The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About03/04/1996MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, March 4, 1996 7:00 PM City Hall Council Chambers 1830 County Road B East 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes a. February20, 1996 4. Approval of Agenda 5. New Business a. Menards Conditional Use Permit Revision - Temporary Greenhouse (2280 Maplewood Drive) b. North Glen Fourth Addition (Castle Avenue) Zoning Map Change Preliminary Plat Increased Front Yard Setback c. HilI-Murrary High School Conditional Use Permit (2625 Larpenteur Avenue) 6. Visitor Presentations 7. Commission Presentations a. February 26 council Meeting: Mr. Kittridge b. March 11 council Meeting: Mr. Pearson 8. Staff Presentations 9. 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 FEBRUARY 20, 1996 I. Call to Order Chairman Axdahl called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Commissioner Lester Axdahl Commissioner Bunny Brueggeman Commissioner Barbara Ericson Commissmner Lorraine Fischer Commissioner Jack Frost Commissioner Kevin Kittridge Commissioner Dave Kopesky Commissioner Gary Pearson Commissioner William Rossbach Commissioner Milo Thompson Present Absent Present Present Present Absent Absent Present Present Present III. APPROVALOF MINUTES Commissioner Frost moved approval of the minutes of February 5, 1996, as submitted. Commissioner Fischer seconded. Ayes-Axdahl, Fischer, Frost, Pearson, Rossbach, Thompson Abstention-Ericson The motion passed. IV. APPROVAL OFAGENDA Commissioner Fischer moved approval of the agenda as submitted. Commissioner Frost seconded. Ayes-all The motion passed. V. PUBLIC HEARING A. Parkview (Londin Lane and Lower Afton Road): Land Use Plan Changes, Zoning Map Changes, Preliminary Plat Ken Roberts, associate planner, read the public hearing notice and presented the staff rep0.rt. Mr. Roberts answered questions from the commission. John Peterson, the president of Good Value Homes, was present. Mr. Peterson said the only problem they had with the recommendations was the portion about the trail. He explained that Good Value is only purchasing the parcel proposed for residential development and that Amie Johnson will retain ownership of the commercial lots. Therefore, an agreement would have to be worked out to build the trail over both sections of the land. Mr. Peterson said he would prefer no trail because the Planning Commission Minutes of 02-20-96 -2- pedestrian traffic coming from the commercial area to the development would take away privacy and would provide easy access for people without an interest in the neighborhood. If the trail is built and a fence is required, Mr. Peterson said they would prefer the split-rail fence. He favored "accomplishing some definition" through the use of evergreen plantings along part of the trail. Commissioner Frost asked if the trail would be more amenable if it were located towards the wetland side and away from the commercial area. Mr. Peterson responded that they would rather build the trail in this location but there would be a problem with access to the manhole. Mr. Roberts said staff preferred to keep the trail out of the lO0-ft buffer area around the wetland and wanted to assure access to the manhole. He also stated that the area planned for the trail would already be disturbed during sewer construction. Commissioner Frost then suggested a non-invasive type trail along the buffer zone with, perhaps, wood chips for a base. Mr. Peterson felt the proposal being presented would be the least-intense use of the land that could be expected through development. He said the original plan was for over 300 units, and now they are requesting only 42 units. Derrick Passe, of Passe Engineering, said a natural trail already exists along the wetland. He also thought that there would be access to within 20 feet of the manhole when the commercial area south of the proposed Holiday store is paved. Amie Johnson, the owner of the property, was not present at the meeting. Commissioner Fischer asked Mr. Peterson what Mr. Johnson's feelings would be about the changes that staff has proposed. Mr. Peterson said Mr. Johnson would prefer the zoning as he has requested, but his second choice would be the staff recommendation. Chairperson Axdahl opened the public hearing for comments from the public. Kathleen Laska, 2332 Dorland Place, asked the city to reconsider this land for open space and negotiate for a pdce. She met with Mr. Johnson and said his pdmary concern is to sell the property-either to a developer or the city. Commissioner Rossbach asked Ms. Laska if she was aware that the city had earlier made an offer for this land and Mr. Johnson refused it. Ms. Laska suggested that the city reconsider a workable fair market value offer. William Miller, 395 Crestview Ddve South, stated that the 1993 traffic study of this area used to make the decision that traffic was not a problem was outdated. Mr. Miller also questioned why the city would consider commercial zoning for property across from a regional park. He encouraged the city to consider this property for open space. Jerry Johnson of 2445 Londin Lane, currently the president of the homeowner's association of Connemara II condominiums, said he thought this was the best proposal so far. He had three concerns: 1) that a berm or buffer of trees remain between this property and the Connemara property, 2) the price range of the homes, and 3) the speed of the traffic on Londin Lane. Emil Sturzenegger, of Connemara, had concerns similar to Mr. Johnson. He also hoped the disruption during the development would not continue for a long period of time. Since there were no further comments, the public headng was closed. Commissioner Thompson commented on the need for access through the neighborhood to the park. Commissioner Ericson said there was need for better traffic control at Londin Lane and McKnight Roadmpossibly a semaphore. Commissioner Frost said that when a natural trail is established, this is where people want to walk. He suggested that this trail be used and access legalized. Planning Commission Minutes of 02-20-96 -3- Commissioner Rossbach moved the Planning Commission recommend: Adoption of the resolution which changes the land use plan for the single dwellings and the pond for the Parkview plat. These changes are from R-3(M) (residential medium density) and CO (commercial office) to R-1 (single dwellings) and OS (open space). The city is making these changes because: 1. It would be consistent with the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan. 2. The developer is proposing to develop this part of the site with single dwellings. 3. It would reduce the allowable density and traffic from this site. B Adoption of the resolution which changes the comprehensive plan for the future commercial lot on the south side of Lower Afton Road (proposed Lot 1, Block 1 of Parkview). This change is from CO (commercial office) to BC-M (business commercial modified). The city should make these changes because: 1. It would be consistent with the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan. 2. The BC-M designation would serve as a transition area between the proposed Holiday Stationstore and the residential area to the south. Adoption of the resolution which changes the comprehensive plan for the future commercial lot on the east side of McKnight Road (proposed Lot 3, Block 1 of Parkview). This change is from R-3(M) (residential medium density) and CO (commercial office) to LBC (limited business commercial). The city should make these changes because: 1. It would be consistent with the goals and policies of the comprehensive plan. 2. The larger LBC area would increase the transition area between the existing houses and the proposed Holiday Stationstore. Adoption of the resolution which changes the zoning map from F (farm residence) and CO (commercial office) to R-1 (single dwellings). This rezoning is for the property proposed as Blocks 2 and 3, Parkview that is north of Londin Lane and west of the Connemara Condominiums. The city bases this rezoning on the findings required by the code. Adoption of the resolution which changes the zoning map change from CO (commercial office) to BC-M (business commercial modified). This rezoning is for the proposed Lot 1, Block 1 of Parkview for the future commercial lot on the south side of Lower Affon Road. The city bases this rezoning on the findings required by the code. Fo Adoption of the resolution which changes the zoning map change from F (farm residential) and CO (commercial office) to LBC (limited business commercial). This rezoning is for the proposed Lot 3, Block 1 of Parkview including a remnant strip of property east of the existing LBC-zoned land east of McKnight Road. The city bases this rezoning on the findings required by the code. Approve the Parkview preliminary plat (received by the city on January 18, 1996). The developer shall complete the following before the city council approves the final plat: Planning Commission Minutes of 02-20-96 1. Sign an agreement with the city that guarantees that the developer or contractor will: a. Complete all grading for overall site drainage, complete all public improvements and meet all city requirements. b.* Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits. Co Install permanent signs around the edge of any wetland buffer easements. These signs shall mark the edge of the easements and shall state there shall be no mowing, vegetation cuffing, filling, grading or dumping beyond this point. City staff shall approve the sign design and location before the contractor installs them. d. Install survey monuments along the wetland boundaries. e. Have NSP install street lights in three locations, primarily at street intersections. The exact location and type of lights shall be subject to the city engineer's approval. f. Pay the city for the cost of traffic-control and street identification signs. g. Provide all required and necessary easements. h. Demolish or move the existing buildings on the site. Abandon any wells or septic systems, subject to the Environmental Health Official's approval. Construct an eight-foot-wide paved walkway and fencing between Lots 11 and 12, Block 2. This trail shall be between the street and the north property line of the development. An alternative trail surface shall be installed to follow as closely as possible the existing trail from the back of the development to Lower Afton Road. The developer also shall provide a fence on both sides of the trail within the development and that fence shall be a split-rail type of fence. The city engineer must approve these plans. Maplewood is requiring the developer to pay for the trail within the plat since the trail will provide access to Baffle Creek Park to the residents of the new plat. 2.* Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall include grading, utility, drainage, erosion control, tree, trail and street plans. The plans shall meet the following conditions: a. The erosion control plans shall be consistent with the city code. b. The grading plan shall: (1) Include proposed building pad elevation and contour information for each home site. (2) Include contour information for the land that the street construction will disturb. (3) Show sedimentation basins as required by the watershed board. (4) Show housing styles that reduce the grading on sites where the developer can save large trees. Planning Commission Minutes of 02-20-96 -5- Co There shall be backyard drains connected to the storm sewer system in at least three locations in Block 3. These shall be between Lots 2, 3 and 9, between Lots 4, 5 and 6 and between Lots 10, 12 and 13. The developer shall dedicate all necessary easements for these drains and pipes. d. Extend the storm sewer in Parkview Lane east to at least Lot 13, Block 3 and provide two additional catch basins in the street. e. Change the grading and utility plans to follow the lot and street design on the preliminary plat received by the city on January 18, 1996. Provide a tree plan for the city engineer's approval before grading or final plat approval. This plan shall show where the developer will remove, save or replace large trees. This plan also must show the size, species and location of any trees that the developer will plant as replacement trees. All trees that the developer will plant shall be at least 2-1/2 inches in diameter. There shall be no tree removal beyond the approved grading and tree limits. go The street and utility plans shall show a paved trail between Lots 6 and 7, Block 2 from Parkview Lane and Lower Afton Road. This trail shall be 8 feet wide from Parkview Lane to the sewer manhole and shall be 10 feet wide from the sewer manhole to Lower Afton Road or the proposed Holiday Store driveway. 3. Change the plat as follows: Make the utility easement between Lots 6 and 7, Block 2 and between Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block I a utility and pedestrian easement. This easement shall be at least 30 feet wide between Parkview Lane and the sanitary sewer manhole. b. Add drainage and utility easements as required by the city engineer. c. Show the wetland boundaries on the final plat as approved by the watershed district. do Show drainage and utility easements along all property lines on the final plat. These easements shall be ten feet wide along the front and rear property lines and five feet wide along the side property lines. o Provide all easements required by the city engineer. These shall include wetland easements over the wetlands. The easements shall cover the wetlands and any land within 100 feet surrounding the large wetland. The easement shall prohibit any building or structures within 100 feet of the wetland or any mowing, cutting, filling, grading or dumping within 100 feet of the large wetland or within the wetland itself. For the smaller wetlands, the easement shall be at least 20 feet wide. The purpose of the easements is to protect the water quality of the wetlands from fertilizer, runoff and to protect the wetland habitat from encroachment. 5. Record the following with the final plat: a. A deed dedicating Outlot A to the city with a 100-foot-wide wetland buffer easement surrounding the wetland. Planning Commission Minutes of 02-20-96 -6- bo A deed dedicating a wetland easement around the smaller wetlands along with a wetland buffer surrounding the easement. The city engineer shall approve the width of this buffer based on the wetland classifications in the city code. c. A deed dedicating three feet of additional right-of-way along McKnight Road for future street widening. The applicant shall submit the language for these dedications to the city for approval before recording. The applicant shall show all the wetlands on the final plat. Show the wetland boundaries on the plat as delineated on the site. A trained and qualified person must delineate the wetlands. This person shall prepare a wetland delineation report. The developer shall submit this wetland information to the Watershed District office. The Watershed District must approve this information before the city approves a final plat. If needed, the developer shall change the plat to conform to wetland regulations. 7. Obtain a permit from the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed Distdct for any wetland filling. o Determine the elevation of the ordinary high water mark for the pond south of Lower Afton Road for the Department of Natural Resources. Apply for and receive any permits the DNR requires. 9. Dedicate cross easements for ingress, egress and maintenance between the proposed comer property shown as the proposed Holiday Stationstore and the adjacent parcels. If the developer decides to final plat part of the preliminary plat, the director of community development may waive any conditions that do not apply to the final plat. *The developer must complete these conditions before the city issues a grading permit or approves the final plat. Commissioner Frost seconded Ayes-all The motion passed. VI. NEW BUSINESS A. Ramsey County Correction Facility Conditional Use Permit Revisio~Nursery Operation (290 Century Avenue South) Ken Roberts, associate planner, presented the staff report. Art Cavara, superintendent of the Ramsey County Correctional Facility, introduced Scott Simpson, the nurseryman at the facility. Mr. Simpson said the proposed plan is to grow trees and shrubs for government agencies within Ramsey County. The purpose of the greenhouse is to extend labor activities throughout the winter and involve more inmates in producing a realistic product. He said the plan is to grow 5,500 shade and ornamental trees, 4,000 shrubs, and between 15,000-25,000 annuals and perennials. Mr. Simpson answered questions from the commission. Planning Commission Minutes of 02-20-96 -7- Commissioner Pearson moved the Planning Commission recommend: Adoption of the resolution which revises'the conditional uSe permit for a correctional facility at 297 South Century Avenue. The revised conditional use permit allows a change in operation to include a plant nursery. Approval is based on the findings required by ordinance and subject to the following conditions (I have underlined the additions/revisions and crossed out the deletions): 1. All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 2. The county corrections de_oartment shall file an annual reoort with the city manager informj.0.g the city of the following: a. If the percentage of felons increases above 29% of the inmates or if the percentage of gross misdemeanors increases above 33% of the inmates. b. Of any applications for a license for the facility that increase the maximum number of inmates above 293. c. If the daily population exceeds the county's license for more than 21 (twenty-one) consecutive days. If condition 2.a. or 2.c. occurs, the city council may reconsider the conditional use permit. The city must approve any increase in the facility inmate population license prior to it becoming effective. The city council shall review this permit in one year if the greenhouse is not built. Future reviews shall be done only if a problem arises or if ma!or construction is oro_Dosed. Minor construction shall be a_o_Droved bv the director of community development. ^' '~ .......' ':--- th- f& ......."-- :- --' ---:-- - th-"-t ' h ',th ;&fcty de&d',:,n¢ fc, r c,,';¢ Commissioner Fischer seconded. Ayes-all The motion passed. B. Highwood Fifth Addition-O'Day Street: Street Vacation, Preliminary Plat Ken Roberts, associate planner, presented the staff report. Amie Esterbrooks, representing Gonyea Company, was present at the meeting. He said they had no problem with the staff report. Commissioner Thompson commented about a future potential drainage problem when this lot is Planning Commission Minutes of 02-20-96 -8- graded and a home built. Mr. Roberts said attention should be paid to the grading at the time the house is built and that will be handled with the building permit. Russ Matthys, assistant city engineer, said there are two catch basins on the south side of the proposed lot--one at the curb and gutter and the other approximately another 30 feet to the northeast (the southerly property line of the proposed lot). Mr. Matthys said $1,000 escrow is taken from the builder or the homeowner when the building permit is issued. This is not returned until all grading is satisfactory to the city. Commissioner Frost moved the Planning Commission recommend: A. Adoption of the resolution which vacates the O'Day Street right-of-way north of Lot 3, Block 1, Highwood Third Addition. The city should vacate this street right-of-way because: 1. It is in the public interest. 2. The city and the developer have no plans to build a street north of this site. 3. The adjacent properties have street access. The developer shall record the street vacation resolution with the final plat. Bo Approval of the Highwood Fifth Addition preliminary plat (received by the city on February 2, 1996). Before the city council approves the final plat, a developer shall complete the following conditions: 1. Change the street relocation plan to show the cul-de-sac right-of-way on the final plat. 2. Deed Lot 2 to the city and record this deed with the final plat. Commissioner Rossbach seconded. Ayes-all The motion passed. VII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS There were no visitor presentations. VIII. