HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-07-24 CDRB Packet
AGENDA
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
Tuesday, July 24,2012
6:00 P.M.
Council Chambers -Maplewood City Hall
1830 County Road B East
1.Call to Order
2.Roll Call
3.Approval of Agenda
4.Approval ofMinutes:
a.April 24, 2012
b.May 22, 2012
c.June 26, 2012
5. Unfinished Business:
6.Design Review:
a.Maplewood East Shopping Center, ComprehensiveSign Plan Amendment, 2950
White Bear Avenue
b.RSI Recycling Services, Design Review,1255 Cope Avenue
c.Keller Golf Course, Design Review, 2166 Maplewood Drive
7.Visitor Presentations:
8.Board Presentations:
9.Staff Presentations:
a.Combination of the Planning Commission and Community Design Review Board
into one commission
10.Adjourn
MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA
TUESDAY, APRIL 24, 2012
1.CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Ledvinacalled the meeting to order at6:00p.m.
2.ROLL CALL
Absent
Boardmember, Jawaid Ahmed
Absent
Boardmember,Jason Lamers
Chairperson,Matt LedvinaPresent
Boardmember,Ananth ShankarPresent
Vice Chairperson,Matt WisePresent
Staff Present:
Michael Martin, Planner
3.APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Planner, Michael Martin recommending tablingtheMarch 27, 2012, CDRB minutes due to some
of the boardmembers being absent.
BoardmemberShankarmoved to approve the agenda as amended.
BoardmemberWisesecondedthe motion.Ayes -All
The motion passed.
4.APPROVAL OF MINUTES
BoardmemberLamersmoved to approve the February 28, 2012,CDRB minutes as submitted.
Chairperson Ledvinasecondedthe motion.Ayes –All
The motion passed.
Due to lack of members to vote on the March27, 2012, minutes the CDRB minutes were tabled.
5.UNFINISHED BUSINESS
a.Saint Paul Hmong Alliance Church, Design Plan Review, 1770 McMenemy Street
i.Planner, Michael Martin gave the report and answered questions of the board.
ii.Mr. PuneexVedi, President, Vedi Associates, Architects & Engineers,addressed the
board and spoke on behalf of the applicant.
Boardmember Shankar moved to approve the design plans date-stamped April 10, 2012, for the
parking lot expansion, new driveway and building additions at the St. Paul Hmong Alliance
Church, 1770 McMenemy Street. The property owner shall meet the following conditions:
April 24, 2012
Community Design Review Board Meeting Minutes
1
1.Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a permit for this expansion.
2.Before getting a grading and building permit, the applicant shall provide staff with:
a.A revised site and landscape plan that shows the following:
(1)The applicant shall submit a revised landscape plan that lists the plantings proposed
in the basins. The plan should specify the number, species, and size of plantings.
(2)Location of the underground irrigation system as required by code.
(3)Samples of colors to be used on building.
3.Comply with all conditions of approval from the December 12, 2011, city council meeting.
Seconded by Boardmember Wise.Ayes –All
The motion passed.
6.DESIGN REVIEW
a.Holiday Stationstore –Sign Setback Variances, 280 McKnight Road South
i.Planner, Michael Martin gave the report and answered questions of the board.
ii.Mr. Michael Cronin, representing the Holiday Stationstore addressed and answered
questions of the board.
Boardmember Wise moved to approvethe resolution approving the following sign-separation
(changes to the motion are underlined and in bold)
variances for 280 McKnight Road South:
Northerly Freestanding Sign
Reduction of the spacing requirement from the Ramsey County Regional Park from 200 to
90 feet (110 foot variance).
Reduction of the spacing requirement from the townhome property to the south from 200
to 180 feet (20 foot variance).
Southerly Freestanding Sign
Reduction of the spacing from the townhome property to the south from 200 to 25 feet
(175 foot variance).
Reduction of the side yard spacing requirement from 100 feet to 25 feet (75 foot variance).
Approval of these variances is based on the following findings:
1.Because of the right-angle orientation of the two signs, along with the wooded nature of the
nearby regional park, the proposed sign panels would be in harmony with the general
purposes and intent of the ordinance. This orientation would prevent them from being seen at
the same time and becoming potentially distractingto drivers as could same-orientation signs.
April 24, 2012
Community Design Review Board Meeting Minutes
2
2.The proposed dynamic display sign panel on the north pylon sign is set at a right angle to the
wooded open space across Lower Afton Road making it less noticeable from that direction.
3.The two proposed signs would be consistent with the comprehensive plan. They provide
commercial-development elements that would be compatible with this commercial site and
conform to the goals of the comprehensive plan.
4.There are practical difficulties in complying with the spacing requirements of the ordinance.
According to statute, practical difficulties mean tha the applicant would use the property in a
“reasonable manner” not permitted by the ordinance. In this case, it seems reasonable to
staff to allow both signs, because:
The evergreens on the south side of the property would buffer the proposed sign from the
nearby neighbors.
The two proposed Holiday dynamic display signs would be set at right angles to each
other preventing the appearance of “sign proliferation,”“sign clutter” or adding to “sign
distraction.”
The abutting part of the Battle Creek Regional Park is a non-active park. The sign would
not be a detraction since this is a wooded area and the only active element is a trail
section within the woods.
The site is extensively developed with a commercial building, fuel islands, fueling center
and lighting. It is also affected by a significant amount of commercial activity.
Considering that, two four by eight foot signs would not be a significant addition ot this
existing commercial site.
Approval is subject to compliance with the following condition:
1.All of the evergreen trees on the south side of the site and south of the southerly pylon sign
shall remain. If these evergreens are removed for any reason, whether by the natural death
of the trees or by their intentional removal, the south-facing dynamic display sign panel shall
There shall be 100 percent opaque screening from the south pylon sign
be removed.
maintained at all times for the residential dwelling windows to the south.
Turn all power off to both signs on McKnight Road and Lower Afton Road outside of
2.
the store’s normal operational hours.
Boardmember Shankar made afriendly amendment for condition #2 to include both signson
McKnight Road and Lower Afton Road.
Chairperson Ledvina made a friendly amendment to condition #1, adding 100 percent opaque
screening from south pylon sign shall be maintained at all times for the residential dwelling
windows to the south.
Seconded by Boardmember Shankar.Ayes –Boardmember’sShankar &
Wise
Nay–Chairperson Ledvina
April 24, 2012
Community Design Review Board Meeting Minutes
3
Chairperson Ledvina voted nay because of the impact to the park space and to the residential
properties.
The motion passed.
The public hearing will be heard May 1, 2012, at 7 p.m. at the Planning Commission meeting.
b.Men’s Warehouse, Maplewood Mall Comprehensive Sign Plan, 3001 White Bear Avenue
i.Planner, Michael Martin gave the report and answered questions of the board.
ii.Mr. Rick Fox, Crosstown Sign, representing Men’s Warehouse addressed and answered
questions of the board.
