Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/25/20051. Call to Order AGENDA CITY OF MAPLEWOOD MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD January 25, 2005 6:00 P.M. City Council Chambers, Maplewood City Hall 1830 County Road B East 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes: January 11,2005 4. Approval of Agenda 5. Unfinished Business Design Review a. Maplewood Public Works Facility Additions- 1902 County Road B East 7. Visitor Presentations 8. Board Presentations 9. Staff Presentations a. CDRB member volunteer for February 14, 2005 city council meeting. Public works building addition to be reviewed. 10. Adjourn p:com_dvp6Agendas CD\1-25-05 Agenda II. III. IV. DRAFT MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, JANUARY 11, 2005 CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Longrie called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Chairperson Diana Longrie Present Vice Chairperson Matt Ledvina Present Board member Judy Driscoll Absent Board member Linda Olson Present Board member Ananth Shankar Present Staff Present: Ken Roberts, Planner Lisa Kroll, Recording Secretary APPROVAL OF AGENDA Mr. Roberts said because no CDRB representation was needed at the November 22, 2004, city council meeting item 8. a. could be deleted. However, Chairperson Longrie requested the addition of a new item 6. a. under Board Presentations regarding the Gladstone task force committee representation. Mr. Roberts requested the addition of an item 9. b. under Staff Presentations for discussion of the next CDRB meeting on Tuesday, January 25, 2005. Board member Ledvina moved to approve the agenda as amended. Board member Olson seconded. Ayes - Ledvina, Longrie, Olson, Shankar The motion passed. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of the CDRB minutes for November 9, 2004. Board member Shankar moved approval of the minutes of November 9, 2004. Board member Longrie seconded. The motion passed. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. Ayes ---Ledvina, Longrie, Olson, Shankar Community Design Review Board Minutes 01-11-2005 VI. DESIGN REVIEW Maplewood Imports Auto Center (2450 Maplewood Drive) Land Use Plan and Zoning Map Changes, Conditional Use Permit and Design Approval Mr. Roberts said Mr. Jon Hansen, of LeJeune Investments and Maplewood Imports, is proposing to build four new automobile dealerships and a support services building on the 32- acre property at 2450 Maplewood Drive. Mr. Roberts said this complex would include 4 separate dealership buildings (each with sales and service facilities); a support services building and up to 1,945 parking spaces for inventory, customers and employees. The city has planned and zoned this site CO (commercial office) and M-1 (light manufacturing.) Board member Ledvina said in the staff report it states the construction for the Audi dealership would set the standard for the building design for the rest of the site. Board member Ledvina asked if it was staff's expectation that the subsequent dealership buildings to be built on this site would have matching architectural characteristics. Mr. Roberts said city staff expects quality projects and quality buildings to be built. However, because each building will have separate manufacturers and may have a certain prototype or standard they must follow this limits what can be done to the buildings. Mr. Roberts said he couldn't guarantee they would have similar colors or architectural characteristics. Board member Ledvina said the Audi building has a glassed in show floor area and asked if the other buildings would have similar architectural features? Mr. Roberts was unsure because there haven't been any other building plans submitted for review. Board member Olson asked what would happen to the existing car dealership facility? Mr. Roberts said the applicant has told him that each manufacturer would like to have their own building so they wouldn't have to share space. Currently they have three dealerships in one building. Audi would be building the first building to be built but he isn't sure about the other dealerships. A new dealership not now in the area may come into the area as well. Board member Ledvina asked staff about the large drainage swale and how the decision for a drainage area came about. Mr. Roberts said the drainage swale was part of the revised proposal. The reason for the drainage swale was that the city engineer didn't want to put pipes in the ground that they may have to move or disturb because of changing building pads or locations of the future buildings. They felt a better solution was to put the drainage swale in and then finalize the underground storm sewer as the project progressed. Board member Ledvina said then you end up with an additional 5 acres which would require stabilization and would result in erosion. He is curious about the city engineers rational behind that decision. Community Design Review Board Minutes 01-11-2005 Mr. Roberts stated his understanding of the situation based on what was said at the planning commission meeting and from what was stated in the engineering report. Board member Olson asked what the dark blue areas were shown on the plans, are they ponds, rain basins, or rainwater gardens. Mr. Roberts said those are proposed to be rainwater gardens scattered throughout the site to help with the storm water runoff. Chairperson