 4. Proposed Grading Plan 5. Building Plans 6. Applicant's statement dated May 19, 1997 7. Conditional Use Permit Resolution 4 MAGNOL~ AVE.~ Atta~ 1 AVE. BRAND AVE. E. MINN£HAHA CONWAY 222 A~t 2 I ' J ;3.1~'~' '~."~S' ,MINNEHAHA ,AVENU.E..;,,;o,?~t'E:: ,.,~.~,- - ../ ' /, ; 9~.,.i,,.,,' ~,i"~ ''',° ', ' ~; .' i"~:;~ ~ ~x ~ ~ ' / ~,' .~,~I=,, I.,~ ~:~1, i; I ' ~ ~ ', 2730 / ~ .~ I L_~ ~ I, I i ' ~:~ " I ~' ' ~ ~- ~ , I ' ~ , /,.~~ I~ ~ ~I:B I,,, f~ ~ I I ':r -' '~ ' /~ ; I /l / O0 ,, ~"I I- ,~ ~ ~ .~ COMMERCIAL / ~~_ J il~ ' I,~~ ~ '~ CE~TEmi /'~.M~~ i F'a~--; .... ~4-~-I"~-'~ ...... , ~,~~ ~~ .... ~..,,.~... , c_ ,, f' ~ . // -, ',...., :, .-I /1~ '1. /~ .: I '-- I i~1,~ I~ ~ ~ /~, . I /~'.~ ...... d, ~ ~.x.~- - -AVE / ~l '1 tF~~ 'l~ ' '. ." " r ~e~.~ I ' ~'- .... I / IIII -I ~' I I 'l ~ "L_ ~L I~ ~) ~ I ~o -- ~1 ~ / ,4,1 .!~ i '~ I ' ~0~ ~~ l LION5 PARK , ~ ..... ~- ~,Li_] ~ ' '~ /*111c3~) fl:~__,.__._ .' _ / I ' ! i-~-~ f~ /'hi '-~- '1 · I~ ~ !BI · .., [I I ~ r ~,,~-- , ~' --a ~ .... I ' ~ ' ' ' " 1~ ' - '~ ~--__ I~ (~) I ; ~ I ; !~ .:' I ; ..... ~,,,?~_'_. '~.~___ ~Lm~'~~___ " ~ _ ~ _~ ~ Z I~'~,-I~I F-' re.or .... ~::m~s.~ ~4~, ,--~ [-,~.' '~'~'Y'~'~'i-- - ..' '~ / ,. ""__~ ~i Il ~ ~4~.~,~ ,~ ~'~ iI Ii I,' ] i ~ ~ ,~ i > /: ......... .... '~1; V LEGEND A~_acl~ent 3 Z i 9TH STI~.£ET N. SITE PLAN A't-t. au%~.',L 4 A'ctac{~men~ 5 -...... f BUILDING PLANS 9 Attachment 6 City of Maplewood Conditional Use Permit Application Project: Tanners Lake Alum Treatment Facility Building ~' -/~::~ a) '7 Applicant: Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District Contact: Clifton J. Aichinger, Administrator Description: This application is for the construction of a 20 foot square concrete block structure with brick exterior to house the equipment necessary to inject alum into the stormwater runoff. This stormwater is discharging to Tanners Lake. The building is part of a project that also requires the excavation of a settling pond for the stormwater after injection of the alum. Stormwater will exit the site and continue to run to the southwest and into Tanners Lake. This project was recommended in the Tanners lake Diagnostic Feasibility Study completed by the District in 1994. This method of treating the stormwater runoff was found to be the most effective and least costly approach to helping to maintain and improve the water quality of Tanners Lake. This project will result in a 85% to 90% phosphorus removal efficiency. This proposed site is the only available location to house such a facility. The structure is approximately the size of a normal two car garage and similar to normal City well house buildings. The facility will not generate any noise and will resemble a normal stormwater pond and wetland. The building will be located immediately south of an existing strip commercial center and adjacent to Century Avenue. Th~ nearest residential neighbors are apartment residents across Century Avenue in Oakdale (approximately 150 feet) and a single family residence south of the site (approximately 300 feet from the structure). The District is currently in the process of purchasing the site from the current owner. Closing would have been completed at this time except for the need to secure a duplicate title document. A purchase agreement has been signed and closing is expected within the next week. The District has distributed information on the project to all residents of the watershed, including this immediate neighborhood. A public meeting was held on the projects elements in the fail of 1996 and the winter of 1997. No objections were voiced about the proposal. Questions were raised about the use of alum to treat stormwater and its effects on the environment. The District has addressed these issues with the citizens raising the issue and the state agencies that regulate the use of this and other chemicals. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency has established standards for aluminum which effect this facility and the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources requires a permit for this facility. The District has completed extensive water quality testing to determine the alum dosing requirements and the resulting effects on aluminum levels discharging the settling basin, the PCA and the DNR are satisfied that the project will result in no negative effects on the environment and have issued a permit for the project. The testing results are available to the City or interested residents. In general, the facility will not create any hazardous conditions to area wildlife or humans. The resulting alum flock and sediment is inert and not toxic or hazardous to humans or animals. The pond will be posted for no swimming and thin ice. The District does not plan to fence the pond since to banks will not be steep and should present no difficulty for a child or adult to exit the pond if they happen to wander into the water. 10 Attachment 7 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Cliff Aichinger, representing the Ramsey/Washington Metro Watershed District, has requested a conditional use permit to build a storm water treatment facility. WHEREAS, this permit applies to property on the northwest comer of Century and Margaret Avenues. The legal description is: Lots 9 and 10, Block 2, Farrell's Addition in Section 36, TN 29, R 22. WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: 1. On June 2, 1997, the planning commission recommended that the city council approve this permit. 2. On June 23, 1997, the city council held a public hearing. The city staff published a notice in the paper and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The council gave everyone at the heating a chance to speak and present written statements. The council also considered reports and recommendations of the city staff and planning commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above-described conditional use permit based on the building and site plans. The city approves this permit because: 1. The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be in conformity with the city's comprehensive plan and code of ordinances. 2. The use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area. 3. The use would not depreciate property values. 4. The use would not involve any activity, process, materials, equipment or methods of operation that would be dangerous, hazardous, detrimental, disturbing or cause a nuisance to any person or property, because of excessive noise, glare, smoke, dust, odor, fumes, water or air pollution, drainage, water 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. 11 Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 2. The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the permit shall become null and void. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 3. The city council shall review this permit in one year. The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on ,1997. MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: DATE: City Manager Tom Ekstrand, Associate Planner Conditional Use Permit and Design Review - Merit Chevrolet Addition 2695 Brookview Drive May 28, 1997 INTRODUCTION Project Description Merit Chevrolet is proposing to build a 5,250-square-foot addition onto the southeast corner of their building. Refer to the maps on pages 9-11. The additional space would be used for a service write-up area, offices, customer lounge, express lube bays and employee support space. The proposed addition would have an exterior of stucco and rock-face concrete block on the front and metal panels and rock-face concrete block on the south side. Refer to the narrative on pages 12-16. Requests The applicant is requesting approval of: 1. A conditional use permit (CUP) to expand a nonconforming use. Merit Chevrolet is nonconforming because: a. The code requires service garages to be 350 feet from a residential lot line. The closest point of Merit's service garage (existing and proposed) is set back only 55 feet. b. The code requires a 100 -foot setback from the south lot line. The building is 55 feet from the south lot line. The code requires buildings with exterior wall surfaces of more than 3000 square feet that face residential areas to have at least a 100-foot setback. The south elevation of Merit Chevrolet, with the proposed addition, would be 5,480 square feet in area. c. The code requires a six-foot-tall, 80 percent opaque screen for commercial parking lots when adjacent to residential property. Merit Chevrolet has not provided any screening next to the adjacent single dwelling lots. d. The code requires that vehicles be parked on paved surfaces. Merit is parking trucks on an unpaved surface at the corner of Century Avenue and Brookview Drive on the old Video Update site. 2. Architectural and site plans. DISCUSSION Conditional Use Permit/Evaluation of Neighbor's Concerns Screenin,q On November 3, 1967, the Maplewood Village Clerk notified the abutting neighbors that the village required the property owner of the Merit site to install a six-foot-tall redwood screening fence along the west and south lot lines. Refer to the letter to Joseph Korba on page 17 and the agreement dated November 2, 1967 on page 18. The property owner never installed the fence. The abutting neighbors are now requesting that Merit build a ten-foot-tall wooden screening fence. City code now requires six-foot-tall, 80 percent opaque fence. The city council should require that Merit Chevrolet install this long-overdue fence along all parts of the site that abut residential properties. The only exception is behind the long storage building near the west lot line. The screening fence should be placed on top of the slope at the same grade elevation as the parking lot for maximum screening. The city should require that Merit Chevrolet install this fence even if they would not proceed with their expansion plans. Noise Another problem is that the service garage is open until 2 a.m. This is a violation of the maintenance garage requirements in the city code. The code does not allow such garages to be open past 11 p.m. The city council should require that Merit change their hours of operation to comply with the ordinance. The city should require that Merit Chevrolet change their closing hours to comply with code, even if they would not proceed with their expansion plans. Other Concerns Vandalism m Joseph Korba, a neighbor to the south, said that there has been vandalism in the Merit Chevrolet parking lot behind his house. He said that the vandals exit through the undeveloped lot next to him. Mr. Korba feels a screening fence will also help to stop some of this vandalism. One neighbor said that Merit should build the addition on the north side of the building. This is not feasible since the addition is for more service garage space. The service garage is on the south side of the building. 3. There is a lot of lifter from Merit Chevrolet that blows into the adjacent yards. A fence will help to contain lifter when it blows. CUP Staff does not see a problem with approving a CUP for the expansion. The CUP should be contingent upon the installation of a screening fence and compliance with the 11 p.m. closing time required by code. These two requirements should improve the relationship between Merit Chevrolet and the adjacent neighbors. Design Considerations Building Design and Roof-Equipment Screening The building design would be attractive and compatible with the existing structure. The community design review board (CDRB) has waived the roof equipment screening requirement for several recent building proposals. The CDRB felt that screening would be more noticeable than the equipment it is meant to hide. Screening eventually needs repair and becomes unsightly. The board should waive the screening requirement and require that any new equipment be painted to match the building. Parkin,q and Paving There are 520 parking spaces shown on the site plan. Twenty-eight are for customers. The parking on site meets code requirements. The applicant should, however, provide two handicap parking spaces to comply with handicap-parking requirements. There is an unpaved parking area in the southeast corner of the site where Medt is parking trucks. This is the "footprint" of the old Video Update building. The applicant should pave this area for parking as code requires. RECOMMENDATIONS Ao Adopt the resolution beginning on page 22. This resolution approves a conditional use permit to expand the auto dealership service garage at 2695 Brookview Drive. This permit is based on the standards required by the ordinance and 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 started within one year of council approval or the permit shall end. