HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-09-07 PC Packet
AGENDA
MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, September 7,2010
7:00 PM
City Hall Council Chambers
1830 County Road BEast
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Approval of Agenda
4. Approval of Minutes
a. July 6, 2010
b. August 17, 2010
6. Public Hearings
a. 7:00 pm or Later: Conditional Use Permit for Used Car Sales, 2590 Maplewood Drive, Don
Schilling, Walser Automotive Group.
b. 7:00 pm or Later: Conditional Use Permit/Planned Unit Development for Maplewood Mall
Area Park and Ride Parking Ramp, 1793 Beam Avenue.
c. 7:00 pm or Later: Rezonings within the Gladstone Neighborhood.
7. New Business
8. Unfinished Business
9. Visitor Presentations
10. Commission Presentations
a. Commissioner Report: City Council Meeting of August 23, 2010. Commissioner Trippler was
scheduled to attend. The item for review was the Kingston Avenue right-of-way vacation.
b. Upcoming City Council Meeting of September 13, 2010: Commissioner Desai is scheduled to
attend. There are no scheduled planning commission items for this meeting.
11. Staff Presentations
12. Adjournment
DRAFT
MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION
1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA
TUESDAY, JULY 06,2010
I. CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Fischer called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
II. ROLL CALL
Commissioner AI Bierbaum
Commissioner Joseph Boeser
Vice-Chairperson Tushar Desai
Chairperson Lorraine Fischer
Commissioner Robert Martin
Commissioner Tanya Nuss
Commissioner Gary Pearson
Commissioner Dale Trippler
Commissioner Jeremy Yarwood
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Absent
Present at 7:05 p.m.
City Staff Present:
Tom Ekstrand, City Planner
Chuck Ahl. Assistant City ManaQer
III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Commissioner Pearson moved to approve the agenda as submitted.
Commissioner Desai seconded Ayes - all
The motion passed.
IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
a. June 15, 2010
Commissioner Pearson moved to approve the minutes of June 15, 2010, as submitted.
Commissioner Desai seconded
The motion passed.
V. PUBLIC HEARING
Ayes - Bierbaum, Boeser, Desai, Fischer, Martin,
Pearson
Abstention - Fischer, Nuss
a. Conditional Use Permit Revision for Rolling Hills of Maplewood Mobile Home Park 1st and
2nd Additions, 1316 Pearson Drive
Planner Tom Ekstrand presented the staff report for this request for city council approval of a
revision to the conditional use permit requirements for Rolling Hills 1 st and 2nd Additions. The
applicant is requesting that the park owner be allowed to move in used homes, but the
conditional use permit requires that all homes brought into the park are new homes.
Planning Commission
Minutes of 07-06-10
-2-
Planner Ekstrand said the homeowners' association asked that homes older than 12 years
not be allowed to move into the park. Mr. Ekstrand explained the homeowners' association
feels that homes older than 12 years should not be allowed to be moved in, since many
homes older than 12 years have deficient materials used in their plumbing.
Commissioner Pearson said he does not support a restriction on the age of a home to be
moved in and feels this would not be protective of the homeowners living in the park now with
homes that may be older than 12 years. Mr. Pearson said the deficient plumbing material
noted was previously handled by a class-action lawsuit and there should be very few homes
in existence with this material. Mr. Pearson said that if a home meets the park's and the
community's appearance standards and has the HUD seal, it is resellable to remain in the
community. Mr. Pearson said the city inspects the installation of the homes and enforces
code standards.
Thomas DeVincke, the attorney representing Mesa Dunes MCH Investors LLC, the owners of
Rolling Hills mobile home park, said that if a manufactured home meets the HUD code,
federal statute is clear that no other government agency can legislate to the contrary. Mr.
DeVincke said that the homeowners' association does not have the authority to legislate
plumbing changes in the home after the city has acted.
The public hearing was opened for comments; the following people spoke:
Paul Ruby, 1334 Pearson Drive, Rolling Hills mobile home park, asked that Commissioner
Gary Pearson be removed from considering this agenda item, since he is an owner in
another mobile home park. Commissioner Pearson said he is part-owner in Beaver Lake
Estates mobile home park, but he has no ownership in Rolling Hills park and his considering
this item would not affect him in any manner. Mr. Ruby was concerned that the city would be
allowing substandard mobile homes into this park.
Planner Ekstrand responded saying on receipt of a letter from Mr. Ruby requesting that
Commissioner Pearson step down from consideration of this item, he contacted the city
attorney for an opinion on the request. City attorney Alan Kantrud did not see a conflict of
interest with Commissioner Pearson's considering this item.
Commissioner Martin noted that the planning commission's consideration of this item is
limited to the Rolling Hills' conditional use permit and does not pertain to any other property.
Commissioners commented that city inspectors would inspect any homes coming into the
park and would require that mobile homes be brought up to codes, including any plumbing
that does not meet code. Commissioners also noted that the mobile home park requires that
mobile home owners follow the park and community appearance standards for their homes.
A resident of Rolling Hills mobile home park spoke noting the safety aspects of this mobile
home park for single moms and that most of the Rolling Hills homeowners take care of their
home.
There were no further comments; the public hearing was closed.
Planning Commission
Minutes of 07-06-10
-3-
Commissioner Martin asked staff if the city has any recourse for problems with maintaining
mobile homes in the park. Planner Ekstrand said that the city will respond to any complaint
on housing and has recently been working with a mobile home owner in response to a siding
complaint. Mr. Ekstrand explained that if it involves the conditions of approval for the park,
the city can then work with the mobile home park owner through the conditional use permit.
Commissioner Boeser moved the adoption of the resolution approving a conditional use
permit revision for Rolling Hills of Maplewood Mobile Home Park 1 st and 2nd Additions.
Approval is subject to the findings required by ordinance and subject to the following
conditions (deletions are crossed out and additions are underlined):
Rolling Hills 1" Addition CUP Conditions from August 13, 1984
1. Prier te tbe Sj1riag tbaw afla IHltiI July I, 1981, imprevea (grayel er similar material) effstreet parkiag pads shall
be previaed f-er eaoo yebide aDseoiatea \'.'it-ll aH eOOllfliea lffiit. Unrestriotea emergeflcy vehiele access must be
w:ailable at all times.
2. /\. mobile berne HIIlSt flat be mS'fea ante a let after },priI23, 1981 limil a street is pa':ea ia front eftbe lot.
3. There be fle eJlterier ef eqliipmeat, Dueh as bikes, boses, la'l,'llffiewers, rakes, etc.
1. Eae.!J.let e.!J.all be allewea afl 6Jltarier sterage shea effle mere thafl 120 sEtUare feot. Sue.!J. shea must be kept in
werkmaHlike repair afla paiflted.
5. ]>Ie aeeess shall be alle'l:ea to Ceffiury AVOOHe.
8. ]>Ie eeflstrHetiea er graEliag shall be alle\'.'ed te Elisturb the taaaaraek gre':e.
7. The pri'late saHitury sewer, water maiHs aHa skeets shall be eOf15truetea te be eeflsistoot 'l:ith the Maplewood aod
St. PaHI Water Utility DtaBaards te eflsure a reaseflable lovel ef serviee.
8. }JI utility iHstallatiefls shall be l.-lfldorgrOHBa.
9. Tbe private streets HIIlst be at least 28 feet iH width, ',vith parkiflg en aile siae eflly. ]>Ie parkiHg shall be penaitted
ifl the 'rieiHity ef iHterseetief15. The Director ef PHblie Safety DbaJl Sj1eeifY the ae parkiag Elistallees fer each
intersectiea. Signs shall be pOStea by the park e'liller whefl a'/ailable.
10. '.Vater linos must be flHshea at leaDt efloe eaC-fl year er as feEtUirea by the mY/ire_tal health sffieia!.
11. .'\.11 stenn water aiseharge must be Eliroeted te the 'lIotlaHa te tbe ',yest. ]>Is eenneotiea te the city stenn sewer shall
be allov/ea.
12. All rnebile homes HIIlst be flew, skirtea alia tied dev,'B. Skirtiag shall e"tefla trem t-lle frame sf the chassis te the
grmlBa. SkirtiHg must be paiBtea te eempl_ent the rnebile heme.
13. }JI tie ae'llHs aRa feHBdatieas must moet the state bHilaiHg eode.
11. CSflstructiefl efl tbe belew grade stenn shelter shall begin May II, 1981 aBa shall be oompleted by IHBe 22, 1981,
HGlOSG tbe Directer efPliblio Saf-ety e"toodG t-lle aoadJiHe ooe te oimumstaBeeG beyefla the eeOOel efthe de'felsper.
(b) The aesign ef the bele\\' graae strHctHfe HIIlDt be apprevea by the Direeter ef Emergeaey Ser':iees, inelliaiHg
emergefloy lightiflg, vomilatiefl frIld samtary faeilities. (e) The abo':e graae perriea of t-lle builEliag must reeeiye
approval frem the aesign re',oiew beard befere esastrHetion. (a) Tbe stenn sholter HIIlSt remaia free ef sterage and
Planning Commission
Minutes of 07-06-10
-4-
be kept a'lailable fer liSe. (e) Ne further J'lmmits f-er aaaitieaal mebile hemes shaJI be iSOliea until the shelter is
eeflSj11etea.
15. The sign regulatiefls fer the R3 distriet shall apply.
Ie. Tbe fullewiag miaimum setbaeks shall apply:
(5) T';:ooty feet te a private skeot.
(e) Thirty feet te a pliblie right ef'llay, eJlCept fer ster-age sheas.
(7) Five feet siae yara setbaek 8fl tbe siae eppooite the eHtry.
(8) T'.'/eaty foet siaeyara setbaek efl t-lle OOfry side.
17. Ne struernres shall be allowea ifl a roEtUired setbaok, elloept f-er aB aecessery builEliflg, in tbe twerny feat siae yard
setback ana the t-llirty foet setback [rem a public rigbt sf way. .A,a accessery baildiHg HIIlSt ha','e a side yara
setback of at least fiye feet.
IS. gales efmel3ile hemes shall be limited to these ewned by park resiaeflts aBa these sela by the park S';,'Rer fDr
J'llaeemeBt m t-lle park.
19. The ae':eleper sball J'lre'riae kame oentrel siglls as requirea bytbe Direeter efPHblic gafety.
20. CeflSj1liaBee with all pertiHOflt state statHtes ana regulatieas.
21. Ne '/ilriatiea shall be permitted frem the site plaa aatea3 21 83 'l."ithoHt 08f1lf1'lHflity aesign reviewboara approval.
22. The IRifIlber of mebile hemes shall flOt Q-xoeea 21e.
23. This oeaElitionalllse permit shall be foviewea m ene year te aetermine eompliaaee with eeflditiofls and whethor a
ehange ia cenE1itiefls is fleoessary te resol'/e preblerus t-llat may ha'le aeveloped.
21. (a) ,\fler :\-priI23, 1981, tbe folle';;iRg imprevomeBts HIIlSt Be installea witbin sixty aays after a mebile home is
placed efl a let (I) A payea dri'lewaYaBa off streot parkffig pad at least sixteefl feet wiae aIla t'l.'ooty feet deep.
(2) /\. thirty mob \yiae sidowalk frem the mebile borne eflkaBoe te the parkiHg paa sHbj eet te placement ef efltraBce
deoks. (3) },ll required laBaseaping ea the lot. If the laflasoapmg "annat be eeflSj11etoa '.vithia sixty aays, a letter
ef ereElit of eash "serew shall be depesitea with the Direeter ef Corum_ity De'/olepmoot te oosure installatiefl. (1)
gkirting. (b) IflSj1revemeBts reEjliirea m item 21 shall net apply to meaelhemes.
25. If allY ef tbe aeeye eeaElitiofls are flet met, ne aaaitienal mebile hemos shall be mWfed iHte the park.
Rolling Hills 2nd Addition CUP Conditions from May 11, 1987
I. CeflSj1liaaee 'lritb state requirements.
2. There shall be no elCterier sterage ef eEjUipmont slloh as bikes, hoses, la\\'Rmowers, falces, etc.
3. Eaoo let shall be allewea aB e"terior otorage shea offlo mere thaB 120 sfjuare feet. SlIah shea mHst Be kopt in
v:erkmillllike rapair aaa painted.
1. Each let shall be alJooliea te ha':e ehildrefl's play eEtUipment unless the aevoleper proyiaes a tet lot adjaeoot to the
eemrnHBity bailEling.
5. Eaeh let shall be allewed a aeek aBa oarpert, prw.'ided that either strHctllfe shall BOt be oloser thaB tea feet te aay
aajaceat ,p,yelliHg. Carperts shan not be eleser thall sill feet te a private st-r"et ana shall flet have ';:alls. Oa lets
aloflg Cootll1)' },YeflHe, sheds shall Bet be cleser thaa ferty SOYOO feet te tbe right of'l:ay.
Planning Commission
Minutes of 07-06-10
-5-
6. .\11 mebile bemes HIIlst be flOW, sltirtea aBa tiea as'llR. Skirtiag shall extend frem tbe fr-ame efthe e.!J.asois te t-llc
ground. SlcirtiBg HIIlst be painted te eempl_eat the mebile heme.
7. .\11 tie aeWflG aod feHBaatiefls must meet the state building code.
8. The sigll regulations fer the R3 Elistriet shall apply.
9. The fellowiag mini_ set-baoks shall apply fer awelhngs:
a. T'::enty feot te a priyate street.
b. Ferty seveIl f-eet te t-lle CeIltHr). },YeIlue right ef way.
o. Five fest siae yara setbaek efl the siae eppeoite tbe eIlk)' sias.
d. T'li-6flty f-eet side yard setbaek sa the efltry siae.
e. Seyenty feet te a raikeaa track,
10. Sales efmebile bemes shall be limited to these e'....Red by park resideatG and those seld by the park e':,'l101" for
plaoement iB tbe park.
11. The stena shelter shall be kept free ef sterage. The ohelter shall be kept epea at all times or keys shall be made
available te all residents ifl a mallller te be appre'lea by the Direeter ef Emergeae)' Services.
12. The eity shall not be reopensi-ble fer maintaiHiflg ao)' oftbe iaternal iHSj'lreyements.
13. Water liBes shaJlbe flHshoa at least efloe a year.
11. Parkiflg shall ealY be permittea efl efle siae ef eaeh skoet. 1'1 e parkiHg shall be permittea sleser thaa thirty fcet to
aoy iaterseetien.
15. },dherBl1ce te the appre'iOa site plaB aBd relatea eonditieflG. :\ny significant e.!J.ange HIIlst be approvea by tbe
eemruHBity aeoign rev4e'll beara. Miner e.!J.aages may be approyea by staff.
