Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
10/26/2004
AGENDA CITY OF MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD Tuesday, October 26, 2004 6:00 P.M. Council Chambers - Maplewood City Hall 1830 County Road B East 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call , . o . Approval of Agenda Approval of the October 12, 2004, Minutes Design Review: a. CVS Drugstore, 2168 and 2180 White Bear Avenue (Existing Oasis Market and Fina Lube Building on the Corner of County Road B and White Bear Avenue) b. Olivia Gardens Townhomes, 2329 and 2335 Stillwater Road c. University Auto, 1145 Highway 36 d. Wyngate Townhomes, 1750 and 1752 Village Trail (Legacy Village Rental Townhomes) Visitor Presentations: None Scheduled 7. Board Presentations: 8. Staff Presentations: a. b. Sign Code Survey Results Community Design Review Board Representation at the November 8, 2004, City Council Meeting 9. Adjourn DRAFT MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, OCTOBER 12, 2004 I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Longrie-Kline called the meeting to order at 6:03 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Chairperson Diana Longrie-Kline Board member Ledvina Board member Judy Driscoll Board member Linda Olson Board member Ananth Shankar Present Absent Present Present Present Staff Present: Melinda Coleman, Assistant City Manager Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner Shann Finwall, Planner Lisa Kroll, Recording Secretary Commissions Present: Open Space Task Force Ginny Gaynor Bill Bartodziej Historical Preservation Commission Richard Currie Robert Kreager III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Board member Shankar moved to approve the agenda. Board member Olson seconded. Ayes - Driscoll, Longrie-Kline, Olson, Shankar The motion passed. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of the CDRB minutes for September 21,2004. Board member Olson moved approval of the minutes of September 21,2004. Board member Shankar seconded. Ayes ---Longrie-Kline, Olson, Shankar Abstention - Driscoll The motion passed. Community Design Review Board Minutes 10-12-2004 V. STAFF PRESENTATIONS a. Gladstone Neighborhood Planning Process Update Melinda Coleman, Tom Ekstrand and Shann Finwall gave a presentation on the planning process for the revitalization of the Gladstone area as well as some successful redevelopment examples in surrounding cities. Mr. David Gageby of ERS Development, LLC spoke as well as some of the neighbors regarding the Gladstone area and the future of the neighborhood. Ms. Finwall stated there is an on-line Gladstone survey posted on the city of Maplewood website for people to respond to. This survey will be on the website through the month of October. Future Gladstone redevelopment meeting dates will be in the city news, on the website as well as mailings sent out by the community development department. VI. DESIGN REVIEW VII. VIII. IX. None. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS No visitors present. BOARD PRESENTATIONS al Report on the September 27, 2004, City Council Meeting - Summerhill Senior Cooperative Building and Mapletree Townhouses Chairperson Longrie-Kline said the Summerhill Senior Cooperative Transfiguration school at 935 Ferndale Street was denied by the city council. passed the Mapletree Townhome development off Southlawn Drive. Building at the The city council Ms. Finwall said there is a policy and procedure manual that the city council guides its decisions on and part of that allows the city council to reconsider a vote if one of the descending voters brings it up at the next city council meeting and a majority of the members agree to have the item reconsidered. Mayor Cardinal, who was one of the descending voters for the Transfiguration comprehensive plan change, has agreed to place the item on the October 14, 2004, city council meeting and he will make a motion to have it reconsidered. If the motion passes by a majority vote the Summerhill Senior Cooperative building would be reconsidered at the Monday October 25, 2004, city council meeting. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:53 p.m. TO: FROM: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: LOCATION: DATE: MEMORANDUM Richard Fursman, City Manager Shann Finwall, AICP, Planner Design Review for the CVS Pharmacy Velmeir Companies 2168 and 2180 White Bear Avenue October 20, 2004 INTRODUCTION Velmeir Companies is proposing to redevelop the Oasis Market and Fina Lube site located on the northeast corner of County Road B and White Bear Avenue. The redevelopment will include the construction of a 13,013-square-foot CVS Drugstore. Refer to the maps and plans on pages 8 through 17. DISCUSSION Site Plan The site plan shows the removal of five existing curb cuts onto County Road B and White Bear Avenue, and replacement with two curb cuts, one onto County Road B and one onto White Bear Avenue. The parking lot will maintain the required city code setbacks including 15 feet to the right-of-ways, 5 feet to the side property line (north), and 20 feet to the adjacent residential property (Emma's Place located to the east). The County Road B curb cut will access the proposed drive-through pharmacy located on the east side of the building. City code requires building setbacks to a right-of-way and adjacent residential property of 30 feet and 50 feet respectively. The proposed CVS Drugstore building will be setback 83 feet from the White Bear Avenue right-of-way, 125 feet from the County Road B right-of-way, and 53 feet from the adjacent residential property line. Parking City code requires a retail store to have one parking space per 200 square feet of retail space. This development requires a total of 65 parking spaces. The applicants are proposing a total of 77 parking spaces. Grading/Drainage Chuck Vermeersch of the city's engineering department states in his attached memorandum on pages 18 and 19 that the submittal does not indicate any water quality improvements for the redevelopment. The engineering department is requiring that the applicants, at a minimum, provide high-end treatment structures to provide pretreatment of runoff before discharging from the site. In addition, Mr. Vermeersch indicates that there is an existing sidewalk located along White Bear Avenue, and is requiring that a six-foot-wide sidewalk be installed by the applicant along County Road B. Landscaping/Screening City code requires a 20-foot-wide landscaped and screened area when a residential use abuts a nonresidential use. Screening must be satisfied by the use of a screening fence, landscaping screen, or berm. As stated above, the parking lot will be setback 20 feet from the adjacent Emma's Place development to the east. Within the 20 feet, the landscape plan shows 14 viburnum shrubs, 12 black hills spruce trees, and 3 river birch trees. Staff finds that the proposed landscaping does not meet the required screening and recommends that the applicant submit a revised landscape plan which shows the planting of at least 17, 8-foot-high black hills spruce (planted approximately 15 feet on center), as well as several native shrubs and perennial plants along the east side of the parking lot. The remaining portion of the lot is landscaped with 6 maple trees, and several shrubs and perennials. Staff recommends at least 6 more deciduous trees, for a total of 12 deciduous trees along County Road B and White Bear Avenue, to be planted 30 feet on center. In addition, the applicants must submit an underground irrigation plan to ensure all landscaping on the site is watered as required by city code. Lighting City code requires the submittal of a lighting and photometrics plan which ensure all freestanding lights maintain a height of 25 feet or less and that the maximum foot candles of illumination at all property lines does not exceed .4-foot-candles. The applicants lighting and photometrics plan shows 5 freestanding lights, with no specification on height, and 28 building mounted lights. The photometrics reflect the highest light illumination reading of 8.0 foot-candles along the White Bear Avenue property line. A revised lighting and photometrics plan is required prior to issuance of a building permit which ensures that the development meets city code requirements. Dumpster Enclosure The proposed location of the dumpster enclosure is on the northeast corner of the site, within the required 20-foot buffer from the adjacent Emma's Place residential property. This location will cause negative impacts to Emma's Place such as noise, smell, and unsightliness. For this reason, staff recommends that the dumpster enclosure be moved from this location. Because of the building's proposed setbacks to the street, most other alternatives for the enclosure would place it in front of the building, visible from the streets. Staff recommends that the applicants move the dumpster enclosure to one of two locations as follows: 1) Along the southeast corner of the building, which would require the removal of one or two parking spaces; or 2) The applicants should consider shifting the location of the building closer to County Road B, creating room on the north side of the building for the enclosure. This alternative would require the removal of the proposed front central row of parking spaces (15 spaces), some of which could be relocated to the north side of the building and designated as employee parking. The applicants must also submit elevations of the proposed dumpster enclosure to ensure it is at least 6 feet in height, constructed of building materials which are compatible to the building, and has a 100 percent opaque gate. CVS Pharmacy 2 October 20, 2004 Underground Tanks Since 1988 the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) has been monitoring two leaking petroleum underground tanks on the site. Remedial clean up measures have been successful on one tank, and are still undergoing on the second. The applicants have hired Delta Environmental Consultants to compile a response action plan to ensure that they continue to meet the MPCA requirements for clean-up. Staff recommends a condition of CVS Pharmacy's design review approval to include the submittal of the response action plan report and proof that the MPCA has accepted that plan and proposed clean up measures prior to issuance of a building permit. Building Elevations The exterior of the building will be constructed with an exterior insulation finish system (EIFS), which is a stucco-like product, brick veneer, and glass windows. Staff finds the building elevations attractive, but recommends additional design detail on the east elevation, which is adjacent Emma's Place residential property. Detailing could include EIFS material, windows, or columns to ensure consistency with the south and west elevations. Color elevations and building samples should be supplied during the CDRB review for approval. OTHER COMMENTS Daniel So/er, Ramsey County Public Works: Mr. Solar states in his memorandum attached on page 20 that the redevelopment of the site to a pharmacy will not have a measurable impact on traffic operations in the area and that in fact the proposed driveway configuration will improve traffic operations with the new site redevelopment. Butch Gervais, Fire Marshal: Mr. Gervais outlines the fire code issues regarding the proposed CVS Pharmacy development in his memorandum attached on page 21. In general, the applicant must install a fire protection and fire alarm system within the building. David Fisher, Building Official: Mr. Fisher outlines the building code issues regarding the proposed CVS Pharmacy development in his memorandum attached on page 22. In general, the applicant must comply with all state plumbing and building codes. Lieutenant Dave Kvam, Police Department: Lieutenant Kvam states that White Bear Avenue and County Road B have a significant amount of traffic (vehicle and pedestrian) and because most pharmacies stock products that are desired by thieves and easily stolen, the developers should consider an internal security system. RECOMMENDATION Approve the plans date-stamped September 22, 2004, for the CVS Pharmacy located at 2168 Beam Avenue. Approval is subject to the applicant doing the following: Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. o Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit, the applicant must submit to staff for approval the following items: CVS Pharmacy 3 October 20, 2004 ao b, d, e. Revised grading/drainage/utility plans which comply with all city engineering department requirements as specified in the Chuck Vermeersch's October 18, 2004, memorandum including the implementation of high end treatment structures to provide pretreatment of water runoff before discharging from the site and plans for the installation of a six-foot-wide sidewalk to be installed along County Road B. Revised site plan showing the following: 1) Six-foot-wide sidewalk along County Road B. 2) Relocation of dumpster enclosure to ensure no negative impacts to the adjacent Emma's Place residential property. Possible locations include: a) Along the southeast corner of the building, this would require the removal of one or two parking spaces. b) Shift the location of the building closer to County Road B, creating room on the north side of the building for the enclosure. This alternative would require the removal of the proposed front central row of parking spaces (15 spaces), some of which could be relocated to the north side of the building and designated as employee parking. Revised landscape plan showing the following: 1) Planting at least 17, 8-foot-high black hills spruce (planted approximately 15 feet on center), as well as several native shrubs and perennial plants along the east property line (adjacent Emma's Place). 2) Planting at least 6 more deciduous trees, for a total of 12 deciduous trees along County Road B and White Bear Avenue, to be planted 30 feet on center. 