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 3. The city council shall review this permit in one year. The service garage shall not be open between the hours of 11 p.m. and 6 a.m. The applicant shall change their hours of operation to comply with this requirement within one month of this city council action. The property owner or applicant shall install a six-foot-tall, 80 percent opaque decorative wood screening fence along the south and west parking lot edges. This fence is not needed behind the storage building. This fence must be installed within two months of this city council action. In the event the applicant does not proceed with the proposed expansion plans, they shall still do the following: Change the service garage hours to comply with the code within one month of this city council action. The service garage shall not be open between the hours of 11 p.m. and 6a.m. Install a six-foot-tall, 80 percent opaque decorative wood screening fence along the south and west parking lot edges. This fence is not needed behind the storage building. This fence must be installed within two months of this city council action. Approval of the plans date-stamped April 25, 1997 for the Merit Chevrolet service garage addition at 2695 Brookview Drive. Approval is subject to the property owner doing the following: 1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. 2. Do the following before getting a building permit: Submit the fence design plan to staff for approval. The fence shall be a decorative fence made of wood. It shall be at least six-feet-tall and 80 percent opaque. This fence shall be installed on the top of the slope at the same grade as the parking lot. The fence shall be placed to buffer the adjacent residential lots to the south and west, except for that portion behind Merit's storage building. b. Submit a parking lot paving and striping plan for staff approval shoWing: (1) Paving and striping in the unpaved area at the corner of Brookview Drive and Century Avenue. (2) Two handicap-accessible parking spaces that would meet ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) requirements. 3. Complete the following before occupying the building: a. Paint all proposed roof-mounted equipment visible from streets or adjacent property. The color must match the building color. (code requirement) b. Aim or shield all exterior site lights as required by code so they are not a nuisance to neighbors. (code requirement) c. Pave and stripe the truck-parking area at the corner of Brookview Drive and Century Avenue. d. Install the screening fence. 4. If any required work is not done, the city may allow temporary occupancy if: a. The city determines that the work is not essential to the public health, safety or welfare. 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. Signage will be reviewed by staff through the This approval does not include the signs. sign permit process. All work shall follow the approved plans. approve minor changes. The director of community development may 5 CITIZENS' COMMENTS I surveyed the 40 surrounding property owners within 350 feet of Merit Chevrolet for their comment about this proposal. Of the 37 replies, five were in favor, 29 were opposed and three had no comment. In Favor 1. Merit has been a good corporate neighbor. (Wolfe, 203 Ferndale Street) 2. It will hopefully increase their business. (Roemer and Dreher, 175 Century Avenue) 3. It will enhance the southern and eastern appearance of the Merit building. It will reduce the traffic on the south sides of the building. (Northwest Motor Sales, Inc, 2695 Brookview Drive) Opposed Twenty nine neighbors are against this proposal, but according to the letter on pages 19-21, it would be acceptable if Merit built a screening fence. REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Site size: 6.9 acres Existing land use: Merit Chevrolet SURROUNDING LAND USES North: 1-94 and 3M Center South: Single dwellings and Brookview Drive West: Single dwellings East: Century Avenue, the Country Inn and Sinclair PAST ACTIONS August 3, 1967: The village council rezoned the rear portion of the Merit Chevrolet property from R1 (single dwelling) to BC (business commercial). The council required that Mr. Marrone, the developer, install a screening fence as a buffer for the abutting homeowners. November 6, 1975: The city council approved plans for a 25- by 200-foot storage building along the rear lot line. This approval was subject to five conditions. Condition Three required that Merit Chevrolet install a screening fence as a buffer for the abutting homeowners. November 16, 1976: The city council reconsidered the construction of the 200-foot-long storage building and again required that Merit submit a screening fence plan to the city for the south lot line. October 24, 1995: The CDRB approved plans for the exterior remodelling of Merit Chevrolet. PLANNING Land use plan designation and zoning: BC Ordinance requirements: BC Ordinance Requirements Section 36-151 (b)(9)(c) of the BC district requirements states that motor vehicle maintenance garages must be at least 350 feet from any property that the city is planning for residential use. Section 36-17(e) requires that no existing building or premises devoted to a use not permitted in the district in which such building or premises is located shall be enlarged, reconstructed or structurally altered, unless: 1. Required by law or government order; or 2. There would not be a significant affect, as determined by the city through a conditional use permit, on the development of the parcel as zoned. Section 36-27(b)(4) requires a visual screen that is at least six-feet-tall and 80 percent opaque when a parking lot is constructed next to property that is used or shown on the city's land use plan for single or double-dwelling use. The community design review board may waive this requirement if it determines that screening would not be needed or would not protect surrounding property values. Section 36-151(b)(9)(j) requires that no maintenance garage within 350 feet of a residential lot line shall be operated between 11 p.m. and 6 a.m. Section 36-22(e) requires that all parking lots and associated driveways have a surface of bituminous or concrete and striped parking spaces. Criteria for CUP 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 22-23. p:sec1-28\merit.cup Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Property Line/Zoning Map 3. Site Plan 4. Applicant's narrative (five pages) 5. Letter to Joseph Korba dated November 3, 1967 6. Agreement with the Village of Maplewood and Donald Marrone dated November 2, 1967 7. Letter and map from the abutting neighbors (three pages) 8. Conditional Use Permit Resolution 9. Plans date-stamped Apd125, 1997 (separate attachment) Attachment 1 CONWA¥ E. MINNE~ UPPER A~rI'ON RD. 7 LOCATION MAP 9 Attachment 2 214 204 198 180 ...... · 1.7& BC P~ 4 -2'-'. 1-94 i MERIT CHEVROLET-- ..oo~vmw MANOR APTS U.I Z LU Z Attachment 3 OFF--RAMP SITE PLAN Attachment 4 Request for Conditional Use Permit Approval Merit Chevrolet Maple wood, Minnesota I. Introduction For over 48 years Merit Chevrolet has taken pride in itself as a business where customer convenience and satisfaction is their highest priority. For the last 26 years of those 48, Merit Chevrolet has been located at its present location. With this proposed addition, it is Merit Chevrolet's intent to provide their customers service in an environment that is conducive for "dropping off" and "picking-up" their vehicles. Also, to better service their customers Merit Chevrolet proposes to incorporate an Express Lube Facility into this addition. II. Site Development A. Existing Site Condition The present site was opened as an auto dealership in 1971, and has remained an auto dealership under the same ownership ever since. The site is approximately 6.9 acres in area. It is bound to the north by the 1-94 eastbound off ramp, and to the east by Century Ave. adjoining the site to the south and west are single family residential lots. B. Present Land -Use The project site is presently zoned Business Commercial (BC), and has been zoned BC since 1967. The present use is automotive sales and service which is a permitted use. The Conditional Use Permit requirement was incorporated into the city zoning ordinance after Merit Chevrolet occupied the site in 1971. 12 Request for Conditional Use Permit Approval Merit Chevrolet Maplewood, Minnesota II ! ! ! C. Proposed Land- Use Since the type of business use of the site is remaining as automotive sales and service, and is a permitted use, no rezoning of the site is required. III. Proposed Project Description A. Proposed Project The proposed project consists of an addition to the existing Merit Chevrolet facility. The addition will provide needed space for: 1. Service Write-up area. 2. Service Department Office Space. 3. Service Customer Lounge. 4. Express Lube Bays. 5. Employee Support Space. The proposed location of this addition is located at the southeast corner of the existing facility. The foot print area of the addition will be approximately 5,250 S.F. B. Building Design The exterior design for the proposed addition will have a clean, interesting, and an aesthetically pleasing design. The design will compliment the present building exterior. The exterior finish materials will consist of synthetic stucco finish material on the east (front) elevation above a two foot high wainscot of "rock face" textured concrete block. The proposed exterior finish materials for the south and west elevations are architectural grade pre- finish metal wall panel with a two foot high wainscot of "rock face" textured concrete block. 13 Request for Conditional Use Permit Approval Merit Chevrolet Maplewood, Minnesota An interior ramp will be included in the design of the addition, providing handicap access between the service to the showroom levels. Exterior building signage will be located on the east (front) elevation directly above the overhead doors. These signs will be illuminated signs that conform to Chevrolet's "Image 2000" signage program, matching the existing building signage. At this time, the mechanical roof top units have not been sized or locations determined. All mechanical roof top units will been screened from adjoining residential zoned property. C. Site Improvements The site improvements associated with this proposed addition is limited to new sidewalks along the east (front) side of the addition. The quantity of existing parking spaces for customers, employees, service, and inventory exceeds the required parking spaces. All new customer parking spaces will be 9.5 feet wide by 18 feet long, and double stripped as required by the City of Maplewood. D. Grading/Drainage Presently the site drains in three general directions. Surface drainage for approximately the west half of the site is collected by catch basins which connect to the city storm sewer system located in lot 12 just south of the subject property. The northeast portion of the. site surface drains to MN DOT right-of ways either 1-94 or Century Ave. The remaining south portion of the site surface drains to Brookview Drive by way of a drainage ditch. The proposed addition will not effect the existing surface drainage patterns. 