Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/03/1996MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, June 3, 1996 7:00 PM City Hall Council Chambers 1830 County Road B East Call to Order Roll Call Approval of Minutes a. May 21, 1996 4. Approval of Agenda 5. New Business a. MDG Office/Warehouse Building Conditional Use Permit - Cope Avenue b. Goodrich Golf Dome Conditional Use Permit - Ripley Avenue and Van Dyke Street c. Saint Paul Water Utility Conditional Use Permit - 1900 Rice Street 6. Visitor Presentations 7. Commission Presentations a. June 10 Council Meeting: Ms. Ericson 8. Staff Presentations 9. Adjoumment WELCOME TO THIS MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION This outline has been prepared to help you understand the public meeting process. The review of an item usually takes the following form: The chairperson of the meeting will announce the item to be reviewed and ask for the staff report on the subject. Staff presents their report on the matter. The Commission will then ask City staff questions about the proposal. The chairperson will then ask the audience if there is anyone present who wishes to comment on the proposal. This is the time for the public to make comments or ask questions about the proposal. Please step up to the podium, speak clearly, first giving your name and address and then your comments. After everyone in the audience wishing to speak has given his or her comments, the chairperson will close the public discussion portion of the meeting. The Commission will then discuss the proposal. No further public comments are allowed. The Commission will then make its recommendation or decision. All decisions by the Planning Commission are recommendations to the City Council. The City Council makes the final decision. jw/pc~pcagd Revised: 01/95 MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, MAY 21, 1996 Call to Order Chairman Axdahl called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Commissioner Lester Axdahl Commissioner Bunny Brueggeman Commlssmner Barbara Ericson Commissioner Lorraine Fischer Comm~ssmner Jack Frost Commissioner Kevin Kittridge Commissioner Dave Kopesky Commissioner Gary Pearson Commissioner William Rossbach Commissioner Milo Thompson III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Absent Present Present Commissioner Frost moved approval of the amended minutes of April 15, 1996, removing "Commissioner Fischer seconded. Ayes-all" from Item II1. Approval of Minutes. Commissioner Rossbach seconded. Ayes-Axdahl, Brueggeman, Ericson, Fischer, Frost Kopesky, Rossbach, Thompson Abstention-Kittridge The motion passed. IV. APPROVAL OFAGENDA Commissioner Fischer moved approval of the agenda as submitted. Commissioner Rossbach seconded. Ayes-all The motion passed. V. PUBLIC HEARING Ao Heather Ridge (Ariel Street and Highway 36)---Land Use Plan Change (R-3M to BC-M), Zoning Map Change (R-3 to BC-M), and Conditional Use Permit Ken Roberts, associate planner, read the public hearing notice and presented the staff report. Mr. Roberts answered questions from the commission. Hank Breems was present representing Gary Mulcahy, the applicant. Mr. Breems displayed a model of the proposed office complex. Commissioner Rossbach questioned comments by staff and the developer about a commercial development with a "residential feel." Mr. Breems responded that, as a developer and as far as the city was concerned, they were looking at the highest and best use of the land. He gave some comparisons between residential and commercial. Planning Commission Minutes of 05-21-96 -2- Commissioner Axdahl asked about the view to the west over these buildings. Mr. Breems said they were limited on the west side of the site because of the slope and watershed district concerns. He added that the developer is open to city landscaping recommendations. Jim DeBenedet, civil engineer, Ray Raffel, architect, Jim Benshoof, traffic engineer, and Sid Lindahl of Mulcahy, Inc. were also present for the applicant. Chairperson Axdahl asked for comments from the public. There were no comments so the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Rossbach said he thought the staff report was very opinionated. He further stated that he felt that every opportunity for comment in the report was "slanted toward" the side of the applicant. As an example, he mentioned the references to "how residential" the developer was trying to make everything look. Mr. Rossbach also alluded to various items in the staff recommendation that he felt were strictly opinion and not fact. Mr. Rossbach said the increased traffic and the increased impervious surface on the top of the hill (199 parking spaces as opposed to approximately 60 for a residential development) were definitely concerns that needed to be considered. He spoke about the requirement for screening of the roof-top equipment on the office complex but not for the Cub Foods and Home Depot buildings. Mr. Rossbach felt creating a buffer from the Cub Foods/Home Depot retail development was not as great a concern because of the elevations. Mr. Rossbach said R-3 was still the best use for this area. Commissioner Thompson said the skimmer booms in the stormwater ponding area have not been functioning, and he expressed concern about adding more runoff to an already existing problem. Commissioner Fischer originally had no problem with this site as residential, but, after observing the view of the commercial rooftops from the area, she thought the appropriate qualities for residential development were definitely lacking. Melinda Coleman, director of community development, responded to Commissioner Rossbach's comments. She said it was a difficult project to review, and staff gave careful consideration. Factors such as surrounding land uses, the City of North St. Paul's opinion that the increased traffic was not a major concern, and the benefit to the area of only having the increased traffic from 8-5 p.m., not evenings and weekends, influenced the staff recommendation. Ms. Coleman added that "planning is not always black and white," and sometimes.has to be an opinion. Commissioner Frost said he agreed with Commissioner Fischer that the view overlooking the retail area was definitely not favorable for residential development. Commissioner Fischer moved the Planning Commission recommend: Adoption of the resolution which approves a land use plan change from R-3(M), multiple dwelling residential (medium density) to BC(M), business commercial (modified). Approval is based on the following reasons: 1. It would be consistent with the comprehensive plan's goals and policies. The BC(M) land use classification would be a better transition than the R-3(M) classification between the heavier-commercial BC (business commercial) classification to the west and the multiple-dwellings to the east. 3. The BC(M) classification would be compatible with the adjacent residential development to the east. Planning Commission Minutes of 05-21-96 -3- Adoption of the resolution which approves the zone change from R-3, multiple dwelling residential to BC(M), business commercial (modified). Approval is based on the findings required by code in addition to the following reasons: BC(M) zoning would be a better trensition than R-3 zoning between the heavier- commercial BC (business commercial) zoning to the west and the multiple-dwellings to the east. 2. BC(M) zoning would be compatible with the adjacent residential development to the east. Co Adoption of the resolution which approves a conditional use permit for construction on a parcel designated as an outlot. Approval is based on the findings required by the code and subject to the following conditions: 1. All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city. The director of community development may approve minor changes. The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the permit shall become null and void. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 3. The city council shall review this.permit in one year. Do Approval of the site plan (date-stamped May 10, 1996) and the building elevations and landscape plans (date-stamped March 18, 1996) for the Heather Ridge development, based on the findings required by the code. The developer shall do the following: 1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. 