3) An underground irrigation plan to ensure all landscaping on the site is watered as required by city code. Revised elevations as follows: 1) Dumpster enclosure elevations showing that the enclosure is at least 6 feet in height, constructed of building materials which are compatible to the building, and have a 100 percent opaque gate. 2) East building elevations showing additional design detail such as EIFS material, windows, or columns to ensure consistency with the south and west elevations. A revised lighting and photometrics plan which ensures all freestanding lights maintain a height of 25 feet or less and that the overall illumination from outdoor lights does not exceed .4-foot-candles at all property lines. CVS Pharmacy 4 October 20, 2004 , , , , f. The submittal of a response action plan regarding underground leaking petroleum tanks on the site, and proof of the acceptance of that plan and proposed clean up measures by the MPCA prior to issuance of a building permit. g. Obtain a permit from Ramsey County for construction on county right-of-way for the driveway access, utility work, and sidewalk. h. Watershed district approval. i. A cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit for all required exterior improvements. The amount shall be 150 percent of the cost of the work. The applicant shall complete the following before occupying the building: a. Replace any property irons removed because of this construction. b. Provide continuous concrete curb and gutter around the parking lot and driveways. c. Install all required landscaping and an in-ground lawn irrigation system for all landscaped areas. d. Screen or paint the rooftop mechanical equipment to match the building color. e. Install all required outdoor lighting. f. Install the required six-foot-wide sidewalk along County Road B. If any required work is not done, the city may allow temporary occupancy if: a. The city determines that the work is not essential to the public health, safety or welfare. b. The above-required letter of credit or cash escrow is held by the City of Maplewood for all required exterior improvements. The owner or contractor shall complete any unfinished exterior improvements by June 1 if occupancy of the building is in the fall or winter, or within six weeks of occupancy of the building if occupancy is in the spring or summer. Signs are not included in the design review of the CVS Pharmacy. All proposed signs must meet city code sign requirements and require a separate sign permits. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. CVS Pharmacy 5 October 20, 2004 REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Site Size: Existing Land Use: 1.71 acres Gas Station and Oil Change Business SURROUNDING LAND USES North: South: East: West: Napa Auto Parts (zoned Business Commercial, BC) County Road B and Wonder Bread Outlet Store across the street (zoned Business Commercial, BC) Emma's Place Townhomes (zoned Business Commercial, BC and Multiple Dwelling Residential, R-3) White Bear Avenue and Healtheast Clinic across the street (zoned Business Commercial, BC) PLANNING Land Use Plan: Zoning: Business Commercial, BC Business Commercial, BC CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL Design Review Section 2-290 of the city code requires that the community design review board make the following findings to approve plans: That the design and location of the proposed development and its relationship to neighboring, existing or proposed developments, and traffic is such that it will not impair the desirability of investment or occupation in the neighborhood; that it will not unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring, existing or proposed developments; and that it will not create traffic hazards or congestion. . That the design and location of the proposed development is in keeping with the character of the surrounding neighborhood and is not detrimental to the harmonious, orderly and attractive development contemplated by this article and the city's comprehensive municipal plan. . That the design and location of the proposed development would provide a desirable environment for its occupants, as well as for its neighbors, and that it is aesthetically of good composition, materials, textures and colors. CVS Pharmacy 6 October 20, 2004 Application Date The city received the complete applications and plans for this development on September 22, 2004. State law requires that the city take action within 60 days of receiving complete applications for a proposal. As such, city action is required on this proposal by November 21, 2004. P\Secl 1\CVS Drugstore Attachments: , 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. Location Map Zoning Map Land Use Map Existing Conditions Demolition Plan Site Plan Grading/Drainage Plan Utility Plan Landscape Plan Building Elevations Engineering Memorandum Ramsey County Public Works Memorandum Fire Marshall Memorandum Building Official Memorandum CVS Pharmacy 7 October 20, 2004 2229 Attachment <~ ., ,, 74(5 ~ 7-54 t ?"58 764 ~ '774 1747 : - {! {}, t ?© 5 i 2 71: 11 '~9IO 2200 2 ? I ,? ! 849 1742 1750 t?'60 ,:.,'~'~25 2 134 S 2 ! O0 1830 Location Map R1 2229 Attachment 2 RS R1 2!72 R1 1849 ! 774 F i800 M1 18! (; F 850 M1 N 2100 i 830 Zoning Map cl~9ent 3 2!S2 1849 746 ~T54 !758 1764 1'774 42 1i'50 1760 2'125 \ t 830k, '-.% N Land Use Map 10 Attachment 4 N S Existing Conditions 11 Attachment 5 ~ oo [] [] Iq Demolition Plan 12 Attachment 6 COUNTY ROAD B ~OOA~T N Site Plan 13 Attachment 7 COUNTY ROAD B lq Grading/Drainage Plan 14 Attachment 8 PROPOSED CVS 95'-4"X136'-6" FFE=930.75 COUNTY ROAD B N S Utility Plan 15 Attachment 9 COUNTY ROAD B ISYM IQT~I CO~ON N,~E DEC,OUOUS TRE~ I 2.S" CAL I ~'~, I Picea ~zlauca densa~a I il' HGT. EVERGREEN TREES BS 12 BLACK HILLS SPRUCE DECIDUOUS SHRUBS N S CONIFEROUS SHRUBS 'luni .... hori ..... lis 'Blue Chio' Il 18"SPRDIl [ lunioerus chinensi~ 'Monleo' 18~ SPRD PERENNIALS BE gO BLACK EYED SLJ~iAN Rudb~kia 'Golds~um' 1 GAL BF B9 BURGUNDY BLANK~'r FLOWER Gaillardia x ~randiflora '8ureundy' I GAL DM 72 DAYLILY MIX 50% PARDON ME DAYLILY Hemerocallts 'Pardon Me' ! OT ' SO*/= STELLA DE ORO Heme~ocallis 'Steila de Om' ! ~1T ZT 104 ZAGREB TICKSEED ~oreoasis vefltcillata '7_aemb' 1 ~T LANDSCAPE SCHEDULE: II Landscape Plan EXTERIOR FINISH SCHEDULE ( TO ~ STO PREI/~R SYST~ 1,17 SILCOUT 1.5 PAINT '~5' SEE SP~'QF1CATION (~) BRICX ~4~NEER PINE HALL BRICK MOOULAR CV~ RED UORTAR COLOR - CORAL BY HOLQg RNNBOW ~IORTAMIX (~ PAINT 8[N,~AMIN MOORE PAINT TO MATCH £1FS "El' DESF. RT TAN (~) PAINT BENJAMIN MOORE jr215,3-50 Q PNNT BENJAMIN MOORE PNNT TO MATCH BRIOK 'E3' (~) MATCH OSHA 1YP FOR ALL Plt:~ BCX. I..ARDS PAINT BENJAMIN uO(~RE YELLOW (~ AL, Ua STC~REFRONT SI~ S~CS SEE SPECS I~I:'DIUM BROfiZ~ (~) ALUM CURTNN WALL e~rr SI:~CS S~ S~:C~ CARNIVAL REO VALSPAR SL4AI3g ALUM AUTOMAllC OOOR STANLEY SE~ SPEC~ CARNIVAL RED VALSPAR ~L4A1,3g _.. Attachment .z~r~? ~ E NTRANCE ELEVATION SCaL~ 1/e' - 1'-0' )FRONT SIDE ELEVATION (COUNTY ROAD B) ~ l/e- - r-o- ' ~,~,~ - ., ,~_..--.._~ )LEFT SIDE ELEVATION (WHITE BEAR AVENUE) ~ 1/~' - 1'-o' (RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION (REAR ELEVATION sc,u.z: 1,m-. 1.-o- Building levations Engineering Plan Review Attachment ll PROJECT: CVS Drugstore PROJECT NO: REVIEWED BY: Chuck Vermeersch, Maplewood Engineering Department DATE: October 18, 2004 Velmeir Companies is proposing to redevelop the property at the northeast corner of County Road B and White Bear Avenue. The site currently has automotive uses (gas station, car wash, and quick lube). Construction of a CVS/Pharmacy is proposed. The applicant or their representative's shall address the following issues: Drainage The submittal does not indicate any water quality improvements for the redevelopment. At a minimum, the city will require (a) high end treatment structure(s) to provide pretreatment of runoff before discharging from the site. . The storm sewer configuration shows two discharge points from the site. Each will require a treatment structure. Alternatively, the storm sewer could be reconfigured to provide a single discharge from the site to the existing storm sewer on County Road B. . The proposed storm sewer connection to the County Road B system shall provide for the installation of a catch basin on County Road B near the southeast corner of the property to eliminate an existing drainage problem, and likelihood of standing water in front of the County Road B entrance. Utilities 4. The submittal does not show the proposed water and sanitary sewer connection locations . The applicant or their engineer shall coordinate utility work with Saint Paul Regional Water Service and Ed Nadeau, Utility Superintendent for the City of Maplewood. Traffic . The submittal reflects an improvement as related to traffic. The number of entrances to the property has been reduced from five to two, and the two entrances have been moved as far from the intersection as possible. . The applicant shall, Submit plans to Ramsey Washington Metro Watershed District for their re~'li~ and approval. The applicant shall 0~ain the ne~(ililary permits from Ramsey County 18 . From the scale of the plans submitted, it is not clear if sidewalk is shown along the south and west sides of the property. A sidewalk already exists along the White Bear Avenue frontage; areas along the driveway removals shall be restored. A six foot sidewalk will be required along County Road B. (Maplewood standard for sidewalk is a 6-foot walk located 7-feet behind curb). RAMSEY COUNTY, Department of Public Works Kenneth G. Hairier, P.E., Director and County Engineer ADMINISTRATION/LAND SURVEY 50 West Kellogg Blvd., Suite 910 St. Paul, MN 55102 · (651) 266-2600 * Fax 266-2615 E-mail: Public.Works@co.ramsey. mn.us Attachment 12 ENGINEERING/OPERATIONS 3377 N. Rice Street Shoreview, MN 55126 (651) 484-9104 · Fax 482-5232 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Jeremy Strehlo, E.I.T. Loucks McLagan ., Danie ogS'~er, P.E~. ~t'x,. . Ramsey C~"~i[ ~'~orks CVS Pharmacy DATE: September 30, 2004 The Ramsey County Public Works Department has reviewed the proposed redevelopment plan for the existing Amoco and Fina Lube site on White Bear Avenue at County Road B in the City of Maplewood. This property is proposed to be redeveloped with a new CVS Pharmacy on the site. Ramsey County has the following comments regarding this proposal. o The use of the site will stay commercial/retail as it is today. This redevelopment of the site will not have a measurable impact on traffic operations in the area. The intersection of White Bear Avenue at County Road B is signalized. o The existing access configuration on White Bear Avenue and County Road B is proposed to change with the redevelopment. Currently White Bear Avenue has three driveways and County Road B has two driveways. All of these access drives will be closed. One new driveway will be constructed on both White Bear Avenue and on County Road B. These new access points will be on the north and east ends of the development located as far as possible from the intersection. This driveway configuration is acceptable and should improve traffic operations with the new site redevelopment. 3. The County will need to review the storm water plan in more detail including the connections to the existing storm water system. , The developer will be required to obtain a permit from Ramsey County for construction on County right of way. The developer will also need permits for any utility work within County right-of-way. Thanks for the opportunity to make comments regarding this issue. If you have any questions or need any additional information please give me a call. Cc:'~hann Finwall%- City of Maplewood Minnesota's First Home Rule County printed on recycled paper with a minimum of 10% post-consumer content 20 Attachment 13 Project Review Comments Date: From: Project: Building: Planner: October 20,2004 Butch Gervais, Fire Marshal CVS Drugstore New Building Shann Finwall Comment s: 1. Monitoring all parts of the fire protection system and fire alarm system will be required 2. Installation of fire protection system (NFPA 13) 3. Installation of fire alarm system (NFPA 72) 4. Location of fire protection system needs to be accessible and clearly marked 5. Fire Department lockbox required to be mounted on the building the form for the lockbox can be obtained from the Fire Marshal Any questions or concerns please contact me. Butch Gervais, Fire Marshal City of Maplewood (651)-249-2804 Attachment 14 Memo October 12, 2004 From: David Fisher, Building Official To: Shann Finwall, Associate Planner Re: CVS Drugstore Building . Accessible parking looks good. The buildings are required to be fire sprinklered to meet NFPA 13. Building is required to meet 2000 IBC, 2000 IFC, 2000 IMC, NEC State Plumbing code and the Minnesota State Building Code. I would recommend a pre-construction meeting with the building department. MEMORANDUM TO: City Manager FROM: Ken Roberts, Planner SUBJECT: Design Review PROJECT: Olivia Gardens LOCATION: 2329 and 2335 Stillwater Road DATE: October 13, 2004 INTRODUCTION Project Description Mr. Jeff Matthews, representing Matthews Construction, is proposing to build 14 townhouses (in seven twinhomes) in a development called Olivia Gardens. It would be on a 2.79-acre site on the west side of Stillwater Road, north of Bush Avenue. Refer to the maps and plans on pages 12-23. A homeowners' association would own and maintain the common areas. The design of the buildings includes horizontal-lap vinyl siding, aluminum soffits and fascia and brick veneer or stone on the fronts. In addition, each unit would have a two-car garage. Requests To build this project, Mr. Matthews is requesting that the city approve the project design plans including the building elevations, building materials, site lighting plan and the landscape plan. BACKGROUND These two properties have a long history of land use and zoning activities. (Please see the history section of this report on page ten for more information.) On June 14, 2004, the city council held a public hearing to consider the proposed Olivia Gardens PUD and preliminary plat. After much discussion, the developer agreed to a time extension to allow him to change the project plans to try to address the concerns of the city council. On June 28, 2004, Homesites LLC submitted revised plans to the city council to consider for the PUD and preliminary plat. The plans showed the project driveway with gentle curves, an entrance island and a turn-around in front of building seven. In addition, the plans also show the buildings staggered (instead of in a straight line) as they follow the new ddveway design and seven of the 14 units with side-loaded garages. These were the plans that the city council reviewed and approved on July 12, 2004 (see note below). Mr. Matthews and the project engineer have used these design ideas in the current project plans to give the project a more interesting design. These changes should give the development more character than the previous proposals. On July 12, 2004, the city council approved a land use plan change, a zoning map change, a conditional use permit and the preliminary plat for Olivia Gardens. These approvals were subject to several conditions of approval. DISCUSSION Design Review Building Design and Exterior Materials The proposed buildings should be attractive and would be compatible with the design of the existing nearby homes. The town houses would have one story or level above grade and each unit would have an attached two-car garage. As proposed, the buildings would have an exterior of horizontal vinyl siding with brick veneer or