Revised/Combined Motion for both the Rolling Hills 1 ,t and 2nd Additions
1. Compliance with all building oode requirements.
2. There shall be no exterior storage of equipment suoh as bikes, hoses, lawnmowers, rakes, etc.
3. Each lot shall be allowed an exterior storage shed of no more than 120 square feet. Sheds must be kept in good
repair.
4. Eaoh lot shall be allowed to have ohildren's play equipment unless the developer provides a tot lot adjacent to the
oommunity building.
5. All mobile homes shall be skirted and tied down. Skirting shall extend from the frame of the chassis to the ground.
Skirting must matoh the mobile home.
6. Manufactured homes to be placed in the park are no longer required to be new. All homes to be moved into the
park must meet all ourrent building code and fire oode requirements.
7. The signs regulations for the R3 district shall apply.
8. The following minimum setbaoks shall apply for dwellings:
Planning Commission
Minutes of 07-06-10
-6-
o Twenty feet to a private street.
o Thirty feet to any publio right-of-way for homes in the I't Addition.
o Forty-seven feet to the Century Avenue right-of-way for homes in the 2"d Addition.
o Five foot side yard setbaok on the side opposite the entry side.
o Twenty foot side yard setback on the entry side.
o Seventy feet to a railroad track.
o Ten feet to any adjaoent dwelling for a deok or oar port.
o Six feet to a private street for a carport (oarports shall not have walls).
o Forty-seven feet to the Century Avenue right-of-way for a shed in the 2nd Addition.
9. Sales efmebile bomes shall be limited to these eWRea by park resiaeatn and these seld by tho park e''vfler for
placement ifl the park.
9. The storm shelter shall be kept free of storage. The shelter shall be kept open at all times or keys shall be made
available to all residents in a manner to be approved by the Director of Public Safety.
10. The property owner shall be responsible for maintaining all internal improvements.
11. Water lines shall be flushed at least onoe a year.
12. Parking shall only be permitted on one side of eaoh street. No parking shall be permitted closer than thirty feet to
any interseotion. These requirements are subject to the review and approval of the police chief.
13. There shall be no driveway aooess to Century Avenue or Ivy Avenue from the individual manufactured home sites.
14. Internal traffio signs shall be installed subjeot to the approval of the police ohief.
15. Adherence to the approved site plan and related conditions. Any significant ohange must be approved by the
oornrnunity design review board. Minor changes may be approved by staff. The number of home sites shall not be
inoreased without the revision of this oonditional use permit.
Commissioner Martin seconded
The motion passed
Ayes - all
b. 2011-2015 Capital Improvement Program (CIP)
Chuck Ahl, assistant city manager, gave a presentation on the 2011-2015 Capital
Improvement Program (CIP), which is completed by the city to help estimate the major capital
expenditures in the next five-year period. Mr. Ahl clarified that this document is done to
coordinate planning, financing and timing of major city purchases and construction projects.
Mr. Ahl explained that after the establishment of goals by the city council, city staff prepares
and recommends projects, along with a list of the projects that staff recommends be deferred
or listed as declined or unfunded needs.
A commissioner asked if it would be advantageous to the city to do repair and reconstruction
of more of the city's infrastructure now while labor and interest costs are low. Mr. Ahl
responded that the city council is now discussing this issue with staff to determine the
amount of debt the city should be carrying.
The public hearing was opened for comments. The following people spoke:
Planning Commission
Minutes of 07-06-10
-7-
Peter Fischer, 2443 Standridge Avenue, said he is commenting at this public hearing as a
resident of Maplewood. Mr. Fischer said the Capital Improvement Program is not consistent
with the comprehensive plan in parks areas. Mr. Fischer spoke about the reduction of funds
for public improvements in existing parks and funding that is needed for restoration of city
open space properties. Mr. Fischer recommended that the commission advocate for a more
broad-based community parks capital improvement plan that will address the needs of the
entire community instead of just two areas over the next five years.
Mark Jenkins, representing BEDC, the business and economic development commission,
said the commission has concerns with economic development bonding funds being used for
park lands and park projects.
Ron Cockriel, 943 Century Avenue, asked if the unfunded sidewalk and trail projects could be
included in Complete Streets if it is adopted in the near future. Assistant city manager Ahl
responded that the Complete Streets program is currently being debated in the Legislature
and is a policy supported by the city. Mr. Cockriel suggested there may be additional ways to
purchase all of the Fish Creek property. Mr. Cockriel said he supports the fire training facility
saying it is a model project.
Several commissioners discussed the lack of funding for parks and open space maintenance
and restoration and that the city is now planning to purchase the Fish Creek property that will
require additional open space maintenance. The commission noted the Fish Creek property
is a valuable parcel, but also discussed the need for parks and open space properties to be
maintained so they do not become overgrown and an eyesore.
Peter Fischer again spoke explaining that from a parks system perspective, an open space
property is any open, passive recreational area. Mr. Fischer explained how city open space
properties have been acquired over the years.
There were no further comments; the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Yarwood said he thinks there are other alternatives for parks and community
center funding other than just spending more money, such as privatization, land swaps or
selling some open space properties to fund others. Mr. Yarwood commented that
redevelopment of neighborhoods is not the primary function of the city, but instead we should
make sure the core functions such as the fire and police departments are maintained.
Commissioner Pearson said feels this is a good, balanced capital improvement plan and is
consistent with the comprehensive plan. Mr. Pearson said he feels the police department is
understaffed-not considering the population, but with the increased crime in Maplewood
over the past eight to ten years. Mr, Pearson said he would like to see an increase in officers.
Commissioner Pearson moved to recommend the city council adopt the 2011-2015 Capital
Improvement Plan and that it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Commissioner Desai seconded
Ayes - Bierbaum, Boeser, Desai, Fischer, Nuss,
Pearson, Yarwood
Nay - Martin
The motion passed.
Planning Commission
Minutes of 07-06-10
-8-
VI. NEW BUSINESS
None
VII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
a. 2010 Tour Route RecaplDiscussion
Planner Ekstrand asked for comments on the recent city tour. Commissioner Desai said the
speakers in the bus were not working property and some of the tour comments were not heard.
A commissioner noted the need to stick to the scheduled time for each site, so all of the planned
sites can be visited.
VIII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS
None
IX, COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS
a. June 28, 2010 City Council Meeting: Planner Ekstrand reported on this meeting.
b. Upcoming City Council Meeting of July 12, 2010: Commissioner Martin will attend.
X. STAFF PRESENTATIONS
Planner Ekstrand passed out zoning and land use maps to commissioners.
XI. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 10:43 p.m.
DRAFT
MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION
1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA
TUESDAY, AUGUST 17, 2010
1. CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Fischer called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.rn.
2. ROLL CALL
Commissioner AI Bierbaum
Commissioner Joseph Boeser
Vice-Chairperson Tushar Desai
Chairperson Lorraine Fischer
Commissioner Robert Martin
Commissioner Tanya Nuss
Comrnissioner Gary Pearson
Commissioner Dale Trippler
Commissioner Jeremy Yarwood
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Absent
Staff Present: Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner; Shann Finwall, Environrnental Planner
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Commissioner Pearson moved to approve the agenda as presented.
Cornmissioner Trippler seconded.
Ayes all; the motion passed.
4, APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Commissioner Trippler moved to approve the minutes of the July 20, 2010, minutes as
presented.
Cornmissioner Pearson seconded.
Ayes: 7, abstaining Commissioner Bierbaum; the rnotion passed.
It was noted that the commission has not yet received the minutes for Ihe July 6, 2010,
meeting minutes. Commission Pearson also requested a disc of that meeting and for the last
council meeting.
August 17,2010
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
1
6, PUBLIC HEARING
a, Kinston Avenue Right of Way Vacation: Request for 1721 DeSoto Street
Richard Dufresne, who lives at 1721 DeSoto Street was present as applicant for the street
vacation of a small portion of the Kingston Avenue right of way to attach to his property. A
Maplewood city engineer believes that the city does not currently have the right of way for this
part of DeSoto and, if the right of way is vacated and attached to his property, Richard
Dufrense has agreed to grant an easement to the city. Because the city has no use for the
small piece of right of way, staff is recommending approval.
With no one else wishing to speak on this item, the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Trippler moves to approve the attached resolution regarding the vacation of
the right of way of Kingston Avenue west of DeSoto Street. Reasons for vacation are show in
the attached, 1 - 3; approval is subject to parts 1 and 2.
Commissioner Pearson seconded the motion. Ayes all; motion passed.
It was noted that the Planning Commission makes a recommendation to the City council. City
council makes the final decision on this item an either the August 23 or Sept. 13 city council
rneeting.
b. Metro Transit Front Setback Variance and Parking Stall Width Variance Requests
for a Proposed Parking Ramp at the Mall Area Park and Ride. (No Report-Item has
Been Withdrawn)
This item has been tabled indefinitely.
7. NEW BUSINESS
a. Ordinance Review to Consider Allowing the Keeping of Chickens in Residential
Areas
Shann Finwall, Environmental Planner, and Melissa Weigant, Community Development
Intern, presented the proposed ordinance that has been under development by the
environmental and natural resources commission (ENR) since October 2009. The purpose of
the ordinance is to promote urban agriculture and sustainability. Current zoning code
prohibits the raising of poultry in all zoning districts.
In the development of the ordinance, the ENR researched the ordinances of six other cities
that allow chickens to be kept in residential areas; these cities are: Minneapolis, Saint Paul,
Shoreview, Rosemount, Oakdale and Burnsville. The ENR also spoke with health experts as
well as citizens who either own or have owned chickens at their residence.
The ENR recomrnended approval of this ordinance on July 19, 2010. The proposed
ordinance carries the following restrictions:
August 17,2010
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
2
1. Up to 10 chickens would be allowed on any size lot with a permit.
2. Applicant must have approval of 75% of home owners within 150 feet of the
applicant's property.
3. No roosters can be kept.
4. Chickens must be kept in a separate coop; no chickens may be kept in human-use
buildings, including garages, etc.
5. Leg banding is required as a means of identifying ownership of each chicken
6. Slaughtering of chickens is prohibited.
Additional application requirements are also included in the ordinance.
The following questions/issues were raised and discussed:.
1. Allergies among neighbors
2. Make the ordinance specific in requiring chickens to be kept in the back yard
3. All adjacent neighbors must approve
4. Cost to the city/tax payers versus permit fees:
. Commissioner Trippler noted that, as the ENR was developing the ordinance, it
was always stressed that it should not cost the tax payers to allow people to have
chickens, yet, while the costs to process would be approximately $115, the ENR
commission is recomrnending a fee of $50. The ordinance does not actually state
what the fees would be.
5. Assess fees per chicken like it is for dogs.
6. How will the ordinance be policed?
7. What are the requirements for dealing with feces and deceased chickens? How will
that be regulated?
8. What are the set backs for the location of the coops?
9. Some questioned the "sustainability" of keeping only hens.
1 O. Concern that allowing chickens will lead to residents wanting to keep other types of
livestock.
Ms. Finwall made the following clarifications:
1. The ordinance would be policed the same as any other animal ordinance. Leg bands
are intended to reduce the cost of boarding stray chickens. Slaughtering can be done
by an outside company with the chicken is no longer producing eggs. Similar to the
policing of other ordinances, policing would be done based on complaints received.
2. Portable chicken coops are quite innovative and a practical way to keep thern, so the
ordinance allows for the use of these portable coops: therefore, there are no specific
setbacks included.
3. ENR heard frorn people have concerns about the eggs they are buying in the store.
They are people who prefer to grown their own food on their own property. Ms.
Finwall believes this ordinance will be used only by people who know what they are
getting into. Sustainable agriculture is also preferred by a large part of the immigrant
cultures.
Commission members agreed to review and consider the ordinance again if the following
changes are made:
August 17,2010
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
3
1. Include language to address the handling of feces and deceased chickens.
2. Include specific language on how the ordinance will be policed.
3. Define "officer" to distinguish between animal control and police.
4. Add the word "live" to references of keeping chickens.
5. Require the approval of 100% of adjacent neighbors.
6. Require the approval of neighbors as part of the annual permit renewal.
7. Increase the distance for neighbor approval to 300 feet.
8. Umit the nurnber of chickens based on the lot size using a ratio of chickens to
area.
9. Establish set-backs.
10. Address disposal of a deceased chicken and the waste.
11. Make the fees strong enough to make people serious about doing it.
12. Require rodent-proof coops.
A guest raised concerns about the city being at risk for law suits filed due to incidents that
occur with chickens. Commissioner Boeser recommended that the liability issue be
investigated.
The ENR will modify the ordinance as discussed and present this updated ordinance to the
Planning Commission at a future meeting.
b, Gladstone Neighborhood Master Plan and Zoning Update
Ms. Finwall gave an update on the rezoning of the Gladstone Neighborhood.
On January 25,2010, the city adopted the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. State law requires that
the city revise its zoning map and zoning ordinance controls to reflect the Comprehensive
Plan designations and meet the goals and objectives of the Gladstone Redevelopment plan.
The deadline for completing this rezoning is October 25, 2010.
One of the last areas to be rezoned is the Gladstone neighborhood. The comprehensive plan
was approved with mixed-use and medium density residential zoning. However, Gladstone
currently has a variety of zoning codes compared to the plan, including:
1. Ught manufacturing
2. Business commercial
3. Business commercial modified
4. Multiple-dwelling residential
5. Double-dwelling residential
Ms. Finwall explained and answered questions about form-based zoning. This type of zoning
doesn't look at the specific use, but instead looks at the form and function of the building
based on the street frontage. These codes are designed to provide more flexibility and fewer
barriers to development that traditional zoning. The differences between P.U.D.s and form-
based zoning were discussed at length.
Rezoning options will be presented to the City Council at a workshop on Monday, August 23,
2010, at 5:15 pm. Staff is requesting that the Planning Comrnission offer direction on if the
city should study and consider changes to the master plan for the Gladstone, and, following
the short-term rezoning of the neighborhood to meet the requirements of the comprehensive
August 17,2010
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
4
plan, if the city should continue to explore other zoning options of the neighborhood 10 meet
the unique characteristics of the neighborhood.
Commissioner Trippler offered that, because there is no redevelopment taking place or
planned for the Gladstone neighborhood, staff recommend the rezoning of Gladstone with
mixed-use to bring it in compliance with the 2030 plan by October 25, 2010. The
Comprehensive Plan can always be modified when the city is ready to do redevelopment in
that area.
c, Comparison of Zoning and Land Use Maps
At the last meeting Chairperson Fischer requested that each commissioner and staff review
the maps and see what discrepancies they find. Mr. Ekstrand presented his findings, which
comprised three types of discrepancies:
1. Those resulting from the 2030 Comprehensive Plan update
2. Old inconsistencies carried over from previous plan conversions
3. Corrections/Errors in color coding
Specifically:
1. The MCI/Cell Com cell tower is incorrectly zoned as Mixed Use. The commission
determined that this is a color-coding error.