2. Complete the following before the city issues a building permit: a. Provide a revised landscape plan to staff for approval moving the trees proposed east of the buildings to the Ariel Street frontage. bo Provide a street easement to the 'city engineer for the proposed cul-de-sac in the southeast comer of the site. The exact description of this easement is subject to the city engineer's approval. Submit a grading, drainage, utility and erosion control plan to the city engineer for approval. The erosion control plan shall be consistent with the Ramsey Soil and Water Conservation District Erosion Control Handbook. The grading, drainage and erosion control plans shall also be subject to the approval of the Ramsey/Washington Metro Watershed District. Any minor site plan changes resulting from the review of the grading plan shall be subject to staff approval. Any major site plan changes shall be subject to the approval of the community design review board or the city council if a variance is needed. e. Provide another trash enclosure at the north end of the parking lot. The location of this shall be subject to staff approval. The design of the trash enclosures shall be Planning Commission Minutes of 05-21-96 submitted to staff for approval. The trash enclosures shall be brick to match the buildings and have closeable gates. f. Provide a lawn-irrigation plan showing the location of sprinkler heads. g. Provide a certificate of survey. h. Pay the City of Maplewood $5,487.25 to share in the cost of that part the Ariel Street construction next to Outlot A lying north of 9th Avenue. 3. Complete the following before occupying the first building of Phase I: a. Restore and sod damaged boulevards. b. Install a handicap-parking sign for each handicap-parking space and building addresses. c. Screen any roof-mounted equipment visible from streets or adjacent property. d. Install the in-ground sprinkler system. The parking lot shall have continuous concrete curbing. This also applies to the north edge of the Phase I parking lot Which must be curbed (code requirement). The applicant shall also provide a looped drive aisle or a turnaround for each drive aisle at the northerly termination of the Phase I parking lot. 5. If any required work is not done at the completion of each building, 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. The city may postpone this escrow requirement for a particular building if work is in progress on a subsequent building, or subsequent buildings, in this project. 6. This approval does not include the signs. The applicant shall submit a comprehensive sign plan for this complex. 7. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. Commissioner Frost seconded. Ayes-Axdahl, Fischer, Kopesky, Frost, Kittridge, Thompson, Brueggeman, Ericson Nays-Rossbach The motion passed. Planning Commission Minutes of 05-21-96 -5- IV. NEW BUSINESS A. North Glen Fourth Addition Revised Preliminary Plat Ken Roberts, associate planner,' presented the staff report. Mario Cocchiarella, of Maplewood Development, Inc., was present. Mr. Cocchiarella had no comment. Commissioner Frost moved the Planning Commission recommend: Approval of the North Glen Fourth Addition preliminary plat (received by the city on April 22, 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. b. The grading plan shall: (1) Include proposed building pad elevation and contour information for each home. (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. d. The city engineer shall not approve the utility plans until after the North Saint Paul Engineer approves the plans. Planning Commission Minutes of 05-21-96 -6- 4. Change the plat as follows: a. Add drainage and utility easements as required by the city engineer. 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. 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. Commissioner Rossbach seconded. *The developer must complete these conditions before the city issues a grading permit or approves the final plat. Approval of the front setbacks of 50 feet for Lots 1-4, North Glen Fourth Addition. Ayes-all Commissioner Frost seconded. The motion passed. C. Adoption drainage B. Adoption drainage A. Adoption drainage Tax-Forfeited Properties Ken Roberts, associate planner, presented the staff report. Mr. Roberts answered questions from the commission. Ken Haider, director of public works, answered questions on the lost assessments for these parcels. Mr. Haider also said that, for at least the last twenty-five years, the city has taken any available tax-forfeit property with water on it for ponding purposes. Any maintenance on these parcels is usually done by the city's public works department. Commissioner Fischer moved the Planning Commission recommend: of the resolution which requests that the county convey Site One to the city for and ponding purposes. of the resolution which requests that the county convey Site Two to the city for and ponding purposes. of the resolution which requests that the county convey Site Three to the city for and ponding purposes. Ayes-all Metropolitan Livable Communities Act--Housing Action Plan Ken Roberts, associate planner, presented the staff report. Mr. Roberts answered questions from the commission. The motion passed. Planning Commission Minutes of 05-21-96 -7- Commissioner Kittridge moved the Planning Commission recommend adoption of the 1996 Maplewood Housing Action Plan. Commissioner Brueggeman seconded. Ayes-all The motion passed. VII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS There were no visitor presentations. VIII. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS April 22 City Council Meeting: May 13 City Council Meeting: May 20 City Council Meeting: Mr. Roberts reported on this meeting. Mr. Roberts reported on this meeting. Mr. Roberts reported on this meeting. Commissioner Edcson will be the commission representative at the June 10, 1996, council meeting. IX. STAFF PRESENTATIONS A. Summer Tour Ken Roberts, associate planner, reported on the planned summer tour of Maplewood by the council and vadous commissions. This will be held on Monday, July 29, 1996, between 5:30 and 8:30 p.m. The plan is to have one bus with appropriate commentary by various staff members. B. Ramsey County Fair Ken Roberts, associate planner, presented a memorandum from Craig Dawson, Maplewood assistant city manager. The city had asked if there was interest on the part of the different advisory boards in staffing an information booth at the Ramsey County Fair in July. The commission discussed this offer and will notify Mr. Dawson directly of their preference. There was discussion about the items being stored in the parking lot at the new Home Depot store at 2360 White Bear Avenue North. X. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 9 p.m. MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: City Manager Thomas Ekstrand, Associate Planner Conditional Uae Permit and Design Review- MDG Properties Building May 21, 1996 INTRODUCTION Project Description Mike McGrath and Gary May are proposing to build a 37,000-square-foot office/warehouse/ manufacturing facility on Cope Avenue east of the Comer Kick Soccer Center. Refer to the maps on pages 9 and 10. The proposed building would be constructed of precast concrete panels and bdck. The building would be 22 feet tall. Refer to the site plan on page11, the letters of explanation on pages 13 and 14 and the building elevations (separate attachment). Part of this building would be used for the fabrication and storage of metal roofing materials. The building would also be used for clothing storage and distribution. Mr. McGrath said that there would not be any outside storage of materials. The applicants have a grading and fill permit and are preparing the site for development. Requests The applicants are requesting: A conditional use permit (CUP) because the addition would be 72 feet from the residential district to the south (the center of Cope Avenue). Code requires a CUP for buildings in a M-1 (light manufacturing) distdct that would be closer than 350 feet to a residential district. 