Boardmember Wisemoved to table the Men’s Warehouse, Maplewood Mall Comprehensive Sign
Plan and request that the owner of Maplewood Mall, Simon Properties come to afuture CDRB
meeting with a comprehensive approach for signage at the mall.
Seconded by Chairperson Ledvina.Ayes –All
The motion to table passed.
3.VISITOR PRESENTATIONS
a.3M Monument Sign Presentation, 3M Center
i.Planner, Michael Martinintroduced the 3M Monument Sign item and introduced the
speaker.
ii.Brendan Sapienza, Meyer Scherer and Rockcastle,representing 3M addressed the board
and gave a presentationregarding the 3M monument sign at 3M Center.
The boardmembers offered comments and input to the presenter for the 3M signs.
4.BOARDPRESENTATIONS
None
5.STAFF PRESENTATIONS
a.Election of Officers
Boardmember Shankar moved to nominate Matt Ledvina as Chairperson and Matt Wise as Vice-
Chairperson.
Seconded by Boardmember Wise.Ayes –All
The motion passed.
6.ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned by Chairperson Ledvinaat7:49p.m.
April 24, 2012
Community Design Review Board Meeting Minutes
4
MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA
TUESDAY, MAY22, 2012
1.CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Ledvinacalled the meeting to order at6:00p.m.
2.ROLL CALL
Boardmember, Jawaid AhmedPresent
Boardmember,Jason LamersPresent
Chairperson,Matt LedvinaPresent
Boardmember,Ananth ShankarPresent
Absent
Vice Chairperson,Matt Wise
Staff Present:
Michael Martin, Planner
3.APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Chairperson Ledvina recommended moving 6 c. Ordinance Amendment Regarding Reinforced
Turf Parking Lots –Section 44-17 to 6 a. and hearing the other two design review items following
thatandapproving the agenda as amended.
Seconded by BoardmemberLamers.Ayes -All
The motion passed.
4.APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Boardmember Lamers moved to approve the March 27, 2012, CDRB Minutes as submitted.
Seconded by Boardmember Ahmed.Ayes –Chairperson Ledvina,
Boardmember Ahmed,
& Lamers
Abstention –Boardmember Shankar
The motion passed.
The April 24, 2012,CDRB minutes are tabled due to alack of quorum.
5.UNFINISHED BUSINESS
a.Men’s Warehouse, Maplewood Mall Comprehensive Sign Plan, 3001 White Bear Avenue
i.Planner, Michael Martin gave the report and answered questions of the board.
ii.Crosstown Signs, Rick Fox addressed and answered questions of the board.
iii.Maplewood Mall General Manager, Jennifer Lewis addressed and answered
questions of the board.
May 22, 2012
Community DesignReview Board Meeting Minutes
1
table
Boardmember Lamers moved to the Men’s Warehouse, Maplewood Mall Comprehensive
SignPlan, 3001 White Bear Avenue to the CDRB meeting in June and would like more detail and
information regarding the relationship to the existing Maplewood Mall sign, alternative color to the
backing of the sign and the sign approval criteria.
Seconded by Boardmember Shankar.Ayes –All
table
The motion to passed.
6.DESIGN REVIEW
a.Ordinance Amendment Regarding Reinforced Turf Parking Lots –Section 44-17
i.Planner, Michael Martin gave the report and answered questions of the board.
ii.Vice Presidentof theMaplewood Area Historical Society, Bob Jenson addressed and
answered questions of the board.
Boardmember Shankarmoved to approvethe resolution amending Section 44-17 as it relates to
the permitted surface materials for parking lots.
Seconded by Boardmember Ahmed.Ayes –All
The motion passed.
b.Cottagewood Town House Development, Revised Building Elevations –South of
Highwood Avenue, east of Dennis Street, west of I-494
i.Planner, Michael Martin gave the report and answered questions of the board.
ii.Fieldstone Family Homes Representative, David May addressed and answered questions
of the board.
Boardmember Lamers moved to approvethe additional building elevations date-stamped April
22, 2011 shown on attachments 4,5, 6, and 7 for the Cottagewood PUD. Thedeveloper is also to
abide by the 2006 CDRB approved site plan, grading and drainage plans and 2011 CDRB
approved building elevations and design plans. This development will be on the south side of
Lots 1, 2, 3, and 4 on the
Highwood Avenue, west of I-494 and east of Dennis Street.Approving
west side of Farrell Street are only tuck under garage lots;Lots 1, 2, 3, and 4 on the west
side of Farrell Street are not allowed to be two stories; No replication of same house
design on two consecutive lots.Alsoapproving the elevation on attachment 8 with the
revised roof layout as described at the CDRB meeting 5-22-2012 to be approved by staff.
(changes to the motion are in bold).
Boardmember Shankar made a friendly amendment to approve elevation on attachment8 with
revised roof layout as described at meeting to be approved by staff.
Seconded by Chairperson Ledvina.Ayes –All
The motion passed.
May 22, 2012
Community DesignReview Board Meeting Minutes
2
c.East Metro Public Safety Training Center, Design Review –MN Highway 120 (Century
Avenue) and MN Highway 5
i.Planner, Michael Martin gave the report and answered questions of the board.
ii.Maplewood Fire Chief, Steve Lukin addressed and answered questions of the board.
iii.SEH representative, Larry Koch addressed and answered questions of the board.
Boardmember Lamers moved to approvedesign plans date-stamped May 14, 2012, for the East
Metro Public Safety Training Center. This development will be on the west side of MN Highway
120 at its intersection with MN Highway 5. The city bases this approval on the findings required
(changes to the motion are in
by the code. The developer or contractor shall do the following:
bold).
1.Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project.
2.Complete the following before the city issues a building permit:
a.Comply or continue compliance with all engineering requirements.
b.Submit a certificate of survey for all new construction and have each building staked by a
registered land surveyor.
c.(including the landscape plan for
Submit a landscape plan to the CDRB for approval
the training area and landscape plan for marshlands and trail area).
d.Get the necessary approvals and permits from the watershed district and provide the city
verification that all watershed district provisions are met before the city issues a building or
a grading permit for the site.
e.Submit a site lighting plan for city staff approval. This plan shall show the installation of all
lights and how the lighting on the buildings would add to the site lighting. This plan also
shall show details about the proposed light fixtures to ensure they are a design that hides
the bulb and lens from view to avoid nuisances. This plan shall show the height and style
of all outdoor lights and that the light illumination from outdoor lights does notexceed 0.4
foot candles at all property lines.
f.Have the Saint Paul Regional Water Services (SPRWS) approve the proposed utility
plans.
g.Submit revised, detailed building plans and elevations for each building type to the CDRB
for approval. These elevations shall show or include (but are not limited to):
(1)The colors of all materials
(2)All elevations of all buildings
(3)Material to be used
(4)The classroom building to be built in phase two shall be brought back to the
CDRBfor approval.
3.Complete the following before occupying each building:
a.Replace property irons that are removed because of this construction.