2. Three homes along Sloan Place are shown as Limited Commercial in the
Comprehensive Plan. Should be shown as Residential.
3. A property on the corner Parkway Drive is designated as High-Density Residential
(HDR), the other corresponding zoning map shows it as Farrn-Residential. If changed
to HDR it will create a non-conforming zoning for that property.
4. Property south of Coleman Lake shows split zoning with some lots zoned as Low-
Density residential (LDR) and some as Farm Residential. This prompted discussion
regarding whether or not to take steps to eliminate all split zoning. No changes will be
made at this time.
5. 2694 Stillwater Road: Two lots west of Knowlan's Market. One is zoned as Limited
Business Commercial (LBC), but should probably be zoned Residential (R1). Staff
recommends rezoning the LBC lot back to R1.
6. Parcel owned by school district is zoned (shaded) G for government. The parcel next
to it is planned for LDR. The zoning is split into Farm and Residential. Staff
recommends that this be rezoned to R1.
7. A lot that includes Waldorf School should not be shaded as Government. Staff
recommends re-shading this to represent Institutional zoning.
8. Wetland area along county road C is shaded as Commercial Office; this should be
changed back to Farm zoning shading.
9. An Xcel substation is shaded as Institutional and should be shaded as Comrnercial.
10. Gethsemane Senior Housing was approved for split land use as HDR and Park. It is
intended to be zoned as PUD and Park. Staff recommends leaving as is for now.
11. Watershed district parcel: Shaded as Medium-Density Residential (MDR) on west half
and LDR on the east half; however it is zoned single-family residential. It is owned by
the watershed district and is a government property. Should be zoned and shaded as
Government.
August17,2010
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
5
12. Along Century Avenue almost to Highwood is a large townhouse and single-family
development. Several rezoning/shading changes should be made to reflect the
correct usage.
13. Gladstone Neighborhood: in this single-family neighborhood the Comprehensive Plan
shows a small lot that is shaded for HDR is actually a single-family horne and is zoned
Single-family. Staff recommends correcting the shading.
The commission will submit any additional corrections/changes to staff for future review.
8. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
None
9, VISITOR PRESENTATIONS
None
10. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS
a. City Council Meeting of August 9, 2010: Commissioner Pearson reported on items discussed at
this meeting.
b. Commissioner Trippler is scheduled to attend. A possible item for review will be the Kingston
Avenue right-of-way vacation.
c. First September Planning Cornmission meeting is scheduled for the day after Labor Day; a
quorum is expected. Agenda items for review will include Metro Transit and Walser Automotive.
11. STAFF PRESENTATIONS
12. ADJOURNMENT
The rneeting was adjourned by consensus at 9:32 p.m.
August 17,2010
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
6
MEMORANDUM
LOCATION:
DATE:
City Manager
Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner
DuWayne Konewko, Community Development and Parks Director
Metro Transit Park and Ride Parking Ramp-Planned Unit
Development
1793 Beam Avenue
September 1, 2010
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
INTRODUCTION
Project Description
Metro Transit, a division of the Metropolitan Council, is proposing to build a three-level (a
ground-floor level and two above-ground levels), 1 ,OOO-space parking ramp at the park and ride
site located west of Sears at 1793 Beam Avenue. The applicant would also construct a .
sidewalk along the Southlawn Drive frontage. The current transit center consists of a 426 space
parking lot for the park and ride and a bus-transit hub. Refer to the plans.
Requests
To develop this site, the applicant is requesting approval of a conditional use permit (CUP) for a
planned unit development (PUD). As part of this request, the applicant is also proposing:
. A building-setback reduction on the Southlawn Drive side from 30 feet to 15 feet.
. A parking space width reduction from 9 % feet to 8 % feet.
BACKGROUND
November 25, 2003: The community design review board approved the plans for the existing
park and ride facility.
June 8, 2009: The city of Maplewood adopted a resolution in support of Metro Transit's funding
request for Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality-Transit Expansion grant financing.
DISCUSSION
PUD Criteria for Flexibility in Design
Section 44-1093(b) of the PUD ordinance states that the city council may consider flexibility
from strict code compliance in the internal and external design requirements of a proposed PUD
and may consider deviations from those requirements. Deviations may be granted for planned
unit developments provided that:
1. The proposed development and the surrounding neighborhood can be better served by
relaxing the code requirements that regulate the physical development or layout of the
project because of its unique nature.
2. The PUD would be consistent with the spirit, intent and purposes of this chapter.
3. The planned unit development would produce a development of equal or superior quality to
that which would result from strict adherence to this chapter.
4. The deviations would not constitute a significant threat to the property values, safety, health
or general welfare of the owners or occupants of nearby land or to the environment.
5. The deviations are required for the reasonable and practical physical development of the
project.
Building Setback Reduction
There has been support by the city council for reducing front setbacks elsewhere in the city.
The 80-acre Legacy Village development to the north along Southlawn Drive, was approved
with a requirement for reduced front setbacks. The predominant front setback approved at
Legacy Village is 15 feet from a street right-of-way line (front property line). The only exception
at Legacy Village is the Ramsey County Library which was allowed to move their building back
nearer the Sculpture Park to take advantage of the park view.
The city also approved a reduced front setback for the St. John's Hospital parking ramp of six
feet at its closest point and a setback reduction for the Maplewood Toyota parking ramp of 15
feet.
Staff feels that the proposed setback reduction meets the above five criteria as follows:
1. The reduced front setback would better serve the development and the neighborhood
because it would provide a larger ramp with150 more parking spaces than it would by
maintaining a 30-foot setback. This would serve the community because it would meet the
goal of the Transportation Action Plan within the 2030 Comprehensive Plan by encouraging
and facilitating public transit.
2. The request for a reduced front setback would meet the spirit and intent of the ordinance
and serve the community by maximizing the number of spaces in this proposed parking
ramp.
3. From an architectural point of view, reducing the front setback from 30 feet to 15 feet would
not make a superior project, however, staff does not feel it would negatively impact the
building appearance. But from the standpoint of meeting parking needs at the park and ride,
as mentioned above, reducing the setback to 15 feet would improve the usefulness of this
parking facility because it would result in a greater parking capacity.
4. The proposed setback reduction would not negatively impact property values, safety, health
or welfare.
5. The proposed setback reduction is needed for the most reasonable and practical layout of
the site because of the triangular shape of the property. A rectangular-shaped site would
2
lend itself to a more traditional parking ramp design rather than having to work within the
existing lot shape. Increasing the building setback to 30 feet would reduce the proposed
parking capacity and impact the efficient use of the parking ramp.
Parking Stall Width Reduction
The applicant pointed out in their narrative that, "it is Metro Transit's belief that the intended
parking use of this project is not specifically addressed in the city's zoning ordinance for low
turnover parking spaces." They feel that the nature of the proposed parking ramp would provide
a covered, sheltered environment which would accommodate the activity of twice-a-day use vs.
a typical commercial low-turnover use that would have more activity. The applicant considers
the park and ride ramp as an "ultra-low turnover" parking use.
The applicant also provided a comparison chart showing what width spaces some metro
communities allow for a park and ride parking ramp. See page 8 of the narrative. According to
this data, Maplewood requires the widest spaces at 9 Y:1 feet. The other communities with park
and rides utilize 8 Y:1-foot-wide spaces.
Staff feels that 8 Y:1-foot-wide spaces are useable, but can be tight to maneuver within. As an
alternative to 9 Y:1-foot-wide spaces, the city does allow 9-foot-wide employee-parking spaces
for businesses. This is the closest parking scenario the city code provides to the proposed
parking facility. The community design review board, however, did support the proposed
8 Y:1-foot-wide spaces.
Building Official and Fire Marshal Comments
Dave Fisher, the Maplewood Building Official, reviewed the proposal and has the following
comments:
. The applicant should have a pre-construction meeting with the building inspection staff
. The city will require a complete building code analysis
. Provide accessible parking spaces per 2006 IBC
. Provide accessible bathrooms per 2006 IBC
. Provide elevator per 2006 IBC
. Provide address numbers on the building
. All exiting must go to a public way
. Provide adequate Fire Department access to the building
Butch Gervais, the city's fire marshal and assistant fire chief, commented that this facility must
meet all applicable fire codes.
Engineering Comments from Maplewood Engineering, Ramsey County and SEH
This proposal was reviewed by Steve Kummer, staff engineer with the city, Erin Laberee,
Ramsey County Traffic Engineer and by George Calebaugh and Tom SOhrweide, traffic
engineers with the engineering consulting firm SEH.
The primary issue with this proposal centers on traffic impact with recommendations for
managing an increase in traffic congestion. Mr. Kummer's report also discusses
3
grading/erosion control, utilities, the need for a pedestrian easement and other engineering
issues. Please refer to the attached reports.
SEH's Review
The city regularly consults with the engineering staff of SEH to analyze traffic matters that
require in-depth study. Such is the case with this proposal and the review of the applicant's
traffic impact study. The applicant should reimburse the city for all review expenses by SEH as
well as any costs incurred by the city's engineering staff in the review of this proposal.
Summary
Staff is supportive of the request to reduce the building setback from Southlawn Drive. Staff is
not strongly opposed tothe proposed 8 Yz-foot-wide parking spaces, but the planning
commission and city council have historically not been supportive of narrower parking spaces in
the past. For that reason, staff did not recommend approval of the parking stall width reduction
to 8 Yz feet.
. COMMISSION ACTION
August 24,2010: The community design review board recommended approval of the proposed
site plan. The applicant will submit the architectural and landscaping plans later for review. The
CDRB commented that, with the reduced setback from Southlawn Drive, they expect to see
attractive architectural design when those plans are submitted. The board also recommended
approval of the 8 Yz-foot-wide parking spaces.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the resolution approving a conditional use permit for a planned unit development for the
proposed Metro Transit parking ramp at the Maplewood Mall area park and ride facility. This
approval includes a reduction in the front setback for the proposed parking ramp of 15 feet from
the Southlawn Drive right-of-way line and a reduction in parking stall widths from 9 Yz feet to 9
feet. Approval is subject to the findings required by ordinance and subject to the following
conditions:
1. All construction shall follow the site plan date-stamped July 28, 2010. Staff may approve
minor changes.
2. The city council shall review this permit in one year.
3. 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.
4. Comply with the requirements in Steve Kummer's engineering report dated August 27,2010
and also with the requirements in the August 27,2010 letter from Erin Laberee, Ramsey
County Traffic Engineer, and with the requirements of the July 30, 2010 memorandum by
SEH.
4
5. Comply with the requirements of the Building Official and Fire Marshal.
6. This approval does not include landscaping, lighting or architectural plans which shall be
submitted for community design review board approval.
REFERENCE INFORMATION
SITE DESCRIPTION
Site size: 4.41 acres
Existing Use: Metro Transit Park and Ride Facility
SURROUNDING LAND USES
North: Maplewood Mall parking lot
South: Beam Avenue and Chili's
East: Maplewood Mall parking and the Maplewood Mall
West: Southlawn Drive, Olive Garden and McDonald's
PLANNING
Land Use Plan: C (commercial)
Zoning: BC (business commercial)
Criteria for CUP/PUD Approval
Section 44-1097(a) states that the city council may approve a CUP, based on nine standards.
See findings 1-9 in the resolution.
APPLlCA TION/DECISION DEADLINE
The city received the complete application and plans for this proposal on August 11, 2010.
State law requires that the city take action within 60 days of receiving complete applications.
The deadline for city action on this proposal is October 10, 2010.
p:sec2N\Park and Ride Parking Ramp PC Report 9 10 te
Attachments:
1. LocationlZoning Map
2. Land Use Plan Map
3. Site Plan
4. Applicant's Narrative date-stamped August 20, 2010
5. Engineering Report dated August 27,2010
6. Letter from Erin Laberee dated August 27, 2010
7. Traffic Impact Study Review by SEH dated July 30, 2010
8. Resolution
9. Plans date-stamped July 28, 2010 (separate attachment)
5
Attachment 1
(f) KOHLMAN AV
)I':
o
z
;::
1
lOCATION I ZONING MAP
~Q ~
~~I
sQ ~
S"III ~
u." 8
Attachment 2
c..
<(
:E
c.. z
as <(
:E ...J
c..
(U w
tJ) ~ en
:::) Q) :J
~
t)
"'C C
C Z
as <(
....J ...J
! -
.,
"0
:::J U;o
'"
...... '"
:::J
LL
I
"'C 0
0 '"
'"
0 ~
~ Q)
t)
(U
N
as 0
:I: z--<
~~
a
If
~=t1
=(1)
5::)
{JW
ro ;:+.
~
o
o (J)
Q...,
5:m
~v
Q r-
oJ>
~. Z
':2
C
n
C
<ii
~
i
"
I
OJ
'<
<-
c:
e-
N>
a:>
!i'iIil
=
\
~~~~.
'"
m
oS:
"'-
. ~
z..... Q
~
Attachment 3
"
.~-
""J:>)>-:J>.!!l
O:I:l::t:l:C-t
ommmm
~;t:o~~c
::C~""T1.!j
~6~~?"
):>Vl~m
~9z~
):>~c;;!-;
;go~~
<' -<-z
2:l~;!!;g
_"'):>0
~g~~
;=~.:.S
~ ac
~ oZ
~m
m~
,8
m_<
m' >
~:;!:!!
ii3!~
~~~
Q~;:
~>"
EF:;i
~~~
~o!!'
Z
~
@
.
q
o
Z
>
F
~
Sl~~~~~~
~J;!j;:!!~~2:
'0n~.....UJZ
....mm' , , C\
O,--,N""'......'"
gQQ~~~~
c:lJ>"2 ...
":0:: r-
t;: ~ ~ 8
, c
. Z
, ~
Q ~
~
~
~
~
m
N
o
":
N
.
~
:;St'J
c_
~~
I'
~~
~3
z>
oQ
~m
<~
mo
;;1':
~m
<~
>0
:=!~
>~
Z~
n~
m~
~z
mm
0>
~5
'<Z
~
"""'.'
.,.", ,
~~~
25,-::1
z Z
o 0
~
~
.
..
,~
,
'.