2. Approval of plans. DISCUSSION Conditional Use Permit The proposed building, with its office, storage and manufacturing uses, conforms with the requirements of the M-1 district. The issue, however, is what safeguards should the city require to protect the residential neighbors because of the building's proximity to the residential district. The main concern that the neighbors expressed was about traffic to and from this site. Mr. McGrath told me that all deliveries would take place during normal business hours Monday through Friday from 7 a.m. to 5 p.m. Deliveries would be by trucks ranging from pickup trucks to one-ton (gross vehicle weight) trucks. There would be a semi-truck delivery about once a week. They are not open evenings or weekends. Several neighbors said that there is already too much traffic on Cope Avenue for a residential neighborhood. Cope Avenue is classified as a minor arterial roadway in the comprehensive plan. Minor arterials are commercial-grade roadways intended to connect collector streets (neighborhood streets) with major arterial roadways. Minor collector roadways are intended to carry 7,000 plus vehicle trips per day.. The traffic count on this part of Cope Avenue shows that there are currently 2,808 vehicle trips per day in a 24-hour period. Landscaping/Screening The loss of aesthetic appeal from the trail was a concern by some neighbors. The proposed building would be well screened from the west by the existing stand of trees next to the trail. The screening from the homes on the south side of Cope Avenue is the main concern. The existing trees are rather large but do not create a very neat planting scheme. However, some of these trees could be retained to supplement the proposed landscaping. In general, the applicant should add to the landscaping proposed along the street frontage to provide a thicker buffer for the homes across Cope Avenue. The applicants should also sod the pdmary visible areas instead of seeding them. These are the Highway 36 frontage, the Cope Avenue frontage and the side lot lines to a point 100 feet north from the south edge of the site. The city council has established a landscape policy prohibiting amur maples--either in tree or shrub form. The applicants should revise the plan to substitute the amurs with another planting. Building Design The applicants should revise the building exterior to extend the brick and metal roof detail on the south elevation and wrap it around onto the west elevation as it does on the north end of the building. The south elevation is the most important side from an aesthetic standpoint because of the homes across Cope Avenue. Strict attention should be paid to this end of the building. The Highway 36 side may be the focus of the building's identity, but building aesthetics on the south side facing the residents should be of prime importance. Parking The applicants should revise the site plan to provide four handicap parking spaces to meet ADA (American's with Disabilities ACt) requirements. One space must be van accessible. RECOMMENDATION Ao Adopt the resolution on pages 15-17. This resolution approves a conditional use permit for a building in a M-1 (light manufacturing) district to be closer than 350 feet to a residential district. Approval is based on the findings required by code and subject to the following conditions: 1. Ail 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. 4. There shall be no outdoor storage of any materials or equipment without approval of a revised conditional use permit by the city council. Approve the plans (stamped April 22, 1996) for the MDG Properties building on Cope Avenue, subject to the findings required by the code. The property owner shall do the following: 1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. 2. Provide following for staff approval before the city issues a building permit: a. A grading, drainage, utility and erosion control plan to the city engineer for approval. The erosion control plan shall comply with ordinance requirements. b. A lawn-irrigation plan for all landscaped areas showing the location of sprinkler heads. c. A certificate of survey of the property. d. A revised landscape plan providing the following: 1) Sod, instead of seed for the Highway 36 frontage, the Cope Avenue frontage and along the side lot lines a distance of 100 feet from the south property line. 2) Substitution of the amur maples with another plant type. 3) More trees along the Cope Avenue frontage using Austrian Pines primarily for winter coverage. This plan may include the preservation of some of the existing trees along the southerly frontage.. e. Revised building elevations extending the brick and metal roof detail along the south elevation and wrapping it around the west elevation to the first garage door. f. A revised site plan providing for: 1) Four handicap parking spaces. At least one space must be van accessible. 2) Site-security lighting. 3. Complete the following before occupying the building: 3 o a. Replace property irons that are removed because of this construction. b. Restore and sod-damaged boulevards. c. Install handicap-parking signs for each handicap-parking space and an address on the building. Each tenant shall also be identified for public safety purposes. d. Screen all roof-mounted equipment visible from streets or adjacent property. e. Construct a trash dumpster enclosure if there will be any outdoor storage of refuse. The enclosures must match the building in color and materials. There must be a closeable gate that is 100% opaque. f. Install an in-ground sprinkler system for all landscaped areas. 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. The director of community development may All work shall follow the approved plans. approve minor changes. CITIZENS' COMMENTS I surveyed owners of the 27 preperties within 350 feet of this site. Of the nine replies, two were in favor and seven objected. In Favor 1. Good use of property. (Meyer, 2493 Orchard Lane, White Bear Lake) 2. It is congruent with existing structures on north side of Cope. (Doll, 2255 Ide Court) Opposed I object because of the increased traffic, including truck traffic that would cause a preblem for noise and also for the increased hazard to walk and bike traffic on the trail. I don't believe there should be any more commercial development in this area with the residential so close and because of the proximity to the trail. It would spoil that portion of the trail which I use all the time. I would like to see a park-type area with benches, trees and maybe a fountain. This would make a nice resting spot along the trail for families, etc. Thank you. (Sturm, 2251 Ide Court) It would increase traffic volume on Cope. Not just volume but the people who drive Cope-drive way too fast. Noone drives the speed limit and you take your life in your hands just crossing the street to get your mail. I would like to see the building set back from Cope also for esthetic reasons. (Kruchowski, 1410 Cope Avenue) We already have enough traffic going through this neighborhood living by the state trail. This is a residential district we don't need the added noise. Professional offices would be OK. A warehouse is not acceptable because of the large trucks going in and out at all hours of the night. Also the size of vehicles like a semi should not be going on residential streets. (Stepnick, 2250 Ide Court) High truck traffic. An office building would be ok (cars only). It would be better if you could have trucks and cars using Highway 36 as entrance instead of Cope Avenue. Too many children using the new bike and foot pathway. Also a lot of trucks from Nemis Newman Company already and heavy traffic from soccer center. (Cardenas, 2261 Birmingham Street) o Creates more traffic, less trees for viewing, trees are better than concrete any way you look at it. Plant huge trees so we can't see the building. Plus, buy residents trees to plant in front of their houses. (Sanada, 1404 Cope Avenue) a) Depreciates value of homes; b) Also too much traffic With soccer club and noise not controlled well. Establish senior residences