14 Request for Conditional Use Permit Approval Merit Chevrolet Maplewood, Minnesota II I I I I I ! ! E. Site Lighting The present site lighting will remain. For security purposes, wall mounted down lights are proposed on the south side of the addition. F. Site Utilities All existing utility services to the site will remain as is. The addition will require some on site rerouting of sanitary sewer. In accordance with an agreement between the City of Maplewood and Merit Chevrolet an automatic fire sprinkler system will be installed in stages. This will require a new 6" water service be installed. The proposed location of this water line would be from Brookview Drive (next to existing hydrant) extending to the southeast comer of the proposed addition. G. Site Signage All existing site signage (pylon and monument) will remain as is. H. Setbacks The present building setback minimum required for this project is 50 feet. Total area of ali exterior walls for this addition that faces residentially zoned property is 2,136 square feet thus requiring the building setback to be increased by 5 feet to a total distance of 55 feet. The actual setback varies because of the property lines and addition configuration, a minimum building setback of 56 feet is proposed. This setback is located at the point where the south wall of the addition abutts the existing building. The minimum setback for parking lots is 20 feet. This requirement is not applicable to this addition, since no modification are being proposed to the existing curb and gutter. 15 Request for Conditional Use Permit Approval Merit Chevrolet Maplewood, Minnesota IV. Conclusion We respectfully request the approval of this Conditional Use Permit Application for the following reasons: · Allows Merit Chevrolet to maintain satisfied customers, and provide the type of service that customers are requiring. This project will provide interior service write-up area for at least 7-8 vehicles, thus virtually eliminating long lines of vehicles outside waiting for service, that presently exists. · Provides handicapped accessibility to the existing showroom by way of an interior ramp. · Proposed project meets all zoning requirements, and is permitted use. Thank you for your favorable consideration to this request. 16 ' PLEWOOD VILLAGE 1380 FROST AVENUE -- F,IAPLEWOOD, F, IINNESOTA 55109 Attachment 5 JAMES M. HAFNER Village Clerk e Ol:glCE 777-8131 ~ayor LOUIS P. GILBERT Hovember 3, 1967 E.V. BERGSTROM JOHN C. GREAVU BYRON H. HOLM MARTIN J. JOYCE Joseph A. Korba 2659 Brookvie~Drive Haplewood, Minnesota 55119 Dear Hr. Korba: The Haplewood Village Council has approved themethod of screenin$ proposed in the enclosed letter, and has instructed that all owners of property abutting the subject property be given copies. In granting this approval, it was the understanding of the Coundil that the neighbors had indicated their preference for a redwood fence of the type proposed, over a cyclone or chain-link type fence with shrubbery. Very truly yours, VILLAGE OF HAPLE~OOD ~ ~/'Jalnes H. Eafne~_~' ._. -VtLtage Clerk ~C · 17 Attachment 6 November Village of Maplewood State c~ Mlsmesota Oentlemeni 'Commercial tree, by resolution of the council da'~ed ~ 17 through 22, and Lot 15, all in Block 4, BrOker Park, intend ~o ~een ~e p~y ~ner ~d ~ o~eil ~(a~ ~ f~led by ~e' e~c~on of a s~ f~ ~w~ fete of bu~e~eiw.~ . .f. 18 We, the residents surrounding Merit Chev, object to the proposal attached; however, the proposal will be acceptable to us if: Merit Chev bu£1~s a ten foot high wooden privacy fence at the edge of their parking lot (tarmac). See attached high- lighted area on map where we request this fence. Merit Chev installs the fence prior to beginning the proposed construction. Reasons for our objection include at least the following, Increased Noise Increased Traffic Increased Littering Noise at late hours as they are open until P. AM weeknights. Paint and oil smells, air pollutants The fence will protect our neighborhood against the negative side effects that a body shop/automotive maintenance/car dealership produces. We would like to have a clean and quiet area. NAME -ADDRESS 2O 1-94 I~l 2t0 E~ 2M I~l 181 MERIT CHEVROLET- 16 BROOKVIEW MANOR AP'rS $ iiJ PROPERTY UNE IZONING MAP 21 Attachment 8 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the Rinkel Company applied for a conditional use permit to add onto an auto dealership building. The addition would be within 350 feet of a residential lot line. WHEREAS, this permit applies to 2695 Brookview Drive. The legal description is: Lots 17-22 and 25, Block 4, Brower Park WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: 1. On June 2, 1997, the planning commission recommended that the city council approve this permit. 2. On , the city council held a public hearing. The city staff published a notice in the paper and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The council gave everyone at the 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 per. mit, because: 1. The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be in conformity with the city's comprehensive plan and code of ordinances. 2. The use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area. 3. The use would not depreciate property values. 4. The use would not involve any activity, process, materials, equipment or methods of operation that would be dangerous, hazardous, detrimental, disturbing or cause a nuisance to any person or property, because of excessive noise, glare, smoke, dust, odor, fumes, water or air pollution, drainage, water 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. 22. 9. The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects. 10.There would not be a significant affect on the development of the parcel as zoned. 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 started within one year of council approval or the permit shall end. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 3. The city council shall review this permit in one year. The service garage shall not be open between the hours of 11 p.m. and 6 a.m. The applicant shall change their hours of operation to comply with this requirement within one month of this city council action. The property owner or applicant shall install a six-foot-tall, 80 percent opaque decorative wood screening fence along the south and west parking lot edges. This fence is not needed behind the long storage building. This fence must be installed within two months of this city' council action. The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on ,1997. 23 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: PROJECT: LOCATION: DATE: City Manager Ken Roberts, Associate Planner Conditional Use Permit and Design Review US West Monopole 500 Carlton Street May 27, 1997 INTRODUCTION Project Description John Hollenbeck of CB Commercial, representing US West, is proposing to install a 90-foot-tall monopole for telecommunications equipment. They want to install this monopole on the north side of the US West building at 500 Carlton Street. (Refer to the maps and plans on pages 6-12 and the letter starting on page 13.) There also would be a 12' x 9.5' x 6' equipment pad near the base of the monopole. US West would surround the monopole and pad area with bollards to protect the equipment. Requests The applicant is requesting that the city approve: 1. A conditional use permit (CUP) for a monopole and related equipment in a BC-M (business commercial-modified) zoning district. 2. The design and site plans. BACKGROUND On March 3, 1960, the village council approved a rezoning for this site so that Northwestern Bell Telephone could construct their building on the site. On September 7, 1972, the council approved plans for an addition to the north side of the building on the site. This approval was subject to seven conditions. On May 24, 1994, the community design review board approved plans for US West to expand their parking lot by 26 spaces. With these additional spaces, there is a total of 95 parking spaces now on the site. On January 13, 1997, the council adopted the commercial use antenna and tower ordinance. On May 19, 1997, the planning commission considered this request. The commission tabled taking action until June 2, 1997 on the proposal because of concerns of possible interference with equipment or processes in nearby 3M buildings. (See the letter dated May 19, 1997 from 3M on page 16.) DISCUSSION The letter from 3M (page 16) outlines what they believe could be negative impacts to their business. Their concerns are about the possible effects that the proposed telecommunications* equipment could have on computers, measuring equipment and process equipment. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) licenses all telecommunications systems. This licensing requires that the proposed or new telecommunications equipment not interfere with existing communications or electronics equipment. If there is interference, then the FCC requires the telecommunications company to adjust or shut down the new equipment to correct the situation. Maplewood must be careful to not limit or prohibit this tower (or any other tower) because of electronic interference. That is up to the FCC to regulate and monitor. The city may only base their decision on land use and on health, safety and welfare concerns. The city council should approve this request. This project meets the requirements of the tower ordinance and the cdteria for a CUP. As proposed, the tower would be 120 feet from the east property line of the site and about 470 feet from the closest house on Femdale Street. The site design would be compatible with the adjacent commercial structures and uses. COMMISSION ACTION On May 13, 1997, the community design review board recommended approval of the design plans for this project. RECOMMENDATIONS Adopt the resolution on pages 17 and 18. This resolution approves a conditional use permit to allow a 90-foot-tall telecommunications monopole and related equipment. This approval is for the property at 500 Carlton Street. The city bases this approval on the findings required by the ordinance and 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. Bo Approve the site and design plans date-stamped April 14, 1997, for a 90-foot-tall telecommunications monopole and equipment on the north side of the building at 500 Carlton Street. Approval is based on the findings required by code and subject to the applicant doing the following: 1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued permits for this project. Before getting a building permit, provide a grading, drainage, driveway and erosion control plan to the city engineer for approval. The erosion control plan shall meet all ordinance requirements. 2 If the monopole or ground equipment is in an existing handicap parking space or spaces, then the owner or contractor shall replace the lost space(s) on site with new ADA- approved handicapped parking spaces. 4. If any required work is not done, the city may allow temporary occupancy if: o 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. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. CITIZENS' COMMENTS City staff surveyed the owners of the 25 properties within 350 feet of the proposed site. We received 7 replies. Two were for the proposal, two objected, two had comments and one reply had no comment. For 1. With the enormous power towers in the area, their monopole is the least of anyones worries. (Conway Auto Clinic - 2545 Conway Avenue) Against Being involved in the communications industry, I know that these towers are required for the emerging technology. Since this tower will be built in the adjacent property to my back yard, I prefer it to be located in a different location. I do know that many towers are located on existing structures such as building roof tops and water towers. There are several of these in the immediate area and I would like those locations to be explored. (Mohwinkel - 529 Femdale St.) 2. We have concerns of a technical nature and require more time to determine any negative impacts. We will meet with US West to determine impacts. (3M) Comments 1. Capital City Investments has no objections to the proposal. (They own property near the site.) Concerns - does the tower make any noise or as claimed will not interfere with electronic devices. I would not object if I was guaranteed replacement of any electronic devices affected and that the tower would not generate any noise. (Mihajlovich - 537 Femdale Street) \ REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Site size: 4.26 acres Existing land use: US West building and parking lots SURROUNDING LAND USES North: South: West: East: Child Care Center 3M Center across Conway Avenue 3M Center and Conway Auto Service across Carlton Street Houses on Femdale Street PLANNING Land Use Plan designation: BC-M (business commercial- modified) Zoning: BC-M Ordinance Requirements Section 36-600(5)(b)(1) requires a CUP for a tower in any non-residential zoning district. Findings for CUP Approval Section 36-442(a) states that the city council must base approval of a CUP on nine standards for approval. Refer to findings one through nine in the resolution on pages 17 and 18. p:sec36/500crlt.mem Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Property Line/Zoning Map 3. Site Plan 4. Site Plan 5. Site Plan 6. Elevation 7. Photo Illustration 8. Applicant's letter dated March 11, 1997 9. Applicant's CUP criteria statement dated 5-19-97 10. May 19, 1997 letter from 3M 11. Conditional Use Permit Resolution 5 ~ttachment 1 CASE IARVESTEt AVE. ST. BRAND AVE. MINN£HAHA 14ARGARET CONWAY 222 HUDSON ~ ¢~ J~£s UPPER AFl'ON RD. LOCATION MAP 6 Tonnera Loke 3M Attachment 2 101 ~"~-- HF~ '1 ~. ~ ~ o · ~ -.