May 22, 2012
Community DesignReview Board Meeting Minutes
3
b.Restore and sod damaged boulevards and sod all turf areas.
c.Install the required concrete curb and gutter.
d.Install all the required exterior improvements, including all exterior lighting.
e.Show that Ramsey County has recorded the land as a legal parcel.
f.The developer or contractor shall:
(1)Complete all grading for the site drainage,
(2)Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits.
(3)Remove any debris or junk from the site.
4.If any required work is not done, the city may allow temporary occupancy if the city
determines that the work is not essential to the public health, safety or welfare.
5.All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may
approve minor changes.
6.This approval does not include signs. Any signage will be reviewed by city staff through the
sign permit process.
Seconded by Boardmember Shankar.Ayes –All
The motion passed.
7.VISITOR PRESENTATIONS
None
8.BOARDPRESENTATIONS
None
9.STAFF PRESENTATIONS
a.Combining PC & CDRB
i.Planner, Michael Martin gave the report and answered questions of the board.A city
council workshop is scheduled June 4, 2012, to discuss this item further.
Chairperson Ledvina said he would represent the CDRB at the June 4, 2012, workshop to share
the board’s comments on combining the PC and CDRB.
10.ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned by Chairperson Ledvinaat7:51 p.m.
May 22, 2012
Community DesignReview Board Meeting Minutes
4
MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA
TUESDAY, JUNE 26, 2012
1.CALL TO ORDER
Acting Chairperson Wisecalled the meeting to order at6:09p.m.
2.ROLL CALL
Absent
Boardmember, Jawaid Ahmed
Boardmember,Jason LamersPresent
Absent
Chairperson,Matt Ledvina
Boardmember,Ananth ShankarPresent
Vice Chairperson,Matt WisePresent
Staff Present:
Michael Martin, Planner
3.APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Boardmember Shankarmoved to approve the agenda assubmitted.
BoardmemberLamers secondedthe motion.Ayes -All
The motion passed.
4.APPROVAL OF MINUTES
table
Acting Chairperson Wise moved to the April 24, 2012,CDRB minutes.
Boardmember Shankar secondedthe motion.Ayes –All
The motion to tablepassed.
Acting Chairperson Wisemoved to tablethe May 22, 2012,CDRB minutes.
BoardmemberShankar seconded the motion.Ayes –All
Themotion to table passed.
5.UNFINISHED BUSINESS
a.3M Comprehensive Sign Plan Amendment, 3M Center
i.Planner, Michael Martin gave the report and answered questions of the board.
ii.Brendan Sapienza, Meyer Scherer and Rockcastle, representing 3M addressed and
answered questions of the board.
June 26, 2012
Community Design Review Board Meeting Minutes
1
Boardmember Shankarmoved to approveplans for a comprehensive sign plan amendment to
allow for a new monument sign at the 3M Center, south of Building 229. The applicant shall
(changes to the motion are in bold and underlined).
comply with the following conditions:
1.Follow the approved plans. Planning staff may approve minor changes.
2.Obtain a sign permit.
3.Plans shall be revised to showa shadow casting reveal between the lower
portion of the sign and the top of the LED panel.
4.The image needs to be frozenfor at least 2 minutes with a 10 second transition.
Seconded by Acting Chairperson Wise.Ayes –All
Acting Chairperson Wise made a friendly amendmentto condition number 4 that the image needs
to be still for at least 2 minutes with a 10 second transition.
The motion passed.
6.DESIGN REVIEW
a.HealthEast Spine Clinic Signage Proposal andBirch Run Station Sign Plan
Amendment, Beam Avenue and Southlawn Drive
i.Planner, Michael Martin gave the report and answered questions of the board.
ii.Dan Regan, Air Lake Development addressed and answered questions of the board.
iii.Mike wadick???
iv.Cheryl O’Donnell, Visual Communications, addressed and answered questions of the
board.
BoardmemberLamersmoved to approvethe sign plans date-stamped June 11, 2012, for the
(changes to
HealthEast Spine Clinic and the sign plan changes at Birch Run Station as follows:
the motion are in bold and underlined).
HealthEast Spine Clinic
The following signs are allowed:
A 93-square-foot wall sign on the north elevation.
A 93-square-foot wall sign on the south elevation.
A 150-square-foot free standing monument sign along the Beam Avenue frontage.
This sign would identify the HealthEast Spine Clinic at the top of this sign with
space for four additional tenants below. The spaces for the four additional tenant
signs may be used for tenants of Birch Run Station orthe new HealthEast building.
The proposed sign panels on the monument sign may identify tenants in the
HealthEast Spine Clinic or tenants in the main shopping center building. They may
not identify any of the existing outlot developments which have their own
freestanding signs.
June 26, 2012
Community Design Review Board Meeting Minutes
2
Staff may approve minor changes.
The base for the M3 sign shall be raised to a correspondingheight with the existing EX2
pylon sign along Beam Avenue.
Birch Run Station Revised Sign Criteria
The following signs are allowed (additions are underlined and deletions are crossed out):
As allowed by the city council on November 8, 1993, the 70-foot-tall, 720-square-
foot, “V shaped pylon sign is allowed at the Southlawn Drive entrance to Birch Run
Station.Waive the maximumsign area for the existing sign on Beam Avenue and
the proposed “V” shaped sign on Southlawn Drive. This would allow a 420 square
foot monument sign on Beam Avenue and a 720 square foot “V” shaped pylon
sign on Southlawn Drive. The maximum allowed sign by code for each sign is 300
square feet.
The existing 17-foot by 25-foot, 425-square-foot monument sign fronting on Beam
Avenue is allowed. This sign may display six tenant signs.Waive the maximum
combined area for the two ground signs on Southlawn Drive and Beam Avenue.
The combined area ofthese two signs would be 1,140 square feet over the code
limit.
Waive the maximum height to allow a 70-foot tall sign on Southlawn Drive. The
maximum height allowed by the code is 25 feet.
Change the Birch Run Station sign plan as follows:
Signage for the outlots shall be subject to CDRB approval upon submittal of those
individual sign proposals. Staff may approve revisions if they comply with the
original approval for those properties.
The shopping center identification clock tower is not approved. Plans shall be
submitted to the CDRB for approval.
A pylon sign is approved on Beam Avenue as shown on the sketch dated August
12, 1993. A second pylon sign is approved at a maximum size of 720 square feet
and a maximum height of 70 feet. This sign shall replace the existing pylon sign on
Southlawn Drive.The wall signage for the five original anchor stores are approved
as described in the memorandum dated September 5, 1989. The Office max wall
sign is approved as described in the October 7, 1993 staff memo. Changes to the
anchor store signs may be approved by staff, based on code compliance and
proper design. The applicant may place the Maplewood city logo on the pylon
signs, subject to design approval by staff.
Tenants shall be limited to one sign on the front fascia of the canopy. These signs
shall be neon or constructed of individual letters mounted on a raceway. Copy
height shall not exceed 42 inches. Signs shall not be closer than 18 inches to
either side of the tenant’s store front. This criteria allows an exception for the
June 26, 2012
Community Design Review Board Meeting Minutes
3
Famous Footwear sign to be eight inches from the right side of the store’s edges.