Longrie said she read in the staff report that a traffic study had been done. There was concern that as this project develops there would be more traffic on the frontage road. On page 49 of the staff report it states the developer would likely be partially responsible for any mitigation or street improvements deemed necessary on the local system. She asked where that condition would be put within this development. Mr. Roberts said not yet. On page 12 of the staff report a condition E. was added after the planning commission meeting, because of MnDot's comments, this project and growth in the area in general, the city engineer has recommended that the city do a traffic study for a large portion of Maplewood. These areas to be studied for the traffic study include this area, the Gladstone area, the mall area and the Legacy Village area. The applicant has been notified that this study needs to be done and that there may be assessments for street improvements. Chairperson Longrie said in developing this large area she was concerned about the traffic as it continues to develop. She was concerned with the mitigation or street improvements as part of the conditions put upon the developer of the site. Mr. Roberts said essentially the city is stating it in an indirect way and the applicant must follow the conditions. If the city engineer says there would be some mitigation that would be accomplished, paid for, or studied. If it turns out public improvements need to be done those would be done through assessments. If there are other things identified during the traffic study then that would be negotiated between the engineering staff and the developers at that point. Board member Olson asked if there were any plans to update Highway 61. Mr. Roberts said that is something that would be discovered through the traffic study. MnDot hopes to eventually turn Highway 61 back to Ramsey County. Board member Shankar asked where the applicant planned on unloading the large truck trailer inventory of new cars on this site. Mr. Roberts said the plans show that the first building would have adequate turning radius on each of the sites for truck trailers to unload the cars. Chairperson Longrie asked the applicant to address the board. Mr. Jonathan Baker, AIA, 100 South Fifth Street, Suite 250, Minneapolis, addressed the board. Community Design Review Board 4 Minutes 01-11-2005 Chairperson Longrie said the board would like to hear about the building design and characteristics and the board appreciates seeing building samples of colors and materials. Mr. Baker said he didn't bring any building material samples this evening but could describe what the building would look like. He described the color renderings of the proposed building and the materials that would be used aloud. Chairperson Longrie asked if there would be any foundation plantings around the Audi building. Mr. Baker said yes. Around the showroom portion of the building there will be a deep landscaped area. The roof will be sloped and there are no gutters and the water runs off the front of the roof and down. Typically they use rock, mulch, and plantings in front of the building to take on the snow and water runoff from the roofline. He said around the back of the building is curbing to protect the building. Board member Olson said it sounds like the Audi building is going to be monochrome with glass, silver and metal exterior with light woods used in the interior of the building. She asked what the other buildings would look like that would be built on the site? Mr. Baker said the auto dealerships have building prototypes that they must follow but they do not know what dealerships would go in the remaining buildings yet. One dealership that was proposed for this site was a Land Rover site and they have a dark green metal roof and a different motif for their building. The site is going to be Maplewood Imports Auto Mall and would be fairly compatible in style but with different motif's and Iogos. Right now there is Porsche, Mercedes, and Audi in their existing facility and the Audi building is the first to be built on this site. Final plans have not been made at this time as to which other dealerships would go in any of the proposed buildings. The intent is to show the maximum way the site could be developed and ultimately that decision is up to Mr. Jon Hansen of LeJeune Investments. Mr. Jon Hansen, President of LeJeune Investments, 9393 Wayzata Boulevard, Minneapolis, addressed the board. Mr. Hansen said Mr. Doug Moulder, General Manager of Maplewood Imports is also in the audience and is available for questions as well. The first goal is to build the Audi building, the second building to be built would be for the Mercedes dealership and then they will be regrouping along the way. They can either sell the current dealership facility or develop a facility for Porsche. Board member Shankar asked if the 20 service bays shown on the plans were necessary. Mr. Hansen said yes all 20 service bays were necessary. At the Golden Valley Carousel building they have 26 service bays and they are all used. They are building for future growth in mind. Board member Ledvina said it appears the only glass on the building is associated with the show room area. He asked if there was a possibility of incorporating any glass on the west fa(;;ade. Community Design Review Board Minutes 01-11-2005 