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS A. February 12 Council Meeting: Ms. Fischer reported on this meeting. B. February 26 Council Meeting: Mr. Kittridge is scheduled. IX. STAFF PRESENTATIONS There were no staff presentations. X. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 8:56 p.m. MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: DATE: City Manager James Ericson - Planning Intern CUP Revision and Building Design Approval 2280 Maplewood Drive February 13, 1996 INTRODUCTION Project Description Mr. Greg Stachowiak, representing Echo Lake Greenhouse of Turtle Lake, Wisconsin, is proposing to operate a temporary greenhouse for three months each year starting around April 1. He is proposing to erect the greenhouse in the vacant parking lot directly west of Menard's outdoor storage yard. Refer to the maps on pages 9-12 and the letter on page 13. The proposed greenhouse would be 48 feet by 21 feet; it would stand 11 feet high. It would be constructed of galvanized steel tubing with a white polyethylene covering (see page 14). The proposed hours of operation would coincide with those of Menard's. (These are 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. Monday through Friday, 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. on Saturdays, and 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. on Sundays.) Greg Stachowiak anticipates displaying some stock outside the structure, but said that they would put all items inside the greenhouse at night. Depending upon the success of the operation, Mr. Stachowiak would like the greenhouse to become an annual business. Requests Mr. Stachowiak is requesting approval of the following: Revision of the conditional use permit (CUP) for Menard's. Code requires a CUP revision because the proposed greenhouse is an enlargement of the original Menard's CUP. Code also requires a CUP for a building (the proposed greenhouse) to be built within 350 feet of a residential district. 2. Site and building design plans. DISCUSSION CUP Revision The city council should approve this request. Staff has not observed any problems with temporary greenhouses in other parking lots around town. These businesses are seasonal and only last for approximately three months each spring and early summer. If problems would occur, the city code allows the council to call an applicant back for review of their CUP for amendment or termination for noncompliance. Site and Building Design Considerations The greenhouse design would be acceptable. The steel-tube framing with polyethylene covering is typical of such greenhouses in other parking lots in Maplewood. The applicant should not be allowed to use any air-moving devices that wobld cause nuisance-noise to nearby homeowners. The applicant said that the parking lot in the area of the proposed greenhouse is ir~ good condition. The city council should require patching if it is not. The parking lot must also be stdped to comply with the parking requirements. Neighbor's Concerns 1. How many years would this approval be for? w The applicant may wish to operate this greenhouse each year if the site is a successful location. Does this permit allow the operation of this business or will it allow the operation of other businesses? This CUP, as revised, would only permit the continuance of Menard's and the proposed greenhouse. 3. What will the greenhouse hours be? The applicant proposes to operate the greenhouse, at the most, along with Menard's regular store hours. They likely, however, would have shorter hours according to the applicant. Mr. Stachowiak guesses that their hours would probably be from 9 a.m. to 7 p.m. Would the structure be temporary or permanent? What are materials of construction? Would there be any items stored outside of the greenhouse? Refer to the project description above. Menards already has trouble maintaining the easement on their south border and they keep piling merchandise higher than the fence. Staff has not found any evidence of an easement south of the Menard property line. The original conditions did not speak of any easement or maintenance requirement. Menards periodically stacks building materials higher than the top of the fence. When we inform the store manager of a complaint, they are quick to correct the problem. Enforcement has 2 always been difficult because of the confusing and conflicting conditions of the CUP. The proposed revisions in the recommendation should clarify and consolidate the screening- fence requirements. They do not lessen any requirement. There is already too much traffic in this area and at the corner of Maplewood Drive and County Road B. Are there plans to improve the intersection for better traffic flow? This greenhouse use would draw people to the site, thereby, increasing traffic. It is difficult to say, though, how many over those already at the site shopping at Menard's. This is a small, short-term business, however, compared to a large, permanent one that a site of this size could accommodate. Staff, therefore, does not foresee any appreciable worsening of traffic congestion. The city improved the intersection of County Road B and Maplewood Drive last summer as part of the frontage road improvements. There are no plans to do any further work at this intersection. RECOMMENDATIONS Approve the resolution on pages 15-17. This resolution revises the conditional use permit for Menard's outdoor storage yard with the following changes (I have crossed out the deletions and underlined the additions): Adherence to the site plan dated March 15, 1988, and the (=reenhouse Dian dated January_ 8. 1996. unless a change is approved by the city's community design review board. The director of community develo_oment may approve minor chanoes. Compliance with the following screening-fence reauirements: a. The orooertv_ owner shall continue to have. and keeo in a maintained condition. wooden screening-fences as follows: An eight-foot-tall fence running_ north-south on the west side of 1071 County Road B. This section of fence shall have "no oarking" signs displayed. eight-foot-tall fence runnino east-west from the northwest comer of 1071 County Road B to the northwest comer of 1101 County Road B. A 14-foot-tall fence behind 1101 and 1115 County Road B: also alono the west lot line of 1115 County Road B where it abuts Menard's. (4) A 14-foot-tall fence along the west side of the outside storage yard. 3 11. 12. Z A 10-foot-tall fence along the remaining south orooertv line of Menard's and northerly along the east lot line to the _point where the orooert_v !ogs to the east. b. No material on the storage racks, adjacent to the fence behind 1101 and 111,~ County Road B. shall extend above the 14-foot-tall fence. No more than 2 1/2 feet of the 17 1/2-foot-tall storage racks shall be visible from the homes to the south that are at street level along County Road B. Thi,~ excludes those houses that sit higher on a hill, d. Menard's shall be responsible for the safety of the neighbors in regard to the materials stored over the height of the fence, Hours of operation in the storage yard shall be limited to 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. An extedor public address system shall not be allowed. All lighting in the storage yard that is not needed for site security shall be turned off after business hours. The city council shall not review this permit c,G~,~ b =['x,,'-;;,';th= unless a Droblern develops or unless the Drooerty owner oroooses a ma!or change to their olarl8. ' '--'"' -":- :-- '-- ' ' ' ....' ...... :'-- ,.,,u--":c,'";-"'3 Plowed snow shall be stored away from the southem and eastern property lines to avoid runoff problems on residential property. 4 Bo ~ 8. ,",',, -' ..... "" .......... "' '"- ' ...." .... M 's s all ..... ~ .................................. enard h store alltheir materials within the fenced storaae area. Plant displays shall be permitted outside th~: 17,9. Sanitation facilities shall be provided by Menard's for the ~ ~. .......... by J"- 1 '"'-- ' ..... ~'-" "- thc ..... ""- the fecree: 10. The owner or operator shall get a building Dermit annually for the greenhouse, 11. Greenhouse hours of operation shall coincide with those of Menard's. 12. The 0reenhouse structure shall be temooran/. The owner or ooerator shall remove the 0reenhouse after each three-month seasorh o Approve the plans (stamped January 8, 1996) for the proposed Echo Lake temporary greenhouse west of Menard's, based on the findings required by the code. Approval is subject to the following conditions: Repeat this approval again in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for the greenhouse. Patch the parking lot as needed around the greenhouse and the proposed parking area. Stripe the parking lot as shown on the site plan. Meet parking lot striping requirements as stated in the city code and comply with ADA (Americans with Disability Act) requirements for handicap parking. This includes the installation of a handicap-parking sign. Apply to staff for sign permits. There should not be any noise-making machinery or devices allowed that would be a nuisance to any nearby homeowner. Clean the greenhouse site of any existing debris and keep the area clean during the greenhouse operation. The greenhouse operator shall not leave any debris behind after the greenhouse business ends each summer. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. CITIZEN'S COMMENTS Staff surveyed owners of the 20 properties within 350 feet of the proposed greenhouse site. The city received nine replies. Of these, three favored the proposal, one had no comment, two were undecided with comment and three were against. In Favor 1. I think it would be good for the area. There is nothing like it around. (Hoffman Comer Oil Co.) 2 I think it would make a good use of that property and be good for the neighborhood. (Adams - 1112 County Road B) 3. No objection. (Andersen - 1101 County Road B) Undecided 1. This area has a traffic congestion problem already. The comer of B and Maplewood Drive (at the HCO Station) is very heavily congested. Are there plans to "re-engineer" this intersection in the near future? If not, adding more retail will cause increased traffic and possible cause for concern. (Reed - 1128 County Road B) 2. I would like to get a few answers to some questions I have about this project before I say I am in favor of it. a. How many years will this conditional use permit be for?. b. Does this permit only allow operation of this business or will it allow operation of other businesses? Co What will be the store's hours? Structure description: Temporary or permanent? Materials used to construct it? Length, height, width, etc.? Will items for sale be stored outside of building? (Forbes - 1071 County Road B) Against 1. I wasn't for Menard's moving in to begin with. i went to the meeting and said so. It doesn't matter what I say here, you are going to do what you want no matter. The added traffic and trucks in front of my house is hell. (Mechura - 1160 County Road B) 2. It will bring tOo much traffic to our County Road B. (Occupant -1174 County Road B) 3. ! believe Menard's already has their hands full living up to their current conditional use permit. For example, they are not able to maintain the easement on their south border, nor can they keep from piling merchandise higher than the fence. (Bobick - 1115 County Road B) REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Site size: 1.12 Acres Existing land use: Undeveloped Property Owner: Menard, Inc. SURROUNDING LAND USES (surrounding the proposed greenhouse) North: South: West: East: Maplewood Drive and Highway 36 interchange Single dwellings and Citgo Motor Fuel Station Maplewood Drive and frontage road Menard's outdoor storage yard PAST ACTIONS March 28, 1988: The city council approved Menard's CUP. January 23, February 13, March 27 and April 6, 1989: The council changed the CUP conditions. The changes were to clarify the screening fence and storage rack height requirements. March 26, 1990: The council reviewed the CUP. November 14, 1994, and September 11, 1995: The council amended the CUP conditions. PLANNING Land Use Plan designation: M-1 (light manufacturing) Zoning: M-1 Ordinance Requirements Section 25-70 requires that the community design review board (CDRB) make the following findings to approve plans: That the design and location of the proposed development and its relationship to neighboring, existing or proposed developments and traffic is such that it will not impair the desirability of investment or occupation in the neighborhood; that it will not unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring, existing or proposed developments; and that is will not create traffic hazards or congestion. 2. That the design and location of the proposed development is in keeping with the character of the surrounding neighborhood and is not detrimental to the harmonious, orderly and attractive development contemplated by this article and the City's comprehensive municipal plan. 3. That the design and location of the proposed development would provide a desirable environment for its occupants, as well as for its neighbors, and that it is aesthetically of good composition, materials, textures and colors. Section 36-187 requires a CUP for building construction in a M-1 district that would be closer than 350 feet to a residential zone. Section 36-448(b) requires an amended CUP for any enlargement or intensification of use of an existing CUP. Findings for CUP Approval Section 36-442(a) states the city council must base their approval of a CUP on nine standards. I listed these standards in the resolution beginning on pages 15-17. p:sec9~nenards3.mem Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Property Line I Zoning Map 3. Site Plan 1 4. Site Plan 2 5. Mr. Stachowiak's Letter dated January 8, 1996 6. Greenhouse Specifications 7. CUP Resolution Attachment 1 2880N 2640N C 2400N 2 COUNTY 1. SUMMIT CT. 2. COUNr'J'I~'YVIE'W CIR. 5. DULUTH CT. 4. LYDIA ~'T. FROST .................................... Attachment 2 VW/$AAB MENARD$ " .'z !~ 1071 HCO[' ~ 1143 :oui~;l'Y ROAD E PROPERTY LINE / ZONING MAP 10 N Attachment 3 PROPOSED J iGREENHOUSE 114' ~;' ~IIIIIIIIIIIA /////////i////liJ ~llllllllllll~~j~lllllllj MENARDS OUTSIDE ~STORAGE YARD 3 MENARDS 8' .8' 14' 10' 1 '0' 8'10' &14' EXISTING WOODEN SCREENING-FENCE FENCE HEIGHTS SITE PLAN ll Attachment 4 GREEN HOUSE .-~'7T '.F.:.~ 0 30' rrl / SITE PLAN 12 Attachment 5 Attachment 6 48'-~ OUT~IDE TO OUTSIDE J u "U u----U U ' L ~ 11 FL P ~t I1 _1 21'-0' GARDEN MART SPECIFICATIONS WIDTH: 21 '-0' LENGTHS: 30'-0', 48'-0", 60'-0', 96"-0' HOOP SPACING: 6'-0' HEIGHT OF STRAIGHT SIDE WALL: 6'-0' HEIGHT TO APEX: 11'-0' FRAME: 2' dia., 14 ga. galvanized steel tubing DOORWAY SIZE: 6"-0' wide by 6'-8' high COVER: White 6 mil. UVI treated polyethylene 50% shade END POLY: Clear 6 mil. UVI treated polyethylene HANGING BASKET PUR- LINS: Four full length basket purlins OPTIONAL Front and reammll purlin display VENTILATION: 5'-0' high POLY-VENT II or SUDE-SIDE SLIDE-SIDE PANELS: Clear, 8 mil. polycadxmate HOLD DOWN SYSTEM: 12 mil. flexible poly water tubes built into full length bench supports (both sides) OPTIONAL (customer supplied) Concrete block hold down system ELECTRICAL: 115V standard current (for use with POLY-VENT II) POLY FASTENER: Aluminum Wiggle Wire for faster installation 14 Attachment 7 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Greg Stachowiak of Echo Lake Greenhouse is proposing changes to a conditional use permit. The changes include adding a temporary greenhouse west of the existing outdoor storage yard at 2280 Maplewood Drive. The legal description is: SUB TO ESMTS; PART OF FOL TRACTS SELY OF HWYS 36 & 61; EX S 100 FT PART OF SW 1/4 N OF CO RD B & PART OF SE 1/4 W OF CLIFTON ADD S OF L 107 FT N OF S L OF BLK 15 OF SD ADD EXTENDED & N OF HEINEMANS BELLEVIEW & IN CLIFTON ADD, EX E 240 FT; BLKS 15 & 16 & EX E 255 FT BLK 10 & ALSO W 120 FT OF E 255 FT OF N 30 FT OF BLK 10 WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: 1. On February 20, 1996, the planning commission recommended that the city council this permit. On ,1996, 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 from the city staff and planning commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above-described conditional use permit, because: 1. The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be in conformity with the city's comprehensive plan and code of ordinances. 2. The use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area. 3. The use would not depreciate property values. 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. 8. The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and scenic features into the development design. 9. The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. Adherence to the site plan dated March 15, 1988, and the greenhouse plan dated January 8, 1996, unless a change is approved by the city's community design review board. The director of community development may approve minor changes. Compliance with the following screening-fence requirements: a. The property owner shall continue to have, and keep in a maintained condition, wooden screening-fences as follows: (1) An eight-foot-tall fence running north-south on the west side of 1071 County Road B. This section of fence shall have 'no parking" signs displayed. (2) An eight-foot-tall fence running east-west from the northwest comer of 1071 County Road B to the northwest comer of 1101 County Road B. (3) A 14-foot-tall fence behind 1101 and 1115 County Road B; also along the west lot line of 1115 County Road B where it abuts Menard's. (4) A 14-foot-tall fence along the west side of the outside storage yard. (5) A 10-foot-tall fence along the remaining south property line of Menards and northerly along the east lot line to the point where the property jogs to the east. b. No material on the storage racks, adjacent to the fence behind 1101 and 1115 County Road B, shall extend above the 14-foot-tall fence. c. No more than 2 1/2 feet of the 17 1/2-foot-tall storage-racks shall be visible from the homes to the south that are at street level along County Road B. This excludes those houses that sit higher on a hill. d. Menards shall be responsible for the safety of the neighbors in regard to the materials stored over the height of the fence. Hours of operation in the storage yard shall be limited to 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. An exterior public address system shall not be allowed. 5. All lighting in the storage yard that is not needed for site security shall be turned off after business hours. 6. The city council shall not review this permit unless a problem develops or unless the property owner proposes a major change to their plans. 7. Plowed snow shall be stored away from the southern and eastern property lines to avoid runoff problems on residential property. 8. Menards shall store all their materials within the fenced storage area. Plant displays shall be permitted outside the greenhouse. 9. Sanitation facilities shall be provided by Menards for the employees. 10. The owner or operator shall get a'building permit annually for the greenhouse. 11. Greenhouse hours of operation shall coincide with those of Menards.~ 12. The greenhouse structure shall be temporary. The owner or operator shall remove the greenhouse after each three-month season. The Maplewood City Council approved this resolution on ,1996. ]7 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: PROJECT: DATE: City Manager Ken Roberts, Associate Planner Zoning Map Change and Preliminary Plat Castle Avenue, east of White Bear Avenue North Glen Fourth Addition February 27, 1996 INTRODUCTION Project Description Mr. Marlo Cocchiarella, representing Maplewood Development, Inc., is proposing to develop lots for five homes. The project's name is North Glen Fourth Addition. This plat would be on a 2.22- acre site south of Castle Avenue, east of White Bear Avenue. (See the maps on pages 9 and ~0.) Requests To develop this site, Mr. Cocchiarella is requesting that the city approve: 1. A change the city's zoning map. This change would be from R-1 (single dwellings) to R-1S (small lot single dwellings). (See the property line/zoning map on page 10.) 