stone accents on the front, vinyl-clad windows, and the roof would have asphalt shingles. (See the building elevation drawings on pages 20 and 21 and the project plans.) The developer has not yet proposed colors for the siding or for the shingles. The city must ensure that the buildings and their colors would be compatible with those in the area. This will require the builder to submit to city staff samples of the building materials and revised building plans and elevations that show or include (but are not limited to) the colors of all materials, white shutters, white window gdds, white balcony railings, and that provide more detail about the brick or stone accents. The elevations also should show that the townhouses will have two-tones of beige-colored vinyl siding and either bdck or stone accents and wainscoting on the front elevation. Tree Removal/Replacement Maplewood's tree ordinance requires there be at least ten trees per gross acre on the site after grading or the developer would have to plant trees to replace those that the contractor would remove. For this 2.79-acre site, the applicant's plans showed a total of 91 healthy large trees on the site before grading and that they would save two of the existing trees on the property. The plans also show the removal of 89 large trees (ash, oak, maple, pine, spruce, cedar and elm) from the property. The plans show that the contractor would preserve 15 trees (two on the site and 13 next to the site on the neighboring properties). As proposed on the landscape plan (page 18), the developer would plant 39 trees on the site. These include 27 black-hills spruce along the west property line and 12 maple trees on the site, primarily at the front comer of each unit near the driveway. As I noted above, the code requires there be at least 10 trees per acre on the site. For this 2.79-acre site, the code requires there be at least 28 trees on the property after the construction is complete. As such, the proposed landscape/screening plan would meet the requirements of the tree replacement code of the city. Landscaping/Screening The proposed project plans show the contractor keeping a few of the existing trees around the perimeter of the site. As I noted above, the developer would plant 39 larger (replacement) trees in the development. These include 27 spruce and 12 maple trees, pdmadly near each unit. (See the plan on page 18.) The landscape plan (page 18) and the detailed plan on page 19 also show the proposed plantings near the driveway and the front door of each unit. These will include spirea, junipers, dogwoods, rose shrubs and arborvitaes. While the landscape plan is a good start, the developer should add more trees in two pdmary areas. These would be for screening along the south side of the site and along the north side of the site. The purpose of these additional plantings is to screen the new townhouses from the existing houses to the south and to help beautify the property. The city code requires the developer or builder to install screening along property lines that is at least six feet tall and at least 80 percent opaque. This screening may be accomplished with fencing, berming, tree planting or a combination of these techniques. It would be prudent for and helpful to the residents of the existing houses and those in the new town houses if the developer installed screening along the south and west sides of the project to help ensure that the new town houses are separated from the existing single dwellings. Staff is recommending that Mr. Matthews add several black hills spruce and Austrian pines along the south property line to provide additional screening between this site and the adjacent properties. As for the north and northeast parts of the property, planting trees in these areas would improve the looks of the site and should help screen the new town houses from Stillwater Road. The applicant should revise the landscape plan to show additional trees in these areas so they provide screening and so they are consistent with Maplewood ordinance standards (for size and height). In addition, the applicant needs to provide the city engineering department with a detailed landscape plan for the pond. The project engineer also should show this detail on the final project landscape plans. The plantings proposed around foundations of the units and in the proposed detail areas should remain on the plan. In addition to the above, all yard areas should be sodded (except for mulched and edged planting beds). Site Lighting The applicant prepared a site lighting plan for the development that shows the installation of two light posts to provide lighting for the pdvate driveway. The city code requires the light fixtures to have a design that hides the bulb and lens from view. This plan, however, does not show any detail about the height or style of these poles or about the proposed lighting on the buildings. In addition, the proposed plan shows little, if any, lighting along the middle part of the driveway (near building four). The applicant should revise the lighting plan in several ways. First, the plan should show how the lighting on the buildings would add to the site lighting. Secondly, the plan should have an additional lighting pole near the front of Unit 1, Building Four, so this part of the site is adequately lit. Finally, the plan should show details about the proposed light poles and fixtures to ensure they meet the city code requirements and so they are a design that hides the bulb and lens from view to avoid nuisances. Site Plan Details There is an existing trail along Stillwater Road that the developer and builder must keep (and repair if necessary) with this project. The applicant is not proposing any sidewalks within the development. The proposed site and grading plans (pages 14 and 15) show a chain link fence along the south side of the proposed storm water (NURP) pond. Edn Laberee of the city engineering department is recommending that this fence be four feet tall and that it be a black, vinyl material. The proposed private driveway (Olivia Court) would be 30 feet wide. This width is enough to have parking on one side of the driveway to serve as an area for guest parking. Engineering Department Review Public Utilities Sanitary sewer and water are in Stillwater Road to serve the proposed development. In addition, the applicant is proposing to build a new storm water pond on the southeast corner of the site. As designed, the storm water from this development would go into the new pond and then discharge to the existing ponding area north of the site. The city designed and built the storm water pond north of the site to accommodate drainage from a large area west of Stillwater Road. The developer's plans will connect their pipes to the existing storm and sanitary sewer pipes. Drainage Concerns Several neighbors expressed concem over the potential for increased runoff and flooding due to this development. Specifically, there are properties that have Iow areas that tend to collect storm water and this water does not drain off quickly. The city should require that the grading/drainage plan would not increase the storm-water flow onto any neighbor's land. (Please also see the comments from Erin Laberee starting on page 24.) As proposed, the utility plan shows most of the storm water from the site, including the pdvate driveways, going first into a new storm water pond on the southeast comer of the site before it discharges into the existing ponding area to the north of the site. Other Comments Police Department Lieutenant David Kvam of the Maplewood Police Department did not note any public safety concerns with this proposal. Fire Marshal Butch Gervais, the Maplewood Fire Marshal, wants the city to make sure the end of the road is back far enough for proper snow removal and that the developer installs at least a 20-foot-wide ddveway to maintain proper access to all the units. Watershed District The Ramsey/Washington Metro Watershed Distdct has reviewed the development proposal and issued Mr. Conlin (the odginal developer) a permit for the site grading. RECOMMENDATION Approve the plans date-stamped October 4, 2004, (site plan, grading and drainage plans, landscape, lighting and building elevations) for the Olivia Gardens Townhomes on the west side of Stillwater Road, north of Bush Avenue. The city bases this approval on the findings required by the code. The developer or contractor shall do the following: 1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. 2. Complete the following before the city issues a building permit: a. Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall include: grading, utility, drainage, erosion control, tree, sidewalk and driveway plans. The plans shall meet the following conditions and shall meet all the conditions and changes noted in Erin Laberee's memo dated October 11, 2004. (1) The erosion control plan shall be consistent with city code. (2) The grading plan shall: (a) Include building, floor elevation and contour information for each home site. The lot lines on this plan shall follow the approved preliminary plat. (b) Include contour information for the land that the construction will disturb. (c) Show sedimentation basins or ponds as may be required by the watershed board or by the city engineer. (d) Show all proposed slopes steeper than 3:1 on the proposed construction plans. The city engineer shall approve the plans, specifications and management practices for any slopes steeper than 3:1. This shall include covedng these slopes with wood-fiber blankets and seeding them with a "no mow" vegetation rather than using sod or grass. (e) Show all retaining walls on the plans. Any retaining walls more than four feet tall require a building permit from the city. (f) Show the proposed street and ddveway grades as allowed by the city engineer. (g) Show drainage areas and the developer's engineer shall provide the city engineer with the drainage calculations. The drainage design shall accommodate the runoff from the surrounding areas. (h) Show details about the proposed fence by the pond including the materials, height and color. The contractor shall extend the fence along the east side of the pond, near the existing trail along Stillwater Road. (3) The tree plan shall: (a) Be approved by the city engineer. (b) Include an inventory of all existing large trees on the site and shall show where the developer will remove, save or replace large trees. (c) Show the size, species and location of the replacement trees. The coniferous trees shall be at least eight feet tall and shall be a mix of black hills spruce and Austdan pine (not Colorado blue spruce). (d) Be consistent with the approved grading and landscape plans and shall show no tree removal beyond the approved grading and tree limits. (4) The street, ddveway and utility plans shall show: (a) A water service to each lot and unit. (b) The repair and restoration of Stillwater Road (including curbing, street, trail and boulevard) after the contractor removes the existing driveways, connects to the public utilities and builds the new private driveway (Olivia Court). (c) The driveway in front of Lots I and 2, Block 6, as wide as possible while still accommodating the necessary screening and trees. (d) All driveways at least 20 feet wide. If the developer wants to have parking on one side of the main ddve (Olivia Court), then it must be at least 28 feet wide. (e) All the parking areas and driveways shall have continuous concrete curb and gutter except where the city engineer decides that it is not needed. (f) The developer or contractor shall post one side of the driveway (Olivia Court) with no parking signs to meet the above-listed standards. (g) The private driveway labeled as Olivia Court and Stillwater Road labeled on all plans. (h) The common area labeled as Outlot A on all plans. (5) The design of the ponding area and the rainwater garden(s) shall be subject to the approval of the city engineer. The developer shall be responsible for getting any needed off-site utility, grading or drainage easements and for recording all necessary easements. b. Submit a certificate of survey for all new construction and have each building staked by a registered land surveyor. c. Submit revised landscape and tree plans to city staff for approval that incorporates the following details and that meet the following requirements: (1) All trees would be consistent with city standards for size, location and species. (2) The plan shall show the size, species and proposed location of all trees. The maple trees must be at least 2 1/2 inches in caliper, balled and burlapped. (3) The manicured or mowed areas from the natural areas. This shall include planting (instead of sodding) the disturbed areas around the ponding area and the rainwater gardens with native grasses and native flowering plants. The native grasses and flowedng plants shall be those needing little or no maintenance and shall extend at least four feet from the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) of the pond. This is to reduce maintenance costs and to reduce the temptation of mowers to encroach into the gardens. Specifically, the developer shall have the natural areas seeded with an upland mixture and lowland mixtures as appropriate. (4) The plantings proposed around the front of the units shown on the landscape plan date-stamped October 4, 2004, shall remain on the plan. (5) In addition to the above, the contractor shall sod all front, side and rear yard areas (except for mulched and edged planting beds and the area within the ponding area). (6) The contractor shall restore the Stillwater Road boulevard with sod. (7) Adding at least 12 more evergreen trees (Black Hills spruce or Austdan pines) along the south property line of the site. These trees are to be at least eight feet tall and the contractor shall plant these trees in staggered rows to provide screening for the houses to the south. (8) Adding at least nine more trees along the north property line of the site and on the northeast comer of the site (near Lot 1, Block 1). (9) Shows the in-ground lawn-irrigation system, including the location of the sprinkler heads. (10) Shall be approved by the city engineer before site grading and shall be consistent with the approved grading and landscape plans. b. Get the necessary approvals and permits from the watershed district. C. Submit a revised site lighting plan for city approval. This plan shall show how the lighting on the buildings would add to the site lighting, and the plan should have additional lighting along the main ddveway (Olivia Court), so it is adequately lit. 