A future sign for the tenant to the north must be at least three feet from the
Famous Footwear sign. When the Famous Footwear sign is removed, a new sign
shall be at least 10 inches from either side of the gable façade.
Business identification signs for the west and north sides of the shopping center
shall be subject to approval by the CDRB if proposed in the future.
Six anchor store tenant signs are allowed on the east-end elevation facing
Southlawn Drive. These signs shall not exceed two feet in height and must be
centered horizontally on this wall.vertically on this elevation positioned near the
south edge of this wall as they are presently placed.
Staff may approve minor changes.
Any amendments to the Southlawn pylon sign are subject to further review with the CDRB.
Seconded by BoardmemberShankar.Ayes –All
The motion passed.
7.VISITOR PRESENTATIONS
None
8.BOARDPRESENTATIONS
None
9.STAFF PRESENTATIONS
None.
10.ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned by Acting Chairperson Wise at7:07p.m.
June 26, 2012
Community Design Review Board Meeting Minutes
4
MEMORANDUM
TO:James Antonen, City Manager
FROM:Michael Martin, AICP,Planner
Comprehensive Sign Plan Amendment, Maplewood EastShopping
SUBJECT:
Center
LOCATION:2950 White Bear Avenue
DATE:July 17, 2012
INTRODUCTION
Thomas Schuette, of Azure Properties, is requesting approval of a comprehensive sign plan
amendment for the Maplewood EastShopping Center, located at 2950White Bear Avenue.
Azure Properties ownsthe building. The site currently has a comprehensive sign plan in place
that regulates the placement and size of signs for each tenant. Comprehensive sign plans are
required for commercial buildings with five or more tenants.
Request
The applicant is proposing to install anew pylon sign, replacing the existing pylon sign.
BACKGROUND
December 8,1981:The community design review board approved plans for the existing pylon
sign.
DISCUSSION
Azure Properties, owner of the Maplewood EastShopping Center, is requesting city approval to
install a10’ x 14’ pylon signat 2950White Bear Avenue. The sign would be 20 feet in height.
Both the sign area and height would meet current city sign ordinance requirements. The sign
location is proposed on the westside of the building near the existing pylon sign.The exact
location wouldbe submitted to the city during the sign permitting process. The pylon sign would
be required to meet the 10 footsetback. The current sign is 10’ x 10’ in size. The current
comprehensive sign plan said that the original sign was approved “as proposed.” Because of
that language any new sign had to be reviewed for approval.
Appeals
For reference purposes, the applicant, staff and city council may appeal the CDRB’s decision.
An appeal shall be presented within 15 days of the CDRB decision. If thedecision is appealed,
staff will schedule a hearing with the city council.
RECOMMENDATION
Approvetheplans date-stamped July 13, 2012for acomprehensive sign planamendment to
allow anew pylon sign atthe Maplewood EastShopping Center,2950White Bear Avenue.
Approval of the comprehensive sign plan amendment is subject to the following conditions
(additions are underlined and deletions are crossed out):
FreestandingSigns
Approved as proposed.
Site is allowed one freestanding sign up to 20 feetin height and no more than 140 square feet in
size.
2
REFERENCE INFORMATION
SITE DESCRIPTION
Site size: 3.01acres
Existing Use: Shopping Center
SURROUNDING LAND USES
North:Commercial buildings
South:Commercial buildings
East:Maplewood Heights Park
West:White Bear Avenue and Maplewood Mallarea
PLANNING
Land Use Plan: C (commercial)
Zoning: BC (business commercial)
APPLICATION DATE
Staffreceived the complete application and plans for this proposal on July 16, 2012. State law
requires that the city take action within 60 days of receiving complete applications. A decision
on this request is required by September 14, 2012, unless the city extends this review period an
additional 60 days.
p: sec 2N\MaplewoodEastShopping_Sign PlanAmendment_072412
Attachments
1.Location map
2.Approved comprehensive sign plan, December 8, 1981
3.Applicant’s narrative
4.Proposed sign
3
Attachment 1
Maplewood East
Shopping Center
Maplewood East Shopping Center
Location Map and Aerial Photo
Attachment 3
Attachment 4
MEMORANDUM
TO:James Antonen, City Manager
FROM: Michael Martin, AICP, Planner
Charles Ahl, Assistant City Manager
SUBJECT:Approval for Conditional Use Permit Amendment and Design Review–
Keller Golf Course
LOCATION:2166 Maplewood Drive
DATE:July 18, 2012
INTRODUCTION
Project Description
Scott Yonke, of the Ramsey County Parks and Recreation Department, is requesting approval of
plans for Keller Golf Course.The proposal includes the replacement of the clubhouse and pro
shop as well as landscaping and drainage alterations on the golf course.Refer to the maps and
building elevations attached to this report.
The existing clubhouse and pro shop buildings will be demolished and replaced with a new 13,358
square foot clubhouse and a 1,895 square foot pro shop. The maintenance buildingalong Highway
61, built in 2002, would not be affectedby this project.
Requests
The applicant is requesting that the city council approve:
1.A conditional use permit amendment (CUP) for a golf course. City code requires a CUP for
public uses.
2.Building, site and landscape plans.
DISCUSSION
Conditional Use Permit,Zoning and Land Use Plan Compliance
The existing golf course is guided by the 2030 Comprehensive Planas park (P). The golf course is
zoned as open space and parks(OSP).BecauseRamsey County owns the golf course a CUP is
required because of its public use. The proposed renovations are compliant with the city’s
comprehensive plan and zoning designation.
Site Plan
The overall site plan will mainly stay the same as it is today. The entry drive from County Road B
East will shift farther east to line up directly with the realigned intersection of County Road B East
and the Frontage Road along Highway 61. Construction of the realigned intersection will be
completed in 2013. The new entry drive will connect a new parking lot, which will be located closer
to County Road B, and the existing two parking lots closer to the club house and pro shop. The
new clubhouse and pro shop buildings will be larger than the current buildings but will belocated in
the same footprint area. While the rest of the golf course is also being redesigned andrenovated,
the pattern of golf linklocations will stay largely the same.
Building Designs
Clubhouse
The new clubhouse would be attractive. The applicant is proposing an exterior of composition
shinglesidingfor the main level. In areas where the lower level is exposed a thin stone veneer will
be utilized. The roof would have asphalt shingles. All four elevations are heavily treated with
windows making the building striking. The clubhouse will provide space for a banquet room,
ballroom, gallery, bar and grill and cart storage.
Pro Shop
Like the clubhouse, the applicant is proposing an exterior of composition shingle siding and the roof
would have asphalt shingles.The pro shop will provide space for a retail areaand cart storage.
Site Lights
The parking lot and clubhouse area would be lighted. The applicant’s lighting plan indicatestwo
types of fixtures that would stand 30 feet in height. City code limits light pole height to 25 feet. Staff
recommends the applicant revise its lighting plan to show pole heights of no more than 25 feet.