.
i'
Ie
I
(I
I"
'"
2'-4' BEAM AVENUE _
00'''"'''_
.~~~--.,'- ,- ---':-"=".=- ,:' ..:, - - -- ' -........-- -.--
SITE PLAN
Attachment 4
mu ~ Q I)] ~\m!
iUU AUG 20 2010 l~
NARRA liVE FOR cuP/pun APPUCA liON
MAPLEWOOD MALL TRANSIT CENTER AND PARK & RIDE
6y
Introduction
This narrative is in support of the PUD Application and Plan attached to this application. The narrative
provides project background and addresses the questions posed in the City's Planned Unit Development
(PUD) Application and the requirements of the City of Maplewood Ordinance No. 900, Section 44-1093 and
44-1097, which outline procedures and standards for processing a PUD Application. This Application
requests deviation from two zoning standards - parking stall width and building setback. Specifically, this
application requests the PUD to include a reduction in the building setback along Southlawn Drive from 30
feet to 15 feet and a reduction in parking stall width from 9'-6" to 8'-6" consistent with National standards
and with similar park and ride facilities operated in the Metro Area.
Proiect Background
The site of the PUD, a proposed Maplewood Mall park and ride facility expansion, is located at 1793 Beam
Avenue and is an irregular, triangular-shaped parcel that is approximately 202,287 square feet in area and
currently contains a 426 space surface parking lot used as a park-and-ride and transit center with local and
express bus service.
The Maplewood Mall park-and-ride is a key component of the regional transit system with route 270
express bus service to Downtown Minneapolis displaying a strong historical ridership growth trend over the
past decade. Five Yflars after opening the Maplewood Mall park-and-ride, the 426 space surface lot was
full beyond its capacity by nearly 125 percent with much of the beyond-capacity parking occurring in the
Maplewood Mall retail parking lots (which has become a point of contention for the Mall). Metro Transit has
taken steps to study and document growth and demand at the park-and-ride, with estimations predicting
demand of approximately 900 parking spaces in 2020 and 1,300 in 2030. As a result, expansion of the
facility to as close to the maximum 1,000 spaces is necessary to adequately accommodate future growth
and to keep transit customers from parking in Maplewood Mall retail parking lots.
The park and ride property was originally taken by the Metropolitan Council for transit purposes in 2004
through eminent domain proceedings. Sears, Roebuck and Company and Maplewood Mall were
petitioners in the settlement, which required Metropolitan Council to provide full compensation for damages
sustained as a result of the taking. In addition to compensation for damages, the settlement agreement
included provisions that limit the height and size of an expanded park-and-ride facility:
Park-and-Ride Height Restriction: The agreement limits expansion of the park-and-ride to 2 above-
ground levels with an elevation limit of approximately 957.0 feet above mean sea level, which was
the height of the movie theater previously on the site.
Park-and-Ride Capacity Restriction: The agreement limits an expanded park-and-ride facility to a
maximum of 1,000 vehicles and no more than two above-grade, structured levels of parking (one
on-grade plus two structured levels of parking).
1
On June 8, 2009, the Maplewood City Council passed Resolution 09-06-196 to support Metro Transit's
application for a Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Grant for the proposed project. Within the text of the
Resolution is the following paragraph: "WHEREAS, the proposed expansion of this park and ride facility
would benefit the residents of the City of Maplewood as well as those of neighboring communities with their
transit needs by reducing congestion and providing needed park and ride opportunities."
For purposes of meeting Metro Transit's operational program for the project (provide as close to 1,000
parking stalls as possible), the site has significant burdens in terms of its size, configuration (triangular
shape), height restrictions, and City stall width and setback requirements. It is the intent of this application
to deviate, via the PUD process, from two of the City's zoning requirements - building setback and parking
stall width - so that there is a balance between governmental units of the state that will best serve the public
interest and greater community good.
Please also note that this PUD Application is consistent with and supports the City's Comprehensive Plan
of reducing congestion and pollution, encouraging public transit use, and appropriate compact development
that facilitates land-use I transit connections. Met Transit believes that this project is a good candidate to
receive PUD approval consistent with Goal 6 of the Plan to, ''Support the use of planned unit development
for sites with developmental challenges including significant natural features to allow for creative design
and site preservation. "
pun Proposal
Metro Transit proposes to construct a 1000-stall parking structure to expand the existing transit center. The
facility will provide a park and ride with express bus service and a transit center, connecting local routes
and passengers to the Maplewood Mall, other area retail establishments.
Design of this proposed expansion is currently in the 50% phase. A Community Design Review Board
(CDRB) application will be made at the 90% design phase to provide more detail to City reviewers.
Approval of this PUD application may be conditioned upon the CDRB application. As designed, the
proposed parking structure is approximately 310,000 gross square feet, divided among three parking levels
(1 at grade, and 2 above-ground) accommodating up to 1000 vehicles, a conditioned stair tower, one
elevator to provide vertical circulation throughout the facility, landscaping, and a stormwater system that
meets watershed requirements. The existing boarding area and passenger shelter would be maintained.
The facility would be in conformance with ADA standards.
This PUD Application requests deviation from two zoning standards; first, a reduction in the building
setback along Southlawn Drive from 30 feet to 15 feet in order to make appropriate use of the size and
irregularly configured site, and; two, a reduction in parking stall width from 9'-6" to 8'-6" consistent with
National standards and with similar park and ride facilities operated in the Metro Area. Please note that it is
Metro Transit's belief that the intended parking use of this project is not specifically addressed in the City's
zoning ordinance for low turn-over parking spaces. The operational program for the proposed project is a
parking facility that is accessed by park and ride customers twice a day, by people accustomed to parking
in the facility on a continuing, day-to-day basis. In addition, the vast majority of parking in the structure is
covered and sheltered from the elements making for a much more comfortable and accommodating
environment for parking. Thus, the use of the structure can be considered "ultra-low turnover" in terms of
parking and the reduced stall width is in keeping with this type of use.
2
Criteria for Ap-proval of a Conditional Use Permit
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
The existing project site and adjacent area for the proposed park and ride expansion is identified as
Division 10 - BC Business Commercial District. "Parking iot as a principal use" is listed as a permitted use
listed under this zoning designation.
The park and ride expansion keeps with the spirit and intent of the Maplewood 2030 Draft Comprehensive
Plan by developing a compact site plan that facilitates land-use/transit connections. The plan specifically
highlights the Maplewood Mall area as a transit hub in which to focus planning and infrastructure efforts to
improve off-peak and express bus service to .St. Paul and Minneapolis.
The location, design, maintenance, construction, and operation of the expanded park and ride/transit center
will be in conformance with the City's Code of Ordinances, with an exception described in the PUD criteria
below, regarding requested deviations from two specific ordinances. Per criteria number ten below, the
City Council may waive particular ordinance conformance for a public building, provided the Council shall
first make a determination that the balancing of public interest between governmental units of the state
would be best served by such waiver.
2. The use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area
To obtain an idea of the character for the area, the Maplewood 2030 Draft Comprehensive Plan was
reviewed. The pian suggests the city is approaching the issue of automobile dependence and congestion
through implementation of land use poiicies that will encourage compact development and creation of site
plans that facilitate land-use/transit connections. Metro Transit believes the proposed park and ride
expansion will be in keeping with the existing character of commercial/retail establishments in the
Maplewood Mall area. The proposed project will set appropriate design qualities and standards that will
support existing and future planned development.
The PUD will have minimal impact on surrounding property owners, as the parcel is not directly adjacent to
any businesses, retail establishments, or residences. There would be more impact to adjacent properties if
the park and ride was not expanded to a suitabie capacity for projected future demand. Previous
experience has demonstrated high levels of demand at this park-and-ride with usage outpacing capacity. If
the expanded facility is not large enough to accommodate anticipated usage levels, past trends suggest
transit customers will park in designated Maplewood Mall parking lots to use the express bus service and
this unauthorized use may have negative impact on retail establishments at the Mall.
3. The use would not depreciate property values
Depreciation in property values is not anticipated as part of this PUD. The PUD may actually increase
property values for several reasons:
a. The current use is a surface parking lot with a transit/waiting station area. The lot is in full view of
the surrounding streets and community. The proposed development will screen parking areas and reduce
the visuai "clutter" of the current site and will provide a more visually pleasing and appropriately scaled
view-shed, one that is appropriately designed within the community context and in sync with the City's
Comprehensive Pian and the Mall/ Retail District.
3
b. Full development of the project will support specific Comprehensive Plan goals of supporting public
transportation and transit-oriented development.
c. The project provides full storm water management and code compliant capture, retention, and
filtration of storm water thus providing a significantly improved and enhanced site that helps to better
protect surrounding properties.
d. Additional plantings /Iandscaping will be provided as part of this project which will improve the
overall appearance and sustainable nature the site.
e. The architectural design will set a standard of care and quality for future, similar development in
this area and in the City.
f. The project will support the retail aspects of the Mall by keeping park-and-ride users off of the main
Mall retail parking lot.
4. The use would not involve any activity, process, materials, equipment or methods of
operations 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.
Current park and ride operations do not create excessive noise, glare, smoke, dust, odor, fumes, water or
air pollution, drainage water run-off, vibration, general unsightliness, electrical interference or other
nuisances. Expanded park and ride operations would be similar, but provide improved site
condition/aesthetic, stormwater drainage, and security/surveillance.
Construction of the proposed park and ride expansion would not generate any excessive odors during
construction. Noise and dust normal to construction would occur as a result of this project. Construction
noise would be in accordance with City ordinances. Construction equipment would be fitted with mufflers
that would be maintained throughout the construction process. Dust generated during construction would
be minimized through standard dust control measures such as watering. After construction is complete,
dust levels are anticipated to be minimal because all soil surfaces would be in permanent cover (i.e.
pavement or grassed areas).
5, The use would not exceed the design standards of any affected street.
A traffic impact analysis was performed for this PUD. The scope of the traffic study follows guidelines in
the Institute of Transportation Engineers' recommended practice Transportation Impact Analyses for Site
Development. City of Maplewood engineering staff has been consulted to ensure their concerns related to
the traffic impacts of the proposed development are fully addressed. The intersections included in the
study currently operate better than city standards (LOS D) during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. Based on
the analysis in the report, the study intersections will continue to operate at or better than city standards in
the a.m. and p.m. peak hours with construction of this PUD. This traffic study document was provided to
the City staff on June 21, 2010 but can also be provided upon request.
6. The use would be served by adequate public facilities and services, including streets, police
and fire protections, drainage structures, water and sewer systems, schools and parks,
4
Access to the proposed park and ride expansion will be similar to existing off of South lawn Drive, Beam
Avenue, and from the Mall ring road. As discussed above, these streets, intersections, and accesses are
adequate for the increased traffic.
Security cameras are proposed throughout the parking structure and external waiting area. Metro Transit
Police and Maplewood Mall security will have the ability to view and respond to activity in the parking
structure. An emergency telephone is provided per code in the elevator. The parking structure will provide
appropriate fire protection as reviewed and approved by the Fire Marshal serving the City of Maplewood.
Drainage structures and water and sewer systems are being designed to improve drainage/runoff rates and
quality, meeting requirements of the Ramsey Washington Metro Watershed District. Water service is
proposed to allow for regular cleaning of the parking structure.
7. The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services.
The PUD would not create additional costs for public facilities or services. Parking at Metro Transit park
and rides is and will remain free for transit customers. Bus fares will not increase as a result of this park
and ride expansion.
8. The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and scenic
features into the development design.
The proposed development will improve the preservation and incorporation of the site's natural and scenic
features by:
a. Improving storm water management on the site to include Best Management Practices.
b. Improving the appearance of the site from that of a surface parking lot to that of a professionally
designed parking structure by an award-winning architectural firm that has been recognized for designing
parking structures that are visually pleasing and augment the surrounding environment.
c. Improving the appearance of the site through careful landscape design by an award-winning
landscape architect.
d. Taking advantage of the existing grades and topography of the site to inform the massing and
design of the parking structure and to assist in making the distinct topography of the site more apparent to
passerby.
e. Maintaining, improving, and reinforcing existing view-sheds and green buffers including viewing
angles across intersections, etc.
9. The use would cause no more than minimal adverse environmental effects.
i
On July 27, 2010, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), on behalf of the US Department of
Transportation, indicated that the proposed Maplewood Mall Transit Center park and ride expansion project
meets the criteria for a National Environmental Policy Act categorical exclusion in accordance with 23 CFR
Part 771.117(d)(4). The FTA based this determination on environmental documentation provided by Metro
Transit covering 19 categories of potential environmental impact. The FTA determination letter and/or
environmental documentation will be provided to the City upon request.
5
For this PUD, the categorical exclusion means that the proposed expansion "does not induce significant
impacts to planned growth or land use for the area; does not require the relocation of significant numbers of
people; does not have a significant impact on any natural, cultural, recreational, historic or other resource;
does not involve significant air, noise, or water quality impacts; does not have significant impacts on travel
patterns; or does not otherwise, either individually or cumulatively, have any significant environmental
impacts.
The Metropolitan Council/Metro Transit is applying for the CUP/PUD and meets most of the nine criteria for
a conditional use permit. This PUD would include two deviations from the City Code of Ordinances in order
to best serve the community and transit users. More detail on the request for this waiver is outlined below,
in the Planned Unit Development section.
Planned Unit Development - Findings of Justification for Deviations from
City Code of Ordinances
As part of this CUP/PUD application, the Met Council/Metro Transit is requesting a waiver to the first criteria
for approval of a CUP, regarding conformity with the City's Code of Ordinances. The proposed Maplewood
Mall Park and Ride expansion will best serve regional transit needs with two deviations from the City Code
of Ordinances:
. The City of Maplewood Code of Ordinances Section 44-20 requires a 30 foot building setback from
street right-of-way. Metro Transit proposes to design the park and ride expansion with a deviation from this
code to reduce the setback requirement along Southlawn Drive to 15 feet. Metro Transit would maintain a
30 foot setback along Beam Avenue.
. The City of Maplewood City Ordinance Section 44-17 requires a parking stall width of 9.5 feet.
Metro Transit proposes to design the park and ride expansion with a deviation from this code to reduce the
parking stall width for this low turnover, off-street parking to 8.5 feet, consistent with national standards.
1. The proposed development and the surrounding neighborhood can be better served by
relaxing the code requirements that regulate the physical development or layout of the
project because of its unique nature,
The circumstances upon which the setback and parking stall width code deviations are requested are
unique to this parcel of land due to its irregular, triangular shape and building height restrictions imposed in
the eminent domain settlement.
Setback Two of three sides of the PUD parcel are adjacent to public street right-of-way, along Beam
Avenue and Southlawn Drive, which have a required setback of 30 feet. Strictadherence to the zoning
code for street right-of-way setbacks on Southlawn Drive would significantly reduce space available for
parking. If the standard 30 foot setbacks are retained on Beam Avenue and Southlawn Drive, over 150
parking spaces would be lost.