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. The light fixtures must have concealed lenses and bulbs to properly shield glare from the adjacent street right-of-ways and from adjacent residential properties. d. Have the Saint Paul Regional Water Services (SPRWS) approve the proposed utility plans. e. Submit for city staff approval revised building plans and elevations that show or include (but are not limited to) the colors of all materials, white shutters, white window grids, white balcony railings, and that provide more detail about the brick or stone accents. Present to staff for approval color building elevations or building matedal samples of all elevations of the townhouses. These elevations should show that the townhouses will have two-tones of beige-colored vinyl siding and either brick or stone accents on the front elevation. These elevations also should show that the front elevations would have a wainscot of brick or stone. g. The developer or builder will pay the city Park Access Charges (PAC fees) for each housing unit at the time of the building permit for each housing unit. h. Submit the homeowners' association bylaws and rules to the city for approval by the city staff. These are to assure that there will be one responsible party for the care and maintenance of the common areas, the publicly-owned parcel to the north, the private utilities, landscaping and any retaining walls. i. Obtain the necessary approvals and permits from MnDOT. j. Provide the city with a letter of credit or cash escrow for all required extedor improvements. The amount shall be 150 percent of the cost of the work. 3. Complete the following before occupying each building: a. Replace property irons that are removed because of this construction. b. Restore and sod damaged boulevards. Sod all landscaped areas, except for the ponding area, which the contractor should seed and landscape. c. Install continuous concrete curb and gutter along all interior driveways and around all open parking stalls. d. Install a reflectodzed stop sign at the exit onto Stillwater Road and addresses on each building for each unit. In addition, the applicant shall install "no parking" signs within the site, as required by staff. e. Install and maintain all required landscaping (including the plantings around each unit and around the pond) and an in-ground sprinkler system for all landscaped areas (code requirement). Install on-site lighting for security and visibility that follows the approved site lighting plan. All exterior lighting shall follow the approved lighting plan that shows the light spread and fixture design. The light fixtures must have concealed lenses and bulbs to properly shield glare from the adjacent street right-of-ways and the nearby homes and residential properties. g. Install a six-foot-high solid screening fence or additional landscaping along the west and south property lines of the site where the vegetation does not adequately screen the town houses and the parking areas from the existing dwellings. These additional materials are to ensure there is at least a six-foot-tall, 80 percent opaque screen on these sides of the site. The location, design and materials of the fence or the additional landscaping shall be subject to city staff approval. h. The developer or contractor shall: (1) Complete all grading for the site drainage, complete all public improvements and meet all city requirements. (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: a. The city determines that the work is not essential to the public health, safety or welfare. b. The above-required letter of credit or cash escrow is held by the city for all required exterior improvements. The owner or contractor shall complete any C. unfinished landscaping by June 1 of the next year if the building is occupied in the fall or winter, or within six weeks of occupancy if the building is occupied in the spring or summer. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. CITIZENS' COMMENTS In May 2004, I surveyed the owners of the 34 properties within 500 feet of this site about the odginal development proposal. Of those, two were for the proposal, one was against and three had comments. For 1. We think it is a good use of the land. It will improve the appearance and bring up the property values. We would be interested in living in one of the new homes. (Margaret Boege, 756 McKnight Road North.) 2. I am glad to have this project go forward. It seems good for the area. However, I am concerned about my property line because I have many flowering bushes in the area and I hope I don't have to move. (Aileen Fritsch, 812 McKnight Road North.) Objections 1. I am concerned about the density of the housing as proposed. (Michael Green - 2321 Stillwater Road) Comments/Questions 1. I'm concerned about the disruption/noise in a now quiet neighborhood due to building and construction as well as future noise. With 14 units we would have rather had single-family dwellings. I am concerned mostly about the noise and disruption this well cause. Please note there is an existing hole in the fence behind my property and I'm worried about people cutting thru my yard. Can the fence be repaired by the city during this project? Can the area back there be cleaned up and tree removal be done as well? (Angela Ogle, 840 McKnight Road North.) 2. I am concerned about additional traffic on Stillwater. It's already a busy street and many speeders. Concern on the entrance and on the property. Headlights will go right into 2322's front windows. (Brad & Kory Kesnick, 2316 Stillwater Road East.) REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Site size: 2.79 acres Existing land use: Now rough graded. (Formerly had a single dwelling and accessory buildings.) SURROUNDING LAND USES North: South: West: East: Vacant city-owned property Houses on Stillwater Road Houses on McKnight Road Houses across Stillwater Road SITE HISTORY On August 26, 1976, the city council approved a request to rezone from R-1 (single dwellings) to R- 3 (multiple-family residential) the property at 2335 Stillwater Road. On February 7, 1980, the city council approved a plan amendment from RH (high density residential), to SC (service commercial) and a rezoning from R-1 and R-3 (multiple family residential) to BC(M) (business commercial modified) for the property at 2335 Stillwater Road. The council made this change to allow the Johns to start a construction business in this location. On October 21, 1980, the city approved plans for a 70-foot by 40-foot storage building for Mr. John (the previous property owner), subject to conditions. On February 14, 1983, the city council amended the land use plan from SC back to RH and rezoned the property from BC(M) back to R-3. The city made these changes to prevent the expansion of the construction business. On January 14, 1991, the city council again amended the land use plan for this area, including the subject properties. This change was from RH to RL (residential Iow density). The council also changed the zoning of the property at 2335 Stillwater Road from R-3 to R-1. PLANNING Land Use and Zoning Designations: R-2 (single and double dwellings) Criteria for Design Review Section 2-290(b) of the city code requires that the community design review board make the following findings to approve plans: . That the design and location of the proposed development and its relationship to neighboring, existing or proposed developments, and traffic is such that it will not impair the desirability of investment or occupation in the neighborhood; that it will not unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring, existing or proposed developments; and that it will not create traffic hazards or congestion. 10 . . That the design and location of the proposed development is in keeping with the character of the surrounding neighborhood and is not detrimental to the harmonious, orderly and attractive development contemplated by this article and the city's comprehensive municipal plan. That the design and location of the proposed development would provide a desirable environment for its occupants, as well as for its neighbors, and that it is aesthetically of good composition, materials, textures and colors. Application Date The city received all the application materials for this request on October 4, 2004. State law would normally require the city to take action on this request by December 2, 2004, unless the applicant agreed to a time extension. p:sec 25\Olivia Gardens (CDRB) - 2004.mem Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Property Line/Zoning Map 3. Site Plan dated 10-4-04 4. Proposed Grading Plan dated 10-4-04 5. Erosion Control Plan dated 10-4-04 6. Proposed Utility Plan dated 10-4-04 7. Landscape Plan dated 10-4-04 8. Landscape Plan Detail dated 10-4-04 9. Proposed Elevations dated 10-4-04 10. Proposed Side Elevations dated 10-4-04 11. Main Floor Plan dated 10-4-04 12. Foundation Plan dated 10-4-04 13. Engineering Comments from Erin L. dated October 11,2004 14. Project Plans date-stamped October 4, 2004 (separate attachments) Attachn~ent 1 II LOCATION 12 MAP Attachment 2 -. 2280 R1 ::xl° ...... ~-~ 0 7 ___D_ .... 21 ~ 812 ;::Ul c~ 7~8 7~6 784 2335 SITE 2327 2321 I~ .. i~ iI iI ,l' t' ,I · " .1' F2410 ,,' ,'" Gethsemane Park 2338 ,," '~ 2334 23~ 2328 Ri 2322 SEVENTH 2314 R E~NEY-AVE - -- _._ ,-" .,.,. ~ 2304 '". ~ '2302 .4~ 52 2360 66! 23~ i 2372 ~a ................. PROPERTY LINE i ZONING MAP 13 Attachment 3 L_S- ,, NURP Po~cl Fmc / / / / / / / / / / / / / / ,/ / / SITE 14 PLAN Attachment 4 / I 1 ! ~ / !// // ,! / / / / / / t t I '2~/PICAL' HOUSE T~/PE OPTIONS PROPOSED GRADING 15 PLAN Attachment 5 2 'x I '-..../ / ~-I ~/ / ~... / / / / / / / / -" I / I / / _.J , / / / ,-/ ,// .::?' I // / // // // ROCK CONSTI~UCTION ENT}U~NC£ Snt Fmce inlet Sedk~e~t ~dter 2' 2' Wood Snow Fence ,~Metal ~'take. F~te~ Fabric ~ ~Support Boards Minimum Dlstanc~ L~~J Minimum 12 Betwe~ Posts la 2 faet. A~ Post May Be Added On Each Sid.~ TYPE A SEDIMENT FILTER No SILT FENCE ~IC~ EROSION CONTROL PLAN 16 'D Attachment 6 T-981.0~ I-991.5 t / F'ES--989.5 12' R.C,P. STORM ~ BUILD MH OVER SANITARY SEWER / / 1-982.0 E~S~lNG / 1-982.4 PR0C>O~EZ)/ / / / / / / / / / / / / PROPOSED UTILITY 17 PLAN Attachment 7 \ \ x. / / / / / / / //// '! , / / // / tlitli LANDSCAPE PLAN 18 Attachment 8 LANDSCAPE PLAN DETAIL 19 Attachment 9 nl I PROPOSED ELEVATIONS 20 Attachment l0 CZ3 0 ~Z) 0 0 ~Z) ,0 PROPOSED SIDE ELEVATIONS 21 Attachment ll MAIN FLOOR PLAN 22 Attachment 12 FOUNDATION PLAN Attachment 13 Ent~ineerint~ Plan Review PROJECT: Olivia Gardens PROJECT NO: 04-13 REVIEWED BY: Erin Laberee, Maplewood Engineering Department DATE: October 11, 2004 Homesites, L.L.C. is proposing to redevelop the properties at 2329 and 2335 Stillwater Road E. They are proposing to build 7 double unit townhomes (14 total units) along a private street. The developer shall address the following issues regarding the plans submitted on October 4, 2004. Drainage . The engineer shall ensure that the contractor constructs a drainage swale from the Iow point in the road to the north property line, between structures 1 and 2, in the event that the pond overtops the road. Utilities The applicant's plans are showing an existing 8 inch sanitary sewer stub from Stillwater Road. The city's as-built plans show this stub as being 6 inches in diameter. The applicant shall revise the utility plans to note a 6 inch sanitary sewer stub and to down size the sanitary sewer main in the development from an 8 inch pipe to a 6 inch pipe. Landscaping The developer shall provide landscaping around the pond area. The plans shall specify a native-grass seed mixture for upland and lowland areas in and around the pond. . The project plans shall not specify Colorado Blue Spruce trees. The plans shall show Black Hill Spruce, Austrian Pine or a mixture of these trees in place of the Colorado Blue. . The size of the spruce trees shall be 8 feet tall. The applicant needs to revise the planting schedule and the plant list to reflect this change. . The proposed fence by the pond shall be a 4' tall black vinyl, chain-link fence. The exact location for the fence shall be subject to the approval of the city engineer. 24 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: DATE: MEMORANDUM Richard Fursman, City Manager Shann Finwall, AICP, Planner University Auto Sales and Leasing 1145 Highway 36 East October 19, 2004 INTRODUCTION Project Description Hossein Aghamirzai of University Auto Sales and Leasing is proposing to expand University Auto's motor vehicle sales lot at 1145 Highway 36 East. Refer to the plans on pages 8-11. Requests The applicants request the city approve the following: I , Amendment to their existing used motor vehicle sales conditional use permit (CUP) in order to expand the sales lot. 2. Design review. BACKGROUND On March 25, 2001, the city council approved a CUP for used motor vehicle sales at University Auto Sales and Leasing. On June 24, 2002, the city council reviewed and renewed the CUP for used motor vehicle sales at University Auto Sales and Leasing. November 24, 2003, the city council approved an amendment for the expansion of University Auto's existing CUP for used motor vehicle sales, a new CUP for motor vehicle repair, and design review for an addition to the building to house a new motor vehicle repair facility. January 2004, University Auto purchased .22 acres of land from the City of Maplewood for the future expansion of their used motor vehicle sales lot. The land was previously unused right-of- way from the frontage road. DISCUSSION Conditional Use Permit University Auto's existing used motor vehicle sales lot contains 63 used motor vehicle parking spaces, 10 customer parking spaces, and 3 employee spaces. With the proposed sales lot expansion the parking lot will contain 93 used motor vehicle parking spaces, 5 customer parking spaces, and 3 employee spaces. Since opening the used motor vehicle sales business in 2001, University Auto has been in compliance with all CUP conditions and city code CUP standards. However, there is one outstanding issue which keeps reoccurring on the site each time city staff reviews the CUP. The issue has to do with parking of motor vehicles in front of the entrances. When the business is closed, University Auto will park motor vehicles in front of both entrances, presumably to block the entrance and exit to would-be thieves. Also, University Auto has been parking motor vehicles on elevated display ramps along the side of the drive aisles as a way to advertise their motor vehicles. Both of these are considered a violation of the city's ordinances as the motor vehicles are either totally blocking the drive aisles, which is a fire-safety issue, or are reducing the width of the drive aisles, which is a traffic-safety issue. Therefore, city staff recommends a new condition to University Auto's motor vehicle sales CUP which states that no motor vehicles may be parked