Also, the applicant submitted a photometric plan but the data does not go to the property line
boundaries. Of particular interest arethe impacts of the lights within the new parking lotnear the
entrance drive off County Road B East. Staff recommends a revised photometric plan be submitted
to ensure code compliance and that light spillage does not impact nearby residential properties.
Tree Replacement
This project meets the city’s tree preservation and replacement requirements.Please see Shann
Finwall’s attached report for more tree replacement information.
Wetlands
Please see Shann Finwall’s report attached for wetland information.
Landscaping
The applicant is proposing a variety of new tree, shrub and perennial plantings throughout the
clubhouse and pro shop area. Throughout the clubhouse and pro shopsite 47 deciduous trees
(2.5 inch caliber), 22 ornamental trees (1.5 inch caliber) and 25 evergreen trees(6 feet tall)are to
be planted. Six evergreen trees are proposed to be planted between the new parkinglot, located
near the site drive entry point and County Road B East. In addition tothe six new trees there are
several established and mature evergreen trees already planted between the proposed parking lot
and the single family homes to the east. While the applicant is meeting the screening requirements
currently,if the existingmature trees were to die or be removed the applicant would be required to
provide additional screening to meet code requirements. Numerous shrubs and perennials are
proposed to be planted throughout the clubhouse, pro shop and parking lot areas. Staff finds the
overall landscaping plan attractive.
Parking
The site currently has 164 spaces. The proposed site plan would expand the parking availability to
274 spaces within three different lots.Currently the spaces are 9 feet wide. Ramsey County is
requesting approval to continue having9-foot-wide spaces. Since their 9-foot-wide spaces are
non-conforming, they are requesting as part of their CUP request, an “expansion of a non-
conforming use.”An expansion of anon-conforming use can be approved through the CUP.
Staff is recommending approval of the 9-foot-wide parking spaces since the golf course has
functioned well with this size parking space for many decades. Increasing the stalls to9 ½ feet
wide as the city code requires could be done, but seems like a negligible gain for this use.
The planning commission disagreed with staff and recommended that the applicant comply with the
code requirement of 9½-foot-wide stalls for customers and 9-foot-wide stalls for employees. Staff
cannot disagree with this view. Staff feels either scenario is workable. The applicant could provide
the same number of spaces at those formulas.
The planning commission stated that, with the large site, and not having the constraints of nearby
lot lines to hem in the parking lots, the applicant should have no reason not to provide 9 ½-foot-
wide parking spaces. The applicant explained that, though this is true, they are limited by
topography. This is true,the parking lots would be situated on high ground with slopes surrounding
them. The only exception is the proposed parking lot by County Road B which could be expanded
further. The applicant commented that this proposed parking lot would be close to residential
properties which they were trying not to impact.
All in all, staff agrees with the planning commissions perspective, but also feels that since the golf
course has functioned for decades with 9-foot-wide spaces, there is basis for this continuance
since it seems to have worked for them.
City Engineer’s Comments
Refer to staff engineer Jon Jarosch’s review which is attached to this report.
Building Official’s Comments
1.The applicant should bringtheproject before the HPC as a courtesy.
2.Need to comply with the Building Code.
3.Separate building permits will be required for each building.
4.Recommends a pre-construction meeting.
Police Comments
Construction site thefts and burglaries are a large business affecting many large construction
projects throughout the Twin Cities metro area. The contractor/developer should be encouraged to
plan and provide for site security during the construction process. On-site security, alarm systems,
and any other appropriate security measure would be highlyencouraged to deter and report theft
and suspicious activity incidents in a timely manner.
COMMITTEE ACTION
Planning Commission
On July 17, 2012, the planning commission held a public hearing and recommended approval of
the proposed CUP revision forKeller Golf Course. The planning commission did not agree with
staff’s recommendation of allowing the continued use of 9 foot wide parking stalls. The planning
commission recommended requiring the applicant utilize 9’ 6”wide stalls.
RECOMMENDATIONS
A. Adopt the resolution attachedapproving a conditional use permit amendment for Keller Golf
Course located at 2166 Maplewood Drive. Approval is based on the findings required by the
code and subject to the following conditions(additions are underlined and deletions are crossed
out):
1.All construction shall follow the approved site plan. The director of community development
may approve minor changes.
2.The applicantmust begin construction within one year after thecouncil approves this permit
or thepermit shall end. The city council may extend this deadline for one year.
3.The city council shall review this permit in one year.
4.The use of nine foot wide parking spaces is approved as an expansion of a legal, non-
conforming use.
5.Applicant must provide six foot tall, 80 percent opaque screening between the new parking
lot near County Road B East and the single family dwellings to the east. Current vegetation
meets this requirement but if existing trees are ever removed or die new screening must be
installed.
B.Approve the plans date-stamped June 22, 2012 for the proposed renovations of the KellerGolf
Course located at 2166 Maplewood Drive, based on the findings required by the code. The
property owner, Ramsey County, shall do the following:
1.Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a permit for this project.
2.Provide the following for staff approval before the city issues grading or building permits:
a.Comply with all conditions of staff engineer Jon Jarosch’s report, datedJuly 9, 2012.
b.Comply with all conditions of environmental planner Shann Finwall’s report, dated July
10, 2012.
c.Apply for any needed permits from the Minnesota Department of Transportation.
d.A final, detailed photometric plan showing pole heights of no more than 25 feet and light
spillage exceeding 0.4 footcandles at any property line.
3.Complete the following before opening the golf course for business and occupying the
clubhouse building:
a.If a trash dumpster is to bekept outside build an enclosurefor any outside trash
containers for this facility (code requirement).The enclosures must be 100 percent
opaque, match the color of the building and have a closeable gate that extends to the
ground.
b.Install all required landscaping around the driveway, parking lots, pro shopand
clubhouse.
4.If any required work is not done on or around the clubhouse, pro shop, clubhouse parking
lot, the city may allow temporary occupancy if:
a.The city determines that the work is not essential to the public health, safety or welfare.
b.The city receives cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit for the required work.
The amount shall be 150 percent of the cost of the unfinished work.
c.The city receives an agreement that will allow the city to complete any unfinished work.
5.All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may
approve minor changes.
6.Signs shall comply with the requirements of the sign code and are not part of this approval.
REFERENCE INFORMATION
SITE DESCRIPTION
Site size: 169.3acres
Existing land use: Keller Golf Course
SURROUNDING LAND USES
North: County Road B East and single dwellings
South: Gateway Trail and Flicek Park
East: Single dwellings
West: Highway 61 and Ramsey County Regional Park
PLANNING
Land Use Plan designations: P
Zoning: OSP
CODE REQUIREMENTS
Section 44-1092(1) requires a conditional use permit for any public service or public building use.
Findings for CUP Approval
Section 44-1097(a) requires that the city council base approval of a CUP on nine findings. Refer to
the findings for approval in the resolution attached to this report.
APPLICATION DATE
These applications were deemed completeJune 22, 2012. State law requires that the city decide
on these requests within 60 days. The city council must act on these requests by August 21, 2012.
If needed, the city is able to extend this review deadline by an additional 60 days.