instead. Should build a service road parallel with Highway 36 to eliminate some of this traffic. (Nelson, 1356 Cope Avenue) 5 Cope Avenue already has a lot of traffic the additional traffic would be too much. We moved to Cope Avenue in January of this year. Cope Avenue is a heavily traveled street with no sidewalks for people walking. We feel that 20 trucks driving in and out would be too much noise as well as a danger to the people in our neighborhood. Many people walk down Cope to get to the walking trails, for some children it is their only route to Weaver Elementary School. We feel a building/warehouse without so much traffic would be ok. The Nimis Newman building is a perfect example of an acceptable amount of traffic We hope you can take our thoughts and children into consideration when making your decision. Thank you. (Steele, 1392 Cope Avenue) 6 REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Site size: 2.61 acres Existing land use: undeveloped SURROUNDING LAND USES North: Highway 36 South: Cope Avenue and single dwellings West: A paved bicycle/pedestrian trail and the Comer Kick Soccer Center East: Nimis Newman, Goldstar and MN Granite PLANNING Land Use Plan designation: M-1 (light manufacturing) Zoning: M-1 Ordinance Requirements Section 36-187(b) states that no building or exterior use, except parking, may be erected, altered or constructed within 350 feet of a residential district without a CUP. 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 15-17. Section 25-70 of the city code requires that the CDRB make the following findings to approve plans: ... 1. That the design and location of the proposed development and its relationship to neighboring, existing or proposed developments and traffic is such that it will not impair the desirability of investment or occupation in the neighborhood; that it will not unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring, existing or proposed developments; and that is will not create traffic hazards or congestion. That the design and location of the proposed development is in keeping with the character of the surrounding neighborhood and is not detrimental to the harmonious, orderly and attractive development contemplated by this article and the city's comprehensive municipal plan. 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. ../ PUBLIC SAFETY The developer should provide: 1. Adequate lighting between 1400 Highway 36 and the proposed building. 2. Lighting for the parking lot in all darkened hours. 3. Proper signing and/or identification for each business. p:secl0~mcgmth.cup Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Property Line/Zoning Map 3. Site Plan 4. Building Elevation Reductions 5. Applicant's letter dated April 18, 1996 6. Letter from Douglas A. Moe dated April 17, 1996 7. Resolution 8. Plans date-stamped April 22, 1996 (separate attachment) PALM CT, COUNTY AVE. KOHLMAN ROAD C Attachment DE~4ON~ BROOKS AVE. Kn~,c~6~,,~o d Leke I~t AVE. EDGEHtLL RD. CT. w K O~.~J~ CC JUNCTION (~) CNAMB£RS cod* coU~St NTpN AVE. FRISBIE AVE. AVE. ROSEWOOD AVE. N. AVE. S. NURSING HO FAiR GRO~ GOO COL LOCATION MAP 9 N Attachment 2 CORNER KICK SOCCER CENTER' -1318-1 ~ 2~.~8,? 3321340134{i .o ,,~ ~$ PROPOSED - 38 ac 'MN GRANITE I{'~' ~;~ -~ · ,,,; ~,1431 1378[1384= 1392W1404~4,' 0l LARK PROPER'rY LINE I ZONING MAP 10 Attachment 3 I ! /Kd'ed' ~r PROPOSED BUILDING · NIMIS NEWMAN MECHANICAL · GOLDSTAR MOULDING · MN GRANITE & MARBLE COPE AVE. DATA TaTAL 62.0 ~ LANDSCAPING '-I SITE PLAN 11 N O~.LY~tOcitlO~)NI SJ.O':I.LIHOI:IV Attachment. 4 O~ zS -/ LLJ 12 M. D. 6. PARTNF-.RSHIP, L.L.P. 2448 LARPENTEUR AVENUE W ST PAUL, MN 55113 Attachment 5 612-641-0300 612-641-0300 (fax) April 18, 1996 City of Maplewood 1830 E County Road B Maplewood, MN 55109 INTENTED USE MD~ PARTNERSHIP PROPERTY COPE AVE, MAPLEWOOD We propose construction of a 37,000 SF office warehouse located between the Corner Kick Soccer Facility and Nemis Newman Company, on Cope Avenue. There would be approximately 8000 SF of office with 17,000 SF of warehouse for one tennant located in the north portion of the building. The remaining 12,000 SF would consist of 2,500 SF of office, 2000 SF of manufacturing and 7,500 SF of warehouse. The total facility would house approximately 40 e~loyees with minimal visitor traffic. Material deliveries would consist of 12 to 20 truck trips per day with occasional over the road truck deliveries. The routine traffic would be from passenger vehicles and 24 ft delivery trucks. The facility would be consistent with the current industrial zoning of the property and is similar in use to the building bordering the east property line. The proposed building will provide an additional buffer between highway 36 and the residential property south of Cope Avenue. We feel operation of the facility would have no negative impact on the neighborhood, and will pkovide an astatically pleasing addition to both Highway 36 and Cope Avenue Frontage Road. For the above reasons, we request that the City of Maplewood approve our request for both the desipn and conditional use permit. Also, attached is the general description of the above project from=ur architect. Sincerely, Mike McGrath MDG Partnership LLP 13 ,3E F-~CHI TECTS DOUGLAS A. MOE AROHITEOT8 INOORPORATED River, Minnesota (81~) 441.6488 PHO~ NO. : +6~2 44! Attachment 6 City of Haplewood 1830 g. County Roaa B Maplewood, N~. 55109 Ret To Whom it may concern: Following is & general ~escription o~ the above project: The 2.61 acrs site fronts Cope Avenue and Is bordered on the w~st by the abandoned Burltl~gton ~orthern Railroad R.O.~. and on the east by NlmiG Newman Kechantcal an~ Ktnnasota Granite and Marble office-warehot~se. The buffer of existing trees on the west and south property lines, if practical and desired by the City, could be saved and supplemented by the plantings shown on the drawings. The intended use of the property is an office-warehous~ struc- ture of 37,000 square feet with offices on the north and south en~s and a loading area on the ~est side. The height of the bull~lng is approximately 22 feet plu~ a parapet at each office area to screen rooftop equipment. Mat- erials are to be ribbed precept concrete wall plank, face brick, and metal panels~ colors to be earth tones. The above pro,eot does not ~nvolve' any process, act~v~ty~ mst- erial~ equipment or method of operation that would be dangerous, hazardous, detrimenta~, distu=bin9 or c~uso a nuisance to any person or property. 14 Attachment 7 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Michael McGrath and Gary May applied for a conditional use permit to build a 37,000-square-foot building in a M-1 (light manufacturing) district closer than 350 feet to a residential district. WHEREAS, this permit applies to the property to the east of 1357 Cope Avenue. The legal description is: THE NORTH 1/2 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 10, TOWNSHIP 29, RANGE 22, EXCEPT THE EAST 39 ACRES, EXCEPT THAT PART LYING WEST OF THE EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF THE NORTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD, AND EXCEPT THAT PART LYING NORTH OF THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF HIGHWAY NO. 36 AS NOW LOCATED: EXCEPTING THEREFROM, THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PARCEL: COMMENCING AT THE CENTER OF SAID SECTION 10, THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG THE EAST LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 A DISTANCE OF 848.3 FEET TO THE INTERSECTION OF THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF TRUNK HIGHWAY NO. 36, THENCE WESTERLY ALONG THE SAID SOUTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE A DISTANCE OF 1196.20 FEET, THENCE DEFLECTING TO THE LEFT 90 DEGREES AND ALONG THE SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE A DISTANCE OF 25 FEET, THENCE DEFLECTING TO THE RIGHT 90 DEGREES AND ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE A DISTANCE OF 93.46 FEET TO AN IRON, SAID POINT BEING THE INTERSECTION OF WEST LINE OF THE EAST 39 ACRES AND THE SAID TRUNK HIGHWAY NO. 36 SOUTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE, THENCE WESTERLY ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF- WAY LINE A DISTANCE OF 233.30 FEET, THENCE SOUTHERLY AND PARALLEL WITH THE WEST LINE OF THE EAST 39 ACRES A DISTANCE OF 250.00. FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, THENCE CONTINUING ALONG THE SAME LINE A DISTANCE OF 169.15 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH LINE OF THE SAID NORTH 1/2 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 10, THENCE EASTERLY ALONG THE SAID SOUTH LINE A DISTANCE OF 233.30 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WEST LINE OF THE SAID EAST 39 ACRES, THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID WEST LINE A DISTANCE OF 188.88 FEET, THENCE WESTERLY PARALLEL WITH THE SAID SOUTHERLY RIGHT- OF-WAY LINE A DISTANCE OF 233.30 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. AND EXCEPTING THEREFROM THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PARCEL: COMMENCING AT THE CENTER OF SAID SECTION 10, THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG THE EAST LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 A DISTANCE OF 848.3 FEET TO THE INTERSECTION OF THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF TRUNK HIGHWAY NO. 36, THENCE WESTERLY ALONG THE SAID SOUTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE A DISTANCE OF 1196.20 FEET, THENCE DEFLECTING TO THE LEFT 90 DEGREES AND 3.5 ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE A DISTANCE OF 25 FEET, THENCE DEFLECTING TO THE RIGHT 90 DEGREES AND ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE A DISTANCE OF 93.46 FEET TO AN IRON, SAID POINT BEING THE INTERSECTION OF WEST LINE OF . THE EAST 39 ACRES AND THE SAID TRUNK HIGHWAY NO. 36 SOUTHERLY RIGHT- OF-WAY LINE AND THE POINT OF BEGINNING. THENCE WESTERLY ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE A DISTANCE OF 233.30 FEET, THENCE SOUTHERLY AND PARALLEL WITH THE WEST LINE OF THE EAST 39 ACRES A DISTANCE OF 250.00 FEET, THENCE EASTERLY AND PARALLEL WITH THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE A DISTANCE OF 233.30 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WEST LINE OF THE EAST 39 ACRES, THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID WEST LINE A DISTANCE OF 250 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: 1. On council ,1996, the planning commission recommended that the city this permit. 2e 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. Se The use would be served by adequate public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, water and sewer systems, schools and parks. 7. The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services. 3.6 8. The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and scenic features into the development design. 9. The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city. The director of community development may approve minor changes. The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the permit shall become null and void. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 3. The city council shall review this permit in one year. 4. There shall be no outdoor storage of any materials or equipment without approval of a revised conditional use permit by the city council. Approved by the Maplewood City Council on 1996. MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: DATE: City Manager Ken Roberts, Associate Planner Golf Dome Van Dyke Street and RipleY Avenue May 24, 1996 The planning commission should review the conditional use permit. The Community Design Review Board should review the design and landscape plans. MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: PROJECT: LOCATION: DATE: City Manager Ken Roberts, Associate Planner Conditional Use Permit and Design Review Goodrich Golf Dome Van Dyke Street and Ripley Avenue May 29, 1996 INTRODUCTION Project Description Greg Mack, of the Ramsey County Parks and Recreation Department, wants to build an inflatable dome for public golfing. The proposed location is the northwest comer of Van Dyke Street and Ripley Avenue, south of Aldrich Arena. (See the location map on page 10 and the property line map on page 11.) Ramsey County owns this property and would contract with an operator to build and manage the dome under a license agreement. The dome would be white fabric and 65 feet tall, and the base of the dome would be 160 feet by 210 feet. There would be 31 hitting stalls in the dome. On the east side of the dome, there would be a one-story, 32' x 50' rock-face concrete-block building. (See the proposed site plan on page 12.) This building would be the entrance to the dome (through an airlock) and would have restrooms, office space and support space for the dome. (See the building elevations and drawings on the enclosed plans.) They want to operate the golf dome between 8 a.m. and 9 p.m. seven days a week. They may have the golf dome open for fewer hours in the winter. (See the letter from Greg Mack on page 15.) Requests To build this project, Ramsey County is requesting that the city approve: 1. A conditional use permit (CUP). Section 36-437 of the city code allows the city council to approve a Chip for a public service or public building uses in any zoning district. 2. The building design, site and landscape plans. BACKGROUND On November 14, 1994, the city council considered a request for a similar golf dome on this site. The council denied the conditional use permit for the dome based on the findings in the city code. DISCUSSION Location Several people have expressed concerns about the proposed location of the dome. The county staff felt that being near the existing streets, parking areas and utilities would be a benefit. In addition, the county expects the golf dome to complement the facilities at Goodrich Golf Course. They want golfere to use the dome for a warmup area before playing on the golf course. The county plans to have a paging system in the dome to alert golfers to their start time. Street access to the proposed site is good and there would be no need to build additional parking. This makes for a more efficient use of the existing public facilities and lessens the project costs. Another location suggested for the golf dome is the former rece treck area north of the County Parks building. At this location, the dome would be more hidden. However, this site has six problems: poor access, lack of parking, lack of utilities, an existing storm water pond and the Williams Brothers pipeline. The nearest existing paved parking area is about 500 feet to the south in front of the County Parks building. To use this site, the county would have to pave more parking next to the dome. In addition, access to the north site is not as convenient as the proposed site on Ripley Avenue. Vehicles would have to go north from Ripley on Van Dyke Street or east from Frost Avenue around the barn and nureing home to get to the facility. An alternate access to this area would be another driveway to White Bear Avenue near the horseshoe pits. A storm water pond is in the center of the treck area. The Maplewood storm water plans (page 14) show this pond as part of the city's planned storm water system. The county could not build the dome in the pond. Ken Haider, the city engineer, does not feel that the city or county could move the pond. Another problem with the north site is the Williams Brothers pipeline. It crosses the site from Goodrich Golf Course on the southeast to the DNR Trail on the northwest. (See the map on page 14.) The city code requires any new building to be at least 100 feet from the nearest pipeline. An alternate location to the proposed site would be on the south end of the parking lot that is east of the nursing home. The disadvantage is the distance from the golf course entrence. Traffic Ramsey County hopes to averege about 1,000 customers a week at the golf dome. This would be an average of 143 users per day. For a twelve-hour day, this would be an average of twelve customers per hour or one every five minutes. The county traffic engineer told me that the dome should not cause any traffic problems. Parking Ramsey County is not proposing any additional parking for the dome. Dome users would use the Aldrich Arena parking lot and