The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About07/01/1996MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, July 1, 1996 7:00 PM City Hall Council Chambers 1830 County Road B East Call to Order Roll Call Approval of Minutes a. June 17, 1996 BOOK 4. Approval of Agenda 5. Public Headngs a. 1997-2001 Maplewood Capital Improvement Plan (Please bdng your copy) 6. New Business a. Goodwill Industries Store Conditional Use Permit (2250 White Bear Avenue) 7. Unfinished Business 8. Visitor Presentations Commission Presentations a, June 24 Council Meeting: Mr. Rossbach b. July 8 Council Meeting: Ms. Fischer 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. o 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. o 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 JUNE 17, 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 Commissioner Lorraine Fischer Commissioner Jack Frost Commissioner Kevin Kittridge Commissioner Dave Kopesky Commissioner Gary Pearson Commissioner William Rossbach Commissioner Milo Thompson Present Present Present Present Present Present Absent Present Absent Present Melinda Coleman, director of community development, introduced Jim Ericson, planning intern. In addition to other projects, Mr. Ericson did a considerable amount of work on the adult use ordinance. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. June 3,1996 Commissioner Fischer moved approval of the minutes of June 3, 1996, amended to change the spelling of site on page 4 to sight and soilds to solids on page 5. Commissioner Ericson seconded. Ayes-Axdahl, Fischer, Frost, Brueggeman, Ericson Abstentions-Kittridge, Pearson, Thompson The motion passed. IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Pearson moved approval of the agenda as submitted. Commissioner Ericson seconded. Ayes-all The motion passed. V. NEW BUSINESS A. Kennard Street Vacation (between Cope and Lark Avenues) Melinda Coleman, director of community development, presented the staff report. Dr. Kevin Denis, the applicant, was present. Dr. Denis had no further comment. Commissioner Thompson Planning Commission Minutes of 06-17-96 -2- asked the reasoning for the recommendation. He saw this street as potentially direct access to the park from Cope Avenue. Ms. Coleman said the clinic needs this right of way to meet a 50-foot setback requirement. In addition, Ms. Coleman felt there were sufficient opportunities for people to get to the park and that, basically, this was just underutilitzed property at this time. Commissioner Kittridge moved the Planning Commission recommend adoption of the resolution which vacates the Kennard Street right-of-way between Lark and Cope Avenues. The city should vacate this street right-of-way because: 1. It is in the public interest. 2. The city and the adjacent property owners have no plans to build a street in this location. 3. The adjacent properties have street access. This vacation is subject to the city keeping a drainage and utility easement over the entire right-of- way. Commissioner Axdahl thought No. 2 of the reasons for the street vacation, in the resolution, was incorrect. The resolution will be changed to read "on this site" instead of "north of this site." Commissioner Frost seconded. Ayes-all The motion passed. B. Wetland Setback Variance--General Sprinkler Corporation (County Road D) Melinda Coleman, director of community development, presented the staff report. Frank Winiecki, of General Sprinkler Corporation, was present at the meeting. Mr. VViniecki said the rear yard was for parking and access to bring inventory into the building, not for storage. He further added that he didn't show a dirt berm, that could be installed along the property line, that would contain any settlement. Mr. VViniecki did not think it was necessary to asphalt the entire backyard. However, he would agree to asphalt the access to the parking areas and the parking areas. Mr. Winiecki said the large grass area in the front and on the sides of the building would allow for drainage and an aesthetic view of the building. He thought the handicap parking spaces could be put in the front of the building. Mr. Winiecki felt the property was unusual, and it was necessary to physically view the site before making a rational decision. He explained a ditch runs almost parallel with the west property line, with running water, 10 feet below the elevation of the property. Mr. VViniecki showed colored pictures of the area. He said the lot was approximately 80,000 square feet and the building 15,000 square feet, so that left approximately 65,000 square feet of land. He thought this was a small percentage of land use for building area, and that the 100-foot setback uses a lot of the owner's property for nothing. Mr. Winiecki felt there was no possible way to construct a building, allow