Stall WidtlT. Strict adherence to the zoning code for off-street parking stall width would significantly reduce
the number of parking spaces that will fit on the park and ride site. As designed (with a reduced setback
along Southlawn), the largest cost-effective parking structure footprint on the site provides 1000 stalls with
8.5 foot width, but only 905 with 9.5 foot width.
2, The PUD would be consistent with the spirit, intent, and purposes of this chapter.
6
The PUD requires deviation from the zoning ordinances for setback distance along Southlawn Drive and
minimum parking stali width. As such, the PUD request is consistent with the purposes of the Conditional
Use and Planned Unit Development (PUD) chapters because there is a distinct need for flexibility in the
stali width and building setback requirement in order to serve the greater public good of providing a public,
transit development that serves the City, the Mall, and surrounding communities and is consistent with the
City's Comprehensive Plan. It is critical that the original program goal of nearly 1,000 stalis be achieved so
that the projected ridership/use of the facility is met with capacity and that themali is not negatively
impacted by park and ride overflow.
Due to the triangular configuration of the site and the height restrictions imposed by the settlement
agreement, the subsurface soil problems that have been encountered, and the setback and parking stali
width ordinances, the project is taking on undue burden in terms of both structural efficiency and program
requirements (number of stalis provided).
3. The planned unit development would produce a development of equal or superior quality to
that which would result from strict adherence to this chapter.
The Maplewood Mali park-and-ride is a key component of the regional transit. Metro Transit has taken
steps to study and document growth and demand at the park-and-ride, with estimations predicting demand
of approximately 900 parking spaces in 2020 and 1,300 in 2030. As a result, this PUD provides the
maximum 1,000 spaces necessary to adequately accommodate future growth and to keep transit
customers from parking in Maplewood Mali retail parking lots. Strict adherence to current ordinance would
only allow a capacity of about 850 spaces.
The proposed PUD keeps with the spirit and intent of the Maplewood 2030 Draft Comprehensive Plan by
developing a compact site plan that facilitates. land-use/transit connections. The plan specificaliy highlights
the Maplewood Mall area as a transit hub in which to focus planning and infrastructure efforts to improve
off-peak and express bus service to St. Paul and Minneapolis.
4, The deviations would not constitute a significant threat to the property values, safety, health
or general welfare of the owners or occupants of nearby land or to the environment.
The deviations to zoning ordinances that Met Transit is seeking (15' building setback along Southlawn in
lieu of 30' and 8'-6" wide parking stalls in lieu of 9'-6") do not constitute a significant threat to property
values, safety, health or general welfare of the owners or occupants of nearby land. Met Transit argues
that the proposed project requires the requested deviations from the two zoning ordinances in order to
augment and support property values, safety, health and general welfare of the nearby owners or
occupants of nearby land. By aliowing the deviations requested, the Applicant will provide a more efficient
and effective parking structure that provides the programmatically required number of parking spaces. It is
critical that the project achieve as many parking spaces as possible within the limits set by the original
stipulation agreement so that projected parking needs are met and park and ride users are not tempted to
utilize Maplewood Mall's surface parking lot.
The parking structure will, by its very nature, provide highly desirable parking for park and ride users
because the majority of spaces are covered from the elements and very close to the transit station portion
of the project. The design of the structure, which shields and protects the parking within, will also be of
significant benefit to surrounding owners and occupants as it will serve as a standard of quality for future
7
development and is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan for compact development that facilitates
land-use I transit connections.
5. The deviations are required for reasonable and practicable physical development of the
project.
The setback and stall width reductions are required for reasonable and practicable physical development of
this PUD; these deviations are not requested for financial reasons. Under current ordinance, Metro Transit
can only build a park and ride with a capacity of 850 spaces or fewer. The preferred ramp design has a
capacity of 1000 parking spaces (941 ramp and 59 surface lot) If setbacks are reduced to 15 feet along
Southlawn Drive and if an 8.5 foot parking stall width is provided.
Setback. The setback ordinance was created to ensure structures are placed a safe distance from public
street right-of-way and to provide sufficient space for accessing utilities along the right-of-way. There is
sufficient space to meet safety requirements and utility needs, as evidenced by an existing structure as part
of the Legacy Village PUD that was constructed with a reduced setback of 15 feet. At the park and ride
site, utilities are available within the requested 15 foot setback area for service to the building on the west
side. The proposed location of the parking ramp 15 feet from the property line along Southlawn Drive will
allow for reasonable use of the property and will be in keeping with the existing character of
commerciallretail establishments in the Maplewood Mall area.
Stall Widtlr. The ordinance for off-street parking stall width was created to ensure safe and comfortable
parking maneuvers for eleven generally defined use types listed in the ordinance, most of which are
commercial and higher turnover. A park and ride operation is not referenced in the ordinance. A parking
stall width of 8.5 feet provides sufficient space for safe and comfortable parking movements within a low-
turnover park and ride parking structure as demonstrated by multiple park and rides in the region, as well
as other parking structures regionally and nationally (see below for regional standards). Metro Transit has
no
! 900 Ramp Parking
Municipality Width Length Aisle 1W/2W
City of Edina 1 8'-6" 18' 124'
City of Minneapolis 8'-6" 18' 20' /22'
ciiy;;f-Mi~~~io~ka2---"-- ---8;=6;;-'-' ---'ilr--- .-22;T24~~- 8'-6"
City of Saint Louis Park 8'-6" __".,~ 8' I 22'
City of White Bear Lake 8'-6" i 20' I -- i
cIty- of Brooklyn-Ceni",-- ----8':8"-TW:6"-T---Z;r-1
City of Bloomington 3 9' 18' 24' 8'~" I
~~-~!~:::~te -- . !>---\-- ~~~-~.~:: ------ ::~::--"
City of Saint Paul 9' 18' 20'
City'Of Maplewood---'- 9'-6" 18' 24' 8'-6" * .....
II. ....... .. . 11 J ..... I. . J.L .J ..
1",.~J~i!y"~,I_I,9Y'~~,,,~_c:>,~e,~,?!,~,P~,~~~_!<<?,C?_~_~~~i,~,~,~~,~c:J,_,~,i,rl~'!l_,LJ'!l,p~,~~i~~_~?,LJ~,~,c:J~I,!:Jrl,~,~,i_rl,,~rl,i,rl,$;!,~_i~,~~j9~;
L'?IS:i1Y.~_II?~S_'~_"~~~Ll~9<:l'?~!;;~'_<:li~l~ ~i9t,~_irlP<:lr~i_rl~_!;)t_rLJ~Ll~l3,~,:_,_,,_______, _1_." 1",00 m_n_ m_m_ __00___1
L~_ _~~ty~l_j_~I.y~___t::?_rl"1P~t::!~P~_<?~:~__~?~~_~~~~_~Y_<?_~~~_?_~<??_~~~i_~_~_!E:l_-~?_!~~__~i_~_I~_~_~__p~_~~i~_~_I::~~_rl~-_-:-__-
I 4 ,PUD granted to Metro Transit for Roseville Park & Ride. Iii I
1........Iproposedinthis.i'U6....L...[.................I............................J...................................................I......J..........................................r . .1
indication of incidents or complaints at its six parking structures around the region.
8
Summary: PUD - Justification for Deviations from City Code of Ordinances
The combination of the irregular shape of the parcel at the corner of two major streets and a parking stall
width requirement greater than national standards make it impossible for Metropolitan Council/Metro
Transit to put this property to a reasonable use as a 1,000 stall parking structure, which supports the
Maplewood 2030 Draft Comprehensive Plan.
Construction of a higher capacity parking ramp [facilitated by a reduced setback and reduced parking stall .
width] will actually help the property stay in keeping with the essential character of the locality by providing
a sufficient number of parking spaces directly on site to meet transit customer demand; thereby deterring
transit customers from parking in Maplewood Mall retail parking lots when the park-and-ride is full.
Lastly, improving transit services around Maplewood Mall will enable Maplewood and surrounding
municipalities in the East Metro to accommodate regional growth, and increasing travel and transit needs
by connecting residential neighborhoods with the Minneapolis and 51. Paul central business districts.
9
Attachment 5
Maplewood Engineering Comments - Maplewood Mall Park and Ride Expansion
8-27-2010
Page 1 of 5
Enqineerinq Plan Review
PROJECT:
PROJECT NO:
COMMENTS BY:
Maplewood Mall Park and Ride Expansion
1 0-03
Steve Kummer, P.E. - Staff Engineer
DATE;
8-27 -10
PLAN SET:
Variance Application Set Dated 7-19-10
Accompanied with PUD Submittal
REPORTS:
Traffic Impact Study (TIS)
Maplewood Mall Parking Structure
Spack Consulting (on behalf of Applicant)
Dated 6-21-10
Memorandum (attached)
Review of Spack Consulting TIS
S.E,H. Inc, (on behalf of City of Maplewood)
Dated 7-30-10
ATTACHMENTS:
Comments
Erin Laberee, Traffic Engineer
Ramsey County
Dated 8-27-10
Summary
Metro Transit is proposing to expand its Park and Ride facility at the NE corner of Southlawn
Drive and Beam Avenue. The proposal is to convert the existing 426-stall surface lot into a
1000-stall parking ramp/surface lot combination.
The traffic circulation throughout the site will remain similar in concept. The site will use the
existing access points from Southlawn Drive and Beam Avenue. Access points from the Mall
Ring Road for users of the parking lot and bus pickups will remain in similar, but slightly
modified locations. The applicant proposes to construct a right-turn lane for their current right-
in/right-out entrance from Southlawn Drive.
Request
The applicant is requesting the following:
1) A variance to reduce the setback requirement along South lawn Dr from 30 ft to 15 ft.
2) A variance to reduce parking stall widths for the off-street parking areas to 8.5 ft.
This review does not constitute a full design review. It is understood that the applicant is
seeking initial variance approvals that will significantly impact the final design process for this
project. Engineering will conduct a full review when the completed design review application is
received.
Maplewood Engineering Comments - Maplewood Mall Park and Ride Expansion
8-27-2010
Page 2 of 5
Traffic/Access Comments
Staff conducted a review of a Traffic Impact Study (TIS) provided by the applicant and had the
study reviewed by a traffic operations engineering consultant with the engineering firm S.E.H.
(comments from S.E.H. dated 7/30/10 are attached). The reports suggest a number of
mitigation measures due to.the increased traffic from the proposed Park and Ride expansion.
1) The applicant shall conduct a LOS analysis for the P.M. peak hour periods in the 2015
and 2030 no-build scenarios using the Sim- Traffic modeling. Applicant shall provide a
comparison similar to Tables 5.1 and 5.2 in their TIS dated 6-21-10.
2) The applicant shall provide improvements or means for improvements to adequately
mitigate the modeled queuing problem on the Mall Loop Road between the Mall South
Entrance Road and Park & Ride Entrances due to the forecasted increase in P.M. peak
hour trips to the Beam Avenue/Mall South Entrance intersection. Modifications to the
Beam/Mall South Entrance intersection are required for mitigation. Although the report
concludes that "commuters will find a more balanced approach to getting to White Bear
Avenue than the conservative forecasts in the report show," there is no modeling to back
up whether or not this will resolve forecasted queuing problems on the Mall Loop Road
and backups at the intersection of Beam Avenue and Mall South Entrance.
3) The applicant shall provide a right-turn lane for the Park and Ride Ramp access point
from Beam Avenue.
4) At the Beam Avenue/Southlawn intersection, Sim- Traffic modeling for EB left turns in the
2030 PM peak hour build indicate a LOS F for this intersection operation. The City will
continue to monitor the operation of this intersection and coordinate improvements with
Ramsey County.
5) Staff conducted a consultant review of the applicant's TIS through the City's designated
traffic operations engineering consultant S.E.H. Throughout the study process, the
City's consultant coordinated with the applicant's consultant to ensure a complete review
and accurate modeling of all area-wide traffic impacts resuiting from the proposed park
and ride. City staff believed it prudent to hire a traffic operations engineering consultant
to perform a thorough review of traffic impacts due to this development application. The
fee charged by S.E.H. for the review is part of the normal staff review time. Typically,
any applicant seeking approval for development of any site within the City would be
billed for staff time plus the review time for any City-contracted consultant involved with
the review. The applicant shall reimburse the city for all consultant expenses as well as
engineering staff time associated with this review.
6) The driveway acoess points into the site, including those from the Mall Loop Road shall
be constructed to City commercial driveway standards.
7) No other access points from Beam Avenue our South lawn Drive directly servicing this
site will be allowed other than the two existing right-in/right-out access driveways.
Maplewood Engineering Comments - Maplewood Mall Park and Ride Expansion
8-27-2010
Page 3 of 5
8) Engineering does not support TIS recommendations of placing all-way stops at the
intersections of Mall Ring Road/Mall South Entrance Road and Mall Ring Road/Mall
West Entrance Road.
9) Refer to S.E.H. review comments dated 7-30-10 that will be included with the PUD as
comments that will need to be addressed.
Comments Reoardino the Setback Variance
10) I n looking at the proposed setback variance, constructioR of the parking lot and parking
ramp and associated object/appurtenances shall not encroach upon a 30-foot sight
triangle for both intersections of South lawn/Beam and Southlawn/West Mall Access
measured from the easterly curb line of Southlawn Drive, the southerly curb line of the
West Mall Access and the northerly curb line of Beam Avenue.
11) The northwest corner property line has a curve. The applicant appears to have
projected the 15-foot proposed setback I,ine based on the straight edge of the property
line along Southlawn Avenue. The proposed setback from the curved portion of the
property line shall not interfere with future improvements at the intersection and shall
stay outside of the 30-foot sight triangle of the intersection as measured from the
roadway edges.
Comments Reoardino the Parkino Stall Widths
12) An 8.5-foot stall width is acceptable for low turnover 90-degree angled parking stalls.
National parking standards and other city codes for off-street parking (Manhattan, KS for
example specifies a minimum stall dimension at 8.5-feet by 18.5 feet; Menlo Park, CA
and San Jose, CA have minimum parking stall width dimensions of 8.5 feet for 90-
degree angled stalls).
13) It is required that the applicant provide van-accessibility for all ADA/handicapped
accessible parking stalls.
Drainaoe Calculations and Storm Water Manaoement
14) No drainage computations or storm water management designs were provided with this
application. Applicant shall submit a design and computations with submission for
design approval.