Mr. Baker said the way this site is designed the building has many offsets and different heights. There is a large warehouse on that side of the building and landscaping would be used as well so the building is not plain by any means. Functionally it isn't necessary to have windows on that side of the building. Board member Ledvina said his point was to break up the expanse of the large wall of 25 to 30 feet in height. Mr. Baker said the building is broken up enough changes in height to break up the building the way it's drawn on the plan. with different reveals and accents and there are expanse. There preference would be to build the Chairperson Longrie said the west side is the side that people are viewing from Highway 61. She knows that the applicant's focus is on the north side where the building faces. The board visualizes what will be seen driving along Highway 61. Board member Ledvina said putting function aside, other ways to break up this large block building could be with additional detailing to give it more interest because of what people will see driving along Highway 61. She said she knows additional landscaping was mentioned by staff and that could help as well. Mr. Hansen said this building is built in Golden Valley and with the white wall and the crisp reveal it is a very sharp building. When it's built it will be one of the nicest dealership buildings in the area. Chairperson Longrie said it's difficult for her to understand how this building will look and feel without having building samples to refer to. Mr. Hansen gave a photo of the Golden Valley Carousel building to be shown on the screen so the board could visualize what a completed building would look like. Board member Shankar asked where the west elevation transitions from the Iow to the high roof if there was an opportunity to pull the building out six inches or so rather than have it all the same plain this would give the same effect as a window. Mr. Baker said that could be done. Mr. Hansen said this building design is the European look and they like the crisp white high tech look. Any changes to the building design could be denied by Audi. Board member Shankar said he likes the high tech look as well, he is just wondering if there was one more break in the plain this could cast a shadow and make it appear there is a window there. Chairperson Longrie said that brings up an interesting question of what changes Audi would approve compared to the board recommending how they would like to see the project look in the City of Maplewood. She asked how Audi would feel about having an additional reveal band added along the west side to complement the existing band. Community Design Review Board Minutes 01-11-2005 Mr. Baker said from his experience with the building in Golden Valley that would be denied. As a design professional they tried to make the building better. Audi is very strict with certain elements and believe it or not, the one stripe on the building is a big deal for Audi. Mr. Hansen said they asked if they could use a different color gray and were told they couldn't. Chairperson Longrie said she's trying to get a feel for how much leeway the board has and how restrictive the prototype design is. She believes if Maplewood wants this building in the community, the board has to accept this design. Mr. Hansen said they had similar concerns when they were building the Golden Valley facility along Highway 394 but it turned out to be a very nice building. Board member Ledvina said he would concur with Mr. Hansen in that regard because he has seen the building from the highway and the design of the building is very nice. Earlier he asked if more glass could be added to the building but in consideration of the whole building site and the main show room area having so much glass, he feels comfortable with the building plans and is less inclined to ask for building modifications. Board member Olson said additional landscaping on the west elevation takes care of many of the board's concerns. She asked if the doors on the west side of the building could be treated as a design consideration. Mr. Hansen described how each of the four doors on the west side of the building would look. The doors are going to be mostly glass that can't be seen through along with some silver accents. Mr. Hansen said he would like to address the comment made earlier about the drainage swale. In the first plans based on city staffs comment and the watershed comments, substantial revisions were made. Their main concern was how to handle the swale during construction. They had proposed phasing the buildings in and were told you don't want to move a building on top of a storm sewer. Over 35% of the site will remain green space which takes over 11 acres out of production. So this proposal is not a real high-density development. Mr. Baker said the intent was to have a 32-acre site, build one building in 2005 and another in 2006 and so on. There was discussion regarding how much of this infrastructure to build as part of the 20% of the overall project being constructed. They decided to build the ponds in the back of the property and decide how to get the water to the back of the property. The conclusion was to handle it with the drainage swale and as each subsequent building was built, additional infrastructures would go in and they would be that much closer to completion. Board