for parking and meet the required setback on this site. Commissioner Thompson asked if a compromise could be reached for a less intensive use. If a 25-foot setback were to be considered, Mr. Winiecki said there would be a problem in the lower right hand section of the parking area. Possibly a couple parking spaces would have to be relocated from this area. He proposed a berm along the property line to contain runoff, and Planning Commission Minutes of 06-17-96 -3- channeling the drainage to a holding pond at the rear of the property with the excess going to the ditch. Commissioner Frost suggested a possible variance from the required 35 parking spaces. Commissioner Kittddge was concerned about ensuring the quality of the water that goes into the wetland. Commissioner Frost thought the project was feasible but needed additional planning. Ken Haider, director of public works, explained the permeability of gravel, asphalt, and natural ground. Commissioner Frost suggested using only enough gravel in the back to satisfy Mr. Winiecki's needs and leaving the remainder natural ground. Mr. Frost recommended tabling this item for two weeks. During this time, Mr. Winiecki could work with staff and the watershed district to devise an agreeable plan. Mr. Winiecki agreed to this suggestion. Commissioner Axdahl asked if there was any reason this building should face north, instead of south. Mr. Axdahl also wondered about the possibility of a two-story building. Mr. Winiecki said overhead doors would not be allowed on the front of the building so it could not face County Road D, the street side. Mr. VViniecki and the commission discussed various options. Ms. Coleman was concerned that the commission might be giving the impression that a plan showing a 25-foot setback, similar to the Lexus project, might be approved. She emphasized that this project was very different and, without the support of the watershed district and more concrete work on the drainage and other issues, she was not optimistic about this being accePtable. Commissioner Brueggeman felt uncomfortable without an exact plan. Commissioner Fischer commented about the uncertainty of having the full information. Ms. Fischer asked the city engineer if a pond could be designed on this site to meet the qualifications for pretreatment, before going into the wetlands, that would meet the guidelines. Mr. Haider said, under the current ordinance, this could not be done. He added that this is not a drainage issue, it is a protective issue for the wetlands. Ed Simmonet, representing Mr. Lactorin (the owner of the property), emphasized his client's position. He said Mr. Lactorin had owned the property since 1952 and the 100-foot setback requirement was new within the last year and one-half. Mr. Simmonet thought it could be considered "undue hardship" if Mr. Lactorin cannot sell this property. Commissioner Kittridge moved the Planning Commission recommend tabling the proposed wetland-protection buffer reduction variance request pending resubmittal by the applicant. Commissioner Pearson seconded. Ayes-Axdahl, Fischer, Frost, Kittridge, Pearson, Thompson Nays-Brueggeman, Ericson The motion passed. VI. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS There were no visitor presentations. Planning Commission Minutes of 06-17-96 VII. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS A. -June 10 Council Meeting: Ms. Ericson reported on this meeting. B. June 24 Council Meeting: Mr. Rossbach will attend this meeting. Commissioner Axdahl reported that he attended a .couple of the meetings sponsored by the Metropolitan Council to get public input on the direction of future development of the metropolitan area. He spoke about the format of the meetings. VIII. STAFF PRESENTATIONS There were no staff presentations. IX. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 8:23 p.m MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: City Manager Ken Roberts, Associate Planner Capital Improvement Program June 3, 1996 INTRODUCTION I have enclosed the proposed 1997-2001 Capital Improvement Program. The city updates this report each year. The Capital Improvement Plan is part of the Maplewood Comprehensive Plan. State law requires the planning commission to review all changes to the comprehensive plan. The purpose of this review is to decide if the proposed capital improvements are consistent with the comprehensive plan. RECOMMENDATION Approve the 1997-2001 Capital Improvement Program. kr/p:miscell/cipmemo, mem Enclosure (PC only): Capital Improvement Program MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: DATE: City Manager Thomas Ekstrand, Associate Planner Conditional Use Permit and Design Review - Goodwill Store Renovations 2250 White Bear Avenue June 26, 1996 INTRODUCTION Project Description Ginnie Rien, of Goodwill Industries, Inc, is proposing to make the following changes at the Maplewood Goodwill store (refer to pages 5-6): Enlarge the parking lot as shown in Alternative 1 on the site plan. Refer to page 7. This alternative would require a conditional use permit (CUP) and would give the applicant more parking spaces than Alternative 2, her second choice. Alternative 2 would meet code and not require a CUP but would not provide as many parking spaces as Ms. Rien would like. 2. Install two new overhead garage doors on the east side of the building. 