15) The applicant denotes a storm water management system on the plans near the
property line along the Southlawn frontage. Presumably, this will be an underground
system when final design is developed. This system shall be fully accessible ONLY from
the applicant's property both in maintenance, operation and possible repairs
(excavation) if needed.
16) Applicant shall provide calculations on any site storm drainage systems at time of design
submittal.
Maplewood Engineering Comments - Maplewood Mall Park and Ride Expansion
8-27-2010
Page 4 of 5
17) The owner/applicant shall enter into a maintenance agreement prepared by the City that
covers all private storm water management devices (i.e. underground
infiltration/treatment, rate control devices, sumps, swales, rain gardens, etc.) at time of
design submittal.
Gradinq and Erosion Control
18) Applicant shall prepare a grading plan at time of design submittal. All existing and
proposed_ topography, building floor elevations and areas of disturbance as well as all
other features necessary for the proper development of the site shall be clearly denoted
on the plans. Applicant shall include drainage arrows and directions of flow with slope
percentages as needed and shall denote drainage contours on building roofs.
19) Applicant shall prepare a SWPPP with accompanying Erosion Control Plan at time of
design submittal.
Site Geometrics
20) The applicant shall provide turning templates for all driveway entrances to ensure that
the largest vehicles anticipated to enter the park and ride and bus diOp-off areas can
safely execute turns without interference from incoming or outgoing traffic from the site.
Utilities
21) Verify (by potholing, if necessary) the iocation of existing sewer and water services to
the site. Place surveyed locations on the plans.
22) Clean and televise existing sanitary sewer service and submit the results of the sewer
televising to the City for review. Prior to any building or new construction placement, the
City must review the connection and direct repair/replacement of the sewer service if
necessary.
Riqht-of-Wav/Easements
23) Applicant shall dedicate a roadway/sidewalk easement for the proposed sidewalk along
South lawn. The easement line shall be parallel to and offset a minimum of 1 foot off the
back (east edge) of the proposed walk.
24) Applicant shall show all existing drainage and utility easements in plan view. The
proposed building appurtenances (footings, etc.) shall not encroach within any
easements or rights-of-way.
Landscapinq
25) Coordinate all proposed site landsoape improvements with Virginia Gaynor, City
Naturalist, who will provide detailed comments on the plans with the design review.
Coordinate all landscaping with Maplewood Mall management.
Maplewood Engineering Comments - Maplewood Mall Park and Ride Expansion
8-27-2010
Page 5 of 5
26) The applicant shall coordinate with Shann Finwall, Environmental Planner, on
compliance with the City's tree ordinance for design submittal. The applicant shall
prepare a tree plan showing the location, type, number and size of trees to be removed
and include a tree mitigation/replacement plan or schedule. The applicant shall work
with City staff for locations of trees within boulevards along Beam and Southlawn.
Reviewino Aoencies
27) Approval is required from the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District since the
site wiil disturb over one acre. The site is also subject to the City's storm water
ordinance.
28) Coordinate water service (fire protection and domestic service) with Saint Paul Regional
Water Services during the design development. The applicant must receive approval
from SPRWS prior to issuance of a grading permit.
29) Significant impacts to the Mall's transportation system wiil result from this project. The
applicant shall have any agreements, easements and approvals from the Mall in order
prior to issuing of any permits from the City. The City shall receive copies of any
approved legal agreements and correspondences between the Mall and the applicant.
30) Applicant shall coordinate their plan review with Ramsey County and obtain all
necessary permits.
31) Other agency approvals may be involved. It is the responsibility of the applicant to
ensure all necessary permits and approvals are obtained and forwarded on to City staff.
Miscellaneous
32) The developer or project engineer shall submit a copy of the MPCA's construction storm
water permit to the City.
33) The owner and project engineer shall satisfy the requirements of all permitting agencies
prior to issuance of any permits from the City.
34) Applicant shall submit a lighting plan.
35) The City may require a development agreement at the design review stage due to
significant infrastructure impacts and funding of improvements to mitigate impacts.
-END COMMENTS-
Attachment 6
Department of Public Works
Kenneth G. Haider, P.E., Direet.or and County Engineer
RAMSEY COUNlY
1425 Pan1 Kirkwo1d Drive
Arden Hills, MN 55112-3933. (651) 266.7100. Fax (651) 266-7110
E-mail: Public.Works@co.ramsey.mn.us
August27, 2010
Steve Kummer
City of Maplewood
1902 County Road BEast
Maplewood, MN SS109
Re: Metro Transit Parking Structure
Dear Mr. Kummer,
I have reviewed the plans and the Traffic Impact Study submitted for the Metro Transit Parking
Structure proposed for the northeast corner of Beam Avenue and South lawn Drive, SEH has prepared a
review of the Traffic Impact Study as well. There are three intersections involving County roads that will
be directiy impacted by the Park and Ride expansion; Beam Avenue at Southlawn Drive, the mall south
entrance and White Bear Avenue.
We concur with the finding that additional storage capacity is needed for the eastbound left turn lane
on Beam Avenue to Southlawn Drive. The 2030 PM peak hour build analysis shows 510 left turns. While
the development is adding approximately 10 cars during this time frame it is not significant_ The County
recommends this intersection be kept under observation for imwovements in the future. SEH has also
recommended that the signal phasing be revised to allow for protected/permitted left turn movements
for southbound traffic and extending the existing turn lane by 30 feet. The County supports this as a
future improvement and will keep the intersection under observation for needed improvements.
SEH has recommended that a separate left turn lane be added for southbound vehicles at the
Maplewood Mall South Enterance and Beam Avenue. This would require the traffic signal be revised to
allow for protected/permitted ieft turns. Signal modifications will be required. The County recommends
the addition of the left turn lane at this location along with the necessary traffic signal modifications.
The Traffic Impaot Study and SEH's review recommends the extension of several left turn lanes at White
Bear Avenue and Beam Avenue. This recommendation is based on the planned improvements to White
Bear Avenue that are currently being constructed. These improvements were based on 2030
projections during the PM peak hour and are not significant enough to revise the current construction at
the intersection. The County will also keep these recommendations in mind when future improvements
to the intersection become necessary.
The Traffic Impact Study shows 260 vehicles turning right into the south Park & Ride entrance off of
Beam Avenue in 2015 during the AM peak. This warrants the addition of a right turn lane on Beam
Minnesota's First Home Rule Counq.
I'lilll.'.! "llll~1< h,t1lliIIWI \lilh a IlIl1l1nllllll "lllI">I""I.-H'lI~IIII1I'1 (.""11'111
'';e:''
-
Department of Public Works
Kenneth G. Haider, P.E., Direotor and County Engineer
RAMSEY COUN1Y
1425 Paul Kirkwold Drive
Arden Hills, MN 55112-3933' (651) 266-7100' Fax (651) 266-7110
E-mail: Public.Works@oo.ramsey.mn.us
Avenue as part of the development project, The turn lane should begin at the end of the taper for the
free right merge lane for the Maplewood Mall South Entranoe,
A Ramsey County Right of Way permit will be required for any construotion activities occurring within
Ramsey County right of way, Dennis Hagle is the permit coordinator and oan be contacted at 651-266-
7186,
Sincerely,
~4~
Erin Laberee, PE
Traffic Engineer
Minnesota's First Home Rule County
printed 011 recycled pSlfflfwith a miaimumoI 10% post.consurne-r (lontent
~
Attachment 7
~
SEH
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Michael Thompson, City of Maple wood
FROM:
George Calebaugh, PE, PTOE
Thomas A. Sohrweide, PE, PTOE
DATE:
July 30, 2010
RE:
Review of Traffic Impact Study for Maplewood Mall Parking Structure
SEH No. MAPLE 020800
As requested, SEH reviewed the Traffio Impact Study (TIS) for the Maplewood Mall Parking Structure,
dated 6/21/10, by Spack Consulting. We have the following comments:
1. The TIS mainly uses Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) report results (See information in
Appendix B of the TIS) to identifY traffic operations problems and to determine where mitigation
measures are needed. It should be noted that the HCM results assume that you are dealing with
isolated intersections that are not affected by operations at other adjacent intersection. This
assumption is not valid for the study intersections, since intersections are closely spaced and do
impact each other. We recommend that the results from SimTraffic (This information is in
Appendix D of the TIS. We also viewed the animation that is a part of the SimTraffio program.)
be used for evaluating operations at the study intersections. SimTraffic does account for
interaction between intersections and provides more valid results than HCM for the study area.
The table below indicates where there are some significant differences between the level of
service results from HCM (See Tables 5.1 and 5.2 in the TIS) versus SimTraffic.
Intersection
C
A(b)
C(f)
2030 PM
HCM
F(f)
C e)
F
A(b)
eak hour Build
SimTraffic
B(d)
D(
Aa
F
Southlawn DrIMall West Dr
SoutWawn Dr/Beam Ave
Mall Rin Rd/Mall West Ent.
Mall Rin Rd/P&R SE Dr
Mall Rin RdIMall South Ent.
2. For 2015 Build PM peak hour conditions, the TIS recommended mitigation measures are
installing all-way stop control at the Mall Ring Road/Mall South Entrance intersection and Mall
Ring Road/Mall West Entrance intersection. Though the TIS mentions that queues from
soutbbound Mall South Entrance at Beam A venue will baok up to the Mall Ring Road/Park &
Ride entrances, no mitigation measures are proposed for this problem.
Based on the SimTraffic results, we do not reoommend the all-way stop control measures at the
two intersections, and we do recommend adding a lane to southbound Mall South
Entrance( creating a right turn lane, a thru lane, and a left turn lane on this approach) at Beam
Avenue and changing the signal phasing at the intersection to allow a protected/permitted
Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc., 3535Vadnais Center Drive, St. Paul, MN 55110-5196
SEH is an equal opportunity employer I www.sehinc.com I 651.490.2000 [ 800.325.2055 I 651.490.2150 fax
Review of Traffic Impact Study for Maplewood Mall Parking Structure
July 30, 20 I 0
Page 2
southbound left turn. Tbe signal phasing ohange would require some modifioation to the signal
equipment at the intersection.
3. We do not agree with all of the mitigation measures the TIS recommends for 2030 Build PM
peak hour conditions.
Based on the SimTraffic results, we do not agree that the all-way stop control at the Mall Ring
Road/Mall South Entrance intersection and Mall Ring Road/Mall West Entrance intersection is
needed. We recommend adding a lane to southbound Mall South Entrance (creating a right turn
lane, a thm lane, and a left turn lane on this approach) at Beam Avenue and changing the signal
phasing at the intersection to allow a protected/permitted southbound left turn (Note another
option for signal phasing at this intersection would be to go to split phasing for the north/south
approaohes ).
At the White Bear Avenue/Beam A venue intersection, we recommend extending the westbound
left turn lane to 150 feet (instead of 140 feet), extending the eastbound left turn lane to 300 feet,
and extending the northbound left turn lanes to 300 feet (instead of 275 feet).
At the Beam A venue/SoutWawn Drive intersection, we recommend adding dual left turn lanes on
the eastbolmd approaoh (instead of extending the single left turn lane to 400 feet), extending the
southbound left turn lane to 300 feet (instead of 270 feet), changing the signal phasing at the
intersection to allow a protected/permitted southbound left turn, and changing the east/west left
turns to protected only phasing. At the SoutWawn Drive/West Mall Entrance intersection, we
would recommend extending the northbound left turn lane to 250 feet (instead of 210 feet).
s:\ko\m\maple\020800\maplewood mall park&ride review\maplewood mall ps tis review memo 073010.docx
Attachment 8
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, Lindsay Sheppard, representing the Metropolitan Council, applied for a conditional
use permit for a planned unit development to construct a parking ramp at the Maplewood Mall area
Metro Transit Park & Ride facility.
WHEREAS, Section 44-6 of the city ordinance provides that a PUD can be a development
characterized by a unified site design with two or more principal uses or structures.
WHEREAS, Section 44-1093(b) of the city ordinance provides that the city council may
consider flexibility from strict code compliance in the internal and external design requirements
of the project dependent upon the following findings:
1. The proposed development and the surrounding neighborhood can be better served
by relaxing the code requirements that regulate the physical development or layout
of the project because of its unique nature.
2. The PUD would be consistent with the spirit, intent and purposes of this chapter.
3. The planned unit development would produce a development of equal or superior
quality to that which would result from strict adherence to this chapter.
4. The deviations would not constitute a significant threat to the property values, safety,
health or general welfare of the owners or occupants of nearby land or to the
environment.
5. The deviations are required for the reasonable and practical physical development of
the project.
WHEREAS, the applicant is requesting that the city allow a building setback reduction for the
proposed parking ramp from the South lawn Drive right-of-way line from 30 feet to 15 feet and
also a parking stall width reduction from 9 'h feet to 8 'h feet.
WHEREAS, this permit applies to the property located at 1793 Beam Avenue. The legal
description is:
Lot 9, Block 1, Maplewood Mall Addition
WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows:
1. On September 7,2010, the planning commission held a public hearing. The city staff
published a notice in the paper and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The
planning commission gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written
statements. The planning commission also considered the report and recommendation of
city staff. The planning corn mission recommended that the city council this
permit.
2. On , the city council considered reports and recommendations of the city
staff and planning cornrnission.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council the above-described
conditional use perrnit and building setback and parking stall width reduction to nine feet wide (not
8 % feet as proposed), because:
1. The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be in
conformity with the City's Comprehensive Plan and this Code.
2. The use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area.
3. The use would not depreciate property values.
4. The use would not involve any activity, process, materials, equipment or methods of operation
that would be dangerous, hazardous, detrimental, disturbing or cause a nuisance to any
person or property, because of excessive noise, glare, smoke, dust, odor, fumes, water or
air pollution, drainage, water run-off, vibration, general unsightliness, electrical interference
or other nuisances.
5. The use would not exceed the design standards of any affected street.
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 no more than minimal adverse environmental effects.
10. The proposed development and the surrounding neighborhood can be better served by
relaxing the code requirernents that regulate the physical development or layout of the
project because of its unique nature.
11. The PUD would be consistent with the spirit, intent and purposes of this chapter.
12. The PUD would produce a development of equal or superior quality to that which would
result from strict adherence to this chapter.
13. The deviations would not constitute a significant threat to the property values, safety, health
or general welfare of the owners or occupants of nearby land or to the environment.
14. The deviations are required for the reasonable and practical physical development of the
project.
Approval is subject to the following conditions:
1. All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city date-stamped July 28,
2010. Staff may approve minor changes.
2. The city council shall review this permit in one year.
3. 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.
4. Comply with the requirements in Steve Kummer's engineering report dated August 27,
2010 and also with the requirements in the August 27,2010 letter from Erin Laberee,
Ramsey County Traffic Engineer, and with the requirements of the July 30, 2010
memorandum by SEH.