2. A preliminary plat for five lots. (See the proposed preliminary plat on page 11.) 3. Increased front setbacks for the houses on Lots 1-5. The developer is showing front setbacks on the proposed grading plan (page 12) of 50 feet for these lots. Please also see his letter on pages 14 and 15. BACKGROUND On September 24, 1990, the city council made several approvals for the North Glen Third Addition. These included approving the concurrent annexation/detachment, the vacation of Adel Street north of Cope Avenue and the preliminary plat. On November 15, 1990, the council approved the North Glen Third Addition final plat. This plat created seven lots for houses and three outlots for futura development on Castle Avenue. DISCUSSION Rezoning As proposed, Mr. Cocchiarella wants to plat the property with 70-foot-wide single-family lots. The city has zoned the site R-1 (single dwellings). In the R-1 zoning district, the minimum lot width is 75 feet. As such, the developer wants the city to change the zoning to R-I(S) (small-lot single dwelling). The minimum lot width in this distdct is 60 feet. The Maplewood City code has four findings the council must make to approve a rezoning. (See the required findings in the reference section on page 7.) With Highway 36 to the north, the water tower to the south and the M-1 property to the west, the proposed R-I(S) zoning is appropriate and meets the findings required by code. Open Space and Parka The Maplewood Open Space Committee called this property Site 131. They ranked this site 49th out of the 66 they rated and second out of the four they rated in this neighborhood. Maplewood has not included this site in its park or open space acquisition plans. Some neighbors prefer to keep this property for open space or a park. Maplewood would have to buy this property to keep it as open space. Another concern of some neighbors was the amount of park land available in the area. They feel there is a need for additional park land. Preliminary Plat Density and Lot Size The proposed lot sizes range from 16,101 square feet to 22,294 square feet with an average lot size of 19,616 square feet. The average lot size is larger than many lots on Cope Avenue and Ariel Street. These range in size from 10,125-19,600 square feet. The city code requires at least 7,500 square feet above a drainage easement and 60 feet of width in the R-I(S) zone. All of the proposed lots meet or exceed these standards. Sanitary Sewer and Water To serve this property, the developer is proposing to extend the sanitary sewer and water from Ariel Court to the site. (See the utility plan on page 13.) North Saint Paul wants the developer to Iccp the water main from Ariel Court north to Castle Avenue east to Seventh Street. If North Saint Paul requires this Iccp, the developer also will need to extend the water main to the west to serve the lots in Maplewood. The proposed sanitary sewer would be in an easement in the rear yards of the home sites. This sewer would connect to the North Saint Paul sewer in Ariel Court. Maplewood should require the developer to have the utility plans approved by the North Saint Paul City Engineer before the Maplewood City Engineer approves them. Increased Front Setbacks The proposed grading plan (page 12) shows front setbacks of 50 feet for the houses on Lots 1- 5. They are proposing the increased setbacks because of the highway and the depth of the lots. Moving the houses back from Castle Avenue will allow the houses to be farther from the highway. These proposed setbacks would meet the city's standards for larger front yards. This is because the proposed house sites would not affect the drainage or the pdvacy of the adjacent homes. These lots range from 216 to 319 feet deep. RECOMMENDATIONS Adopt the resolution on page 16. This resolution changes the zoning map from R-1 (single dwellings) to R-I(S) (small-lot single dwellings). This change is for the North Glen Fourth Addition plat. The reasons for this change are those in the code and because the developer plans to develop the site for small-lot single dwellings. 2 Approve the North Glen Fourth Addition preliminary plat (received by the city on February 7, 1996). Before the city council approves the final plat, a developer shall complete the following conditions: 1. Sign an agreement with the city that guarantees that the developer or contractor will: a. Complete all grading for overall site drainage, complete all public improvements and meet all city requirements. b.* Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits. c. Pay the city for the cost of any traffic-control and street-identification signs. d. Provide all necessary easements. The developer shall complete all grading for public improvements and overall site drainage. The city engineer shall include in the developer's agreement any grading that the developer or contractor has not completed before final plat approval. Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall include: grading, utility, drainage, erosiOn control, tree, and street plans. The plans shall meet the following conditions: a. The erosion control plans shall be consistent with the city code. The grading plan shall: (1) Include proposed building pad elevation and contour information for each home. Co (2) Show sedimentation basins as required by the watershed board. (3) Show housing styles that reduce the grading on sites where the developer can save large trees. Provide a tree plan for the city engineer's approval before grading or final plat approval. This plan shall show where the developer will remove, save or replace large trees. This plan also must show the size, species and location of any trees that the developer will plant as replacement trees. All trees that the developer will plant shall be at least 2-1/2 inches in diameter. There shall be no tree removal beyond the approved grading and tree limits. The city engineer shall not approve the utility plans until after the North Saint Paul Engineer approves the plans. Change the plat as follows: a. Add drainage and utility easements as raquirad by the city engineer. b. Show drainage and utility easements along all property lines on the final plat. These easements shall be ten feet wide along the front and rear property lines and five feet wide along the side property lines. 3 5.* Provide all easements required by the city engineer, These shall include any drainage easements for the off-site drainage areas that this project would affect. If the developer decides to final plat part of the preliminary plat, the city may waive any conditions that do not apply to the final plat. *The developer must complete these conditions before the city issues a grading permit or approves the final plat. C. Approve front setbacks of 50 feet for Lots 1-5, North Glen Fourth Addition. CITIZEN COMMENTS We asked the nearby property owners for their opinion of these requests. We sent surveys to the property owners within 350 feet of the site. Out of 39 properties, we received 18 replies. 13 were for the requests, 3 were against, 1 had comments and 1 had no comment. Those for the requests had the following comments: 1. It will help the value and development of my area. (Anderson - 1965 Cope Avenue) 2. I am for this as long as Cope Avenue is not opened and made a through street from White Bear Avenue. (Hofacker - 1974 Cope Avenue) 3. Single-family homes on lots beats anything else you could put there. (Backer - 1986 Cope Avenue) 4. If the homes are comparable to the surrounding homes. (Hurt - 1994 Cope Avenue) 5. We do not want apartments going in or a warelTouset I am concerned about the developer though, as he caused us in the cul-de-sac to have liens on our homes. If it is for houses, we are for it. (Smith - 2284 Ariel Court) 6. I would rather have private homes than apartments or businesses in that area. (Kiffe - 2290 Adel Court) 7. I would rather see homes located there than commercial property. (McLeod - 2284 Jennifer Lane) 8. I would like to see single-family homes on this piece of property instead of a business or apartments. (Plan - 2303 7th Street) 9. We would rather see residential than commercial. (Caldwell - 2315 7th Street) 10. I would rather see it as residential rather than commercial/business. (Hellquist - 2321 7th Street) 11. It would be compatible with the homes to the south and east. The only alternative is more M-1 land. (Hillcrest Development - Minneapolis) Those against the requests had the following comments: This would displace a lot of wildlife we have living in the area. We like the open field. A park would be nice - there are a lot of children in the area. (Maiwurm - 1968 Cope Avenue) J We already lost a home to the City of North Saint Paul and we do not want it to happen to our new neighbors. We chose our new home because of all the woods behind us and we enjoy the wildlife and birds. The property should be left alone, the woods left intact, so we can continue to enjoy Mother Nature. There is too much development as it is and houses are being built too close together. Young families with children need space to grow, to learn 5 about nature and to share it with their children. Do not take that from them. (Henderson - 2283 Adel Court) We would like to see a natural barrier between the houses here and the highway. Sell it to the county and leave the property as a natural open space area. If this Marlo is the same guy that developed our properties here, be careful. We all had liens placed on our properties because he failed to pay for curb and gutter work that was done. Because of this, some of us had trouble refinancing. If I had not done the leg work myself with the attorneys, I would not have been able to refinance and get a better interest rate. The lot also looks like a very Iow place to build on. How is this going to effect our properties? If they level everything before they build, what happens to all the nice trees and shrubbery? All of us here would like to see if left a natural area. (Kaup - 2289 Ariel Court) We also received the following