3. Install a six-foot-tall cedar fence and a retaining wall along the east lot line next to the proposed parking lot expansion. 4. Install a 40-foot-long retaining wall and guardrail by the loading dock. 5. Restripe the existing parking lot as shown. Requests The applicant is requesting' A CUP to expand the parking lot which would have less than a 20-foot setback from the east lot line. Refer to the applicant's letter on pages 8-9. The proposed parking lot would also have less than a five-foot setback from the south lot line as code requires. The applicant is proposing a 2.5-foot setback on both sides. The code requires a CUP to enlarge the existing parking lot which is a nonconforming use. It is nonconforming because it presently has only a one-foot setback. The code requires a CUP to expand a nonconforming use. 2. Approval of building changes, fencing a'nd retaining walls. DISCUSSION Conditional Use Permit The city council should approve the CUP for Alternative 1. Goodwill needs as much parking as they can get. The existing parking lot is often crowded and hard to maneuver in. The proposed privacy fence next to New Horizon's play ground would separate Goodwill from the play area and create an attractive buffer. With this screening fence, there would be no negative impact placing the parking lot expansion near the adjacent playground. Design Considerations The proposed garage doors and dock improvements are needed additions to Goodwill's operation. The council should require that the applicant patch and restripe the existing parking lot with this expansion since it needs repair. COMMITTEE ACTION June 25, 1996: The community design review board (CDRB) recommended approval of these proposed changes. RECOMMENDATIONS Adopt the resolution on pages 10-11. This resolution approves a conditional use permit to enlarge a parking lot with a nonconforming setback at 2250 White Bear Avenue. The city bases this approval on the findings required by code. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city. 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. B. Approve the plans (stamped June 14, 1996) for the parking lot expansion and building changes at Goodwill, 2250 White Bear Avenue. The property owner shall: 1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued permits for this project. 2. Provide the 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. Revise the site plan for staff approval providing for: (1) three handicap parking spaces. These spaces shall be located in the closest proximity to the front door. (2) A trash dumpster enclosure for the outside trash dumpster (code requirement). The design plan shall be submitted to staff for approval. 3. Complete the following before occupying the building: a. Install handicap-parking signs for each handicap-parking space. b. Patch and restripe the existing parking lot. c. Construct the trash enclosure. 4. If any required work is not done, the city may allow temporary occupancy if: a. The city determines that the work is not essential to the public health, safety or welfare. b. The city receives a cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit for the required work. The amount shall be 150% of the cost of the unfinished work. 5. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 6. This approval accepts both alternatives shown on the plans. 3 REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Site size: 1.56 acres Existing land use: Goodwill store SURROUNDING LAND USES North: intersection of Cope Avenue and White Bear Avenue South: undeveloped commercial property West: U-Haul East: New Horizon Child Care PLANNING Land Use Plan designation: BC (business commercial) Zoning: BC Ordinance Requirements Section 36-28(c)(5) requires a 20-foot parking lot setback from property planned residential and a five-foot parking lot setback from property zoned commercial. Section 36-17(e) requires a CUP to expand or enlarge a nonconforming use. Findings for CUP Approval Section 36-442(a) states that the city council must base approval of a CUP on nine standards for approval. Refer to findings one through nine in the resolution on pages 10-11. p:secl 1\goodwill.cup Attachments: Location Map 2. Property Line/Zoning Map 3. Site Plan 4. Applicant's letter dated June 10, 1996 5. Resolution 6. Plans date-stamped June 14, 1996 (separate attachment) Attachment 1 Knuckle Heod I N ROSEWO00 RD ioj ~1 RIE: RD I eOu. f Gv NORTH · Attachment 2 ~_~,~1 "~11~ ] COPE ', FUEL STATIUN ~ ~ ~ ~:, ~'; ;; NEW HORIZON ~ z':."' CHILD CARE I .