member Olson asked what they had proposed to do with the center of the roundabout that is shown on the plans. Mr. Baker said currently it's shown as landscaping in the middle of the roundabout. The roundabout would not be constructed with the first building. They are still trying to determine what to put there. There has been discussion of having a sign there, a pond, landscaping, or a flag, right now it is just a turn around. Community Design Review Board ? Minutes 01-11-2005 Board member Olson asked if the applicant saw any problems with vehicles making the turning radius of the roundabout. Mr. Baker said no, the roundabouts are being built to the emergency standards so fire trucks and other emergency vehicles can get through there. Board member Ledvina moved to approve the plans date-stamped November 17, 2004, for the proposed Audi automobile dealership building and related sales/storage lot at 2450 Maplewood Drive. Approval is subject to the property owner doing the following: (additions to the original recommendation are underlined) Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. Signs shown on the site plan and building elevations are not part of this approval and will require separate sign permits. Submit the following for staff approval before the city issues a grading or building permit: (a) Final grading, paving drainage, utility, traffic/street improvement and erosion control plans. These plans shall meet the requirements of the city code and the city engineer. (b) A striping plan for the new automobile sales/storage lot. The plan must include drive aisles that are at least 24 feet in width. (c) A revised landscape plan to include: (1) The ponds should be vegetated with native grasses with Forbes. Native shrubbery and trees should be planted on the upland portion of the perimeter of the pond. (2) All landscaped areas, excluding landscaping within the ponds, must have an underground irrigation system. (3) Showing additional overstory trees on the west side of the site (near the frontage road). (d) A revised outdoor lighting and photometric plan. The revised plan shall show the height and style of all outdoor lights and that the light illumination from all outdoor lights does not exceed .4 foot candles at all property lines. (e) A 100-foot-wide wetland protection buffer easement. This easement shall be prepared by a land surveyor, shall describe the boundary of the buffer and shall prohibit any building, mowing, cutting, grading, filling or dumping within the buffer. The applicant shall record the deed for this easement before the city will issue a grading or building permit. Community Design Review Board Minutes 01-11-2005 (f) Verification that all watershed district special provisions, as indicated on the watershed district permit, are met before the city issues a building or grading permit for the site. (g) A revised south building elevation showing the final design elements and materials for the gates of the trash enclosure. The gates are to be 100 opaque and shall be constructed of wood or metal instead of chain-link fencing with slats. (h) Combine the five existing parcels into one parcel for tax and identification purposes with Ramsey County. The owner or contractor must submit proof of lot combination to city staff before the city will issue a grading or building permit. (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 or the contractor shall complete the following before occupying the Audi building or before using the storage lot: a. Replace any property irons removed because of this construction. Install a reflectorized stop sign at the exit and a handicap-parking sign for each handicap accessible parking space. Construct a 100 percent opaque trash dumpster enclosure to meet code requirements, unless trash dumpsters are stored indoors. Install an in-ground lawn irrigation system for the parking lot islands and for all landscape areas (except the ponding areas). Lawn irrigation in the right-of-way may be waived if MnDot will not allow it. It is also waived in the wetland buffer area. e. Post signs identifying the customer and employee parking spaces. Install city-approved wetland buffer signs at the edge of the wetland buffer easement that notifies that no building, mowing, cutting, grading, filling or dumping is allowed within the buffer. g. Install all the required exterior improvements, including landscaping and signs. Install all bituminous and the engineered porous or permeable surface and the curb and gutter. i. Stripe all drive aisles. Install all required landscaping by June 1 if the dealership or if the sales/storage lot is finished in the fall or winter, or within six weeks of completion of the sales/storage lot if it is finished in the spring or summer. k. Install all exterior lighting. Community Design Review Board Minutes 01-11-2005 I. Screen all roof-mounted equipment visible from public streets. 5. If any required work is not done, the city may allow temporary occupancy if: The city determines that the work is not essential to the public health, safety or welfare. 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. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. This approval does not include the signs. The signage for the development will be reviewed by staff through the sign permit process. This approval does not include any of the other buildings on the site (except the Audi dealership). The owner shall apply to the city for design approval for each of these buildings (including the architectural, landscaping and drainage plans). The community design review board (CDRB) must approve the project plans for each of these buildings before the city can issue a building permit for each building. The desiqn for future buildings on the site maintain a consistent hi.qh quality building material selection and architectural desiqn. Board member Olson seconded. Ayes - Ledvina, Longrie, OIson, Shankar The motion passed. Chairperson Longrie said the community design review board bases their recommendation to the city council on the findings 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. The design and location of the proposed development is in keeping with the character of the surrounding neighborhood and is not detrimental to the harmonious, orderly and attractive development contemplated by this article and the city's comprehensive municipal plan. The 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. Community Design Review Board ]0 Minutes 01-11-2005 This item goes to the city council on January 24, 2005. Board member Ledvina wanted the applicant to note that the board prefers to see building material samples and would like better renditions and design plans for each building as this project continues. This information is needed for future meetings in order to see how the whole plan works together and for the board to understand the details of the project. Chairperson Longrie said generally speaking the board wants to see building material samples and was disappointed that the applicant did not have samples to present this evening. The beard generally reviews samples during presentations and most applicants do provide samples for the board to review. In the future the board expects to see building samples as this project moves forward. She feels comfortable with the plan knowing additional landscaping will be added to the west elevation of the building. This building is the trend setter of this development. A/though this building is a prototype there have been other developments that have come before the CDRB that have building prototypes as well and the board has recommended changes for a better fit in the community. VII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS No visitors present. VIII. BOARD PRESENTATIONS a. Gladstone task force committee representation The city council appointed CDRB member Linda Olson to serve on the Gladstone task force committee as a CDRB representative. The first Gladstone task force committee meeting will be held Wednesday, January 19, 2005, at 6:30 p.m. at Gladstone Fire Station on Clarence Street. Board member Olson thanked the city council for the opportunity to serve on this task force. IX. STAFF PRESENTATIONS a. Board member Shankar volunteered to represent the Community Design Review Board at the January 24, 2005, City Council Meeting. The only item to discuss is the Maplewood Imports Auto Center at 2450 Maplewood Drive. b. CDRB Meeting, Tuesday, January 25, 2005. Items to discuss include the Public Works Expansion and the Pondview Apartments expansion off Ivy Avenue and Femdale Street. X. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 7:24 p.m. MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: DATE: City Manager Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner Public Works Building Addition-Conditional Use Permit and Design Review 1902 County Road B East January 11, 2005 INTRODUCTION ProJect Description Jeff Oertel, of Oertel Architects, has submitted plans on behalf of the Director of Public Works/City Engineer for the following additions and changes to the Maplewood Public Works Facility at 1902 County Road B: · Construction of a 4,224-square-foot (total of both floors), two-story office addition to the northwest corner of the building. · Construction of a 20,240-square-foot, one-story garage addition to the south side of the building. · Construction of a 9,600-square-foot, 40-foot-tall fabric-domed sand/salt storage structure in the storage yard. · Resur[acing of the building entrance with aluminum facing to match the architectural detailing on the proposed additions. · Construction of a holding pond at the south end of the storage yard. · Relocation of the security fence and entrance gate at the north side of the storage yard to coincide with the placement of the proposed garage addition. Refer to the attachments. Reason for the Expansion The city has outgrown the public works facility. The existing facility is old and antiquated and does not meet the current needs of the public works department. In addition to the garage being too small for today's needs, it does not provide sufficient office space for the current employees. Currently, some equipment is stored outside of the building or in other city locations like the old Gladstone Fire Station on Clarence Street. The proposed expansion would enable the city to properly store equipment, as well as to provide the necessary environmental facilities needed for salt storage and handling. The proposed expansion is not intended to make way for additional city personnel and equipment (a concern of some residents), but to accommodate the existing needs of the city for better functionality and equipment storage. Requests Mr. Oertel is requesting