~ -- _ ~,) ~ ~ ..... ~~~ ~~,~,:~ - ~ -- s ...... F~FT,. - - - I~l ~o1~ ~l.OO°l[-- ~= _ __~ ~,~ ....... ~,____~.~. ! CHILD CARE~ o~ ~ l<!~ ~: · 6 s n~- ~ ~+ ..... 2-' ~'~ / [. ~ I'~ 549 '--j 543 ,_j s 537,~ 529 ;.r'"'l 521 ~ 14 .APARTMENT= l: ..... '_ ' ~__4 e~..z~_.J __ ~ CONWAY AVENUE .. /,ttachment 3 NORTH SCALE 1' - 100' A~03'18'49' .' R-.2904.79 ¢' L- 167.99 % % z 1 ~ S8g'22'22' E 260.15 I I BUILDING 1 STORY BRICK I I I L; ! NSg'l 1'56'W 265.00 CONWAY AV__ENUE H. LINC, S. 2/3. W. 1/2. ¢. 3/4.. ..--~ ~/~, .[ 1/~. s~c. ~, T. ~, ,- 22 F- UNF., W. I/2, E. 3/4. SW 1/4, .-°°°' N[ I/4. SEC. 38. ?. 2~. R. 22 SITE PLAN 8 Attachment 4 PROPOSIED EQUIP PAD--~ I,,,,t I MCINOPOLE I I ' ', ~ CABLE ~A~ ~ I~ I I I N,.. II I IIUII J I Ii I~ ,,~ J, J .u u I I = T "D ~i30NCJ:;T~'TE IWAI,.K / i [~/ i,,,, 104.0 ,~: / zI ..,I 0 0 ~o / / / / / / / / / / / / / / BUILDING 1 STORY BRICK / / / / / / / / 225.00 / / / / / / / / ///// CONWAY AVENUE SITE PLAN 9 Attachment 5 CONCRETE WALK . (EQUIPMENTPAD PLAN ----'-'lC'~P F 0 4' B' 16' 32' SITE PLAN 10 Attachment 6 PROPOSED ANTENNA 2'-6" (MIN)FROM CI'~NTER LINE OF ANTENNA Ill IlL IIi LIGHTNING ROD GROWTH ANTENNAS SEE ANTENNA BUILDING BOLLARD (TYP BASESTATION EL. 991.82' " MONOPOLE ELEVATION 171ELEV 0 4' 8' 16' 32' 11 Communications MIN 171 500 N. Carlton, Maplewood Monopole Height: 90' Building Height: 18' Attachment 8 CB COMMERCIAL 2550 University Avenue West ,?Suite. 159S;" ::4t St. Paul, MN 55114 (612) 603-6129 Fax (612) 645-1526 March 11, 1997 Melinda Coleman City of Maplewood 1830 E. County Road B Maplewood, MN 55109 RE: U S WEST Site//MIN171 Dear Ms. Coleman: This letter accompanies an application for a Conditional Use Permit by US West that will allow the location of a PCS telephone antenna and cell site on the property at 500 N. Carlton Street. CBC has been authorized by US West to act as their representative for planning and zoning matters. PROPOSED USE US West is proposing to cons~uct a steel monopole tower on the noted property. A PCS antenna array will be placed at the top of the pole. The foundation for the tower will be a caisson type. The tower steel and foundation will be designed following specifications as determined by the tower manufacturer. These specifications take into account soils, local wind loading guidelines and the type of equipment to be attached to the tower. A safety factor is included in the design parameters resulting in a tower that typically exceeds local building code requirements. Please reference the enclosed drawings and the specification sheet from Engineered Endeavors, Inc. Additionally, the cell site will meet both FAA and FCC requirements for the location. Tower color will be chosen to blend in with the surrounding environment. An unmanned prefabricated equipment pad measuring approximately 12'-0" x 9'-6" x 6'-0" will be located at the base of the pole. The drainage of the site will not be changed. Fencing or landscape will be implemented per the cities requirements. The site will only require single phase 200 amp electrical service and T1 telephone for utilities. These will be brought in underground. Site photographs, a site plan, and a zoning drawing are attached. ZONING AND CONDITIONAL USE STANDARDS The site meets the City's standards for conditional uses. The antenna will be visually unoblXUSive and go unnoticed by the casual observer. 13 New wireless communication technology has developed rapidly in the past few years and many new applications are vital to industrial and business uses. Business and industry will be seeking out and adapting to these new technologies to remain competitive as the new Information Highway becomes a reality. Having access to these emerging wireless technologies will be an important amenity for the success of future business. This site will enhance public safety and welfare because it will enable US West to bring this new CDMA cellular technology to the area. The ability to transmit data such as fax, paging and computer data transmission will open a whole new way for business, individuals, and government services to communicate. Police can use CDMA cellular fax machines as part of their drug enforcement program to obtain immediate search warrants when illegal activity is observed without leaving the scene. Firefighters can receive faxed blueprints of a building in route to more safely fight fires. Ambulances can use it to transmit vital data to emergency rooms which allows the emergency rooms to be better prepared to receive injured accident victims. At spill sites, hazardous material information can be obtained "on site" by accessing computer data bases throughout the country with a CDMA cellular modem. Motorists who do not have the cellular phones are benefited by this system. Passing motorists with a phone can place an emergency call. CDMA Cellular radio transmissions are very safe and pose no health risk. It is really nothing more than a · - - io. CDMA Cellular uses lo,aaasa~ver to insure that the signal stays within the digital low power tw.o w.a.y rad ...... ~_ _~:~,~,~,4,,,, ,,l~l~" ,SThe ~li'~ut for PCS cellular is 40 watts. designated "cell" so xt will not mtertere w~m n~,~,, .... ~, ....... Television and radio station transmitting towers can range from 50,000 watts to one million watts of power output. In fact, the output of a PCS antenna array impacts the population at approximately half the output and associated absorption rate of the microwave oven found in most kit_c~he_ns. The question is often asked if the operation of a cellular antenna will affect home radio and television reception. The use of the frequency spectrum is tightly controlled by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The CDMA cellular system is operated in the 1900 MHz range. This is a higher frequency on the radio spectrum than home radio and television frequencies. This is important because higher frequency users cannot interfere with lower frequency users. Since 1984, over 15,000 cellular antennas have been erected across the United States, and there have been no documented instances of interference with home entertainment equipment. Additionally, CDMA encoding will virtually eliminate the possibility of phone number cloning and cell number theft. I respectfully request that we be placed on the next available Planning Commission Agenda. I plan to attend the hearing to answer any questions or concerns that the committee or public may have. I appreciate the assistance I have already received from the Zoning Staff. I look forward to working with you to provide CDMA PCS cellular capability to your area. Sincerely, ~ Zoning Manager CB Commercial Telecommunications Division ;MAY. lB.199? 3:00PM CB COMMERCIAL STP M0.996 P.2/2 Attachment 9 City of Maplewo~: Application for e Conditional Use Criteria for Approval o~ a Conditional Use Permtt NAY 191997 1. The City's cemprehen~ive plan does not addr~s PCS telephone towcr~ and antenna-~. 2, The proposed use is designed ~o bled with the surrotmdiug environment. The monopole will not be illuminated end will have no si~age. The color will be light blue or gray. 3. PCS towers do riot reduce property values. In fact, property values have been known to increase in areas with PCS towers because it will enable US West m brims this new technology to the community. US West's PCS sysimm will enhance the community's communications ability yet will not interfere with television, radio, pacem, s~-rs or other electronic devices. 4. US West PCS transmissions operate at a very Iow power level producin~ no harmful effects upon the health and safety of residents. PCS lrensmission is really nothtn$ more than a digital low power two-way radio. According ~o the l:ederal Communications Commissi~ ~CC): '~vleasurements thst have beer~ made around typical cellular base stations have shown that grotu~l-level power de~ities are well below limits recornme~led by currently accepted ~ and microwave safety standards." The proposed PCS monopole would not increase the amount of vehicular traffic ~ local strec~s, Monopole base stations are s~doed o~ly twice each year, tiros ~.~eratin~ virtually no 6. T~ proposed usc is curr~tly aoc~sible by city slreets. No service by eny other public facility would be required. 7. The proposed usc would not create any additional cost~ for public facilities or services. 8. The proposed use will not advmeely affect the surroundin~ nal~ral environment. The monopole and ~ccessory eq~.iprn~t will be located in the north parkin~ lot. This placement will caus~ no disturbance to the surro~,ai,,~ vegetation and will hide the mouopole base and equipment from traffic on CarlUm. 9. The proposed use will include a tower ofg0' snd an e~losed Base Transceiver Station (BTS) for tower equipment that c~ate ~o adverse environmental effects. 15 3M Real Estate May 19, 1997 Chairman and Members, Maplewood Planning Commission City of Maplewood 1830 E County Road B Maplewood, MN 55109 Building 42-8W-06 900 Bush Avenue PO Box 33331 St. Paul, MN 55133-3331 612 778 4389 612 778 6054 Fax Attachment 10 RE: US West Tower - Section 36 Dear Chairman and Planning Commission Members: Further to our response to the neighborhood survey from Ken Roberts regarding US West's application to build a 90-foot-tall monopole at 500 Carlton Street, we have now had an opportunity to review the impacts of this proposed tower and associated antenna on 3M. From the antenna specifications we received from US West and an analysis of potentially impacted 3M facilities within relevant ranges, we find that the proposed telecommunication equipment will likely have a negative impact to 3M. The 3M Center campus is a major center of research and d~velopment. Our primary concerns are for sensitive equipment in laboratories and manufacturing areas. Some possible effects are malfunction of computers, detection of the signal by measuring equipment, reduction in sensitivity of measuring equipment, and malfunction of process equipment. In light of the above concerns, we oppose the location of PCS transmitters and antennas at the US West building site because of the likely interference to 3M's laboratories and production facilities located near the site. We have provided US West with a summary of our analysis and have advised them of our concerns, but have not yet had a chance to meet with them to see if these concerns can be addressed. We therefore request that this matter be tabled until the next meeting to provide us with sufficient time to discuss our findings with US West. If tabling this matter is not possible, we must object to the proposal for the tower and request that the Planning Commission recommend denial to the City Council. Sincerely, Jill Smith Real Estate Department /js cci John Hollenbeck, CB Commercial (Agent for U. S. West) K. Roberts, Associate Planner, City of Maplewood 16 Attachment 11 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Mr. John Hollenbeck of CB Commercial, representing US West, applied for a conditional use permit to install a 90-foot-tall telecommunications monopole and related equipment. WHEREAS, this permit applies to the property at 500 Carlton Street. The legal description is: The Part East of Carlton Street of South 2/3 of West 1/2 of East 3/4 of the SW 1/4 of the NE 1/4 (Subject to Road) in Section 36, Township 29, Range 22 in Ramsey County, Minnesota. (PIN 36-29-22-13-0016) WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: 1. On May !9, 1997, the planning commission considered this request but tabled taking action on the proposal. The city council held a public hearing on June 9, 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. o The use would be served by adequate public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, water and sewer systems, schools and parks. 