~~ - - ' I - - , ,'"*. t ,~' ...... II ~l I~ ~ I ~ BLEACHERS%,~' ,,, m . I ~ L ~,""~-%~2¢ ........ ~':¢7."-~"~'~ I~.-F' - ~ -~- : ........... ~--~ - ~ .... ~ .... ~ .... I ......... * ..... /--*~ ................ J ..... . ~ .-~--'~-:'~'~='-~ .... ~ .... ~ ~- -~- - ~- - 3 ---~,- . I ~' ~' ' ' ~ - -~ . - X I I~ ~''~ cOuN~~ road PROPERTY LINE I ZONING MAP N Attachment 3 20 foot setback required 2.5 feet is proposed ~,~ ~.~. '"" ~ I~,~ .1~ ' :~:~:~::::i:::::: ........ · :: . b ~ : :':'"' ' .. / ALTERNATIVE 1 ALTERNATIVE 2 (requires a conditional use permit to have less than a 20-foot side yard setback for the proposed parking lot expansion) (requires no special approval) SITE PLAN PARKING LOT EXPANSION AREA PRESENTLY GRASS N 2543 Como Avenue, St. Paul, Minnesota 55108 (612) 646-2591- Voice (612) 649-0302- FAX (612) 646-0424 -TTY ~ ~ Attachment 4 June 10, 1996 Ms. Melinda Coleman Director of Community Development City of Maplewood 1830 E. County Road Maplewood, MN 55709 Dear Ms. Coleman: Goodwill Industries, Easter Seal Society of Minnesota is a non-profit organization whose mission is to support people with disabilities or disadvantages achieve their goals for education, employment and independence. One of the ways we accomplish this mission is through the revenues which we generate in our Retail Stores. Goodwill/Easter Seal opened their current Maplewood store at 2250 White Bear Avenue in 1990. Due to the extensive growth at this location, we have evaluated how to improve our efficiency and image. Through the revised conditional permit, we can add 16 parking stalls. Today we are continually short spaces during Saturday and Sundays, which cause traffic congestion at our location. In addition, our existing truck loading facilities are totally inadequate and contribute to the congestion. The proposed plan would alleviate these problems. '- The purposed plan extending parking set-backs addresses these important issues in your community. #1 #2 We are a grand fathered, non-conforming use because of our current parking lot. The use remains the same, so it would not change the character of the surrounding area. #3 The use would not effect property values. The use does not change. #5 The change would have no effect on traffic congestion, nor on street access. The conditional use permit would increase off street parking by 25 stalls. 8 43 Como Avenue, St. Paul, Minnesota 55108 (612) 646-2591 - Voice (612) 649-0302. FAX (612) 646-0424 -TTY ir No change foreseen. No change foreseen. No change foreseen. The use remains the same. If you have any further questions, please give our contractor, Mr. Reed Benat of Park Edge Construction, a call at 698-7599 or myself, Ginnie Rien at 646-2591. Sincerely, Ginnie Rien Vice President Retail Operations Attachments 9 EOE/A3 Attachment CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION 5 WHEREAS, Ms. Ginnie Rien, of Goodwill Industries, Inc. applied for a conditional use permit - to enlarge a parking lot with a nonconforming sideyard setback. WHEREAS, this permit applies to the property at 2250 White Bear Avenue. The legal description is: VACATED STREET AND ALLEYS ACCRUING AND THE FOLLOWING: EXCEPT THE EAST 188.72 FEET AND EXCEPT THE WEST 276 FEET OF THE FOLLOWING, LOT 1, BLOCK 13 AND PART LYING SOUTHEASTERLY OF HIGHWAY OF LOTS 1 AND 2, BLOCK 4 AND THE WEST 78.72 FEET OF THE EAST 188.72 FEET OF PART SOUTHEASTERLY OF HIGHWAY OF LOTS 1 AND 1, BLOCK 4 AND THE FOLLOWING, WEST 78.72 FEET OF THE EAST 188.72 FEET OF LOT 1, BLOCK 13 ALL IN SMITH AND TAYLOR'S ADDITION` TO NORTH ST. PAUL, RAMSEY COUNTY, MINN. WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: 1. On __, 1996, the planning commission recommended that the city council approve this permit. 2. The city council held a public hearing on w, 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. 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. 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. l0 6. The use would be served by adequate public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, water and sewer systems, schools and parks. 7. The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services. 8. The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and scenic features into the development design. 9. The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city. 2. The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the permit shall become null and void. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 3. The city council shall review this permit in one year. The Maplewood City Council approved this resolution on 1996. 3.3_