the lot across Van Dyke Street to the east. With the lot across Van Dyke Street, the county could segregate the dome parking from Aldrich Arena parking. The city code does not have a parking standard for a golf dome. As proposed, the facility would have 31 tee boxes and a 1,600 square-foot support facility building. At the most, the proposed golf dome should need up to 70 parking spaces. This would include 62 spaces for the 31 tee boxes and 8 for the service building. The county feels that the existing parking lots are large enough for their needs. If a problem develops, there is a vacant area west of the proposed golf dome site to add more spaces. When the County repaved the Alddch Arena lot, they striped the lanes but not individual parking stalls. Section 36-22(e) of city code requires that all parking lots have single-striped parking 2 spaces. The county should finish stdping their entire parking lot as required by code (9.5-foot- wide stalls or 9-foot-wide signed employee stalls). The parking lot does not have curbing. Section 36-22(C) requires continuous concrete curbing. Since the county did not previously have curbing, they should add concrete curb the south side of their lot. This would finish the edge of the parking lot after the county installs the.golf dome. On-Street Parking Ban The Maplewood Police Department recommends that the county post both sides of Ripley Avenue for no parking. With the business curb cuts on the south side, the city should keep the street clear of parked care. This will improve visibility for care leaving the driveways. In addition, this will help insure that fewer pedestrians will be trying to cross Ripley Avenue to the county property. The county has already posted part of Van Dyke Street north of Ripley Avenue for no parking. However, the installer put the signs parallel to the street instead of perpendicular to the curb. The county should turn these signs so they are visible from Van Dyke Street. In addition, the county should post the curve on Van Dyke Street north of Ripley for no parking. Building Design The code requires three findings to approve a building design. These findings are on page 8. The second finding says 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." The third finding says 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." Around this site the existing buildings have a mix of exterior materials and color. They range from wood siding with fake-stone accents (South China Island) to concrete block (Aldrich Arena and Mid America Bank) to stucco (Perkins). The support and service building for the dome would have rock-face concrete block and a standing seam metal mansard. It should be compatible with the surrounding buildings. The design of the dome would be unique to the area. It would be much taller (65 feet) than the surrounding buildings. It would be 22 feet taller than Aldrich Arena. The owner of the Perkins Restaurant complained that the dome would block the view of their sign and restaurant from White Bear Avenue. However, the dome may bring Perkins additional business. Whether the design would aesthetically fit the surrounding area is the question. This is a subjective decision that will vary with individuals. If the council is not sure how the dome would look, they could require that the county hire a consultant to produce a computer generated photo. The consultant could insert a drawing of the dome in a photo of the background. This could show how the dome would look in comparison to the surrounding uses. Landscaping and Screening The developer is proposing an attractive landscaping plan. (See the plan on page 13.) There is a need for more landscaping or berming on the dome's west end. This would help screen part of the dome from the residential area to the west. In-Ground Sprinklers The city code requires that the developer or owner install an in-ground sprinkler system for the new landscaped areas. The city should require the county to install this system around the proposed landscaping for the dome. OPTIONS 1. Approve the requests. 2. Table this request until the county revises its plan by moving the dome north of Aldrich Arena. 3. Table this request for a computer-generated drawing showing how the dome would look against the existing buildings. 4. Deny the request. RECOMMENDATIONS ko Approve the resolution on page 16. This resolution approves a conditional use permit for a public indoor golf dome on the northwest comer of Van Dyke Street and Ripley Avenue. The council bases the permit on the findings required by code and it is subject to the following conditions: All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city. The Director of Community Development may approve minor changes. The county or the contractor must have started the proposed construction within one year after the council approves this permit or the permit shall end. The city council may extend this deadline for one year. If the city council determines there is not enough on-site parking, the council may require that the property owner or operator provide additional parking. 4. The city council shall review this permit in one year. Bo Approve the site and landscape plans (received May 17, 1996) and building elevations the city received on May 20, 1996 for the Goodrich Golf Dome, subject to the findings required by the city code. The developer shall do the following: 1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. 2. Complete the following before the city issues a building permit: ao Submit grading, drainage, utility and erosion control plans for the city engineer's approval. The erosion control plan shall be consistent with the city code and with the Ramsey Soil and Water Conservation District Erosion Control Handbook. 4 b. Revise the landscape plans for staff approval. This plan shall show: (1) All deciduous trees at least 2 1/2 inches in caliper, balled and burlapped. (2) All evergreen trees at least six-feet-tall. (3) The plan shall show eight additional deciduous trees and berrning on the ' west side of the dome. 3. Complete the following before occupying the dome: a. Install an address on the building. b. Construct an enclosure as required by city code for all outside dumpsters (including those for the arena). The enclosure(s) must match the building color. Submit plans for the enclosure(s) to staff for approval. c. Install an in-ground sprinkler system for the landscaped areas south of the existing parking lot and west of Van Dyke Street. (Code requirement) d. Construct continuous concrete curbing along the south side of the Arena parking lot. (Code requirement) e. Restore and sod damaged boulevards. f. Sod all turf areas. g. Install handicap-accessible parking spaces and signs that meet the requirements of the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act). h. Screen all roof-mounted equipment visible from streets or adjacent property. Submit screening plans to the Design Review Board for approval. (Code requirement) i. Post both sides of the curve on Van Dyke Street, north of Ripley Avenue, for no parking and turn the existing no parking signs so they are perpendicular to the curb. j. Post both sides of Ripley Avenue, between White Bear Avenue and North St. Paul Road, for no parking. 4. Finish striping the entire arena parking lot to meet code requirements (9.5-foot-wide stalls or 9-foot-wide signed employee stalls) by October 1, 1996. 5. Provide at least a 30-foot setback between the buildings and the property line along Ripley Avenue and from Van Dyke Street. (Code requirement) This may require the county to shift the dome to the north. 6. This approval does not include the signs. 7. All work shall follow the approved plans. The Director of Community Development may approve minor changes. 8. 