P:\SEC9\Keller Golf Course\2012_CDRB_CUP_Review\Keller Golf Course_ CUP_DESIGN_071712
Attachments:
1.Location Map
2.Land UseMap
3.Zoning Map
4.Site Plan
5.Site Plan Enlargement
6.Clubhouse and Pro Shop Elevations
7.Keller Golf Course Narrative
8.Jon Jarosch’s engineering staff report, dated July 9, 2012
9.Shann Finwall’s environmental staff report, dated July 10, 2012
10.MnDOT’s comments, dated June 6, 2012
11.CUP Resolution
12.Site Plan Landscape Plan and Building Elevations date-stamped June 22, 2012 (separate attachment)
Attachment 1
Keller Golf
Course
Low Density Residential
2166 Maplewood Drive Keller Golf Course
Location Map
Attachment 2
Commercial
Keller Golf
Course
Low Density Residential
Park (p)
Mixed Use
Medium
Density
High
Residential
Density
Residential
2166 Maplewood Drive Keller Golf Course
Future Land Use Map
Attachment 3
Keller Golf
Light Manufacturing (M1)
Course
Single Dwelling (R1)
Open Space and Parks (OSP)
Mixed Use
Multiple
Dwelling (R3)
Multiple
Dwelling (R3)
2166 Maplewood Drive Keller Golf Course
Zoning Map
Attachment 5
Attachment 6
Attachment 6
Attachment 6
Attachment 6
Attachment 7
Attachment 7
Attachment 7
Attachment 8
Engineering Plan Review
PROJECT: Keller Golf Course Site Improvements
PROJECT NO:
COMMENTS BY: Jon Jarosch, P.E. –Staff Engineer
DATE:7-9-2012
PLAN SET:Clubhouse Area Preliminary PlansDated 5-22-2012
Revised Plan Sheets C3-1 and C4-2Dated 6-15-2012
Golf Course Plans Dated 5-14-2012
REPORTS:Revised Storm Water Management Report 6-15-2012
The Applicant is proposing a significant renovation to the Keller Golf Course facility, including a
new Clubhouse and Pro Shop. Other site improvements include the relocation of the entry drive,
additional parking areas, new cart paths, trails, sidewalks, and landscaping. In order to
accommodate the renovations, improvements are proposed to the sanitary sewer, water
service, and storm sewer as well. Due to an increase in impervious surfaces, additional
infiltration areas, along with modifications to the existing basins are proposed. It appears that
the storm-water management plan meets the City’s requirements as it pertains to infiltration and
rate control.
The following are engineeringreview comments on the design review, and act as conditions
prior to issuing demolition, grading, sewer, and building permits:
Drainage and Stormwater Management
1)Multiple storm sewer pipes are shown to have velocities greater than 10-15 feet-per-
second which can cause erosion within pipes and manholes. The storm system shall be
modified to reduce the velocity in these pipes.
2)Multiple storm sewer pipes are shown to have slopes less than 0.50% which can lead to
the accumulation of sediment in the pipe. Thestorm system shall be adjusted so that the
minimum pipe slopes are 0.50%.
3)A detail shall be provided showing the modified outlet from the City Infiltration Basin into
the RWMWD Infiltration Basin. This area will be highly susceptible to erosion and must
be adequately stabilized.
4)The existing storm sewer pipe lying beneath the proposed lower parking lot shall be
protected throughout construction.
Attachment 8
5)Emergency overland overflows shall be identified for the infiltration basins and shall be
adequately stabilized to prevent erosion.
6)The geotechnical report notes layers of lean clay and laminations of clayey sand in the
boring nearest the proposed Infiltration Area 1 along with the silty sand utilized for the
infiltration calculations. It is understood that the applicant proposes to remove the lean
clay layer if necessary. The laminations of clayey sand will potentially hinder infiltration
as well. It is recommended that drain-tile piping be installed beneath the infiltration area
and tied into the nearby storm sewer where it can be capped. Should the basin not
drawn down as anticipated, the drain-tile could be uncapped.
7)The existing storm sewerin the middle level parking area discharges onto the hillside
and over the proposed cart path. There is a high potential for erosion or damage to the
proposed cart path with this configuration. It is recommended that the system be
extended past the cart path or tied into the other proposed storm sewer. Energy
dissipation shall be provided for this outlet pipe.
8)No modifications are allowed to the depth or shape of the existing City and RWMWD
Infiltration Basins.
9)Submit specifications and sequencing for the proposed infiltration basin construction
such that impacts to the basin bottom do not affect the infiltration capability of the soils.
10)Provide rip-rap and flared-end section outfall design detail.
11)Provide manhole and catch basin construction details.
Grading and Erosion Control
12)Slopes shall be 3H:1Vor flatter. It appears from the grading plan that there are slopes in
excess of this requirement between the upper parking lot and the proposed drive
connecting the upper lot to the middle lot. Likewise, it appears that there are steeper
slopes between the new entrance drive and the proposed cart path, as well as at the
southwest corner of the new Clubhouse. Retaining walls may be necessary in these
areas to meet the 3H:1V requirement.
13)Due to the steep slopes and high potential for erosion, all disturbed areas shall be
stabilized immediately after final grading.Steep slopes should be broken into shorter
runs through the use of silt fence, bio-rolls, or other methods of erosion control.
14)The drive connecting the upper lot to the middle lot appears to be over an 8% slope. It is
recommended that this drive be modified such that the slope is under 8%.
Attachment 8
15)Rip-Rap or other means of permanent energy dissipation shall be extended to the
bottom of the infiltration basins at all outlets.
16)Stabilization of the slope on the west side of the City Infiltration Basin shall be detailed in
the plans. This steep slope will be highly susceptible to erosion once disturbed.It is
recommended that bio-rolls or some other type of erosion control devices be placed at
intervals to break up this long steep slope.
17)Infiltration basins shall be protected from erosion and sedimentation throughout
construction. Any damage to the City or RWMWD Infiltration basins or the plantings
within them shall be corrected at the Applicants expense.
18)Inlet protection devices shall be installed on the existing storm sewer along County Road
B prior to construction. These inlet protection devices shall be noted on the plans.
19)County Road B shall be swept as needed to keep the road clear of sediment and
construction debris.
20)Pedestrian facilities shall be ADA compliant.An accessible route shall be provided from
the parking lot to the Clubhouse and Pro shop.
Sanitary Sewer and Water Service
21)Provide details for construction of connection to existing sanitary sewer service.
22)Provide fixture unit design computations for connection to existing sanitary sewer
service.
23)The proposed water service modifications are subject to the review and conditions of
Saint Paul Regional Water Services(SPRWS). The applicant shall submit plans and
specifications to SPRWS for review and meet all requirements they may haveprior to
the issuance of a grading permit by the City.
Other
24)It appears that portions of this improvement project lie within MnDOT right-of-way. Prior
to the City issuing a grading permit, the Applicant shall provide the City copies of
easements and/or other documentation indicating that the property may be utilized for
the proposed uses.