within the drive aisles. If University Auto wishes to block their drive aisles when the business is closed, the city's fire marshal, Butch Gervais, suggests that they install a gate with a paddle lock. The city's fire department can easily cut through the paddle lock if they need to gain access for a fire, as opposed to towing away a motor vehicle. If University Auto wishes to display motor vehicles on the raised ramps, they must park the ramp in one of the designated used motor vehicle display parking spaces. Once the parking of motor vehicles within the drive aisles is resolved, staff finds that the proposed expansion of the used motor vehicle sales lot meets all city code CUP standards as specified in the attached CUP resolution on pages 14-15. Design Review Building Addition As stated above, the city council approved an addition to University Auto's building on November 24, 2003. The addition will be used as a motor vehicle repair facility. The 1,040- square-foot addition is currently under construction and is located on the north side of the building. There are two garage doors proposed on the addition, one on the east and one on the west side. The western garage door will allow exit of motor vehicles onto the proposed expanded motor vehicle sales lot. Site Plan City code requires that a parking lot maintain a 15-foot setback to the front and a 5-foot setback to the rear property lines. University Auto's site plan shows the expanded motor vehicle sales lot with a 15-foot front-yard setback and a zero rear-yard setback. A condition of approval should include that the parking lot maintain a 5-foot rear-yard setback as required by city code. Landscaping There is minimal landscaping on the existing site consisting of a few Iow-lying shrubs located in front of the building. City staff explained to Mr. Aghamirzai that the city's community design review board (CDRB) ordinance requires the submittal of a landscape plan for the expanded motor vehicle sales lot. City staff suggested the planting of several trees and shrubs along the front of the new sales lot. University Auto submitted a site plan with the location of one "plant box" on the northwest corner of the new site, which was their submittal of the required landscape plan. Mr. Aghamirzai explained that they do not wish to plant any trees or plants along the front of the sales lot which will screen the view of their used motor vehicles from the street. City staff explained to Mr. Aghamirzai that this plan was unacceptable and suggested that University Auto work with a landscape firm to ensure an adequate plan for review by the CDRB. University Auto 2 October 19, 2004 To date, University Auto has not submitted an adequate landscape plan for the expanded motor vehicle sales lot. As such, a condition of design review approval should include the submittal of a landscape plan which shows the planting of at least 7 deciduous trees (one tree per 30 feet) or 14 ornamental trees (one tree per 15 feet), 30 shrubs, and several perennial plants to be planted along the front of the expanded motor vehicle sales lot, and shrubs within the existing planting bed along the west side of the building. All other areas must be sodded or seeded with grass. The required landscape plan must be submitted prior to the city issuing a grading permit for the expanded sales lot. In addition, city code requires that all new landscaping have underground irrigation to ensure adequate watering. The CDRB can waive this condition if it is a hardship for the applicant and they agree to water the landscaping. City staff finds the addition of an underground irrigation system along the front of the expanded motor vehicle sales lot to be a financial hardship as the cost of implementing a new irrigation system in an existing, older building would make this project cost prohibitive. Therefore, city staff recommends that the CDRB waive the requirement for underground irrigation. Li.qhtinq There are currently eight outdoor lights on the property including three freestanding parking lot flood lights, three roof-mounted parking lot flood lights, and two roof-mounted flag spotlights. Mr. Aghamirzai indicates that no new lights are proposed for the expanded motor vehicle sales lot. If new lights are ever proposed for this area, city code requires the submittal of a photometrics plan which will ensure that the new lights do not exceed .4 foot-candles of light illumination at all property lines, and that the maximum height of new freestanding lights does not exceed 25 feet. The existing outdoor lights described above are an older style flood light, mounted on metal poles. The metal poles are painted white, but have chipped and peeling paint. Because the expanded motor vehicle sales lot requires design review, the city should ensure that the existing facility is in good repair. As such, a condition of design review approval should include the repainting of all existing metal light poles white to ensure no chipping or peeling paint. Trash Enclosure During a recent inspection of site, staff noticed a trash dumpster located on the exterior of the property. This may be due to the fact that University Auto is currently constructing an addition onto the building. In the past, University Auto has stored their trash dumpster inside the building. If they now propose to store the trash dumpster outside, University Auto must construct a trash enclosure to screen the dumpster. The enclosure must be at least 6 feet high, constructed of materials compatible to the building, and have a 100 percent opaque gate. Gradinq/Drainaqe Chuck Vermeersch of the city's engineering department states in his memorandum attached on pages 12-13 that the sales lot expansion will increase the impervious area on the property by approximately. 17 acres. The applicants are not proposing any water quality improvements as part of the expansion, and Mr. Vermeersch states that there is little opportunity to do so on this property as water runoff from the entire site drains through a long series of roadside ditches before discharging into Keller Lake. However, Mr. Vermeersch recommends several grading and drainage improvements to the plan including ditch improvements. A condition of approval should University Auto 3 October 19, 2004 include all engineering conditions being met prior to issuance of a grading permit. OTHER COMMENTS Lt. Kevin Rabbett of the city's police department states that there are no significant public safety concerns with the expansion of University Auto's motor vehicle sales lot. However, due to the number of auto thefts from this location in the past, Lt. Rabbett suggests that the owners install proper lighting and a high-quality video surveillance system. RECOMMENDATIONS . Adopt the resolution on pages 14-15 approving an amendment to University Auto's conditional use permit for a used motor vehicle sales business at 1145 Highway 36 East in order to expand their used motor vehicle sales lot. Approval is based on the findings required by the code and subject to (any amendments to original conditions noted): a, All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city. The director of community development may approve minor changes. b. 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. c. The city council shall review this permit in one year. d. The site shall be kept in neat and orderly condition. The applicant shall observe the striping pattern and not crowd the site by placing additional vehicles on the site beyond what can be parked in the striped parking spaces. The drive aisles shall be kept clear of vehicles. There shall be no parking on the grass or landscaped areas. eo There shall be no vehicle delivery or transport/trailer unloading along the street. This activity shall be kept on site. Outdoor storage of any new or used materials other than vehicles shall be prohibited unless such materials can be fully concealed within a screening enclosure. The design and placement of any such enclosure shall be subject to staff approval. g. The hours of operation of this used motor vehicle sales business shall be 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. Monday through Saturday. The used motor vehicle sales business shall be closed on Sunday. h. There shall be no parking of motor vehicles within the drive aisles, either blocking the drive aisles for security when the business is closed or parked along the side of the drive aisles on display. . Approval of the site plan date-stamped September 17, 2004, for the expansion of a motor vehicle sales lot at 1145 Highway 36 East. Approval is subject to the applicant complying with the following conditions: University Auto 4 October 19, 2004 a. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. bo Prior to issuance of a grading permit for the expanded used motor vehicle sales lot, the applicants must submit the following to staff for approval: 1) A grading and drainage plan which addresses all conditions required in Chuck Vermeersch's memorandum dated October 18, 2004. 2) Revised site plan showing the expanded motor vehicle sales lot maintaining a 5-foot setback to the rear property line. 3) Landscape plan showing the planting of at least 7 deciduous trees (one tree per 30 feet) or 14 ornamental trees (one tree per 15 feet), 30 shrubs, and several perennial plants to be planted along the front of the expanded motor vehicle sales lot, and shrubs within the existing planting bed along the west side of the building. All other areas must be sodded or seeded with grass. The CDRB waives the city code requirement for underground irrigation. 4) Trash dumpster enclosure plans for the outside trash containers if used (code requirement). This plan must show the placement and design of the enclosure. Trash enclosures must have a 100 percent opaque closeable gate. Enclosures must be of a material that matches or is compatible with the building. 5) Photometrics plans for any new outdoor lighting. The plan must include the light illumination at all property lines not exceeding .4-foot-candles and all freestanding lights maintaining a height of 25 feet or less. 6) A cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit for all required exterior improvements. The amount shall be 150 percent of the cost of the work. Co Complete the following prior to the city conducting a final grading inspection on the site, unless the city holds the above-mentioned cash escrow or letter of credit to ensure completion of the work: 1) Painting all new and existing parking space stripes. 2) Construction of a trash dumpster enclosure for any outside trash containers if used. 3) Repainting of all existing light poles white to ensure no chipped or peeling paint. 4) Installation of all required landscaping. d, All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. University Auto 5 October 19, 2004 REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Site size: Existing land use: 51,836 square feet (1.19 acres) University Auto (Used Motor Vehicle Sales and Service) SURROUNDING LAND USES North: South: West: East: Second Harvest Highway 36 with Menard's and CountrySide Motors located across the highway Highways 36 and 61 interchange Commercial Pools PLANNING Land Use: Zoning: M1 (Light Manufacturing) M1 Ordinance Requirements Section 44-512(5)(a) requires a CUP for the sale or leasing of used motor vehicles. Sections 44-1091 through 44-1105 state that the city council may grant a CUP subject to the nine standards for approval noted in the resolution on pages 14-15. Section 2-290 of the city code requires that the community design review board make the following findings to approve plans: That the design and location of the proposed development and its relationship to neighboring, existing or proposed developments, and traffic is such that it will not impair the desirability of investment or occupation in the neighborhood; that it will not unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring, existing or proposed developments; and that it will not create traffic hazards or congestion. . That the design and location of the proposed development is in keeping with the character of the surrounding neighborhood and is not detrimental to the harmonious, orderly and attractive development contemplated by this article and the city's comprehensive municipal plan. . That the design and location of the proposed development would provide a desirable environment for its occupants, as well as for its neighbors, and that it is aesthetically of good composition, materials, textures and colors. University Auto 6 October 19, 2004 Application Date The city received the complete application for this proposal on September 21,2004. State law requires that the city take action within 60 days of receiving complete applications for a proposal. City council action is required on this proposal by November 20, 2004. p:sec9\university auto 2004 cup Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Zoning Map 3. Land Use Map 4. Site Plan 5. Engineering Memorandum 6. Used Motor Vehicle Sales Conditional Use Permit Resolution University Auto 7 October 19, 2004 2411 Attachment 1 GERVAIS AVE ®© 1175 19 HIGHWAY 36 SERVICE RD N S 200 Location Map 2411 Attachment 2 GERVAIS AVE 1175 19 - - ........ ~sE-RV~CE R~) .... __ __ 120 Zon, i ng Map : _~ = :: = .-_ :: ::_ _-_ _-: _-_ ::-: ...... R-iG--HV~TA~-3~;- .............................................. _-- 2411 Attachment 3 GERVAIS AVE HIGHWAY 36 1200 Land Use Map 10 Attachment 4 N89'24-'l-4."E, , -Ac-~ ~ 126.81 ~I O. OI ' : I S~ory concre~ £rqrn~ cornmerc~q! bu/~ding 210' N Site Plan ll Attachment 5 Engineering Plan Review PROJECT: University Auto PROJECT NO: REVIEWED BY: Chuck Vermeersch DATE: October 18, 2004 Grading and Drainage Plan: The sales lot expansion proposed will increase the impervious area on the property by approximately 0.17 acres. The entire site drains to the adjacent road ditch. There are no water quantity issues due to the increased runoff volume. The applicants are not proposing any water quality improvements as part of the expansion, and in fact, there is little opportunity to provide such improvements on this property. The site drainage flows through a long series of roadside ditches before discharging into Keller Lake. The applicant or their engineer shall address the following comments: . The work of filling and preparation of the base for the expansion was completed without a permit. The applicant will be required to obtain a grading permit for the work already completed, and pay double the normal fee. . While the city will not require water quality improvements as part of the expansion, the applicant will be required to provide ditch improvements (see attached figure). The existing "field" entrance and culvert shall be removed and all ditches adjacent to the property shall be regraded and restored. 