comments: We are OK with the project if you can get the occupants of the yellow house (in North Saint Paul) to clean it up. If not, we would let prospective, buyers know about the problems that may make them think twice about living there. What will happen to the drainage ravine behind our property? It is the drainage for the area in question - will the contractor fill it in? (Swanson - 2296 Ariel Court) 6 REFERENCE SITE DESCRIPTION Gross Area: Proposed Density: Existing land use: 2.25 acres 2.22 homes per acre Undeveloped SURROUNDING LAND USES North: East: South: West: Highway 36 north of Castle Avenue Single dwellings in North Saint Paul Water tower and single dwellings Undeveloped property that the city has planned and zoned M-1 (light manufacturing) PLANNING The existing R-1 (single dwellings) land use designation is for Iow density residential land uses like single dwellings. TREES There is a mix of trees on the site. These range from scrub shrubs and trees to large oak trees. Most of the large trees are in North Saint Paul. The city should require a tree plan before the developer grades the site. SOILS The Ramsey Soil and Water Conservation Distdct informed us that the soils on this site are suitable for development if the developer controls the erosion. The Distdct recommends that the developer get specific soils data before developing the site. CRITERIA FOR ZONING MAP CHANGE Findings for Rezoning Section 36-485 of the zoning code requires that the city council make the following findings to rezone property: The proposed change is consistent with the spidt, purpose and intent of the zoning code. The proposed change will not substantially injure or detract from the use of neighboring property or from the character of the neighborhood, and that the use of the property adjacent to the area included in the proposed change or plan is adequately safeguarded. The proposed change will serve the best interests and conveniences of the community, where applicable, and the public welfare. The proposed change would have no negative effect upon the logical, efficient, and economical extension of public services and facilities, such as public water, sewers, police and fire protection and schools. p:sec11/nglen4th.mem Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Property Line/Zoning Map 3. Proposed North Glen Fourth Addition Preliminary Plat 4. Proposed Grading and Drainage Plan 5. Proposed Utility Plan 6.2-6-96 letter from Marlo Cocchiarella 7. Zoning Map Change Resolution 8. Project Plans (separate attachment) ............... Attachment 1 DEUONT AVE:. ~I ~ · BROOKS AVE. Z Z W qu~ead Loke ~ AVE. LARK CT. AVE. O' 1700' 340~ AVE. ROSEWOOD AVE. N. AVE. S. RAMSEY COUNTY NURSING HOME A~ND FAiR GROU,N'D5 ALD~ CH GOODRICH GOLF' " 1 " SCA NORTH SAINT K IF, KT,~TO~ A~.. KIN l, I I .~l . LOCATION MAP 9 Attachment 2 {1 IPE AVENUE WATER' TOWER 13 LAURIE SE ROAD PROPERTY LINE / ZONING MAP 10 15 IE N Attachment 3 I I I I .L--I_/L / TYPk~L LOt I~LrTAIL u · moo PIMm'08~ Lm~di4. Oll41111PTWN · PAli~IJ. A AW · I~IOPOMO LIbL MSMIPTIOM · LOTI ! · · LOT AMi) Alia TAMII.ATI)N - LOTI I - · "~ ~ '" ' I DEVELOP I~T£: ,JA,'tUARy. lg9§ / L PlJJ. M~y PLAT SJu. PIt(~CT NO. thlO2-1~ ~ I Of 3 S~L'TS L PROPOSED PRELIMINARY PLAT 11 Attachment 4 ~ °"~~OOD DEVELOPMENT~_ ~ I1ATI[: JANUS, RY. 1996~' NORTH GLJJ4 FOURTH ADDmON PRELJ&INARY GR&DING & DRAINAGE PLAN S.U.I. PIK~J~C! Attachment 5 I '- ~ ' m "'~ I NGRTR ~ FOU~Tlt ADC)mON ,I ~ ~ ,,,,, M&PLSWOOD DEVELOPMENT ~ ,,. ~I / PIIILIIIARY UTI.rTY PLAN DATE: ,/4~NUAI~'Y. 1996 S.M.I. IHK~£CT NO. ~1302-150 SHEL'T UTILITY PLAN 13 3030 Granada Avenue North · Suite A Oakdale, Minnesota 55128 (612) 777-6869 Office (612) 777-8007 Fax February 6, 1996 Attachment 6 Mr. Ken Roberts Assistant City Planner City of Maplewood 1830 E. County Road B Maplewood, MN 55109 Dear Mr. Roberts: This letter will serve as our narrative summary of the request for rezoning on the parcel under consideration by your staff proposed as "North Glen 4th Addition." As you know, we are requesting that this property be rezoned from R-1 to R-I(S) and that the front yard setback be altered to allow for 50' setbacks. These requests are being made for the following reasons: First, the subject property's proximity to Highway 36 necessitates that we retail the lots at an extremely modest value. To achieve this end, the scaling of the lots to an average of 70' in width helps us to gain an additional lot in this project. (It is important to note that the overall square footage of each lot remains far in excess of even the R-1 requirements ). Second, the progression of higher density parcels as the proximity to the highways increase is a natural planning method that permeates most cities. The rezoning from R-1 to R-I(S) is a fairly mild request considering this issue and is certainly within the realm of reasonableness. Third, the increased setback from the frontage road will help relieve the noise generated from the highway. This is also a feature that will help to satisfy the requirements set forth by the FHA with regard to noise pollution standards. Fourth, when I originally asked for and was granted the rezoning on this site, the request for rezoning to R-1 from M-1 was never envisioned to be a restriction on our ability to finish the site with single family homes. We simply did not calculate the exact lot dimensions at the time these parcels were platted into outlots. 14 L4ND DEVELOPMENT ' CONSTRUCTION ' DESIGN CONSULTATION MN Builder License #1011 Finally, the 70' width will be more consistent with the 65' wide lots allowed by North St. Paul on the adjacent lots shown as parcels A & B on the preliminary plat. This consistency will provide for a more uniform site plan and, I think, a better looking project in the end. Ken, please'note that this preliminary plat,application is proposed with a request to reapportion the existing assessments on the property across the lots in the project equally. As you may be aware, once these lots are sold, whatever mortgage company is involved will demand the payoff of the assessment on each lot so as to accelerate the entire payoff of the outstanding assessments on these parcels. Thank you for your help in submitting this application. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call. B~/s/t Regards, , .. MJC/mc 15 Attachment 7 RESOLUTION: ZONING MAP CHANGE WHEREAS, Mado Cocchiarella applied for a change in the zoning map from R-1 (single dwellings) to R-I(S) (small-lot single dwellings). WHEREAS, this change applies to the property south of Castle Avenue east of White Bear Avenue. The legal description is: Outlots A and B, North Glen Third Addition, in SEC 11 TN 29 RN 22 (PINS 11-29-22-31-0049 and 0050). WHEREAS, the history of this change is as follows: 1. On March 4, 1996 the planning commission recommended that the city council approve the change. On March 25, 1996, the city council held a public hearing. The city staff published a notice in the Maplewood Review and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The council gave everyone at the hearing an opportunity to speak and present written statements. The council also considered reports and recommendations from the city staff and planning commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above-described change in the zoning map for the following reasons: 1. The proposed change is consistent with the spirit, purpose and intent of the zoning code. The proposed change will not substantially injure or detract from the use of neighboring property or from the character of the neighborhood, and that the use of the property adjacent to the area included in the proposed change or plan is adequately safeguarded. 3. The proposed change will serve the best interests and conveniences of the community, where applicable, and the public welfare. The proposed change would have no negative effect upon the logical, efficient, and economical extension of public services and facilities, such as public water, sewers, police and fire protection and schools. 5. The applicant is proposing to develop the site with small-lot single dwellings. The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on March 25, 1996. 16 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: DATE: City Manager Thomas Ekstrand, Associate Planner Conditional Use Permit- Hill-Murray High School Athletic Fields Expansion 2625 E. Larpenteur Avenue February 28, 1996 INTRODUCTION Project Description Richard L. Gray, of Toltz, King, Duvall, Anderson and Associates (TKDA), is requesting approval of the following changes and athletic field expans ons at Hill-Murray High School. Refer to the maps on pages 7-10, the letter on pages 11-13 and the plans (separate attachment). 1. Reshaping and expansion of the athletic fields. Construction of dugouts, fencing, backstops, bleachers, scoreboards, batting cages, resurfacing of the running-track with an all-weather rubberized surface, a bituminous walking/running path, a two-story concessions/storage building, a ten-foot-wide aggregate maintenance drive and a bituminous walk near the school. The applicant will later submit design plans for the two-story concessions/storage structure to the community design review board (CDRB) when it is time to construct this building. 