5. Comply with the requirements of the building official and fire marshal.
6. This approval does not include landscaping, lighting or architectural plans which shall be
submitted for community design review board approval.
The Maplewood City Council
this resolution on
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
James Antonen, City Manager
Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner
DuWayne Konewko, Community Development and Parks Director
Conditional Use Permit for Used Car Sales
2590 Maplewood Drive
Don Schilling
August30,2010
SUBJECT:
LOCATION:
APPLICANT:
DATE:
INTRODUCTION
Don Schilling, representing Walser Automotive Group, is requesting approval of a conditional
use permit (CUP) to sell and repair used cars at the former Mitsubishi dealership building
located at 2590 Maplewood Drive. The city ordinance requires a CUP to sell only used cars (the
sale of new and used cars are permitted, however) and also for auto repair.
BACKGROUND
Past Action
On August 7, 1980, the city council approved a special exception, an earlier version of a
conditional use permit, for an auto-dealership on this property. The original use was a Datsun
dealership. The special exception was conditioned upon water being extended to the site and
closing the driveway to Highway 61 upon cornpletion of the frontage road.
On January 12, 1993, the community design review board approved plans for a showroom
addition and a parts room addition.
On June 28, 2007, the city staff approved plans for the refurbishing of the building exterior. The
exterior improvements included replacing the existing standing seam fascia with an architectural
composite metal, repaving and striping the parking lot, repairing the dumpster enclosure and
adding landscaping.
City Zoning Code Requirements
Section 44-512(5) requires a CUP for the sale and leasing of "used" motor vehicles. Such used
auto sales must also be at least 350 feet away from property that the city is planning for
residential use.
Section 44-512(8) requires a CUP for maintenance garages.
DISCUSSION
Conditional Use Permit
The proposed used car sales operation would meet the requirements for CUP approval outlined
in the city ordinance. This proposal would utilize the existing facility and would require no
expansion or alteration of the building or site.
After the site was developed for an auto dealership in 1981, the ordinance was amended to
require a 350 foot separation from property zoned for residential. There is a home 225 feet to
the northeast from this site. The existing building is grandfathered in since it was built under
another set of guidelines.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the resolution approving a conditional use permit to allow the sale of used cars and a
vehicle garage at 2590 Maplewood Drive. Approval is based on the findings required by
ordinance and subject to the following conditions:
1. All construction shall follow the site and landscaping plans approved by the city date-
stamped August 11, 2010. Staff may approve minor changes.
2. The proposed use 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. All activity shall be confined to the site. There shall be no loading or unloading of vehicles on
the street rights-of-way.
5. The applicant shall comply with and observe the city's noise ordinance as it relates to PA
systems or any other business activity.
6. Comply with all city ordinance requirements for signage and parking.
2
REFERENCE INFORMATION
SITE DESCRIPTION
Site size: 3.12 acres
Existing Use: The former Mitsubishi Auto Dealership building
SURROUNDING LAND USES
North: Polaris, Victory & Suzuki Motorcycles
South: Highway 61 Frontage Road and vacant property owned by Maplewood Imports
East: Frontage Road and undeveloped property planned for residential use (although these
are wetlands and not buildable)
West: Highway 61
PLANNING
Land Use Plan: C (commercial)
Zoning: M1 (light manufacturing)
Criteria for CUP Approval
Section 44-1097(a) states that the city council may approve a CUP, based on nine standards.
See findings 1-9 in the resolution.
APPLlCA TION/DECISION DEADLINE
We received the complete application and plans for this proposal on August 11, 2010. State law
requires that the city take action within 60 days of receiving complete applications. The deadline
for city council review, therefore, is October 10, 2010.
p:sec9\Walser Used Car Sales CUP PC 9 10 te
Attachments
1. Location/Zoning Map
2. Land Use Plan Map
3. Site Plan
4. Applioanl's Letter of request date-stamped August 24, 2010
5. Conditional Use Permit Resolution
6. Plans date-stamped August 11,2010 (separate attachment)
3
~
K hlman Park
I-
(J)
:I:
(J)
:;
<.'l
z
w
LOCATION I ZONING MAP
~Q ~
:l~~
~~ ~
""~tl::
~ ~II ~
0'" 0
C.)
Q.
as
~
Q)
tJ)
::)
"C
c:
as
-..I
!
::J
......
::J
u..
.
"C
o
o
~
Q)
N
as
::I:
Attachment 2
c..
<(
::liE
:z
<(
...J
c..
W
en
:::J
C
:z
<(
...J
ill
~
()
-
<D
<Do
!.La
en
'"
-
c -
Q) ell
~
ro
'(3
0:: ~
LU Q)
(f)(f) E
....JLU E
~<i! 2-
o(f) 0
LUO::
(f)<( fiJ
00 Z
~fiJLUZ
0::(f)1-:)
o..:::J(f)o...
~
o
'"
en
Q)
()
ell
o
Z-<
Attachment 3
Used Car Xpress
~
~~
CONNOR AVENUE
,
,
</~
~ ,'I" t
,rt1'l1
1~'
,g
'"
r
,
i;n'
, ,
~. i
. ,
,
,
.'
,'.
!Ill,!
~/fJ
",
. '-0/' "m"G'~
H84'I85O'W
2500 r- Glo
, ".
i
,
i
,
, ".
I
,
,
)
.'-
;;'5
~/~o_
,
i
,
i _.
,
L_____..2~'"___~_./--
109.25'
+--
N3S'2?'I""lO "-----------------------l
--""W6.t9""---
,
,
/EXI5TINGUGHTS.
lYf".NlJMBEROF
.~ HEAVSNOT
VEKlFED
- /""~
o WNCRErEl"AO
,'-
"I'~
OQ<li
r.
o
.
...
-.
(u
iU
"')
!
EXISTING ONE - STORY
CONCRETE BUILDING
("~
.. Q--""~
________I
!
.-.
I
I
I
I
I
.-.
II
-.
,
,
,
^'
51~l1f<><1'n'it1on t""'" from """""y dat<:d A1'R~9, 2007 &y.
Rehder and Associates. Inc.
c,"'~ ","C'NEER5 AND tANO 5U"V;::YOl>S
,."'C""""""'S"","O"o,,,,,"'"^"O!o''''.''''''Sl)'52_'05'
JOS,074,2Z'5.0l0
Walser Automotive Group
2010 16,2010
Walser Used Car Sales Conditional Use Permit
2950 Maplewood Dr
Attachment 4
August 1,
Page I
Narrative for:
Walser Used Car Sales
Conditional Use Permit
2590 Maplewood Dr
Maplewood MN 55109
W~@~G\D~~!
l\ill AUG 24 2010 l~
By_
The Walser Automotive Group requests a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for the following uses:
Used oar sales
Automotive maintenanoe. and repair
Background:
The property was developed in the mid 1980's as a new oar sales and service facility. Over the
years it has housed Oldsmobile, Nissan, Mitsubishi, Polaris, and most recently Mitsubishi. This
site was previously approved, and operated used oar sales departments. The Mitsubishi franchise
closed Deoember 31 S\ 2008. The property is currently vacant.
Proposed Use:
The proposed use is to reopen with used automobile sales and repair. Walser Automotive Group
has created a new business model for standalone used car sales with vehicle maintenanoe and
repair. Walser feels that this is an appropriate use for this site and will not have a negative impact
to the character of the surrounding area. The proposed use (Used oar sales and vehicle repair) has
existed in this site since the early 1080"s. Over the years this site has become part ofthe
character of the surrounding area. Opening this site will have a positive impaot by providing the
community with a ohoioe in auto repair facilities and a better experience when purohasing a used
vehicle. We expect to create 5-15 jobs over the next several months.
Existing Building:
The existing building was remolded June 2007. Walser added full site irrigation, trees and
additional planting. The parking lot was resurfaced and repairs maid to the trash enclosure. The
facility conformed to the City's comprehensive plan and Code ofOrdinanoes. Walser has
maintained the building and site during its vacancy. The proposed use is oonsistent with all prior
uses. No additional traffic is expected local streets. Walser's corporate policy prohibits road
testing of sales or service vehicles in residential areas. No additional publio facilities or services
will be required.
Signage:
A site signage plan is included with this application. The quantity and area or the signage meets
current sign ordinanoes for Commercial bindings over 20,000 square feet within the M1 distriot
Walser Automotive Group
201016,2010
Walser Used Car Sales Conditional Use Permit
2950 Maplewood Dr
August 1,
Page 2
Site Liehtine:
No additional site lighting is proposed. The existing lighting will be cleaned and maintained, The
primary display lighting is on a time clook and photooell. The light is reduoed to security levels
when the facility is closed.
Landsoavine:
Landscape areas will be cleaned up and maintained. Dead materials will be replaoed with like
plantings. Reference the approved and installed landscape plan dated June 7th 2007.
Walser Automotive Group respectfully requests approval of the Conditional use Permit for the
proposed use of Used Vehicles Sales and Service at 2590 Maplewood DR.
Attachment 5
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, Mr. Don Schilling, representing Walser Automotive Group, applied for a conditional
use permit to sell used cars and operate a vehicle maintenance garage.
WHEREAS, Section 44-512(5) of the city ordinances requires a conditional use permit for the
sale and leasing of used motor vehicles.
WHEREAS, Section 44-512(8) of the city ordinances requires a conditional use permit for
maintenance garages.
WHEREAS, this permit applies to the property located at 2590 Maplewood Drive. The legal
description is:
Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4, Block 2, Speiser's Arbolada; and the South 3 feet of Lot 10, W.H. Howard's
Garden Lots.
(Torrens Property-Certificate of Title No. 295761)
That part of Lot 14, W.H. Howard's Garden Lots lying Westerly and Northwesterly of the center line
of Duluth Street, according to the recorded plat thereof.
(Abstract Property)
That part of Lot 15, of W.H. Howard's Garden Lots which lies Northwest of the following described
line;
A line running parallel to and 50 feet Northwest of the following described line:
Beginning at a point on the North line of Section 9, Township 29 North, Range 22 West, distant
1,586.86 feet East of the North quarter corner thereof; thence run Southerly at an angle of 90
degrees 46'45" with said North section line (measured from East to South) for 1,028.82 feet; thence
deflect to the right on a 20' 00" curve (delta angle 64 degrees 45' 24") for 323.78 feet; thence on a
tangent to said curve for 226.35 feet; thence deflect to the left on a 20 degree 00' curve (delta angle
48 degrees 17' 35") for 241.27 feet; thence on a tangent to said curve for 503.38 feet; thence
deflect to the right on a 1 degree 00' curve (delta angle 5 degrees 16' 30") for 527.50 feet and there
terminating.
WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows:
1. On September 7,2010, the planning commission held a public hearing. The city staff
published a notice in the paper and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The
planning commission gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written
statements. The planning commission also considered the report and recommendation of
city staff. The planning commission recommended that the city council this
permit.
2. On , the city council considered reports and recommendations of the city
staff and planning commission.
4
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council
conditional use permit, because:
the above-described
1. The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be in
conformity with the City's Comprehensive Plan and this Code.
2. The use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area.
3. The use would not depreciate property values.
4. The use would not involve any activity, process, materials, equipment or methods of operation
that would be dangerous, hazardous, detrimental, disturbing or cause a nuisance to any
person or property, because of excessive noise, glare, smoke, dust, odor, fumes, water or air
pollution, drainage, water run-off, vibration, general unsightliness, electrical interference or
other nuisances.
5. The use would not exceed the design standards of any affected street.
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 rnaximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and scenic
features into the development design.
9. The use would cause no more than minimal adverse environmental effects.
Approval is subject to the following conditions:
1. All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city date-stamped August 11,
2010. Staff may approve minor changes.
2. The proposed use must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the
permit shall becorne null and void. The council may extend this deadline for one year.
3. The city council shall review this permit in one year.
4. All activity shall be confined to the site. There shall be no loading or unloading of vehicles
on the street rights-of-way.
5. The applicant shall comply with and observe the city's noise ordinance as it relates toPA
systems or any other business activity.
6. Comply with all city ordinance requirements for signage and parking.
The Maplewood City Council
this resolution on
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
James Antonen, City Manager
Michael'Martin, AICP, Planner
DuWayne Konewko, Community Development and Parks Director
Rezonings within the Gladstone Neighborhood
Properties near the intersection of Frost Avenue and English Street
Simple Majority Required for Approval
August 30,2010
SUBJECT:
LOCATION:
VOTE REQUIRED:
DATE:
INTRODUCTION
On January 25, 2010, the city council adopted the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. This is the
update of the city's comprehensive land use plan required of all metro area cities every ten
years. By approving this plan, the city oouncil reestablished the long-range land use guide for
the city. State law requires that the city now revise our zoning map and zoning ordinance
controls to be in conformance with the newly approved land use classifications throughout the
city.
The city has nine months (by October 25, 2010) to make all necessary zoning map and zoning
ordinance changes to coincide with the land use policies and land use maps in the approved
2030 Comprehensive Plan.
Proposal
The last area to be rezoned to coincide with the 2030 Comprehensive Plan is the Gladstone
Neighborhood. This area, which is generally defined as properties surrounding the intersection
of Frost Avenue and English Street, is guided as mixed use and medium density residential
(refer to attached Gladstone Neighborhood Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map).
The mixed use land use is intended for commercial retail or service businesses, offices and
high-density housing (6 to 31 units per net acre). The medium density residential land use is
intended for moderately higher densities ranging from 6.1 to 10 units per net acre. Housing
types in this land use category would typically include lower density attached housing and
higher density single family detached housing units. Some forms of stacked housing
(condominiums and apartments) could be integrated into medium density areas, but would need
to be surrounded by additional green space.
The Gladstone Neighborhood is currently zoned several different zoning districts including M1
(light manufacturing), BC (business commercial), BC-M (business commercial modified), R-3
(multiple dwelling residential), R1 S (small-lot single-dwelling) and R-2 (double-dwelling
residential), (refer to attached Gladstone Neighborhood Zoning Map). The zoning must be
changed to reflect the Comprehensive Plan designations, as well as meet the goals and
objectives of the Gladstone Neighborhood Master Plan.
Request
Rezone the properties within the Gladstone neighborhood to the appropriate zoning districts.
BACKGROUND
November 2003 the City of Maplewood received an $8,000 Livable Communities Demonstration
Account (LCDA) grant from the Metropolitan Council in order to hire a planning consultant to
create a redevelopment concept plan for the Gladstone Neighborhood.