3. Since the entire site sheet drains to the ditch, restoration shall be with sod, or seed and erosion control blanket. The ditch bottoms shall be sodded. . The two existing entrances to the property have culverts as well. If they are not already in place, the applicant will install flared end sections on the existing culverts. 5. There are three sanitary manholes in the ditch alignment. These manholes may require adjustment in connection with the ditch grading. This work must be coordinated with Ed Nadeau, the city's utility superintendent. 6. An alternative to removing the "field" entrance and culvert would be to construct an entrance to the sales lot there. The applicant should be aware that this would require the removal of one of the other entrances. 12 Downstream culvert under driveway "Field" entrance and culvert Attachment 6 USED MOTOR VEHICLE SALES CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Hossein Aghamirzai, of University Auto Sales and Leasing, applied for a conditional use permit to be allowed to expand a used motor vehicle sales business. WHEREAS, this permit applies to property located at 1145 E. Highway 36. The legal description is: ALL OF BLOCK 21 EXCEPT THE EAST 480 FEET THEREOF, CLIFTON ADDITION, RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA, SUBJECT TO STATE HIGHWAY NO. 36/118, AND STATE HIGHWAY 61/1. WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: . On November 1, 2004, 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 reports and recommendations of the city staff. o On November 8, 2004, the city council reviewed the conditional use permit request and considered recommendations by the planning commission and city staff. After review, the city council approved this permit. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approved the above-described conditional use permit based on the site plans. The city approved this permit because: . 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 use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area. 3. The use would not depreciate property values. . The use would not involve any activity, process, materials, equipment or methods of operation that would be dangerous, hazardous, detrimental, disturbing or cause a nuisance to any person or property, because of excessive noise, glare, smoke, dust, odor, fumes, water or air pollution, drainage, water runoff, vibration, general unsightliness, electrical interference or other nuisances. . The use would generate only minimal vehicular traffic on local streets and would not create traffic congestion or unsafe access on existing or proposed streets. 14 . 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. , The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services. , The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and scenic features into the development design. 9. The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects. Approval is subject to the following conditions (and amendments to the original conditions noted): , All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city. The director of community development may approve minor changes. , 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. , The site shall be kept in neat and orderly condition. The applicant shall observe the striping pattern and not crowd the site by placing additional vehicles on the site beyond what can be parked in the striped parking spaces. The drive aisles shall be kept clear of vehicles. There shall be no parking on the grass or landscaped areas. , There shall be no vehicle delivery or transport/trailer unloading along the street. This activity shall be kept on site. , Outdoor storage of any new or used materials other than vehicles shall be prohibited unless such materials can be fully concealed within a screening enclosure. The design and placement of any such enclosure shall be subject to staff approval. . The hours of operation of this used motor vehicle sales business shall be 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. Monday through Saturday. The used motor vehicle sales business shall be closed on Sunday. o There shall be no parking of motor vehicles within the drive aisles, either blocking the drive aisles for security when the business is closed or parked along the side of the drive aisles on display. The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on November 8, 2004. 15 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: DATE: City Manager Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner Design Review- VVyngate Town Homes County Road D east of Southlawn Ddve October 20, 2004 INTRODUCTION Mr. Patrick San/er, of the Hartford Group, is requesting approval of design plans for the Wyngate Town Homes. Wyngate is a 50-unit rental, affordable-housing project previously approved as part of the Legacy Village PUD (planned unit development). Wyngate will be located between Ashley Fumiture and the recently-approved town homes of the Heritage Square Second Addition. Refer to the attachments on pages 8-13. The proposed complex would consist of two, two-story buildings. The proposed buildings would be sided with stucco and have asphalt shingles. Refer to the colored reduction and the exterior finishes on page 14. Each building will have 25 units. There will be 48 underground parking spaces in each building for 24 of the units. Each building will also have a handicap-accessible unit with its own two car garage for a total of two garage spaces per unit as code requires. There will also be 31 surface parking spaces for visitors in parking lots on the east and west sides of the site plus 10 parallel-parking spaces along the east- west roadway to the north. BACKGROUND July 14, 2003: The city council approved the Legacy Village PUD, comprehensive plan amendment, tax-abatement plan and preliminary plat. Refer to the approved PUD concept plan on page g. September 8, 2003: The city council approved the final plat for Legacy Village. November 24, 2003: The city council approved a revision to the Legacy Village final plat. November 25, 2003: The CDRB approved Ashley Furniture. December '16, 2003: The community design review board (CDRB) approved the Heritage Square Town Homes. February 9, 2004: The city council approved the final plat for Hedtage Square. July 26, 2004: The city council approved the PUD revision, preliminary and final plat and the design plans for the Hedtage Square Town Homes Second Addition. DISCUSSION Building and Site Considerations Buildin.q Desi.qn The proposed buildings are very attractive. The buildings are close together, but they meet the spacing requirements in the city ordinance. Twenty feet is the minimum spacing allowed by the city between town homes. Landscaping The proposed landscaping would be attractive and in compliance with the requirements of the city council in the PUD conditions. Trash StoraRe The applicant has not shown any outdoor storage areas for trash or recycling containers. If there will be outdoor storage of refuse, the applicant must provide a screened enclosure for trash and recycling containers. The applicant should provide a plan for this screening enclosure to staff for approval. The city, furthermore, is now requiring recycling containers for multi-family properties. Westedy Property Line Relocation The westerly property line of this site has been relocated 80 feet further west with the platting of the Hedtage Square Second Addition. The Hedtage Square II plan accommodated this reconfiguration. Refer to page 10. The approval of the Wyngate proposal should be contingent on the recording of this plat to fix the lot line in its new location. Retaining Walls There are several retaining walls shown on the site plan. The retaining walls at the west side of the site are tall. They are six to nine feet tall. The building official requires that retaining walls over four feet tall, as measured from the bottom of the footing, be designed by a structural engineer. Staff recommends that the applicant also extend the plantings that are proposed at the top of the retaining walls where the wall is higher than four feet from grade. This would help create a visual barrier for anyone that may step off the wall at their highest part. Parking Each 25-unit building would have 50 garage spaces within the building. There will also be a total of 41 visitor-parking spaces provided. These would meet city code requirement as well as the PUD requirement for visitor-parking spaces. According to the PUD, the applicant must provide at least 25 visitor parking spaces. The building official also has stated that there must be one handicap-accessible parking space within each building and one within the westerly visitor parking area. Sidewalks/Trails The applicant should dedicate a pedestrian trail easement for the east-west power line trail. The location of this trail must be worked out with staff for its connection to the Ashley Furniture trail segment as well. Cross Easements The applicant should secure cross easements with the owners of the surrounding properties where there is shared access. Site Lighting The applicant is working on their site-lighting plan. They are aware of the city code requirements and will present this plan for review. Utility Meter Screening The placement of utility meters has not been shown on the buildings. The applicant should show where these will be mounted and how they plan on screening these for the approval of the CDRB. Engineering Comments Refer to Erin Laberee's comments in the report on pages 15-16. I included Ms. Laberee's comments as conditions in the Recommendation below. Building Official's Comments Refer to the memo on page 17 from Dave Fisher, the Maplewood Building Official. Police Lieutenant Kevin Rabbett reviewed the proposal and stated that there were no significant public safety concems. He did suggest, however, that a quality video surveillance system be installed in the underground garage. Fire Marshal Butch Gervais, the Maplewood Fire Marshal, reviewed the proposal and stated that all fire code requirements must be met. The need for the installation of an automatic sprinkler system is specifically noted. RECOMMENDATION Approve the plans date-stamped October 1, 2004 for proposed Wyngate Town Homes in the Legacy Village PUD. Approval is subject to the applicant doing the following: 1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. . Before getting a building permit, the applicant shall revise the plans or do the following for staff approval: Provide a 15-foot-wide pedestrian trail easement over the power line trail to the city for access and maintenance. The exact location of this trail shall be worked out with staff to assure proper connection to the sections of this trail on the Ashley Furniture and Heritage Square Second Addition properties. (The city will construct this trail, but the applicant must prepare the trail base according to the city engineer's requirements.) Provide the city with cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit for the exterior landscaping and site improvements. Staff shall determine the dollar amount of the escrow. · Meet all requirements of the engineering report by Edn Laberee dated October 14, 2004. · Revise the site plan to widen the northerly east-west shared pdvate roadway to 34 feet to accommodate 10 feet for parallel parking and 24 feet for 2-way traffic. · Provide verification of recorded cross easements between this site and the surrounding properties where access is shared. · Provide a site-lighting plan in accordance with city ordinance. · Provide engineered plans to the building official for all retaining walls that exceed four feet in height as measured from the bottom of the footing. · Provide shrubs on the top of all sections of retaining wall that are over four feet in height. · Provide sod, not seed, with the exception that the site may be seeded from a line 25 feet south of the southerly building to the south property line. · Provide evidence that the final plat for Heritage Square Second Addition is recorded, thereby extending the Wyngate site 80 feet to the west as proposed. · Provide a site and design plan for the screening of any trash and recycling containers to be kept outside. · Provide handicap-accessible parking according to the building official's requirements (Chapter 41 of the State Building Code). · Provide a screening plan for any extedor utility meters, subject to the requirements of the community design review board. . . Before getting a certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall: · Comply with or complete all aspects of these plans or any required revisions. · Provide in-ground lawn irrigation as shown on the plans. · Install traffic and address signs, subject to staff approval. · Construct the entire northerly east-west shared pdvate roadway and the easterly shared north-south private roadway if these have not been constructed pdor to occupancy. Construction shall be subject to the requirements of the city engineer. The community design review board shall review major changes to these plans. Minor changes may be approved by staff. REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Site size: 3 acres Existing Use: Undeveloped SURROUNDING LAND USES North: A vacant site planned for commercial development and County Road D South: A vacant site planned for commercial office development East: Ashley Fumiture West: The recently-approved 81-unit Hedtage Square Second Addition Town Homes site PLANNING Land Use Plan: BC (business commercial) Zoning: PUD APPLICATION DATE We received the complete application and plans for this proposal on October 1, 2004. State law requires that the city take action within 60 days of receiving complete applications. A decision on this request is required by November 30, 2004, unless the applicant agrees to a time extension. PARK AVAILABILITY CHARGE One charge that applicants are sometimes unaware of is the park availability charge or "PAC" charge. For town house developments, this charge is $1,215 per unit to be paid at the time of building permit issuance. Questions about this charge should be directed to Bruce Anderson, the Parks and Recreation Director. Staff mentions this fee to make sure that applicants are aware of it. p: sec 3\Wyngate. Des Attachments 1. Location Map 2. Legacy Village PUD Concept Plan 3. Site Plan 4. Landscape Plan 5. Building Elevations 6. Wyngate Exterior Finishes 7. Engineering Report dated October 14, 2004 8. Building Official's report dated September 3, 2004 9. Colored Building Perspective date-stamped October 1, 2004 (separate attachment) 10. Plans date-stamped October 1, 2004 (separate attachment) Attachment 1 MALL LOCATION MAP Attachment 2 Ill i~ ~mrmm~l~- iii I,I Attachment 3 i~ "° ~o I'1 ~"--~- I 10 Z Attachment 4 II Attachment 5 12 8N-VN ]]Niq HOJ.