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. c. The city receives a written agreement that will allow the city to complete any unfinished work. Appeals Anyone may appeal the Community Design Review Board's decision to the city council. An appellant must notify someone in the Maplewood Community Development Department within fifteen days after the Board's meeting. CITIZENS' COMMENTS I surveyed owners of the four properties within 350 feet of the proposed Golf Dome site in 1994. The owners of two of these properties replied. Both owners were against the proposal. In addition, we also surveyed the 34 property owners on the west side of White Bear Avenue between Larpenteur and Frost Avenues. Of the 12 who responded, six were for the proposal, four were against the proposal and two had no comment. For It is a positive addition to the other recreational facilities in the area and will bring sOme revenue into Ramsey County. (Hejny - 1829 White Bear Avenue) A very good idea, everyone whom we talked with would enjoy going there. (Strobel - 1849 White Bear Avenue) I would rather see the land left the way it is now---undeveloped. But for some reason, if someone feels the need to put something there, it might as well be a golf dome. I think a golf dome is better than a lot of other things they could put there. (Schaeppi - 1899 White Bear Avenue) 4. Greatmmore tax dollars for Maplewood. (Mirsch - Saint Paul) Against It will block our sign at Perkins and view of the restaurant from White Bear Avenue. Move the dome to the far west comer. (Tom Cory, Perkins - 1829 North Saint Paul Road) It sounds like an eyesore. It also sounds like an elitist use of taxpayer dollars that the County could put to better use. Leave it be an open space; we need more open space. Perhaps put in more trees and some flowers, or plant a prairie there for everyone to enjoy--not just golfers. (Sturm - 1759 White Bear Avenue) 3. The only concern I would have is increased traffic. (AIIhiser - 1799 White Bear Avenue) 4. I don't want to look at it. Make it an outdoor driving range. (Amdt - 1783 White Bear Ave) 5. The City of Maplewood and Ramsey County are continually talking and bemoaning the loss of green grass and open spaces. The grass area along Ripley and White Bear Avenue makes a good border for the Aldrich Arena area. I am sure that at some future time the strip along Ripley will be needed for additional parking area for Aldrich Arena activities. An inflatable dome sure wouldn't add anything to improve the open view of the residences on White Bear Avenue. The County Fair has indicated its demise at the present location. The area formerly used as a racetrack and other agricultural activities should now be available. This area is more or less screened from the residences and traffic on White Bear Avenue by trees and soil berms. It also adjoins the golf course. (Holt - 1895 White Bear Avenue) 6. Additional commercial projects on east side of White Bear Avenue increases traffic flow for residential owners. Consideration should be made concerning rezoning west side of White Bear Avenue for commercial use. (Gustafson - Lake Elmo) REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Site size: 65,920 square feet (1.5 acres) Existing land use: undeveloped SURROUNDING LAND USES North: East: South: West: Alddch Arena and parking lot Goodrich Golf Course and parking lot across Van Dyke Street South China Island, Perkins and bank across Ripley Avenue Vacant County property and houses across White Bear Avenue PLANNING Land Use Plan designation: P (park) Zoning: F (farm residence) Ordinance requirements: Section 36-442(a) states that the city council may grant a CUP if based on nine findings. (See the findings in the resolution on pages 16 and 17.) Section 25-70 of the city code requires that the CDRB make the following findings to approve plans: 1. That the design and location of the proposed development and its relationship to neighboring, existing or proposed developments and traffic is such that it will not impair the desirability of investment or occupation in the neighborhood; that it will not unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring, existing or proposed developments; and that it will not create traffic hazards or congestion. 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. 8 PUBLIC SAFETY The Police Department recommends the following: 1. The applicant should install adequate site lighting for around-the-clock protection. 2. There should be no parking on both sides of Ripley Avenue and Van Dyke Street. OTHER AGENCIES The Ramsey County Board approved this proposal in 1994. They have not yet approved this plan in 1996. p:sec14~golfdom2.mem Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Property Une/Zoning Map 3. Site Plan 4. Landscape Plan 5. Maplewood Storm Water System Map 6. Applicant's letter dated May 15, 1996 7. Conditional Use Permit Resolution 8. Plans stamped May 20, 1996 (separate attachment) 9 Attachment 1 ROOKS: ,,,~.  A~. ~ S~ T~T z · SHERREN A~. I /~ ,~. ~ ~~/ ,co~ ,~. ~, e' -- ' ~ ' ~ '/// ~ ~ ~ ~URIE RD. 0I DR IDGEAVE.~ ~ ] ~ / - ROS~C'OD A~. N. < ~ R~ ,u ,v. o~/ ~./ AVl. S. _.o~ "~'~'~5~° NOR' ~ ~, ., ~ ~ , - ~5 ~ ~ - ~ ' ,,,.,~. ~ ~ ¢ ~ ~ .... ~ ] KINGS ~ ,, lO Attachment 2 FROST AVl 189.5~) - ~ ~,~. Ot&.~ ' 1871~) 1865~°) -t0iS HEJNY RENTAL 1799L~ -R1 ' R/~$£Y COUNTY NURSING HOME _ G?.O - I RAPISE ¥ R A HI,S E ¥ :OUNTY ALDRICH ARENA GOODRICH GOLF COURSE ~l ~ -;~a! SOUTH ~ ~9~' ~ ~ ~ I CH-iNA~ t i ~PERKINS MIDAMERIC,~ BANK BC~. PROPERTY LINE / ZONING MAP 11 COU, N Attachment 3 ALDRICH ARENA - ~ "1--1~ I ' :~ ................................... '::, .................................... ~ 0~' _.'~_ .~ ~.. ,...~1.,. ,5 .,"z' '" ,-.· .: - . - ':.., '~:~. - , ~,, ' . .-~" ~..~'- . i ~' RIPI~ =%. ~ A~UE ~' '~ SITE PLAN 5-17-96 N 12 5-17-96 Attachment 5 LLI 0 '0 .0) N I/2 I COMM. CENTER COUNTY ,,? LP ZT ¢. PARK RAMSEY ~ BLDG. COUNTY ~ FAR~ NURSING HOME VAN WlCKLAND~R'S PONO B~EO LP Z6 . MA~D PUBUC WO~S CITY HALL 521'2 .LP ZTB 270 LP 2T ': I. / , ~,. : GOODRICH ,<~ ,., ~, GOLF c,OO~ '" · < ~ ~ C~R~ i.'. ~/~ ~" / ~.,~L¢.D. I1' coo 5~'80 LP 2.8 & ELDRIDGE IdE ADOW( ; 14 RAMSEY COUNTY~ Parks and Recreation Deparl3nent Gregory.~ Mack, Director 2015 N. Van Dyke Street Maplewood, MN 55109-3796 Attachment 6 Tel: 612-777-1707 Fax: 612-777-6519 May15,1996 Ms. Melinda Coleman Community Development Director City of Maplewood 1830 East County Road B Maplewood, MN 55109 Dear Ms. Coleman: As requested by the City of Maplewood, this letter identifies the purpose and use of the facility identified in the Request for a Conditional Use Permit. Ramsey County (owner of the property) and Midwest Domes are negotiating an agreement that will grant Midwest Domes the right to erect a dome structure solely for the purpose of operating a public golf range facility adjacent to the Goodrich Golf Course. This use shall include a practice/teaching range and services normally provided in association with the operation of such a facility. The goal of this facility will be to provide opportunities for golfers at all levels of playing ability to develop and improve their golfing skills. We believe this project will enhance the quality of life for the community by providing a year-round recreational facility for its residents. The project complements other elements within the "recreation corridor," which includes the Maplewood Community Center, Willard Munger Gateway State Trail, Goodrich Golf Course, Aldrich Arena and Goodrich Triangle ?ark. If you require further information, or clarification, please call me at 777-1707. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. GAM/jjh ely, 15 Minnesota*s First Home Rule ~ounty printed on recycled paper wtth a minimum or 10~ post-consumer content Attachment 7 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Ramsey County applied for a conditional use permit for a public golf dome. WHEREAS, this permit applies to the property on the northwest comer of Van Dyke Street and Ripley Avenue. The legal description is: The East 310 feet of the West 625 feet of the South 192 feet of the North 1/2 of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 14, Township 29, Range 22. WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: 1. On June 3, 1996, the planning commission recommended that the city council this permit. 2. On June 24, 1996, the city council held a public hearing. 