3. Removal of the old storage building. The applicant is not proposing any new lighting poles at this time. They feel the existing poles will be sufficient. Work will commence in stages as funds allow. Request The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit (CUP). The code requires a CUP for schools. DISCUSSION Conditional Use Permit Hill-Murray currently does not have a CUP. The school was in existence (as Archbishop Murray High School) before the zoning code came into effect requiring a CUP. Approval of a CUP would bring the school into compliance with current requirements. Site Considerations The two sets of bleachers proposed by the southerly baseball and softball fields do not meet the required 30-foot setback from street right-of-way lines. The bleacher in the southwest corner of the site would be ten feet too close to Sterling Street. The bleacher by the parking lot entrance would be ten feet too close to Larpenteur Avenue. The applicant should revise the site plan to provide the required 30-foot setback. Neighbors' Concerns Traffic/Parking Several neighbors expressed problems with cars parked along Sterling Street and Larpenteur Avenue. Two neighbors suggested that there be a traffic signal installed at the intersection of Sterling Street and Larpenteur Avenue. Although there have been problems noted by some neighbors, signalization would be an extreme solution. The city council could require "no parking" signs posted on one or both sides of each street. Staff does not feel these measures are warranted at this time. The city staff will monitor this situation over the next year and report back to the city council at the time of the annual review. The applicant said that the redesigning of the athletic fields would not cause an increase in the amount of scheduled game play. The grounds would be used more, for gym classes due to the increase in organized space available. Wetland disturbance and encroachment. There was a loss of wildlife habitat and tree loss. Hill-Murray should replant trees to reduce eound and light levels and provide wildlife habitat. The applicant has already graded the site. This grading was allowed by a permit granted by the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District. According to Cliff Aichinger and Pat Conrad of the watershed district, the school must still correct some erosion. There is no more grading proposed. Hill-Murray did their grading before they submitted their CUP request. Had they submitted their grading plans along with their development proposal, the city would have requ. ired that they provide a tree-removal/replacement plan. At this time it is impossible to tell how many "significant" trees were removed. (Code considers oaks, ash and maples to be significant trees- poplar, cottonwood and boxelder are not considered to be desirable trees.) The code does have a provision for screening. Some of the neighbors on Knoll Circle to the northwest asked that the school plant trees for screening from the athletic fields and for wildlife habitat. The council should require the school to plant 30 trees for screening between the new playing fields and the homes on Knoll Circle. Pat Conrad of the watershed district said that the adjacent wetlands are classified as a Class 3 wetland. This means that (he applicant must dedicate and provide a 50-foot-wide wetland- protection buffer adjacent to the wetland. Wetland buffers must allow for natural, unmowed grass growth. That part of the site that is already mowed lawn is exempt and may remain as it is. The code also requires that the school post signs at the wetland buffer stating that there shall be no mowing, cuffing, filling or dumping beyond this point. The proposed bituminous trail would not be allowed within the buffer-a trail of a pervious material would be allowed. 3. Litter complaints. Bob Wenger, the Maplewood Health Official, said he occasionally gets complaints about people dumping debris in the weeds around Sterling Street and Larpenteur Avenue. However, he has not received any calls about persons attending athletic field activities causing litter. 4. Noise complaints. Athletic field activities cause noise. Evening noise can particularly be a nuisance. Any noise problems stemming from athletic field activity should be reported to the police department. However, through the permit renewal process we can monitor and adjust the permit conditions if necessary, if a noise problem exists. RECOMMENDATIONS Adopt the resolution on pages 15-16. This resolution approves a conditional use permit for a school and related athletic fields at 2625 E. Larpenteur Avenue. Approval is based on the findings required by ordinance and subject to the following conditions: 1. All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city date-stamped February 1, 1996. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 2. The city council shall review this permit in one year to monitor traffic and parking problems related to athletic field usage. o Any new lights shall be installed according to the code so they are screened or aimed so they do not cause any light glare problems. Dedicate and record a 50-foot-wide wetland-protection buffer easement. This easement shall describe the boundary of the buffer and prohibit any building, mowing, cutting, filling or dumping within the buffer. The property owner shall submit a revised site plan for staff approval if wetland-buffer compliance results in any site plan changes. The part of this wetland buffer area that is already mowed lawn may remain as such. Post signs on the edge of the wetland-protection buffer prohibiting any building, mowing, cutting, filling or dumping with the buffer. Wetland buffer signs in the mowed area shall be placed at the edge of the lawn. That portion of the proposed walking/running path within the wetland buffer shall be of a pervious material or the path shall be kept outside of the buffer. Revise the site plan for staff approval providing a 30-foot setback for the proposed ~bleachers from Sterling Street and Larpenteur Avenue. CITIZENS' COMMENTS I surveyed owners of the 40 properties within 350 feet of this site. Of the 14 replies, five were in favor, four objected, four replied with miscellaneous comments and one had no comment. In Favor 1. It shows a willingness to compromise on the part of Hill-Murray High School. They will do a lot within a confined space. My only suggestion is that Hill-Murray should try to keep parking and traffic on Sterling Street to a minimum. If traffic overlaps onto our residential streets they can expect a great many complaints. Our streets must remain safe for our children. The students already use excessive speed and fail to honor the stop sign on Sterling and Ripley. This would be a great place for a traffic camera! (Bull, 2478 Ripley Avenue) 2. I am in favor as long as the trees in the N.W. corner of the property remain. There are large mature oak and that area acts as a sound barrier to some school activities. (Hanson, 2508 Knoll Circle) 3. There is a need for more fields to accommodate the athletic needs of both the girls and boys. (St. Paul's Priory, 2675 Larpenteur Avenue) 4. I am in favor because of the increased demand for additional athletic fields. (Biagini, 2531 Idaho Avenue) Opposed It appears to me this is already a done deal. (1) I would strongly suggest the steed hills by the practice fields be planted with trees and shrubs (sound barrier as well as preventing a washout). (2) Block off Sterling so the traffic flow doesn't get ~ny more dan(3erous than it is now. (Brennhofer, 2514 Knoll Circle) This would destroy nature and the environment. I would like to see the environment stay as it is natural. I think developing this land and changing it from its natural habitat is a mistake. I would like to see walking trails developed. (Esho-Jefferson, 1822 Sterling Street) i object because wetlands are 1) kids drinking too much, cans in yard. Run over my lawn. For we could build that nice parking under ground with water over the top. Wouldn't that be pretty. Then the beer cans and the party. Frankly its too busy now! (Marion, 2488 Ripley Avenue) 4. Parking- Sterling Avenue So. Larpenteur. (Carlson, 1659 Steding Street) Miscellaneous Comments 1. A "stop light" needs to be put on Sterling and Larpenteur! Especially when there is a game or any activity. The people on Larpenteur and those of us on Sterling can't even get on to z~ Larpenteur. It is very dangerous to finally take a chance and dart out between cars -even when they start school and let out school. I fear the consequences of the traffic. Is anything being planned for sound barriers? (anonymous) 2. Re: Athletic games: Please get"parking" and do not park on Larpenteur and Sterling. It is too dangerous. Get a stop light at Sterling and Larpenteur. Thank you. (anonymous) We do not object, but are concerned about the parking conditions. We, being the owners of property at Larpenteur and Sterling (1673 Sterling) have witnessed our street lined with cars bumper to bumper during certain sporting events and that our driveway is used as a turnaround by most cars looking for .parking space. As you know, Sterling has no outlet which is clearly posted on a street sign. During football (late games) these cars make quite a bit of noise upon leaving. After late games - some younger attendees, students perhaps - leave their trash, pop cans, McDonald bags, beer cans lying on the ground and is sometimes tossed in the pond. Cars are left until late hours and loud cars wake us, since our windows are generally open in the evening and late night. Over the years the pond has become a dumping ground and has lost its appeal. I have called the city, county and state and nobody knows who owns this land to request clean up. Perhaps ' you can help on this matter as well. Again, we do not object to your new plan. We enjoy watching the softball and baseball on Sunday afternoons from our driveway. We are only concerned. (Hansen, 1673 Sterling Street) 4. Refer to the letter on page 14. (Green, 2507 Knoll Circle) REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Site size: 20 acres (athletic fields) Existing land use: Hill-Murray School High School and athletic fields SURROUNDING LAND USES North: South: West: East: Single dwellings and undeveloped property zoned F (farm residential) Larpenteur Avenue and single dwellings Sterling Street, ponds and The Maplewoods Apartments St. Paul's Priory PAST ACTION August 24, 1992: Council approved a sign size variance for a 99-square-foot wall sign for Hill-Murray. Code allowed 24 square feet. PLANNING Land Use Plan designation: S (school) Zoning: R-3 (multiple dwelling residential) Ordinance requirements Section 36-437(3) requires a CUP for schools. Section 36-448(b) requires a CUP to enlarge a use for which a CUP is required. Section 36-442(a) requires that the city council base approval of a CUP on ten standards. the resolution on pages 15-16. Refer to p:sec13-29~hiltmury.cup Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Land Use Plan Map 3, Property Line/Zoning Map 4. Site Plan 5. Letter of request dated January 29, 1996 6, Letter from Kevin Green dated February 19, 1996 7. CUP Resolution 8. Plans date-stamped February 1, 1996 (separate attachments) 6 Attachment 1 NORTH S~'.