¥~ 13 Attachment 6 Wyngate Of Maplewood Exterior Finishes Manufacturer Color ghingles: Stucco: Facade #1 - Base Accent Facade #2 - Base Accent Facade #3 - Base Certaln~eed Regal Bark Amarillo White China White China White Amarillo White Sage Windows: White Porch Columns: White Shutters: Mid-America # 10 Musket Brown Fascia: White Soffets: White Architectural Details: Facade #1 Facade #2 China White Amarillo White Metal Railings: Mechanical Grills: Black Facade #1 Magic-Pak Bone White Facade #3 Magic-Pak Sandstone Entry Doors: Rock Faced Masonry Block: Retaining Wall Block: Painted - Color to be determined Anchor #538 Hickory Color to be determined 14 Engineering Plan Review Attachment 7 PROJECT: Wyngate Townhomes PROJECT NO: REVIEWED BY: Erin Laberee. DATE: October 14, 2004 The Hartford Group is proposing to develop 50 unit rental town homes on the Legacy Village planned unit development. The developer and engineer shall address the following issues. Grading & Erosion Control 1. The existing/future grades of the surrounding developments shall be shown on the plans. . . A building permit will be required for proposed retaining walls greater than four feet high. A plan and a specific soil stabilization detail for the wall design will be required as part of the building permit. As part of the erosion control plan, the applicant shall show a 50 foot rock construction entrance on the plans. 4. The applicant shall show inlet protection devises at all inlets. 5. Grading permits from the city, Watershed, and MPCA (new NPDES Construction Permit) are required. 6. The applicant shall note on plans the exact seed mixtures to be used in different areas. 7. The applicant shall verify the depth of the Amoco pipeline to ensure a minimum of 3' cover. Utilities 1. Submit plans to Saint Paul Regional Water Services for their review. Drainage The engineer shall provide drainage calculations in compliance with the storm water management plan for the Maplewood Mall Area Transportation Improvements. 2. The applicant shall obtain off-site drainage and utility easements. 3. The applicant shall obtain approval from the pipeline for the 21" storm sewer crossing. 15 Misc. . The applicant shall coordinate the trail alignment with the city. The applicam shall provide a pedestrian easement over the proposed trail as detailed in the Development Agreement for Legacy Village. 2. The applicant shall enter into a developer's agreement with the city for the proposed trail. . Due to the tall height of the proposed retaining walls and the close proximity to the entrances and sidewalks, the applicant shall ensure that vegetation of adequate height is established on top of the retaining walls, otherwise a fence may be required. The applicant shall note the type of plantings to be used on top of the retaining walls. 16 Attachment 8 Memo September 3, 2004 To: Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner From: David Fisher, Building Official Re: 50-unit rental development . The building setbacks must comply with the 2000 IBC for exterior wall protection. A complete site plan showing setbacks from buildings and property lines. . A complete building code analysis will be required when plans are submitted for permits. . The buildings are required to be sprinklered. , The two buildings will be reviewed under the 2000 IBC. (R-2 & S-1) . The two buildings will be reviewed under the 1341 MNBC for accessibility. . An architect will be required for this project. , I would recommend a pre-construction meeting with the Building Department. 17 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD SIGN CODE REVISION STUDY SURVEY RESULTS' QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS Rose Lorsung, Planning Intern October 18, 2004 SIGN CODE REVISION SURVEY ANALYSIS (CODED AND ANALYZED USING SPSS SOFTWARE) Introduction: Signs are an integral component of a city's complex built environment and are needed to communicate information to both the public and private sectors. Sign codes are written to protect the public health, safety, and welfare and to give guidelines to business for visibility and promotion. "Sign regulation is more an art than a science. It is an art that requires a careful balancing of the need of businesses and others to communicate with the public with the need of the public to receive that communication and with community planning goals related to streetscape aesthetics and traffic safety. Thus, there is no ideal system of sign regulation. Communities have broad legal authority to regulate signs based on safety or aesthetic considerations, or both. How they exercise that authority is a policy determination that each community must make on its own." Sign Regulation for Sma//and Midsige Communities, ~tmerican Planning ~lsso~iation BACKGROUND: 1977: Maplewood adopts the sign code June 11, 1996: The Community Design Review Board recommended approval of the proposed sign ordinance changes. November, 12 1996: The city council approved the first reading of the ordinance amending the sign code with a second reading to be no sooner than the January 27, 1997 meeting. February 14, 1003: The community design and review board recognized in the annual report (2002) the need to review and make recommendations on potential modifications and updates to the city's sign ordinance (see attached). February 2, 2004: The community design and review board recognized in the annual report (2003) that the sign code is outdated and allows for excessive signage within the commercial and industrial zoning districts. The CDRB also recognized the time and effort involved in the sign code design criteria for the mixed-use zoning district. City staff was therefore unable to make progress in revising the sign code. A further recommendation was made to work with staff on the modifications and updates to the city's sign ordinance. June, 2004: The city begins s comprehensive sign code study and revision. PROCESS: June 2004: The city begins researching and comparing the sign codes of the following cities: Woodbury, Oakdale, Roseville, White Bear Lake, Brooklyn Center and Edma. In each analysis, the sign codes were compared based on style and format of written code, quantitative data associated with the written code, definitions of the sign types and associated terminology and restrictions by zoning district. July 2004: At the july 17 Community Design Review Board, the city presented a detailed summary report highlighting the City of Maplewood's sign code and a comparative analysis of six other cities. The purpose of this comparative study was to familiarize the board with our current sign code as well as to illustrate the different approaches, through code writing and enforcement that cities utilize when handling and following up on sign code matters. _dugust 2004: With the comparative research complete and with the results that showed the room for improvement within the Maplewood sign code, the city began the involvement of the local business associations and chamber of commerce. The White Bear Avenue Business Association (WBABA) and St. Paul Chamber Suburban Service Center were contacted and informed as to the city's revision process. The city also wanted to gauge the opinions of as many resident and business leaders within the city in order to create awareness and validate the cooperative nature of this project. To do this, the first opinion survey was created and published on the city's website. (See the attached sign code survey). To market the survey, the city presented copies to both the WBABA and the Chamber and published notices in the Maplewood Review. The city published educational materials on the website to inform the survey-takers of the types and sizes of signs the city currently allows as well as information on the sign code revision process and timeline. The survey remained on the website for one month with a deadline of October 3, 2002. At the August 24 Community Design Review Board, the city presented the sign code survey and proposed timeline for the remaining elements of the sign code study and revision process. (See the attached new proposed timeline). September, 2004: In order to generate more support for the sign code survey, the city utilized a geographic information system (GIS) to create a list of Maplewood business owners. The city then sampled all of the business owners to create a list of 200. This sample was then mailed the sign code survey and informational memo regarding the process and need for business input. On September 21, city staff attended a luncheon for the WBABA and presented more information and surveys to business members as well as board and city council member Marvin Koppen. October, 2004: The city received 50 survey responses from the mailings and online survey. In order to interpret the responses, they were coded and inputted into statistical software (SPSS) and the variables were compared and analyzed. The city also recendy met with the Minnesota Chapter of the National Sign Association to discuss their model sign ordinance. With the research, marketing, and sign code survey responses, the city will begin revising the sign code of ordinances. SIGN CODE SURVEY RESULTS: Number of Sign Code Surveys Received = 50 (N=50) W/ebsite = 20 Hardcop~y Mailings = 30 Please refer to the survey for reooonse analysis QUANTITATIVE DATA Frequencies (Overall Response Summations) Question #1: Define your relationship to the City of Maplewood: Resident = 15, 30% Business Operator - 13, 26% Business Owner = 17, 34% Resident and Business Operator = 3, 6% Concerned Citizen = 0, 0% Missing Data = 2, 4% ~Skip question if resident,/o # 10~ 35- 30- 25- 20- 15 10 5 Frequency Percent Question #2: If you own or operate a business in the City. of Maplewood, what type? There were a wide range of businesses that responded to the survey Question #3: What have you or your business detem4ned to be the most successful advertising/marketing medium.> Internet = 2, 4% Flyers (Direct Mailing) = 2, 4% Signs = 10, 20% Newspaper = 2, 4% Company Image = 8, 16% Business to Business = 4, 8% None of the Above = 5, 10% lO0 90 0 10~ 0 ~' ___ r.o z o o3 z · Frequency · Percent Quesdon #4: What .type(s) of temporary, signs does your business currendy use.; (select all that apply) Quesdon 4 has skewed data due to the high number of surveys where there was missing data. Several survey-takers opted out of answering this question. There are several interpretations as to why, with the logical hypothesis being that many business owners or owner/operators were not willing to give the city information about the type of temporary signs their business uses. The city has come to this conclusion based on the number of businesses that do not comply with the sign code. These businesses often use temporary signage larger than the minimum 16 square feet without informing the city and obtaining a permit. This may be due to a lack of knowledge pertaining to the sign code, or a lack of compliance, the city has dealt with both scenarios. However, of those business members that did choose to answer, 7 chose portable temporary (reader board). Portable Temporary (Reader Board), Temporary Banners, Temporary Sandwich Boards, Balloons, Flags, None of the Above Question ~5: What .types(s) of permanent signsdoes your business currently use.> (select all that apply) Freestanding Monument = 17, 34% Freestanding Pylon: 13, 26% Wall Mounted Fascia = 13, 26% Wall Painted -- 2, 4% Roof = 1, 2% Projecting = 1, 2% 20- 0 [] Frequency · Percent Question #6: What percentage do you attribute your overall business success to be due to sign usage.> 0- 20 %= 10, 36% 21 - 40 %= 5, 18% 41 - 60 %= 5, 18% 61 - 80 %= 5, 18% 81 - 100 %= 3, 11% 3,11% 18 5, 10, 35% 5, 18% 5, 18% [] 0 - 20% · 21 - 40% [] 41 - 60% [] 61 - 80% [] 81 - 100% Note: 36% of the surveyed business owners or operators chose 0 - 20% of their overall business success to be due to signage. Also pertinent is the few who chose 81 - 100% of their business success to be due to signage. Question #7: The City. ofMaplewood currendy allows up to 16 sq ft of temporary, signage (banners, sandwich boards, etc.) without a permit. Approximately how many temporary, signs under 16 sq ft does your business use in a year's dme? 0- 1 - 22, 44% 2-3=4,8% 4-5 = 2,4% 6-7 = 1,2% 8+ = 1, 2% ! 4, 13%~ 3% D0to 1 12to3 m4to5 D6to7 ~18+ Question #8: The City of Maplewood currently allows each business the use of a portable temporary, sign over 16 sq ft (,reader board) for up to 30 days per year with a permit. How many days per year does your business use this type of signage? 0-1 =30,60% 2-3=0,0% 4-5 =0,0% 6-7=0,0% 8+ = 3, 6% F~quency 17, 34%. 