25)The Applicant shall continue to work with Kimley-Horn and Associates, as well as
MnDOT in regards to the location of the entrance drive and trails at County Road B.
Attachment 8
26)The developer shall submit a copy of the MPCA’s construction stormwater permit
(SWPPP) to the city before the city will issue a grading permit for this project.
27)The Owner shall satisfy all requirements of all permitting and reviewing agencies
including MnDOT, MPCA, DNR, Army Corps of Engineers, SPRWSand RWMWD.
28)The Owner shall sign a maintenance agreement, prepared by the City, for all stormwater
treatment devices (sumps, basins,infiltration basins, etc.).
Attachment 9
Environmental Review
Project:
Keller Golf Course
Dateof Plans:
June 25, 2012
Date of Review:
July 10, 2012
Location:
2166 Maplewood Drive
Reviewers:
Shann Finwall, Environmental Planner
(651) 249-2304; shann.finwall@ci.maplewood.mn.us
Background:
The project involves the construction of a new clubhouse and pro shop
to replace the existing structures. Renovations to the golf course will include new tees,
new greens, new irrigation system, new cart paths, selected tree removal, and modified
grading.
Thesite is approximately 161 acres and includes the clubhouse, driving range, golf
course, and portions of Keller Regional Park. Renovations include the removal and
replacement of several hundred trees. The City’s wetland classification map shows
eight wetlands on the site. All eight wetlands are classified as Manage B wetlands with
a required 75 foot buffer.Following is a summary of tree and wetland issues related to
the project.
TREES
Tree Preservation Ordinance
1.:Maplewood’s tree preservation ordinance
protects significant trees, which are defined as follows:
hardwood tree -minimum of 6 inches in diameter
evergreen tree -minimum of 8 inches in diameter
softwood tree -minimum of 12 inches in diameter
If less than 20 percent of significant tree diameter inches areremoved from the
site, the applicant shall replace one tree per significant tree removed. Tree
replacement shall be a minimum of 2 caliper inches in size. If 20 percent or more
total diameter inches are removed, the applicant shall mitigate all significant
diameter inches using a tree mitigation/replacement schedule based on the
number and size of trees on the site, versus the number and size of trees
removed.
The ordinance applies to any individual, business, or entity that engages in a
building or development project which requires issuance of a grading permit or
new building permit. Tree removal related to citypublic improvement projects to
existing roadways, sewers, and other infrastructure, utility/infrastructure work or
repair are exempt. The removal of dead and dying trees isalso exempt from
replacement requirements.
1
Attachment 9
Tree Removal and Required Replacement
2.:While the ordinance specifies that
city public improvement projects are exempt from the ordinance, the intent of the
ordinance was to exclude all public improvements projects whether it is a city,
county, or state project. Regardless of the exclusion, Ramsey County will meet
the intent of the ordinance with itsproject as follows:
Tree inventory -Only 1,409 trees on the entire site have been inventoried by a
certified arborist. There is an additional 12.02 acres of tree canopy that was not
inventoried.
Tree removal –Of the 1,409 trees inventoried(20,544 caliper inches), 483 will be
removed as part of the overall project(club house and golf course). Of these
trees 88 are ash trees, 95 have significant tree damage or signs of disease, and
87 do not qualify as a significant tree for replacement purposes. After the
removal of the ash trees (which were slated for removal from the County Parks
due to eventual loss from Emerald Ash Borer), as well as the removal of the
damaged/diseased and nonsignificant trees, Ramsey County willbe removing
213 significant trees as part of the project. Total caliper inches removed equals
inventoried
3,625 inches, which is 17.55 percent of the total caliper inches for all
trees.
Tree replacement –Since Ramsey County will be removing less than 20 percent
of significant tree diameter inches from the site, the ordinance requiresthe
replacement of one tree per one significant tree removed, for a total of at least
213 new trees. Ramsey County proposes to plant treesas follows:
Golfcourse trees planted -213 trees
Clubhouse trees planted –94 trees (47 deciduous[2.5 caliper inch
trees], 22 ornamental[1.5 caliper inch trees], and 25 evergreen[6-foot
high evergreens])
Total trees planted -307 trees
Tree Ordinance Review Summary
3.:Theproject meets the City’s tree
preservation and replacement requirements.
WETLANDS
Wetland Ordinance
1.:TheCity’s wetland classification map shows eight Manage
B wetlands located throughout the golf course. The wetland ordinance requires a
75-foot buffer adjacent a Manage B wetland. Renovations to the golf course will
have some impacts on the wetland buffers (described below).
The City’s wetland classification mapwas adopted in 2009 as part of the wetland
ordinance. The wetland ordinance statesthat the City Council will adopt
changes to the wetland map which are based on MnRAM studies and other
technical data which has been approved by watershed districts. The wetland
delineation report found three wetlands on the site to be stormwater ponds and
two wetlands to be incidental (described below).
2
Attachment 9
Stormwater Pond Designation
2.:Ramsey County had a wetland delineation
report completed for the site. The report found that there are ten wetlands
located on the site. Three of thewetlands were found to have been constructed
infiltration basins created for previous golf course and neighborhood road
construction projects. One of thewetlands (Wetland 3) is reflected on the City’s
wetland classification map as a Manage B wetland. Two of thewetlands
(Wetlands 1 and 2) are notshown on the wetland classification map.
Based on the wetland delineation report and historical data from the City,
Ramsey-Washington Metro Wateshed District will be downgrading the three
wetlands to stormwater ponds. Maplewood should also change the classification
of Wetland 3 from a Manage B to a stormwater pond, and add two new
stormwater ponds (Wetland 1 and 2) to the wetland classification map.
Areas around the stormwater ponds will have some grading impacts forthe
construction of the club house and pro shop, and the renovation of the driving
range.
Incidental Wetlands
3.: The wetland delineation report described Wetlands 7 and
10 to be incidental (nonhistorical) and not subject to the Water Conservation Act
regulations. Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District has agreed with this
assessment and will be removing those wetlands from their wetland classification
map. Maplewood should also remove the two incidental wetlands (Wetland 7
and 10 -currently identified as Manage B wetlands) from the city’s wetland
classification map. Wetland 7 will be regarded to create a new tee and Wetland
10 will be expanded as an irrigation pond.
Wetland Buffer Impacts
4.: Some grading and renovations will take place in areas
currently maintained as turf, but located within the City’s required 75-foot buffer.
These areas are considered pre-existing, nonconforming buffers and grading is
allowed. Staff worked with the County’s golf architect to ensure no
encroachments wouldtake place into native or naturalized buffers. Additionally,
the County is proposing to restore several areas of the golf course with prairie to
include grasses and flowering plants. The 75-foot buffer around Wetland 5,
which is currently maintained as turf grass, will be included in the prairie
plantings to create a new 75-foot plus native buffer around that wetland.
Wetland Ordinance Review Summary
5.:Based on the Ramsey-Washington
Metro Watershed District’s review and approval the following changesshould be
made to the City’s wetland classification map:
a.Wetlands1 and 2 need to be added to the City’s wetland map and
classified as stormwater ponds.
b.Wetland 3 needs to be downgraded from a Manage B wetland to a
stormwater pond.
c.Wetlands 7 and 10 needto be removed from the wetland map as they
have been shown to be incidental wetlands.