December 4, 2006, the Metropolitan Council awarded a $1.8 million LCDA grant to the City of
Maplewood for public improvements associated with Phase I redevelopment of the Gladstone
Neighborhood. Phase I included the redevelopment of the St. Paul Tourist Cabin site (940 Frost
Avenue) with a 180-unit senior housing development.
On February 5, 2007, city staff presented a brief introduction to the proposed Gladstone zoning
ordinance during a city council workshop. The zoning approach included a form-based
ordinance which would have enabled the city to articulate and achieve the desired pattern and
character of uses within the Gladstone Neighborhood. Form-based ordinances regulate
building facades and site frontages based on an overall district character and the interface
between development and the public domain (which is most commonly a public street). The city
council took no action on the proposed form-based zoning ordinance.
March 2007 the city council approved the Gladstone Neighborhood Redevelopment Plan, which
is a guide to redevelopment in the Gladstone Neighborhood. The plan includes a conceptual
redevelopment plan, housing densities, and commercial components which are based on
market forces and other redevelopment variables existing at the time of adoption.
On December 9, 2009, the Metropolitan Council gave final approval to the 2030 Comprehensive
Plan.
December 31,2009, the City of Maplewood rescinded the $1.8 million LCDA grant due to the
original redevelopment proposal for the St. Paul Tourist Cabin site falling through.
January 25, 2010, the city council adopted the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, which reguides the
land use designation in the Gladstone Neighborhood to meet the use and density as proposed
in the Gladstone Neighborhood Redevelopment Plan.
July 12, 2010, the oity submitted a new LCDA grant application for public improvements
associated with Phase I redevelopment of the Gladstone Neighborhood. Phase I includes the
development of the St. Paul Tourist Cabin site (940 Frost Avenue) with a new senior housing
project called The Shores at Lake Phalen. The grant application requests $1.4 million in order
to help fund the reoonstruction and/or rehabilitation of Frost Avenue between Highway 61 and
Phalen Place; construction of stormwater improvements on or adjacent to The Shores at Lake
Phalen development site; and the extension of sanitary sewer along East Shore Drive to serve
the proposed The Shores at Lake Phalen development.
August 9, 2010, the city council approved a tax increment (TIF) financing housing district for The
Shores at Lake Phalen site (940 Frost Avenue). The city council determined that the TIF district
will afford maximum opportunity for the development of the housing distriot to occur by a private
enterprise.
August 9, 2010, the city council approved the land use permits associated with The Shores at
Lake Phalen (940 Frost Avenue). The development consists of a 105 unit, three story low- to
moderate-income assisted living facility. This includes 32 memory care apartments and 73
assisted living units. Construction of the first phase is currently planned to begin in fall of 2010
and be complete by the end of 2011. A future phase of development is planned on the southern
portion of the site.
DISCUSSION
Statutory Requirement
Section 473.865 subdivision 3 of the Minnesota State Statutes requires that cities amend their
official zoning controls within nine months of their adopting their revised comprehensive land
use plan. As stated above, the city council has until October 25, 2010 to amend all applicable
zoning maps and zoning ordinances.
Why the Proposed Revision to Mixed Use and Multiple Residential?
As stated above in the baokground section, the city council approved the Gladstone
Neighborhood Redevelopment Plan in March 2007. The plan is intended as a guide to
redevelopment in the Gladstone Neighborhood and includes a conceptual redevelopment plan,
housing densities, and commercial components which are based on market forces and other
redevelopment variables existing at the time of adoption. The forward statement on the plan
states "As a guide, the plan should be considered a flexible concept plan which can be modified
based on the changing market forces and redevelopment variables."
The Master Plan was originally created by the Gladstone Task Force. The task force was made
up of 20 people representing the Maplewood counoil/commissions/boards, neighborhood
residents, business owners, and the community at large. The task force met with the city's
planning consultants during several meetings throughout 2005 and 2006 to draft a
redevelopment plan for the area. The city council adopted an amended version of the task
force's recommended plan. The 2030 Comprehensive Plan reguided the Gladstone
Neighborhood with a medium density and mixed use land use designation,whioh meets the
basic intent of the Gladstone Neighborhood Master Plan. As discussed at an earlier planning
commission meeting, staff will be working on developing a mixed use zoning district specifio to
the Gladstone Neighborhood. The planning commission can expect to discuss this zoning
district at one of its future meetings.
Property Tax Impact
Property owners have asked what would happen to their property taxes if their zoning changed.
The Ramsey County Tax Assessor's office stated that:
"Zoning has no affect on property tax. Tax classifications are based on the current use of the
property, not on the zoning. The tax classification, along with the market value is used to
calculate taxes. If the current use is oontinued, the tax classification will not change. So, zoning
changes will not affect taxes."
Conclusion
State statute requires that the city revise the zoning map to match the adopted laI;d use guides
for the Gladstone Neighborhood contained within the comprehensive plan. Therefore, staff is
recommending the city council revise the zoning map accordingly.
RECOMMENDATION
Approve the rezoning of the properties within the Gladstone Neighborhood, near the intersection
of English Street and Frost Avenue, from R2 (double-dwelling), R1 S (small-lot single-dwelling),
M1 (light manufacturing), Be (business commercial) and BCM (business commercial modified)
to R3 (multiple dwelling residential) and MU (mixed use). Please refer to the attached maps
and resolution for the specific rezonings. These rezonings are based on Minnesota Statute
473.865 subdivision 3, requiring the city to bring the zoning of these properties into
conformance with the adopted comprehensive land use plan c1assifioation.
REFERENCE
AREA DESCRIPTION
Number of Site:
58 parcels
PLANNING
Land Use Plan Designation: Mixed Use and Medium Density Residential
Zoning: Current: R1S, M1, BC, BCM and R2; Proposed: MU and R3
p:Compplanlzoning follow-up to 2030 PlanlRezoning Gladstone_PC_090710
Attachments: .
1. Land Use Map
2. Current Zoning Map
3. Proposed Zoning Map
4. Rezoning Resolution
I 10 I 0
\J :J (;) :J (') s: J: s: r ;;:a :s::
a
III (J) a a. a x' cO' (1) :1i l:: W
""l - < c: 3 ::::s- f!: OJ
A ;:;: (1) "'C
l:: (]) (J) 3 a. l:: 0 :::::
""l - 0 -
- :J :::!. 3 (1) I ('t)
c}' (lJ c (lJ r
3 ill ""l (fJ :J :J a W ::E
:J (1) (') (lJ (J) 0 (J) :1i ::::l
III 05' .;:+ 0
:J ~ ;:;: (lJ '< c.. 0
- OJ '< :J 0
;;:a (J) ;;:a <D c:: c..
0 ;:;: (lJ :J CIl
(lJ '< (fJ "'"
(J) (fJ ('t)
0.'J ;:0 0: ;:;: t:
....I. a.: (lJ <D '< -
ID (fJ ;;:a t:
0 :J
:J a.: - (lJ ...
- 05' ('t)
c 05' ID (J)
:J :J ~ a.:
;:;: ~ r+ N ID
(J) -" iii'
m :J
Ll 0 r+
~ iii'
<D -" OJ
""l OJ
....I. ~
)> N 0 0
(') ?" 01
""l -" C
ID 0 0 :J
............
C 0 ;:;:
(fJ
:J C
;:;: co
(fJ ::::l ID
co ;::;" ""l
<D' (fJ )>
""l co (')
)> (j) (il
""l
(') )> '-"
iiJ (')
, '-" (il
'-"
. (illQJ~LU L:iliJ
~ "~ru" ~
rr'CrD~~ .., ,~"
; ~ [7~IT[~~rl . ..
~ 't J ... ..... .... ....
~~ J
~c>
fl! t;,'.
J ';l em
. <1>.
~L
,E. ~~
l. ] BIblID!
~ J~~
L ST fii --l I j
J EHfiB iPI~ &J~I~ O~} I~
~ ~ T~1I~ c:~~..~.::i
f-, ~ ~ ~ "1" ~,'!S'~
~ ~ \.A ~ ~ ~..;,,) \l.. j ..,.
~:t.:::~ II ce-'
JP~ J& ~ D t;
~..y
V
:n
ti'
'"
l;~
"il
w
,
"
I,
j3 '={ .'"'"'\. /-:::
iii --" 1'0 .....
m .--
m . .
1:
m
""""'i ;;>;;1
"
~ O'
~:
_---=rl.::-'
r~ 6
'4
-"
~
-
if-
~s.
;:) ;.
,. ~
N..,4.
!
'" .
-
-
>z-
\ \
Attaohment 3
". I Iii ~ ~j Ia'
c '.'~., . ~~~
<g .:..... ~).,~
" ',X-:'::
~ "',,:,- ~
'" ',"',' "C
~
2 ." ." ." ." ." ." ." 0
0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ l/I
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3 3 3 3 3 3 3 CD
;:0 s:: o:J ;:0 ;:0 o:J o:J C.
'" ~ 0 ~ '" 0 0 ;;0
~ ~ ~ en ~ s:: ~
0 0 0 0 0 CD
~ ~
;:0 ;:0 ;:0 0 s:: 0 s:: N
w w w s:: c s:: c 0
c c :::::s
:::::s
lC
l/I
W -j;:O '" C/) IIIITI n2a
1=1::J""(I) 0.......
I""- CD Q..w~ =-uIIJ
...... CD 0(1)
Igm<o'"
IQNmo~
1~!;5C)3~~~
(/)5."0"'05-
CD (0 3 ...... CD . .. ...."
a.. (J) (J) <D ...... . ~~ "'" ' '," ,~..~
g. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~> '\ ~.:~ .::~<><.'
<m"'O(lJc
~-.m<'~'
12::::J:J ([) en ]]
13 0' CD "U.......
CD~@-W~]]
:J::ifo-::l(l)
:- -m(J)
C Cii":::I ......
"0 ::r a.. (I)
~ m N
00..{;)0
:f .-+ or ~.
o ::::r a...::::J
cn<D(J)<O
roms!>>
"O::::l:::l-l
orQ..<D::r
::::l c zeD
"'Wm
0> m -. ()
:J {J) (Q ;;:;.:
0.. a. =r'<
-.CTO
~~ Q 0
mii)::rc
:J '< g ~
9.[0..=
~ W W
mO' 0-
moO
~ < Ll
(J) (J) r0-
o- 0-
S'
\~
~y _ 8
-==- -::=v \\
~4
- I- T
~\- [
__ ....U3.--1 \ I I
----- KJ""II
f---
f---
f---
f---
f---
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
a
!e.
<
m
:J
t:
m
II II
... ilmHth~;:i{
-
-
-
-C------
-
-
~ j
~ -
-
-
-I-- -
-
-~
I "'f-
-
':'.NK:;{?{.:,::~,~"::::~'::::r:.' ....:.
o
tfHEEIHtB ~ ~ \
IIJJJJ I Li'
IDJI '.. \ \\
~
~
~
'"
'"
o
~
~
0"
Om
!2.
I I
I I
OIIIIIJ
r- EJDIJlIJs
~
I ~\
\
\\
\
G)
...-
m
a.
(J)
0
::J
CD
I
'1J
a
"'C
0
(J)
CD
a.
;c
CD
N
0
::J
-.
::J
(0
(J)
I
Attachment 4
REZONING RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the City of Maplewood city staff proposed several change to the city's
zoning map within the Gladstone Neighborhood;
WHEREAS, the zoning map changes to MU (mixed use) applies to properties located
near the intersection of Frost Avenue and English Street. The property identification numbers
identifying the affected properties are:
PIN 15-29-22-23-0023, PIN 15-29-22-23-0016, PIN 15-29-22-23-0024,
PIN 15-29-22-32-0028, PIN 15-29-22-32-0077, PIN 15-29-22-23-0055,
PIN 15-29-22-32-0092, PIN 15-29-22-32-0076, PIN 16-29-22-14-0081,
PIN 16-29-22-14-0085, PIN 16-29-22-14-0070, PIN, 16-29-22-14-0084,
PIN 16-29-22-14-0092, PIN 16-29-22-14-0075, PIN 16-29-22-14-0071,
PIN 16-29-22-14-0080, PIN 16-29-22-14-0082, PIN 16-29-22-14-0076,
PIN 16-29-22-14-0072, PIN 16-29-22-14-0086, PIN 16-29-22-14-0079,
PIN 16-29-22-14-0083, PIN 16~29-22-14-0077, PIN 16-29-22-14-0091,
PIN 16-29-22-14-0074, PIN 16-29-22-14-0073, PIN 16-29-22-14-0078,
PIN 16-29-22-14-0087, PIN 15-29-22-23-0087, PIN 15-29-22-23-0054,
PIN 15-29-22-32-0038, PIN 15-29-22-23-0052, PIN 15-29-22-32-0091,
PIN 15-29-22-32-0093, PIN 15-29-22-23-0051, PIN 15-29-22-23-0094,
PIN 15-29-22-23-0015, PIN 16-29-22-14-0095, PIN 16-29-22-14-0097,
PIN 15-29-22-23-0100, PIN 16-29-22-14-0098, PIN 16-29-22-14-0096,
PIN 16-29-22-14-0099, PIN 15-29-22-23-0014, PIN 15-29-22-23-0038,
PIN 15-29-22-32-0090
WHEREAS, the zoning map changes to R3 (multiple residential) applies to properties
located near the intersection of Frost Avenue and English Street. The property identification
numbers identifying the affected properties are:
PIN 15-29-22-23-0056, PIN 15-29-22-23-0085, PIN 15-29-22-32-0094,
PIN 15-29-22-23-0011, PIN 16-29-22-42-0004, PIN 16-29-22-42-0002,
PIN 16-29-22-42-0001, PIN 16-29-22-42-0003, PIN 15-29-22-23-0086,
PIN 15-29-22-23-0013, PIN 15-29-22-32-0083, PIN 15-29-22-32-0095
WHEREAS, On January 25, 2010, the city council adopted the 2030 Comprehensive
Plan that classified the land use plan for the above referenced properties to MU or MDR.
WHEREAS, Section 473.865 subdivision 3 of the Minnesota State Statutes requires
that cities amend their official zoning map within nine months of their adopting their revised
comprehensive land use plan to match the new land use classification.
WHEREAS, the history of this change is as follows:
1. On September 7,2010, the planning commission held a public hearing to consider
this rezoning. The city staff published a hearing notice in the Maplewood Review
and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The planning commission
gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements
prior to their recommendation.
2. On , 2010, the city council discussed the proposed zoning map change.
They considered reports and recommendations from the planning commission
and city staff.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council the above-
described ohange in the zoning map based on Minnesota Statute 473.865 subdivision 3,
requiring the city to bring the zoning of this property into conformance with the adopted
comprehensive land use plan olassification.
The Maplewood City Council
this resolution on
,2010.