~'r ~z',' ~ ~!w~/ ~ ~,~ LOCATION MAP 7 Attachment 2 P )R'T'H SAtN'T Nortl~ St. I)auI RoeCl collector OS major arter&&l OS R-1 O$ Knight OS HILLSIDE NEIGHBORHOOD LAND USE PLAN 8 Attachmen~ 3 RIPLEY TA'T LU I-I-M il IJIJl. ml II ~£. gDAHO ,~ j;~.~,2520 1654 R3 R3 3 ST. PAUL'S PRIORY HILL-MURRAY HIGH SCHOOL 2580 17 AVE. F JR AVENUE-- MAPLEWOOD R3 OPEN SPACE PROPERTY LINE I ZONING MAP 9 Attachment 4 FUTURE TWO-STORY STORAGE/CONCESSIONS BUILDING WETLAND REMOVE EXISTING STORAGE LARPENTEUR Av~ENUE "' HILL-MURRAY SCHOOL PROPOSED HILL-MURRAY ATHLETIC FIELD CHANGES SITE PLAN 10 N TKDA ENGINEERS · ARCHITECTS · PLANNERS Sanuary29,1996 FEB 0 1 1996 'r.~ LT,.Z,.~I~ LN.(3...~U ~ & L.L4 ~.N~.E RSON AND ASSOCIATES, INCORPORATED 1500 PIPER JAFFRAY PLAZA 444 CEDAR STREET SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA 55101.2140 PHONE~I 2/292-4400 FAX:$12/292-0083 Tom Ekstrand Associate Phumer City of Maplewood 1830 E. County Road B Maplewood, MN 55109 Re: Hill-Murray School Outdoor Athletic Facilities Master Plan Cmrununity Design Review Board Application Conditional Use Application TKDA Comm. No. 10872-02 Attachment 5 Dear Mr. Ekstrand: Please find enclosed a Community Design Review Board Application, a Conditional Use Application m}d 14 sets of plans (Site Plan and Grading and Drainage Plan) for the Hill-Murray School Outdoor Athletic Facilities Master Plan. Also enclosed are stom~ sewer design tabulations with a corresponding plan sheet showing the subwatershed breakdown, a list of adjacent property owners and their addresses and a check for $730 ($311 for the Community Design Review Board Application, $404 for the Conditional Use Application and $15 for the County Recording Fee). Hill-Murray School presently has a greater demand for outdoor athletic fields than it has facilities to accommodate the demand. Because of the shortage of athletic fields, Hill-Murray h~curs significant costs to bus students to remote fields. A recently completed strategic plmmfl~g process indicates that current enrollment is expected to increase by more than 25% by tile year 2000. This will create even greater demand for outdoor athletic facilities. To better accommodate both current and anticipated demands, the enclosed Master Plan was developed to maximize the number of fields possible within the existing site constraints. The plan was prepared to form the framework within which individual projects can be implemented. The Master Plan represents ulthnate site development achieved through several phases. The tflning and extent of each phase will be dependent in part on funding. The area north of the existing track and performance football field is regraded to create a level area for a new softball and practice football field. As I believe you are aware, most of this const~l~ction has already occurred in 1995. It involved filling of a small wetland and compensatory, wetland creation adjacent to an existing larger wetland. 11 An Equal Opportunl~, Employer Mr. Ekstrand City of Maplewood January 29, 1996 Page 2 The Master l'lan proposes a reconfiguration of atlfletic fields in the existing sports field area bounded by Larpenteur Avenue, Sterling Street, the school parking lot and the existing wetlands. The fall sports fields ffootball and soccer) overlap the outfields of the softball and baseball fields. This maximizes the potential use of this limited space during each season. l'lans anticipate a new 6-lane all weather surface track to replace the existing 6-lane crashed brick track sun'ounding Higgins Field, the existing performance football field. Higgins Field will also be upgraded to include a subsurface ch'ainage system, irrigation and possibly a special rapid drain soil composition. Subsurface drainage systems, irrigation and special soil mixtures may be incorporated in the construction of the other fields also, depending upon available funds. A new two-story Storage/Concession Building is proposed off the SW comer of the track. The ground floor would open to the southwest and would be used for storing various maintenance equipment such as lawn mowhlg equipment and vehicles. The second story would open to the Northeast mid would be used for concessions and for storing various athletic equipment. A walkh~g/rurming path encircling the entire school and athletic field campus will complete the development. Proposed grades do not exceed 5% to maintain accessibility. Aflfletics anti physical education are the intended uses for the proposed project area. Those are the san~e activities which occur here presently, only they will be performed on expm~ded and improved facilities. This project will have very minimal impact on surrounding properties. Adjacent residents are buffered from the athletic activities by an expanse of wetland mid a wooded knob of land on the northwest comer of the property. Access to the site will remain off of Larpenteur Avenue and existing pm'king facilities will not be altered. While the athletic facilities have been ezpmided slightly, very n~inimal vehicular traffic impact is arlficipated on local streets. Most of the activities taking place on the hnproved athletic facilities will involve students already on cmnpus and bus traffic should be lower due to a reduction in the need to bus students to and fi'om remote atliletic facilities. No hicrease in public services or facilities will be required as a result of this project. The main envixonmental impact of this project is the filling of a small wetland northwest of the e,xisth~g track. This work was accomplished in the Fall of 1995. Hill-Murray School worked with Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District to creme replacement wetlands to compensate for this loss of wetland. Mr. Ekstrand City of Maplewood January 29, 1996 Page 3 In surmnary, we believe implementation of the proposed Master Plan will be a positive addition to the Conmmnity and believe that there will be no significant ~gative impacts resulth~g from these improvements. Hill-Murray School asks that you approve this request for a Conditional Use Pemfit. If you have any questions, please contact me at 292-4420 or Jim Westerhaus at 293-2183. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, RLG:mk Enclosures CC: Patrick Conrad, Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District Joseph M. Peschges, Pres., Hill-Murray Tom Kingston, Board of Trustees Erh~ llerman, Atlfletic Director Jim Westerhaus, Pres., Hill-Murray Fathers Club Todd Kearby, Braun huertec Corp. Larry Morgan, TKDA 13 - _ 2-19-96 ~ttachment 6 Tom Ekstrand Associate Planner City Of Maplewood 1830 E. County Road B Maplewood, MN 55109 RE: Hill Murray High School conditional use permit I do not object to the proposal, but would like to give some comments. I fred it confusing that work has started on this project already. Some very nice land has been stripped of trees, leveled, and filled. I routinely saw deer, fox, and an owl in this area a few years ago. I am sorry to see some of there habitat leveled. With the changes made already I have noticed an increase in the sound level, light level, and view of the games that are played on Higgins Field. In Mr. Gray's note it is stated that a buffer exists to the north of the property. A large number of trees were in this buffer, but now are gone. I would like to see a plan to replant a buffer to reduce the sound and light levels in our neighborhood. Also, this new cover could provide habitat for animals in the area. Thank you for the opportunity to express my views. Kevin Green 2507 Knoll Cir. Maplewood, MN 55109 14 Attachment 7 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Hill-Murray High School has requested a conditional use permit for a school and related athletic fields. WHEREAS, this permit applies to 2625 E. Larpenteur Avenue. The legal description is: Part of the S 1/2 of the SE 1/4 of S 13, T 29N, R22W, Ramsey County, MN WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: 1. On council ., 1996, the planning commission recommended that the city this permit. The city council held a public hearing on ,1996. 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. 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. 15 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. 10. The city council may waive any of the above requirements for a public building or utility structure, provided the council shall first make a determination that the balancing of public interest between governmental units of the state would be best served by such waiver. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city date-stamped February 1, 1996. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 2. The city council shall review this permit in one year to monitor traffic and parking problems related to athletic field usage. 3. Any new lights shall be installed according to the code so they are screened or aimed so they do not cause any light glare problems. 4. Dedicate and record a 50-foot-wide wetland-protection buffer easement. This easement shall describe the boundary of the buffer and prohibit any building, mowing, cutting, filling or dumping within the buffer. The property owner shall submit a revised site plan for staff approval if wetland-buffer compliance results in any site plan changes. The part of this wetland buffer area that is already mowed lawn may remain as such. o Post signs on the edge of the wetland-protection buffer Prohibiting any building, mowing, cutting, filling or dumping with the buffer. Wetland buffer signs in the mowed area shall be placed at the edge of the lawn. 6. That portion of the proposed Walking/running path within the wetland buffer shall be of a pervious material or the path shall be kept outside of the buffer. Revise the site plan for staff approval providing a 30-foot setback for the proposed bleachers from Sterling Street and Larpenteur Avenue. Approved by the Maplewood City Council on .__,1996.