approval of the following: · A conditional use permit (CUP) revision for the expansion of a public facility. · Architectural, site and landscape plans. The planning commission will review the CUP. The community design review board (CDRB) will review the design plans. BACKGROUND August 25, 1977: The CDRB approved the plans for the public works facility. September 22, 1977: The city council approved a CUP for the public works facility and a fence height variance for the 10-foot-tail storage yard fence. November 17, 1977: The city council approved amendments to the municipal building and public utility facilities section of the comprehensive plan for the public works facility site. Council also amended the land use plan to change the classification to OS (open space) as they directed in the CUP approval. April 26, 2004: The city council authorized the funding for this project. October 25, 2004: The city council approved the hiring of the architect for this project. DISCUSSION CUP The proposed expansion proposal has already been authorized by the city council through the budget process. This expansion meets the requirements for this CUP revision. These changes would improve city operations and will reduce some of the activities currently taking place in the open storage yard. The proposed salt/sand storage structure will also benefit the environment by eliminating most of the salt runoff that is now occurring with the open salt/sand-mix pile. The construction of the holding pond at the south end of the site will also meet the city's goal of improving the stormwater management system on the site. This pond is part of the city hall campus water quality improvements approved recently by the city council as proposed by the city's environmental management specialist. Citizen Comments Three of the neighbors that replied to our survey raised concerns about traffic increase, whether their taxes would go up, the sense of spending for these improvements, and the sensibility of refacing the front entrance. 2 Traffic Increase: There will be no appreciable traffic increase resulting from this expansion. There will be construction traffic, of course. But after the addition is complete, there is only one additional employee anticipated to be hired in the next five years. Taxes: The city has budgeted for this expansion project in their annual capital improvements budgeting process. There would be no impact on taxes due to this project. Spendin,q: As stated, the city council has budgeted for this project. Some residents questioned whether this expansion is needed and the spending justified. The city's public works operations are cramped and expansion is necessary to protect vehicles and extend the useful life of equipment. Salt Storaqe Area: The salt-storage structure is necessary to protect an expensive annual material the city needs for winter road-safety operations. It is also environmentally advantageous to prevent salt from leaching into the soil and ground water. Entryway Refacing: The refacing of the main entryway is to help tie the appearance of the existing building into the addition. Along with the building painting, it is a way the city can architecturally make the existing and proposed portions of the building compatible. CUP Summary This proposal is needed for the city to continue proper operations and to provide a useful work environment for many years to come. In the recommendation, staff is recommending the deletion of the original CUP conditions since they have all been met. We will add new conditions replacing them. Building Design and Site Considerations The proposed materials and colors are: · Office addition-champagne-colored aluminum panels and tan wall panels. · Garage addition-tan colored precast concrete tip-up panels. · Front entry refacing- champagne-colored aluminum panels. · Existing building-to be painted tan to match the additions. · Salt-storage structure-beige. The proposed design, materials and colors would be an improvement for this building. The painting of the existing building and the refacing of the front entry will create a uniform appearance tying the existing building in with the new construction. Landscaping The construction of the office addition would cause the removal of two evergreen trees that are adjacent to the proposed office addition. The applicant is proposing to add eight evergreens near the entrance drive to the main parking lot and prairie-grass plantings around the foundation of the office addition. The disturbed lawn areas would be resodded. The existing deciduous tree on the lawn west of the existing building would remain. This amount of landscaping would be sufficient. The site is essentially hidden from view of the public so more elaborate landscaping is not warranted. Parking The proposed expansion would not require any additional parking spaces since only one more employee is anticipated in the foreseeable future. Based on the parking requirements in the city code, however, code would require 96 parking spaces-55 for the existing building and 41 more for the additional building area. There are presently 73 parking spaces on site-there are 69 spaces in the main parking lot and four to remain by the garage. These will easily accommodate the 33 employees at the public works facility as well as the few visitors that arrive at any given time. Police Comments Lieutenant Dave