7. The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services. 17 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. 2. The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the permit shall become null and void. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 3. The city council shall review this permit in one year. The Maplewood City Council approved this resolution on 1997. 18 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: City Manager Ken Roberts, Associate Planner In-Fill Development Study May 28, 1997 INTRODUCTION The city council directed city staff to study possible zoning or code changes for in-fill development sites. This would be to ensure that new developments are compatible with the characteristics of the existing neighborhood. BACKGROUND On January 6, 1997, the council reviewed the first in-fill study report. In this report, city staff identified 28 sites that probably will develop with residential land uses. After discussing the study, the council directed staff to explore further the use of conditional use permits (CUPs) for the regulation of in-fill sites. This direction was with the understanding that the city would need to carefully wdte any such provisions. On March 24, 1997, the city council again reviewed the in-fill report, including possible code changes. At this meeting, the council gave first approval to cod~ changes about lot divisions, subdivisions, conditional use permits and planned unit developments. On April 21, 1997, the planning commission reviewed the in-fill development study for the first time. The commission tabled action on the proposed code changes to allow for more time to review the study and proposed changes. On May 5, 1997, the planning commission again reviewed the in-fill development study. After much discussion, the commission reached consensus on several general matters for future policy direction for the city. These include: 1. Having a more comprehensive tree preservation ordinance - not just a tree replacement ordinance. 2. Requiring developers to hold a neighborhood meeting before submitting any development application to the city. 3. Expanding the use of the PUD ordinance. 4. Reviewing how lots created by lot split affect the nearby area. That is, are they similar in size to those near the site? Should the city be concerned about such lots? 5. Having no site-size limitation for requiring PUDs for new subdivisions. 6. Reviewing the in-fill sites that staff identified for possible city acquisition for open space. On May 19, 1997, the planning commission again reviewed the in-fill development study. At this meeting, the commission recommended approval of the administrative policy about neighborhood meetings and the proposed PUD ordinance. The commission also reviewed the proposed code change about lot divisions and subdivisions. After some discussion, the commission recommended several changes to the code change about lot divisions and asked to review it again at their next meeting. DISCUSSION Study Review In reviewing this study request from the council, city staff first needed to decide what distinguishing characteristics or features define the character of a neighborhood or area. Staff discussed several possibilities including land uses, lot area, lot width, amounts of tree cover, numbers of trees, house sizes and values, housing styles, street and traffic patterns and property values. These are all items that usually concern neighbors near proposed developments. The city can have regulations about land use, minimum lot area, minimum lot width, wetland preservation and tree protection. All zoning regulations should protect and conserve property values, and should protect the health, safety, morals and welfare of the citizens. The courts have ruled that cities cannot directly try to regulate or legislate home values, house styles and aesthetics or minimum property values if these do not affect the public health, safety, and welfare. Staff then did a review of the city to identify all the probable remaining residential development sites in Maplewood. These are sites that the council has not approved a preliminary plat for that staff expects will develop with residential land uses. Our review found 28 possible residential development sites ranging from 1.5 acres to over 50 acres in size. At an average of 2.5 lots per acre, the remaining sites could have from 4 to 138 houses if developed for single-family homes. Of the 28 sites, 17 are less than 9 acres in size. The 10 largest sites range in size from 11.9 acres to over 50 acres in size. Of the 10 largest sites, 6 are south of Lower Afton Road. Another issue for staff was to decide what projects or developments would be' "in-fills" and thus would be subject to any new city development standards. That is, when should the characteristics of the existing nearby development dictate (if at all) the standards and design of a new development. A factor in setting this standard is that municipalities must treat similarly situated people alike when applying city standards. In reviewing the size and location of the remaining development sites, staff first suggested using 10 acres as a maximum size for in-fill sites. That is, if a site is less than 10 acres, then any new city standards for in-fill developments should apply. Based on this size, 17 of the 28 possible residential development sites would be in-fill sites and they each would have from 4 to 25 lots if developed. City staff also suggested that the city not apply any in-fill standards to sites greater than 10 acres. This is because these sites would be large enough to set and create their own standards and characteristics. Staff also recommends that any lots created by administrative lot division be exempt from any new in-fill standards. Other factors and development constraints the city should consider with these sites include pipelines, slopes, wetlands and the availability of public utilities. After reviewing the above information about in-fill sites, the planning commission suggested that the city require all future subdivisions be processed and approved as PUDs. That is, any developer wanting to plat property would need to apply for a PUD for their project. The commission hopes that requiring plats to have a PUD will create developments that are more sensitive to existing natural features. Another point for the city to consider with these sites is the 1992 open space study. Of the 28 possible residential sites, the open space study had reviewed 9. These were Sites 4, 7, 16, 18, 2 22, 24, 25, 26 and 28. Of these 9 sites, 2 were less than 10 acres in size (Site 4 and Site 24). The city may now want to consider buying some of these sites with the remaining open space funds. Code Changes Staff believes that adding language to the code that requires in-fill development to use the average lot size of the existing lots within 500 feet of the site to set the average lot sizes in the new plat would address the council concems for these developments. Such a standard would help ensure that lots in a new development would be similar in area to the average lot size of the surrounding area. Thus, the developer would have to design the new lots using the size standard set by the existing neighborhood. However, all city regulations and standards must not be arbitrary. The city cannot deny a plat just because of aesthetics. (Such a denial would be arbitrary if the proposal meets all city requirements.) As such, the city will need to document how any code change is to protect the health, safety and welfare of the citizens. Similar to creating a standard about nearby lot size, the council also might want to consider the existing tree cover and tree preservatiOn for the in-fill sites. That is, how would the proposed development fit with the "tree character" of the surrounding area. Such an analysis would require more tree inventory work from a subdivision applicant. The tree inventory would have to include the development site and the area surrounding the site. The tree character of the surrounding area would include the amount of tree cover, the size and species of the existing trees, the age of the trees and whether the existing trees were planted or if they are native to the site. A review of the existing zoning and subdivision ordinances shows that the city could change parts of these codes to meet the council's goals. The city would need to add language to Section 36-69 (R-1 single-family residential) and to Section 30-8 (subdivisions) of the code to require the use of nearby average lot sizes in in-fill developments. A proposed code change for these parts of the code starts on page 4. Specifically, the code change language about preliminary plats (including in-fill sites and tree inventories) starts on page 5. I also have updated much of the language in the proposed code changes to clean up the existing code language. For using the tree character when reviewing an in-fill site, the council would then need to add language to the code. The city could accomplish this two ways; adopt an amendment to the R-1 and subdivision code about in-fill lots or adopt a city-wide tree preservation ordinance as the council reviewed earlier. RECOMMENDATION Approve the code change beginning on page 4. This ordinance revises Subsection 36-69 (lot dimensions) and Section 30 (Subdivisions) of the city code. kr/p/misc/infill.-7 Attachment: R-1 and Subdivision Code Change 3 Attachment 1 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA CHANGING PARTS OF THE CITY CODE ABOUT MINIMUM RESIDENTIAL LOT SIZES, SUBDIVISIONS AND PRELIMINARY PLATS The Maplewood City Council approves the following changes to the Maplewood Code of Ordinances: Section 1: This section changes Section 36-69 as follows: (I have crossed out deletions and undedined the additions.) Sec. 36-69. Lot dimensions. (a) The minimum lot area in an R-1 Residence Distdct shall be as follows: tcn *~' ...... '~ ~ Ten thousand (10,000) square feet {excludin_a draina.qe and wetland easements); except. (2) For lot sizes in subdivision or plattina sites, see Section 30-8(f) of the city code for minimum lot size information.. ~ For lots with no munici al sanita sewer available the minimum lot area shall be determined b the house ad area and enou h area to have two on-site sanita sewer s stems includin tanks and drainfields. The owner or develo er shall rovide the cit with site lans showin the location of the house ads and the on-site sewer s stems. In no case shall such a lot be less than one (1) acre in area (excludinQ draina.qe and wetland easements). ~ The minimum lot width at the building setback line shall be seventy-five (75) feet, except that interior lots-of-record that are sixty (60) feet wide or greater may be allowed by conditional use permit if; f~ (1) The findings required by code for a conditional use permit can be met=; and (2) There are at least two (2) developed lots-of-record with the same or less width than th...~e proposed lot width, within three hundred fifty (350) feet of the site on the same side of the street. Larger minimum side yard setbacks may be required to ensure adequat~ balaRc=e-the separation between adjacent structures. 4 Section 2: This section changes Section 30-1 through Section 30-8 as follows: (I have crossed out deletions and underlined the additions.) SUBDIVISIONS Sec. 30-1. Purpose. The Maplewood City Council finds the following regulations are necessary to: 1_. Protect and promote the public health, safety and general welfare of the community.. 2_. Provide for the orderly, economic and safe development of land. 3. Preserve agricultural lands. 