60% D0to 1 18+ El missing OPINION SECTION Quesdon # 9: As a business owner, manager or operator, what .type(s) of signs in particular would you LI~.AST like to see the City of Maplewood address in this revision process.; (select all that apply) Portable Temporary (readerboard) - 0, 0% Temporary Banners -- 9, 18% Billboards = 3, 6% Freestanding (monuments) = 9, 18% Freestanding (pylon) = 9, 18% Window = 9, 18% Directional = 4, 8% Wall-Mounted (fascia) = 0, 0% Roof = 4, 8% Projecting = 4, 8% None of the Above = 7, 14% High percentages equal those selections that business owners and/or operators would not like to see changed in the sign code revision process. Small percentages equal signs that are a low priority for business. **This is the beginning o£ all interested parties opinions** Question #10: As a resident or concerned citizen, what type(s) of signs in particular would you MOST like to see the City of Maplewood address in this revision process.; (select all that apply) Portable Temporary (readerboard) - 14, 28% Temporary Banners - 10, 20% Billboards = 16, 32% Freestanding (monuments) = 5, 10% Freestanding (pylon) = 0, 0% Window = 0, 0% Directional = 0, 0% Wall-Mounted (fascia) = 0, 0% Roof - 0, 0% Projecting = 0, 0% None of the Above = 14, 28% From the data shown, 14 of the total 50 respondents chose to change nothing in this sign code revision process. Of those who want change, temporary reader boards were the most with 14. Question ~11: Which of the following would you MOST like to see changed in regards to billboard signs in the City. of Maplewood? Size (sq ft) = 8, 16% Height (ft) = 5, 10% Distance to Residential - 6, 12% Distance Between Signs = 8, 16% Distance to Intersection = 5, 10% None of the Above = 14, 28% None of the Above Distance to Intersection Distance Between Signs Distance to Residential Height Size (sq 0 10 20 30 [] Percent [] Frequency Of those who wanted to see change in regards to billboards, the results are several in each area. This leads the city to believe that people, when faced with the option of only choosing one answer, chose to select a variety of changes to billboards. Several people chose to change nothing about billboards. Question #12: If the city. HAD to choose between changing the size (sq ft) of temporary, signs OR the time limit of the same allowable signs, which one would you prefer changed? Size - 19, 38% Time Limit - 30, 60% Missing - 1, 2% Missing, 2% Time Limit 30, 60% Size, 19, 38% [] Size · Time Limit [] Missing Question #13: Do you think that the City of Maplewood is doing an adequate job of enforcing sign-related issues? Strongly Agree = 3, 6% Agree = 13, 26% Disagree - 7, 14% Strongly Disagree = 2, 4% Undecided = 24, 48% O0 80 60 40 20 0 o~ ~ o~ o c~ ~ c Frequency Percent 10 Questions #14: Overall, do you think the current types, sizes and time limits, for business signs in our city. is fair? Strongly Agree: 1, 2% Agree = 22, 44% Disagree = 8, 16% Strongly Disagree - 3, 6% Undecided = 15, 30% O0 80 60 40 20 o Frequency Percent Question #15: In general, what is your opinion on the role of city. government in sign code writing and enforcement? Strongly in Favor of - 1 O, 20% In Favor of- 22, 44% Neither in Favor of Nor Against - 12, 24% Against - 2, 4% Strongly Against - 4, 8% 100 80 60 40 20 0 Frequency Percent 11 Quesdon ~16: Should the city. revise the current sign code to help ensure optimal use of land as zoned by the city.? Strongly Agree = 14, 28% Agree = 17, 34% Disagree = 7, 14% Strongly Disagree -- 0, 0% Undecided = 12, 24% Strongly Agree, Agree, 17, 34% 14, 28% Disagree, 7, 24% 14% B Strongly Agree I Agree E] Disagree E] Strongly Disagree ~1 Undecided VARIABLE ASSOCIATIONS In order to compare and contrast the differences between residents and those affiliated with business, the city created a new variable called "status." This variable is a combination of Question 1 B, C, and D. For the first association, "stares" will be compared to Question 1 A (resident). Question #1 (resident & "stares") ~ Question #10 (refer to survey) Status Resident (Business-Related) Variable (%) (%) Portable Tem~ora{y 53.30 18.20 Tempora.r.y Banners 33.30 12.10 Bi//boards 53.30 21.20 t~reestandin~, (monuments) 20.00 6.10 tVreestandinvg ¢.y/on) 33.30 12.10 IVindow 33.30 O. O0 Directiona/ 20. 00 3. O0 W/all-Mounted OCasda) 13.30 O. O0 Roof 40. O0 12.10 Prq/ecting 46.70 15.20 None of the ~4bove 13.30 36.40 12 O0 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 '10 0 O0 O0 O0 O0 O0 O0 O0 O0 O0 O0 O0 Resident -- Status (Business- Related) Question #1 (resident and "stares") · Question #11F (None of the Above) Question #11 refers to billboards in the City of Maplewood. The question asks, what would the survey-taker MOST like to see change about billboards. There are 5 options in terms of size, distance, height etc. Option six is "none of the above," which from the early frequency was 11 responses, the most selected by any responder, whether resident or business related (new variable: "stares"). This next association (cross-tabulation) examines the relationship between resident opinions about billboards and business-related opinions about billboards. Resident Status (Business- Variable (%) Related) (%) None of the Above 15 49 13 O0 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 [] Resident (%) [] Status (Business- Related) (%) Quesdon ~15 ~ Quesdon #16 Question #15 is political in nature and has to do with the role of city government in sign code enforcement. This question gets at whether or not people want the municipality involved in matters of business advertising and marketing. Studies, and common sense, show that businesses would prefer to have autonomy in matters of business retention and awareness. Here is a spreadsheet view of the 2 questions and variables associated with them. Please refer to the surve_y for understanding of the association betmeen these tmo questions A B C D E Question 15 10 22 12 2 4 Question 16 14 17 7 0 12 A B C D E [] Question 15 I Question 16 14 QUALITATIVE DATA: (Not every survey-taker chose to respond in written format) Resident Reqoonses: 1. I believe business owners shall be able to have a temporary sign for a long as needed (up to 90 Days). o The signs that concern me are the signs citizens or signs such as "we buy houses" nailed to a telephone pole or the newest are "lonely? meet like minded people" and a e-mail address is given on a piece of cardboard. I don't know if this would fall under signs.., but items left on in front yards, some in quite bad shape with a sign saying "Free". What my concern boils down to is the appearance of our community and in my opinion it reflects poorly on the impression people have of our community, its says something about who we are and its a community pride, quality of life in Maplewood. . Like Cottage Grove, banning billboards has cleaned up the highway and industrial/commercial areas but businesses still get to erect their signs for retail and other on site activities. Billboards are a blight that don't bring any substantive revenue to the City and have little to no benefit to the citizens. Business Re~onses: 1. I am highly in favor of revising the sign code, temporary signs. 2. Seems seem fine now. . Sorry - I have no idea what the regulations on signs are here in Maplewood. (O.K. - anywhere, for that matter!) As a resident and as a business owner here, I like things NEAT. Whether it's keeping junk cars out of your front yard or maintaining signs for your business, ! think things that the public has to see should be kept neat. . Sign usage has not been a concern to us. My guess is that as long as the sign doesn't obstruct the view of motorists or display lude messages you current laws are working - so if it ain't broken - don't fix it! . Signs are, in general, significant visual pollution on the one hand. On the other, they are necessary to business. The solution is difficult, of course, but should lean toward fewer, smaller signs of a similar nature throughout the city. Business will always resist because differentiation between competitors is the key. However, differentiation can get trashy if unsupervised. I can never understand why environmentalists get so concerned about a particular view of a piece of lakeshore being disturbed during their once a year trip to the woods and then tolerate the phenomenal visual pollution in our cities and on our freeway on a daily basis. 6. Biggest issues for us are the directional signs and open house signs. 15 . I believe the sign code needs to be enforced but most importantly the quality of the sign is very important. If a sign is quality and serves a purpose within the scope of use I believe it can be used. . I would agree perhaps the role in the city would be to address abuses regarding signs. Also have guidelines as they currently do regarding the size etc. of signs. However, a common sense approach should prevail. Business creates jobs and is important to the consumer who we are and where we are. . Besides the sign issue, we also object to allowing too many businesses to set up temporary locations in parking lots to sell anything from flowers, plants, and produce without paying property taxes. 10. I think you should allow billboards on rooftop to clean up lower levels of advertising. 11. Those of us behind White Bear Avenue are hidden because of larger buildings on the avenue - we could use some signage on White Bear Avenue. 12. Good signage is very important to all business! DISCUSSION: There were many other cross-tabulations and analyses that could have been performed with the results from the sign code survey. However, with every survey, there are a number of margins of error that need to be stated and considered. The survey was only published on the city's website for 30 days. The city advertised in the Maplewood Review twice and also sent word to the Chamber of Commerce and White Bear Avenue Business Association. Also, the city sampled 2000 business owners (population) and the sample size was 10% or 200 mailed surveys. Thirty surveys were mailed back to the city which is only a 15% response rate. However, the data obtained from the GIS system database was not entirely accurate as the city received 50 (25%) return surveys due an error in address. Of those surveys that were returned, the city has analyzed here in this report and can state the following: A. When asked what the most important advertising medium is to business-related individuals, the most frequent response was signage. B. When asked what percentage of business success was due to signage, most respondents chose the least amount offered, less than twenty percent of business success. These f~rst two analyses, signage as the most important advertising medium, but low percentage priority to business success clearly shows (based on the relatively low turnout rate) that respondents were concerned about the potential change in the sign code despite the lack of dependence on signage for business success. 16 Co When asked about which type of temporary signage the business-related individual used, many chose to not answer the question (not forced to on the web survey, and skipped on the hardcopy returned survey). D. Data that the city has about permanent signage matches data obtained by the survey. g. Data pertaining to temporary signage not requiring a permit does not match the current usage by businesses in the city. The data obtained by the survey shows that this type of signage is only used 0-1 times in a year (twenty-two percentage of respondents). The city believes that businesses use many more temporary signs, not requiring a permit from the city, many more days per year than suggested here in the survey. The city often does site inspections or simply notices the amount of temporary signs being used as well as portable temporary signs being used without a permit from the city. F. Businesses gave their opinion about many sign code matters and here are the summarized results: i. Least like to see addressed (only asked of business-related individuals): 1. Temporary Banners 2. Freestanding Monuments 3. Freestanding Pylons 4. Window Signs ii. Most like to see addressed: 1. Portable Temporary 2. Billboards 3. Projecting 4. None of the Above G. Residents gave their opinion about many sign code matters and here are the summarized results: i. Most like to see addressed: 1. Portable Temporary 2. Temporary Banners 3. Billboards 17 4. Projecting H. Overall Opinions (Residents and Business-Related Individuals): i. Most like to see addressed: 1. Billboards 2. Portable Temporary 3. Temporary Banners ii. Most like to see changed about billboards: 1. Size 2. Distance between signs 3. Distance to residential iii.If making a choice between changing the size of temporary signs or time limit: 1. Time Limit iv. Is the city doing an adequate job of sign code enforcement? 1. Undecided v. Is the sign code in the city fair.; 1. Agree vi. Opinion on the role of the city in sign code writing and enforcement: 1. In favor of vii. Should the city revise the sign code? 1. Agree 18 The City of Maplewood: Sign Code Resident and Business Survey 1. Define your relationship to the City of Maplewood: A. Resident B. Business Operator C. Business Owner D. Resident and Business Operator E. Concerned Citizen **If you are a resident (choice A), please skip to question # 10'* 2. If you own or operate a business in the City of Maplewood, what type? o . What have you or your business determined to be the most successful advertising/marketing medium? (Choose one) A. Internet B. Flyers (Direct Mailing) C. Signs D. Newspaper E. Company Image F. Business to Business G. None of the Above What type(s) of temporary signs does your business currently use? (Select all that apply) A. Portable Temporary (Reader Board) B. Temporary Banners C. Temporary Sandwich Boards D. Balloons E. Flags F. None of the Above Se Ge o o What type(s) of permanent signs does your business currently use? (Select all that apply) A. Freestanding (Monument) B. Freestanding (Pylon) C. Wall Mounted (Fascia) D. Wall Painted E. Roof F. Projecting What percentage do you attribute your overall business success to be due to sign usage? A. 0-20% B. 21 -40% C. 41 - 60% D. 61 - 80% E. 81 - 100% The City of Maplewood currently allows up to 16 square feet of temporary signage (banners, sandwich boards, etc.) without a permit. Approximately how many temporary signs under 16 square feet does your business use in a year's time? A. 0-1 B. 2-3 C. 4-5 D. 6-7 E. 8+ The city of Maplewood currently allows each business the use of a portable temporary sign over 16 square feet (reader board) for up to 30 days per year with a permit. How many days per year does your business use this type of signage? A. 0-1 B. 2-3 C. 4-5 D. 6-7 E. 8+ o As a business owner, manager or operator, what type(s) of signs in particular would you LEAST like to see the City of Maplewood address in this revision process? (Select all that apply) A. Portable Temporary (Reader Board) B. Temporary Banners C. Billboards D. Freestanding (Monuments) E. Freestanding (Pylon) F. Window G. Directional H. Wall-Mounted (Fascia) I. Roof J. Projecting K. None of the Above 10. As a resident or concerned citizen, what type(s) of signs in particular would you MOST like to see the City of Maplewood address in this revision process? (Select all that apply) A. Portable Temporary (Reader Board) B. Temporary Banners C. Billboards D. Freestanding (Monuments) E. Freestanding (Pylon) F. Window G. Directional H. Wall-Mounted (Fascia) I. Roof J. Projecting K. None of the Above 11. Which of the following would you MOST like to see change in regards to billboard signs in the City of Maplewood? (Choose one) A. Size (square footage) B. Height (feet) C. Distance to Residential D. Distance Between Signs E. Distance to Intersection F. None of the Above 12. If the City of Maplewood HAD to choose between changing the size (square footage) of temporary signs OR the time limit of the same allowable signs, which one would you prefer changed? A. Size B. Time Limit 13. Do you think that the City of Maplewood is doing an adequate job of enforcing sign-related issues? A. Strongly Agree B. Agree C. Disagree D. Strongly Disagree E. Undecided 14. Overall, do you think the current types, sizes and time limits, for business signs in our city is fair? A. Strongly Agree B. Agree C. Disagree D. Strongly Disagree E. Undecided 15. In general, what is your opinion on the role of city government in sign code writing and enforcement? A. Strongly In Favor Of B. In Favor Of C. Neither In Favor Of Nor Against D. Against E. Strongly Against 16. Should the city revise the current sign code to help ensure optimal use of land as zoned by the city (ie. larger signs in industrial zones versus business zones next to residential zones): A. Strongly Agree B. Agree C. Disagree D. Strongly Disagree E. Undecided Please provide any additional comments: ~o ~°~