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 conformity with 2. The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be in the City's Comprehensive Plan and Code of Ordinances. not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area. 3. The use would not depreciate property values. o The use would not involve any activity, process, materials, equipment or methods of operation that would be dangerous, hazardous, detrimental, disturbing or cause a nuisance to any person or property, because of excessive noise, glare, smoke, dust, odor, fumes, water or air pollution, drainage, water runoff, vibration, general unsightliness, electrical interference or other nuisances. : 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. The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and scenic features into the development design. 16 9. The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city. The Director of Community' Development may approve minor changes. 2. The county or the contractor must have started the proposed construction within one year after the council approves this permit or the permit shall end. The city council may extend this deadline for one year. 3. If the city council determines there is not enough on-site parking, the council may require that the property owner or operator provide additional parking. 4. The city council shall review this permit in one year. The Maplewood City Council approved this resolution on ,1996. 1'/ MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: DATE: City Manager James Ericson, Planning Intern Conditional Use Permit- Saint Paul Water Utility Building Expansion 1900 Rice Street North May 20, 1996 INTRODUCTION Project Description The Saint Paul Water Utility is proposing to expand the water treatment plant at 1900 Rice Street North. (See the location and property line maps on pages 4 and 5 and the site plan on page 6.) They are proposing to build a 6,000 square-foot, two-story addition to the solids dewatering facility. The proposed addition would be brick. Requests The applicant is requesting: 1. Approval of the conditional use permit (CUP) for the addition. City code requires a CUP for public utilities, public services or public buildings in the city. 2. Approval of site and building design plans. BACKGROUND On December 15, 1988, the city council approved a CUP to construct a clear-water pond south of the solids dewatering facility, west of Sylvan Street and north of Larpenteur Avenue. DISCUSSION The city council should grant this CUP. The proposed addition is needed for the water treatment facility and does not impact any neighboring property. The building is attractive and well within the water utility's property. RECOMMENDATION Approve the resolution beginning on page 8. This resolution approves the conditional use permit to expand the Saint Paul Water Utility's solids dewatering facility at 1900 Rice Street North. 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 stamped May 17, 1996, for the proposed addition to Saint Paul Water Utility's solids dewatering facility. The director of community development may approve minor changes to the plans. REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Site size: 35.93 Acres Existing land use: Saint Paul Water Utility SURROUNDING LAND USES The proposed addition is in the center of the water utility property. the applicant's property. The building is surrounded by PLANNING Land Use Plan designation: Zoning: F (farm residential) OS (open space) and W (public water facility) 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 CUP 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 pages 8.) p:sec18\watrutil.cup Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Property Line/Zoning Map 3. Proposed Site Plan 4. Applicant's letter dated May 17, 1996 5. Conditional Use Permit Resolution 6. Plans date-stamped May 17, 1996 (separate attachment) - 3 Attachment 1 LITTLE CANADA OOUNTY RD. AVE/ Lake SKILLMAN AV~. MT. V[RNON DOWNS AVl. BELLWOOD AVF.. SUMMER AV~. BELMONT IN. SKied R~PLEY ¢ A'/E. ROSELAWN SUMMER ~AVE. ( GSTON PRICE LOCATION MAP N r I .,?-__ I ~ ROSELAWN AVENUE .... %,~ .--¢~ -/- SOLIDS DEWATERING BUILDING - '* -~.'" "~" ...... I - - ~ AMUSEMENT CITY ENT PARK t CROWN PLAZA I I SHOPPING CE~ I ~._ .. ,..:LARPENTEUR AVENUE ST. PAUL WATER UTILITY PROPERTY Attachment 2 I I ~.t~&c · rl ~(?) AVE. . PROPERTY LINE I ZONING MAP N Attachment 3 ! ..- /k AVENk~ FENTON STRE KINGSTON AVENUE SITE PLAN N Attachment BOARD OF WATER COMMISSIONERS Dino Guerin, President Janice Rettman, I:ice Preside, t Stephen Haselmann, Commissioner Michael Harris. Commissioner Michael Arcand, Commissioner May 17, 1996 Mr. Tom Eksuand City of Maplewood Associate Planner 1830 E County Road B lVlaplewood, MN 55109 The Saint Paul Water Utility requests approval to consuuct a 77' x 76' addition to the existing solids dewatering facilities at the McCarron's Water Treatment PianL 1900 N. Rice Street A description of this project and the justification of its consuuction is given below. Plate and frame filter presses will be installed in the new building addition. These presses will capture 100 percent of the lime solids produced during the water softening process at the treatment plant. The dewatered solids will be loaded into Irucks and hauled to agricultural land for a beneficial use. The centrifuges that are cunvatly being used to dewater the lime solids, only capture 70 percent of the solids. The remaining 30 percent of the solids are discharged to the sludge fields. Construction of this project will e 'luninate the discharge of solids to the sludge fields. It has been prOjected that thc sludge fields will be filled to capacity in December 1996 using the existing dewatering system. If conslruction begins in early June, the new dewatering facilities can be operating by December 1996. If the project is not completed, excavation of the sludge field or raising the sludge field dikes may be required. The neighboring citizens would strongly oppose either of these actions. The Water Utility is investing more than four million dollars to end the discharge of solids to the sludge field. The neighborhood group has been informed of this project on a couple of occasions. The second phase of this project will be to cap the large sludge field and change it into park land or other apprOpriate land uses. The Water Utility plans to involve the adjacent neighborhood and the City of Maplewood in the final design of this land. I would appreciate your assistance in expediting the permit process. If you need any additional information please contact me at 266-6267. ' ' BGE Sincerely, Bradley G. Eilts Saint Paul Waler UtiliJl, Commerce Building, 8 4th Street East, St. Paul, MN 55101-1007 Tel. (612) 266-6274 Fax (612) 292-7811 TTY: (612) 266-6299 Bernie R. Bullert. General3Ia,ager James M. Graupmann, Roger A. Mohror. ("eno'al ServicesAIanager James L. Hau?.en.l~roducti,~,~.~hmager The Saint Paul I~'ater Utd~ty provides quahO, water servwe to the.followin£ cities: .Arden Hills&Falcon Heights&Lauderdale&LiUle CanadaaMaplewooda, MendotaaMendota Heights~,Roseville&Sain! Paula%% est St. Paul 7 ? ~, printed on recgcle~ Attachment 5 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the Saint Paul Water Utility has requested a conditional use permit to expand the solids dewatering facility at the water treatment plant. WHEREAS, this permit applies to 1900 Rice Street North. The legal description is: SECTION 18, TOWNSHIP 29, RANGE 22 IN THE VILLAGE OF MAPLEWOOD REVISED DESCRIPTION NUMBER 175 A SPECIFIC PART OF SEC 18, TN 29, R 22. WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: On ,1996, the planning commission recommended that the city council approve 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 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. 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. o 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. 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. 8 Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city. The director of community development may approve minor changes. The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the permit shall become null and void. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 3. The city council shall review this permit in one year. Passed by the Maplewood City Council on ,1996. 9