4_. Provide for adequate transportation, water supply, sanitary sewer disposal, water resource management, schools, parks, olav~rounds, open space and other public services and facilities for residents. To accomplish these purposes, Maplewood adopts subdivision regulations establishing standards, requirements and procedures for the review and approval or disapproval of subdivisions. Sec. 30-2. Definitions. For {he-Pufl~ese-ef-this chapter, the following words, terms and phrases shall have the following meanings respectively ascribed to them by this section: Alley is a public right-of-way which affords a secondary means of access to abutting property. Boundary lines are lines indicating the bounds or limits of any tract or parcel of land. Building line also called the ~ setback line, means the line beyond which property owners or others have no legal or vested right to extend a building or any part thereof, without special permission and approval of the proper authorities. C/ty means the City of Maplewood, Minnesota. City council means the city council of Maplewood, Minnesota. Contour map means a map on which irregularities of land surface are shown by lines connecting points of equal elevations. A contour interval is the vertical height between contour lines. 5 Comer lot is a lot within a plat situated at the comer of a block thereof so that it is bounded on two (2) sides by streets. This term applies to any lot within a plat at street intersections and bounded on two (2) sides by streets. Design standards are the specifications to landowners or subdividers for the preparation of preliminary plans indicating, among other things, the optimum, minimum or maximum dimensions of such features as rights-of-way and blocks, as set forth in Section 30-8 of this chapter. Director of community development means the director of community development of Maplewood, Minnesota. Director of public works means the director of public works of Maplewood, Minnesota. Double-frontage lots means a lot which fronts on two (2) or more public streets. Easement is a grant by a property owner for the use of a =t~. cf land by the general public, a corporation or certain persons for specific purposes. Final plat is a map or plan of a subdivision and any accompanying material, as described in Section 30-7 of this chapter. Frontage is the width of a lot or building site measured on the line separating it from a public street or way. Lot means a parcel of land described separately from other parcels of land by a plat, metes and bounds, registered land survey, auditor's plat or other accepted means. The lot description must be recorded by Ramsey County. Lot area means the area of a lot, excluding drainage easements, wetlands and land below the ordinary high water mark of public waters. Lot division means the division of a property by metes and bounds description. Official control or controls means ordinances and regulations which control the physical development of the city or any part thereof or any detail thereof and implement the general objectives of the comprehensive plan. Official controls may include ordinances establishing zoning, subdivision controls, site plan regulations, sanitary codes, building codes and official maps. Outlot means a parcel or tract of land not part of a block or lot, shown by a letter or labelled as an outlot on a plat. Owner means a person having a vested interest in the property in question, a purchaser, devisee, or fiduciary, and includes his duly authorized agent or attorney-in-fact. Pedestrian way is a public er--i~ivete right-of-way across a block, or providing access within a block, to be used by pedestrians "'--~ ~-'- '~'~ ""~+"""~"" "~ ' '~;';~" ';"~ Planning commission means the planning commission of the City of Maplewood, Minnesota. Plat means the drawing or map of a subdivision prepared for filing of record pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 505 and containing all elements and requirements set forth in applicable city regulations, adopted pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.358 and Chapter 505. Preliminary approval means official action taken by the city on an application to create a subdivision which establishes the rights and obligations set forth in Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.358 and the applicable subdivision regulation. In accordance with Section 462.358, preliminary approval may be granted only following review and approval of a preliminary plat and other map or drawing establishing, without limitation, the number, layout, and location of lots, tracts, blocks, outlots and parcels to be created, location of streets, roads, utilities and facilities, parks and trails,~...""'~',..,""'~.. drainage facilities, and lands to be dedicated for public use. Preliminary plan or preliminary plat is a tentative map or plan of a proposed subdivision as described in Section 30-5 of this chapter. Public waters means any waters as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 103F.005, Subdivisions 15 and 16. Reserve strfps are strips of land usually withheld from the street right-of-way to form a barder between certain property and the public street or thoroughfare. Right-of-way is the land covered by a public road, or other land dedicated for public use or for certain private uses, such as land over which a power line passes. Street is a public or private right-of-way which affords primary access by pedestrians and vehicles to abutting properties, whether designated as a street, avenue, highway, road, boulevard, lane or however otherwise designated. Subdivision means the separation of an area, parcel or tract of land into two (2) or more parcels, tracts, lots or long-term leasehold interests for sale, rent or lease, except those separations: (1) Where all the resulting parcels, tracts, lots or interests will be twenty (20) acres or larger in size and five hundred (500) feet in width for residential uses and five (5) acres or larger for all other uses; (2) Creating cemetery lots; (3) Resulting from court orders, or the adjustment of a lot line by the relocation of a common boundary. Subdivision regulation means an ordinance adopted pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.358 regulating the subdivision of land. 7 Wetland means a surface water feature classified as a wetland in the United States Fish and Wildlife Service Circular No. 39 (1971 edition) or Minnesota Rules Part 8420.0110, Subd. 52. Zoning is the reservation of certain specified areas within the city for buildings and structures for certain purposes, with other limitations such as height, lot coverage and other stipulated requirements. Sec. 30-3. Conformance with existing codes and regulations. (a) The provisions of this chapter are in addition to and not in replacement of the state building code and the city zoning ordinance. Any provisions of the building code and zoning ordinance relating to platting shall remain in full force and effect, except as they may be contradictory to the provisions hereof. (b) Subdivisions, approved by the city, shall be consistent with the city's official controls and comprehensive plan. (c) The city shall not approve a rezonin.q, conditional use permit, subdivision or lot division A ......... = ............ =pp;c,:s-J unless each new lot would be large enough to a~mmodate albany existing accesso~ buildings, as required in Se~ion 36-77(a). (d) The city shall not approve a subdivision where the owner or developer would later need a variance to use the lots for their intended purpose. Sec. 30-4. Applicability. (a) No conveyance of land to which the subdivision regulations are applicable shall be filed or recorded if the land is described in the conveyance by metes and bounds or by reference to an unapproved registered land survey made after April 21, 1961 or to an unapproved plat made after such regulations become effective. The foregoing provision does not apply to a conveyance if the land described: (1) Was a separate parcel of record ^pril 1, 1945 or the date of adoption of subdivision regulations under Laws 1945, Chapter 287, whichever is the later; or (2) Was the subject of a written agreement to convey entered into prior to such time; or (3) Was a separate parcel of not less than two and one-half (2 1/2) acres in area and one hundred fifty (150) feet in width on January 1, 1966; or (4) Was a separate parcel of not less than five (5) acres in area and three hundred (300) feet in width on July 1, 1980; or (5) Is a single parcel of commercial or industrial land of not less than five (5) acres and having a width of not less than three hundred (300) feet and its conveyance does not (6) result in the division of the parcel into two (2) or more lots or parcels, any one of which is less than five (5) acres in area or three hundred (300) feet in width; or Is a single parcel of residential or agricultural land of not less than twenty (20) acres and having a width of not less than five hundred (500) feet and its conveyance does not result in the division of the parcel into two (2) or more lots or parcels, any one of which is less than twenty (20) acres in area or five hundred (500) feet in width. (b) In any case in which compliance with the foregoing restrictions will create an unnecessary hardship and failure to comply does not interfere with the purpose of this chapter, the city council may waive such compliance by adoption of a resolution to that effect and the conveyance may then be filed or recorded. Any owner or agent of the owner of land who conveys a lot or parcel in violation of the provisions of this chapter shall forfeit and pay to the city a penalty of not less than one hundred dollars ($100.00) for each lot or parcel so conveyed. The city may enjoin such conveyance or may recover such penalty by a civil action in any court of competent jurisdiction. Sec. 30-5. Preliminary plat procedure. ('a) To plat or divide any property or tract of land into four (4) or more lots, the following shall aoolv: The city requires city council approval of a conditional use permit (CUP) for a planned unit development (PUD). As such, a subdivider or owner of a preliminary plat site shall submit complete applications for preliminary plat approval and for a conditional use permit for planned unit development to the director of community development. (Refer to Article V, Sections 36-436 through 36-450 of the city code about conditional use permits.) 2. The city shall review and process all such planned unit developments pursuant to the applicable sections of the city code. 3. For any such site, the applicant shall only pay the city application fee for a preliminary plat. The director of community development shall determine the necessary application requirements and have them on forms that are available to the public at city hall. The director may waive any requirements that do not apply to the proposed subdivision. Besides all other application requirements, the applicant shall have a tree inventory prepared of the site and all developed or improved properties within 500 feet of the site. This inventory shall document the size, species and location of all six (6) inch or greater diameter deciduous trees and of all eight-foot-tall or greater coniferous trees. o If the average area or size of the existing single-family lots in Maplewood within 500 feet of the site is at least twelve thousand (12,000) square feet, then the average lot size of any new lot shall meet or exceed the average size of these existing lots, up to a maximum average size of 20,000 square feet. Lots in Maplewood within 500 feet of the site that are 20,000 square feet or more in area shall each be considered 20,000 square feet for calculating the area average lot size. This provision does not apply to new lots approved and created by administrative lot division as outlined in Section 30-15 (Lot divisions). 9 7_=. The developer or applicant for any such proposed preliminary plat shall hold a nei,qhborhood meeting. This meeting is to discuss the proposal with all property owners within 500 feet of the site. The developer shall hold this meeting consistent with the city's policies for such meetings. The city will schedule the item for plannin,q commission and city council consideration after the developer holds the nei,qhborhood meetin.q. (b) Upon -"'~"--"~;'-'- "' .... ':'"; ..... '"° · ..........i k........;~. ....... .'l .... The owner or ~,,,,~,v,, v, ~ l..,v,,,,,,,,~,3 r,,,~ ,v, ~l,,,.I,.,v.