3
Attachment 10
Attachment 10
Attachment 10
Attachment 11
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, Ramsey County applied for a conditional use permit amendment to renovate and
reconstruct its Keller Golf Course.
WHEREAS, Section 44-1092(1) of the city code requires a conditional use permit for any public
service or public building use.
WHEREAS, this permit applies to the property located at 2166 Maplewood Drive.The legal
description is:
SUBJ TO HWY 61 & FROST AVE & EX STATE OF MINNESOTA R/W; W ½ OF NW ¼ OF NE
¼ & TRIANGULAR PART IN SW COR OF E ½ OF NW ¼ OF NE ¼ MEAS 208.71 FT ON WL
& 297.26 FT ON SL THEREOF ALSO PART OF SW ¼ OF NE ¼ LYING NLY OF STATE OF
MINNESOTA R/W ALSO PART OF NE ¼ OF NW ¼ LYING ELY OF HWY 61 & ELY OF AL
DESC AS COM AT PT ON NL OF & 1830.5 FT E OF NW COR OF NW ¼ TH S 40 DEG 15
MIN W FOR 790 FT TO WL OF NE ¼ OF NW ¼ TH S ON SD WL FOR 310 FT TH S 43 DEG
15 MIN E FOR 160 FT TO PT OF BEG TH S 10 DEG E FOR 300 FT TO SL OF NE ¼ OF NW
¼ & THERE TERM ALSO PART OF SE ¼ OF NW ¼ LYING NLY OF STATE OF MINNESOTA
R/W
ALSO PART OF SW ¼ OF NW ¼ LYING ELY & SLYOF AL BEG ON EL OF & 366 FT S FROM
NE COR OF SW ¼ OF NW ¼ TH N 72 DEG 18 MIN W FOR 119 FT TH WLY ALONG CURVE TO
LEFT RAD 215 FT FOR 185 FT TH S 66 DEG 34 MIN W FOR 195 FT TH S 48 DEG 40 MIN W
FOR 320 FT TH S 440 FT TH S 46 DEG 45 MIN E FOR 400 FT TO SL OFSW ¼ OF NW ¼ &
THERE TERM ALSO PART OF NW ¼ OF SW ¼ LYING ELY & NLY OF PART OWNED BY CITY
OF ST PAUL ALSO W 330 FT OF GOVT. LOT 2 IN NE ¼ OF SW ¼ LYING ELY & NLY OF PART
OWNED BY CITY OF ST PAUL ALSO PART OF E 10 ACRES OF W 20 ACRES OF SD GOVT.
LOT 2 LYING NLY OF STATE OF MINNESOTA R/W; ALL IN SECTION 16, TOWNSHIP 29,
RANGE 22.
WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows:
1.On July 27, 2012, 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 recommended that the city council ________this permit.
2.On __________, 2012, the city councilconsidered this application. The council also considered
reports and recommendations of the city staff and planning commission.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council ________the above-described
conditional use permitamendment, because:
1.All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city. Staff may approve minor
changes.
2.The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be in conformity
with the City's Comprehensive Plan and this Code.
3.The use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area.
4.The use would not depreciate property values.
5.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.
6.The use would not exceed the design standards of any affected street.
7.The use would be served by adequate public facilities and services, including streets, police
and fire protection, drainage structures, water and sewersystems, schools and parks.
8.The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services.
9.The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and scenic
features into the development design.
The use would cause no more than minimal adverse environmental effects.
10.
Approval is subject to the following conditions(additions are underlined and deletions are crossed out:
1.All construction shall follow the approved site plan. The director of community
development may approve minor changes.
2.The applicant must begin construction within one year after the council approves this
permit or the permit shall end. The city council may extend this deadline for one year.
3.The city council shall review this permit in one year.
4.The use of nine foot wide parking spaces is approved as an expansion of a legal, non-
conforming use.
5.Applicant must provide six foot tall, 80 percent opaque screening between the new
parking lot near County Road B East and the single familydwellings to the east. Current
vegetation meets this requirement but if existing trees are ever removed or die new
screening must be installed.
The Maplewood City Council __________this resolution on _____________, 2012.
MEMORANDUM
TO:James Antonen, City Manager
FROM:Michael Martin, AICP,Planner
ChuckAhl,Assistant City Manager
Combining PC/CDRB
SUBJECT:
DATE:July 18, 2012
INTRODUCTION
On June 4, 2012, the city council directed staff to proceed with developing a
plan/process for combining the planning commission (PC) and the community
design review board (CDRB) into one commission.
The purpose of combining these commissions would be to:
Reduce the number of advisory commission reviews to simplify and
shorten the review process.
Improve the efficiency of time spent by commission volunteers and that of
staff in attending meetings.
Reduce the number of persons needed to serve onvarious commissions.
Lately, there has been a lack of interest and difficultyin finding enough
qualified candidates for all the commissions.
The PC used to handle design reviews until the CDRB was formed in the
early 1970s. In many cases, their review of the design elements of plans
would be an appropriate fit for them when reviewing the zoning issues
involved with a proposal.
Both the PC and CDRB have switched to meeting once a month, unless a
time-sensitive matter or urgent need for review comes up. Combining
the PC and CDRB would lend to a more efficient review process now that
the number of development requests have dropped.
DISCUSSION
Membership Impact
Currently, the number of seats on each commission is:
PC9
CDRB5
ThePCpresently has one vacancy.The members of both commissions said that
they would not want their groups to grow in numbers too large to become
unwieldy.A reasonable goal would be for a ninemember combined commission,
the same size membership the PC currently has. Staff would like to see the
skilled representation of both the PC and CDRB fill this combined commission.
Of those onthe CDRB, the membership terms are to expire as follows:
Ananth Shankar April 30, 2013
Matt WiseApril 30, 2013
Matt LedvinaApril 30, 2014
Jawaid AhmedApril 30, 2015
Jason LamersApril 30, 2015
When Would the Combination Take Place?
Staff’s goal is to have the combination of the PC and CDRBtake place in
January 2013.
What are the Responsibilities of a Combined Commission?
In addition to thezoning, comprehensive plan and land use related issues the
planning commission reviews, the CDRB reviewsdesign related items such as:
1.Review architectural, site and landscaping plans for all buildings from
double dwellings to industrial-scale developments.
2.Review comprehensive sign plans for shopping centers.
3.Make recommendations to the city council on ordinance revisions that
have design impacts.
CONCLUSION
At this time, staff would like to ask members of the CDRB if they would have an
interest in continuing to serve on a commission when the CDRB would be
combined with the planning commission. This will help staffplan for membership
onacombined commission. Staffwould like to retain the quality experience and
expertise the city hason both commissions.
RECOMMENDATION
Inform staff whether you would wish to be part of a combined PC/CDRB.
p:CDRB\Combining Commissions PC and CDRB_072412
2