~, ~] .,,v ~] w~,,v,,, developer shall be required to pay a fee to defray the expenses incurred by the city in having the preliminary plat reviewed in all particulars. The =mc'.:'=t cf fee to be paid for such review shall be imposed, set, established and fixed by the city council, by resolution, from time to time. ..... ,,,.,,,. k....~,~ r.,, ,r... The owner or developer shall pay all such fees to the city before the city reviews the proposed preliminary plat. to °*'".,,v .,,v_..'~"'""'"' ~,'"~ ....... w,,...,.. ,,.;E*- dcvc!c~.mc~, k~,...~ ,k,, ,..', .... ,..~,, ..... .~..~..~. .......;'~"'"~""" ,.,, ,k .... ,:...: ..... ,.., (c) (1) The director of community development shall deliver to the city finance director treasur~ for deposit any moneys received as fees herein required with each preliminary plat. The finance director treasure~ shall credit same to the general fund of the city. All moneys so received shall be used to defray the expenses of processing the application. The director of community development shall prepare a report and recommendation. This report shall then be forwarded to the planning commission. The planning commission shall forward a recommendation to the city council. The city council shall hold a public hearing on the application. The hearing shall be held following publication of notice of the time and place thereof in the official newspaper at least ten (10) days before the day of the hearing. The applicant, property owner, and all other property owners within three hundred fifty (350) feet of the property to be subdivided shall be notified by mail at least ten (10) days before the day of the hearing. (2) A subdivision application shall be preliminarily approved or disapproved by the city council within the time limits required by state law, with!n~,,v""" ,,.,,., ~ ~" '""'"" "...~,...*" ~'~'~n~,--, day: '"".~,.v..,,,~;"" Mv,,.v,] v, ~,, ~l.,,i-.,,~Mv,, w,,,I.,',v-v~ ,,, w,,,I,,-,,~,,w --,~,, ~,,v v,$] ~7 ~,,v ~l./..,,w,,~ .~ ~ unless an extension of the review pedod has been agreed to by the applicant. When a division or subdivision to which the regulations of the city do not apply is presented to the city, the city clerk shall within ten (10) days certify that the subdivision regulations of the city do not apply to the particular division· If the city fails to preliminarily approve or disapprove an application within the review pedod, the application shall be deemed preliminarily approved, and upon demand the city shall execute a certificate to that effect. (d) Following preliminary plat approval, the applicant may request final plat approval by the city._; ""'~ ..... Upon such a request, the city shall certify final plat approval within sixty (60) days of receiving a complete final plat application. City staff will only schedule a final plat for city council consideration if city staff receives all necessary information and plans at least fourteen (14) days before a city council meetin,q. Also, the council will only consider a final pla~t request if the applicant has complied with all conditions and requirements of applicable regulations and all conditions and requirements upon which the preliminary plat approval is expressly conditioned either through performance or the execution of appropriate agreements 10 assudng performance. If the city fails to certify final plat approval as sc required, and if the applicant has complied with all conditions and requirements, the application shall be deemed finally approved , '-'--~ ..... r,...., ........ , = ~,,~..~........; ...... ,.= r,...~ ...... ~.~=.~ After the city council approves the final plat, the owner or developer shall record the final plat and all accompanyinR documents with Ramsey County. (e) For one year following preliminary approval and for two (2) years following final approval, unless the subdivider and the city agree otherwise, no amendment to a comprehensive plan or official control shall apply to or affect the use, development density, lot size, lot layout or dedication or platting required or permitted by the approved application. Thereafter, pursuant to its regulations, the city may annually extend the preliminary plat approval -pe;ied-by =~;~=mc.-.t '::~th th= =',:'bd~';~d=r =nd subject to all applicable performance conditions and requirements., cr !t Each year after preliminary plat approval, the city may end the preliminary plat approval and may require submission of a new preliminary plat application, unless substantial physical activity and investment has occurred in reasonable reliance on the approved application and the subdivider will suffer substantial financial damage as a consequence of a requirement to submit a new application. In connection with a subdivision involving planned and staged development, the city may by resolution or agreement grant the rights refen'ed to herein for such periods of time longer than two (2) years which it determines to be reasonable and appropriate. (f) A person conveying a new parcel of land which, or the plat for which, has not previously been filed or recorded, and which is part of or would constitute a subdivision to which adopted city subdivision regulations apply, shall attach to the instrument of conveyance either: (1) recordable certification by the city clerk that the subdivision regulations do not apply, or that the subdivision has been approved by the city council, or that the restrictions on the division of taxes and filing and recording have been waived by resolution of the city council because compliance will create an unnecessary hardship and failure to comply will not interfere with the purpose of the regulations; or (2) a statement which names and identifies the location of the appropriate city offices and advises the grantee that city subdivision and zoning regulations may restdct the use or restdct or prohibit the development of the parcel, or construction on it, and that division of taxes and the filing or recording of the conveyance may be prohibited without prior recordable certification of approval, nonapplicability, or waiver from the city. In any action commenced by a buyer of such a parcel against the seller thereof, the misrepresentation of or the failure to disclose matedal facts in accordance with this subdivision shall be grounds for damages. If the buyer establishes his dght to damages, a distdct court headng the matter may in its discretion also award to the buyer an amount sufficient to pay all or any part of the costs incurred in maintaining the action, including reasonable attorney fees, and an amount for punitive damages not exceeding five (5) percent of the purchase price of the land. Sec. 30-6. Qualifications governing approval of preliminary plat. (a) The planning commission may recommend and the city council may require such changes or revisions of a preliminary plan submitted under this chapter as deemed necessary for the health, safety, general welfare and convenience of the city. (b) The approval of a preliminary plat by the planning commission and the city council under this chapter is tentative only, involving merely the general acceptability of the layout as submitted. 11 (c) Before any preliminary plan is approved by the city council under this chapter, the information furnished with said plan must show conclusively that the area proposed to be subdivided is drainable and that the land is of such nature as to make its intended use practical and feasible. If these features are not apparent, the owner shall be required to enter into an agreement guaranteeing that all adverse conditions will be corrected and that drainage will be accomplished in a satisfactory manner. The final decision in this matter shall be made by the city council acting upon the advice and recommendation of its engineer or other authorized representative. (d) The city council may condition its approval on the construction and installation of fully operational sewers, streets, electric, gas, telephone, cable television, storm water manaRement, dr-ah:~e, and water facilities, and similar utilities and improvements or, in lieu thereof, on the receipt by the city of a cash deposit, certified check or irrevocable letter of credit in an amount and with surety and conditions sufficient to assure the city that the utilities and improvements will be constructed or installed according to the specifications of the city. The city council may condition its approval on compliance with other requirements reasonably related to the provisions of these regulations and to execute development contracts embodying the terms and conditions of approval. The city may enforce such agreements and conditions by appropriate legal and equitable remedies. (e) The city council may require that a reasonable portion of any proposed subdivision be dedicated to the public or preserved for public use as streets, roads, sewers, electric, gas and water facilities, storm water drainage and holding areas or ponds, and similar utilities and improvements. (f) The city may require that a reasonable portion of any proposed subdivision be dedicated to the public or preserved for public use as parks, playgrounds, trails or open space; provided that: (1) The city may choose to accept an amount in cash from the applicant or building contractors for part or all of the portion required to be dedicated to such public uses or purposes based on the city's park availability charge; (2) Any cash payments received shall be placed in a special fund by the city used only for the purposes for which the money was obtained; (3) In establishing the reasonable portion to be dedicated, the city council may consider the open space, park, recreational or common areas and facilities which the applicant proposes to reserve for the subdivision; (4) The city reasonably determines that it will need to acquire that portion of land for the purposes stated in this subsection as a result of approval of the subdivision; (5) Within the legal boundaries of the city's designated critical area, the city council may require dedication for public open space or scenic easement, bluffiands which are eighteen (18) percent or greater in slope and which are in direct drainage to the Mississippi River Bluffs or Fish Creek. The city council may release the developer in part or in total from a park dedication fee in lieu of the value of the above-dedicated bluffiands. 12 Sec. 30-7. Necessary data for final plat. The final plat required by this chapter shall be prepared by a registered land surveyor and shall conform to all state and county requirements and the provisions of this section. All information required on the final plat application provided by the director of community development shall be shown on the final plat. Sec. 30-8. Minimum subdivision design standards. (a) Generally. ^ proposed subdivision under this chapter shall meet the minimum subdivision design standards set forth in this section. (b) Streets: (1) (2) Street plan. The arrangement, character, extent, width and location of all streets shall conform to standards for street construction on file in the office of the director of public works, including relation to existing and planned streets, to reasonable circulation of traffic, to topographical conditions, to .the manaaement .".'ncff of storm water, to public convenience and safety and in their appropriate relation to the proposed uses of the area to be served. No full-width street shall be less than sixty (60) feet wide. Half-width streets. The use of half-width streets shall b.e prohibited, except where essential to the reasonable development of the subdivision in conformity with the other requirements of these regulations and the overall plan of the neighborhood in which the plat is situated. Wherever a half street is adjacent to a tract to be subdivided, the other half of the street shall be platted within such tract. (3) (4) Cul-de-sacs. Cul-de-sacs,--whe~=~,~,e~¥ shall be held-re as short a-dista~me as possible between the origin or main street and the end of the cul-de-sacs. In no case shall cul-de- sacs exceed one thousand (1,000) feet in length, unless no other alternative is possible. Each cul-de-sac shall have a terminus of neady circular shape with a minimum right-of- way diameter of one hundred twenty (120) feet, and shall meet all city standardsJ Reserve strips. Privately owned reserve strips controlling access to streets are prohibited. Publicly owned reserve strips may be required by the city council, where necessary to assure equitable payment for streets. " " ........................................... '.hcus=nd (d) Trails and pedestrian ways: (1) Trails. Trails shall be a minimum of eight (8) feet wide. Trails between property lines shall be centered within a right-of-way ..0r other ~)ublic property that is at least ten (10) feet 13 (2) wider than the trail pavement. If the trail is in an easement, the trail shall be centered in an easement that is at least thirty (30) feet wider than the trail pavement. Pedestrian ways. Pedestrian ways, where permitted, shall be at least fifteen (15) feet wide. (e) Easements: (1) Drainage and utility easements· Each lot shall have drainage and utility easements that are at least five (5) feet wide on side lot lines and ten (10) feet wide on the front and rea[ lot lines. This easement shall be ten (10) feet wide on both stm~t sides on comer lots. The city may require additional easements. All the storm water drainage within plat or subdivision shall be collected within the plat or subdivision, unless the city determines that this requirement is not feasible, would only have marginal benefit or if the develo,)er gets the necessary off-site easements· The developer shall install the storm water improvements to direct the storm water to the city storm water system or to approved Each sanitary sewer that is not in a street riaht-of-way shall have a utility easement centered on the sewer pipe. This easement shall be at least t-wentv (20) feet wide· Each sto,,-Ti sewer that is not in a street ri~cht-of-way shall have an easement with a minimum width of twenty (20) feet. All water mains that are not in a street right-of-way shall have at least a 30-foot-wide eesement. The city en.clineer shall approve the size of all easements and may reouire lar.qer widths for any easements· ~ Pondin.q easements. When a subdivision or plat drains into a Dondin.q area that the city does not own or have a drainage easement for, the developer or applicant shall acqui?u a drainage easement or fee title for the ponding area. The developer or applicant shall convey any such easements or fee ownership to the city. If the oondin.q area is within the Plat, the developer shall show the pondin.q area as an outlot and shall dedicate it to the city. The city en.qineer shall approve the pond size and it shall hold an additional verti¢31 one (1) foot of freeboard above the high water level within the easement or oufloL.. by ...... · ; ..... '.' .... ~ · "~ """~"'"' "~ ............................. .-,,- '-~- _. "!.." C '"~ ,4,- · --"~ ,,"' .... b)' ....... ~ :.-9,.p:cvC..".v.'9.t cf .......... : ............. ,' ....' 6.'"', ~ r.-. V C m c ,'9,t p~=t pp~:,, _~,, cc ............ I.,, yr.' ..... ~1 .................. " .....I" ..... " .... ~..L: 14 (3) Wetland easements. The city may require a wetland easement over and beyond a wetland. The wetland easement shall prohibit any structures, mowing, cutting, filling or dumping within the easement. The city shall decide the easement's size based on information from the watershed district and the 'wetlands quality, the amount and quality of surrounding habitat, the site's building restraints. The city may require a developer to place signs around the easement boundary. These signs shall identify the easement's boundary and restrictions. Lots: (1) Lot dimensions in F and R-1 zones. The minimum lot dimensions to subdivide in an F or R-1 zone shall be: a. Inte~for lots. 1. Seventy-five (75) feet wide at the established building setback line; Not less than sixty (60) feet at the front lot line, except that lots located along the outside curves of curvilinear streets or on the bulbs of cul-de-sacs shall be no less than forty (40) feet in width at the front lot line; and Not less than ten thousand (10,000) square feet in area, except= if the avera.qe area or size of the existing single-family lots in Maplewood within 500 feet of the site is at least twelve thousand (12,000) square feet, then the average lot size of any new lot shall meet or exceed the averal:le size of these existing lots, up to a maximum avera.qe size of 20,000 square feet. Lots in Maplewood within 500 feet of the site that are 20,000 square feet or more in area shall each be considered 20,000 square feet for calculatin.q the area avera,qe lot size. This provision does not apply to new lots approved and created by administrative lot division as outlined in Section 30-15 (Lot divisions). b. Comer lots. 1. One hundred (100) feet wide at the established building setback line; and 2. Not less than ten thousand (10,000) square feet in area, unless a larger lot size is required as in Section 30-8(f)(1)(a)(3) above. (2) Lot dimensions in R-I(S) and R-2 zones. The minimum lot dimensions to subdivide in an R-I(S) or in an R-2 zone shall be: a. Interior lots. 1. Sixty (60) feet wide at the established building setback line and front lot line; 2. Not less than forty (40) feet of width at the front lot line on the bulb of a cul-de-sac or the outside curve of a street; and 3. Not less than seven thousand five hundred (7,500) square feet in area. 15 b. Comer lots. 1. Eighty-five (85) feet wide at the established building setback line; and 2. Not less than seven thousand five hundred (7,500) square feet of area. (3) Rear lot lines. The minimum dimensions at the rear lot line of any lot shall be thirty (30) feet. (4) Location. All lots shall have fronta.qe =~'.'t on a publicly dedicated, improved and maintained street. (5) Side lot lines. Side lines of lots shall be substantially at right angles or radial to the street line. (6) Double-frontage lots. Double-frontage lots shall not be permitted, except where topographic or other conditions render subdividing otherwise unreasonable. Such double-frontage lots shall have an additional depth of at least twenty (20) feet ~ to allow space for a protective plant-screen along the back lot line. (Sections 30-8 (f)(7-13), 30-9 (Soil Tests), 30-10 (Residential Zoning) and 30-11 (Variations and exemptions) remain unchanged.) 16 Section 3: This section changes Sections 30-12 through 30-15 as f~)llows: (I have crossed out deletions and underlined the additions.) Sec. 30-12. Improvements--Generally. (a) The developer or contractor shall build every public street within a plat or subdivision with the followin,q improvements: ~-//"~ W'ka, ,,. ,,j, .!, .,'_',,,.",.~,."~' ............ q :,~,. VC, ,~,c~t= '";*~'~"..,.,.,, ~ka.,,....,w...'~a'4;""*a'~ .....-~'aa* ,,,4 ,,..k~" .,"6 (1) Sanitary sewer pipes and appurtenances ~; (2) Public water pipes and appurtenances faeili~; (3) Storm water pipes and appurtenances fa~ilkqes; (4) Street, concrete curb and gutter; (5) Street lights ~; (~) Boulevard turf establishment; (8)(7) Street identification and traffic-control signs. The city shall install these si,qns and the developer shall pay all costs. (Sections 30-12 (b) and (c) remain unchanged.) (d) The city council shall not approve a final plat without first receiving a report from the city engineer certifyin.q that the improvements and construction of the land and streets, with all other necessary facilities in the plat have been completed or satisfactorily arranged for accordin~ to provisions of the city re,qulations for land improvement and construction. The developer shall provide the city en.qineer with a cash escrow or letter of credit to guarantee the completion of the unfinished public improvements. 17 (Section 30-13 remains unchanged.) Sec. 30-13. Reserved. Sec. 30-14. Same--Compliance prerequisite for issuance of building permits. The city will not issue a buildin~l permit for any buildin,q or structure until the: a. Developer or contractor has met all requirements of this chapter and the city code. b. Development or improvements meet the requirements of the fire code including providin.q water service and an all-weather street surface to the building site. Sec. 30-15. Lot divisions. (a) A lot division shall not result in the creation of more than three (3) lots. (b) The director of community development may approve, or cause to be modified, plans for a lot division. The director must first determine, however, that the plans meet all city ordinances and policies, and that the proposal would not have an adverse impact on the subject property or surrounding properties. If the director makes a negative determination or the applicant wishes to appeal the decision, the city council shall make the final decision. "....... cc'.:',".~! lc; =ct~c.".. (c) A letter of credit may be required as a condition to lot splits on plats in order to guarantee the proper repair and patching of streets after the installation of utilities in the streets or rights-of- way. (d) The city will accept only one lot division application for up to three (3) new lots from each lot or tract of land once every five (5~ years. (e) Deeds must be filed with Ramsey County within one year of city approval by-the-c~ty of a lot division. If the owner or applicant does not file the deeds within one year of city approval, the approval shall be null and void. Section 4. This ordinance shall take effect after the city council approves it and the official newspaper publishes it. The Maplewood City Council approved this ordinance on ,1997. 18 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: City Manager Ken Roberts, Associate Planner Tree Preservation Code Amendment May 28, 1997 INTRODUCTION The city council asked staff to review the tree preservation code and to recommend changes and code updates. The city council has not reviewed the entire environmental protection ordinance (including tree preservation) since 1989. BACKGROUND On May 19, 1997, the planning commission reviewed the proposed tree preservation ordinance. The commission had several comments and suggestion about the ordinance. These included the definition of a large tree, the amount of required tree preservation, the amount of allowed tree removal and the sizes of trees in the tree replacement schedule. DISCUSSION City staff believes that the general goal of a new tree preservation ordinance should be to encourage tree preservation, not just tree replacement. Another goal of the city development codes should be to encourage site design flexibility to preserve more natural features and to create better and unique developments. As proposed, the PUD ordinance and its use with future subdivisions will give developers and the city more flexibility when preparing and reviewing project plans. To better protect existing large trees, staff is recommending that the city adopt a new tree ordinance with the following features: 1. Have applicants identify and locate all hardwood deciduous trees 6 inches or greater in diameter and all coniferous trees that are 8 feet tall or greater. 2. Encourage or require, where possible, the transplanting of all coniferous trees that are four to 12 feet tall. For softwood deciduous trees, identify and locate all those between 6 and 10 inches in diameter. The developer and city staff would decide which, if any, of these are worth keeping on a site. 4. Require developers of single family home lots to preserve at least 50 percent of the large trees on the site. 5. Require the developers of multiple family projects to preserve at least 40 percent of the large trees on the site. o Set no minimum tree preservation requirements for the developers of commercial, industrial or institutional projects. City staff would work with developers to encourage tree preservation on these sites, but want to keep design flexibility without the constraints of tree preservation. Where a developer cannot meet the city's minimum tree preservation standards, the city should allow flexibility in setbacks, street standards and other city requirements to help preserve more trees. RECOMMENDATION Direct city staff to prepare a tree preservation code amendment to meet the city's goals as noted above. p:ord~treeord.-4 (5.4) 2