Kvam, of the Maplewood Police Department, reviewed this proposal and did not find any safety-related issues. Fire Marshal Comments Butch Gervais, the Maplewood Fire Marshal, had the following comments. The city should: · Install a fire-protection system for both the office and vehicle-storage areas. · Monitor all aspects of the fire protection system (per code). · Install audible and visual devices to notify all persons in the building if the fire protection system is activated (per code). · Provide a minimum of 20 feet of emergency access road to the building. · Obtain all proper permits and display inspection cards on site during the construction. Building Official Comments Dave Fisher, the Maplewood Building Official, had the following comments: · There must be handicap-accessible parking provided to meet requirements. · An elevator will be required. · The buildings are required to be fire sprinklered to meet NFPA 13. · The building is required to meet 2000 IBC, 2000 IFC, 2000 IMC, NEC State Plumbing Code and the Minnesota State Building Code. · The existing boiler should be replaced because of the age and type of boiler. · A second exit may be required out of the salt storage building. 4 RECOMMENDATIONS A. Adopt the resolution on attachment 6 granting a conditional use permit revision for 1902 County Road B East for the expansion of the Maplewood Public Works Facility. Approval is based on the findings required by ordinance and subject to the following conditions (deletions are crossed out and additions are underlined): All construction shall follow the plans date-stamped December 17, 2004. The director of community development may approve minor chanqes. The proposed expansion of the facility outlined in this permit must be started within one year after city council approval or the permit shall end. The city council may extend this deadline for one year. 3. The city council shall review this permit in one year. 4. This permit allows a waiver of the parking code to allow 23 fewer parkinq spaces than the code allows since there is adequate park n,q available for the ex st nq u~e and the proposed expansion. B. Approval of the plans date-stamped December 17, 2004. This approval is subject to the applicant and property owner complying with the following conditions: 1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. 2. Comply with all requirements of the city engineer regarding grading, drainage, erosion control and utilities. 3. Any retaining walls over four feet tal~ shall be designed by a structural engineer and have a protective fence on top. Staff shall approve the retaining wall and fence design if used, 4. The proposed evergreen trees shall be at least six feet tall, balled and burlapped. 5. With any regrading of the storage yard, the yard edge must be set back at least 15 feet from the southerly lot line. 6. Provide handicap-parking spaces in accordance with the building official's requirements. 7. Comply with the requirements of the fire marshal as noted in the staff report. 8. The director of community development may approve minor changes to these plans. CITIZEN COMMENTS Staff surveyed the 68 surrounding property owners within 500 feet of this site for their comments. Of the seven replies, three were in favor, three were opposed and one had no comment. In favor · Improvements look fine & noise doesn't bother me that much. Everything is OK. (Donald Ridley, 1850 County Road B) · I have no objection to the proposed plan. It appears well thought out including less noise for the neighborhood. (Cynthia Gjere, 1950 Craig Place) · No problem with your plans, but would like to have trees trimmed as you promised in August. (Everett Yoch, 1971 Stanich Court) Opposed I have been a resident of Maplewood for seven years and my property taxes have been raised almost $1,000 over the last three alone. If this project will raise my taxes even more, then I want nothing to do with it. No go! (Tony and Cindy Gulyash, 1985 Stanich Court) I have lived in Maplewood for 45 years and remember when the public could vote on spending. That right has been taken away so I doubt if you have any interest in my opinion. I hope you do a better job on this than what was done on the city hall. (Gary Hoge and Margaret Revoir, 1990 Stanich Court) Refer to the letter from Jeff and Sue Rueber on Attachment 5. They have concerns about traffic and city spending. REFERENCE SITE DESCRIPTION Site size: 7.57 acres Existing Use: Maplewood Public Works Facility SURROUNDING LAND USES North: Single Dwellings South: Gateway Trail and Goodrich Golf Course East: Single Dwellings West: Maplewood City Hall property and the back yards of single dwellings that front on County Road B PLANNING Land Use Plan Designation: G (government property) Zoning: F (farm residential) Criteria for CUP Approval Section 36-442(a) states that the city council may grant a CUP subject to the nine standards for approval noted in the resolution in attachment 6. APPLICATION DATE We received the complete application and plans for this proposal on December 17, 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 February 15, 2005 unless the applicant agrees to a time extension. p:sec14\public works addition 1-05 1. Location Map 2. Site Plan 3. Building Elevations 4. Letter of Request from Oertel Architects dated December 16, 2004 5. Letter from Jeff and Sue Rueber dated January 6, 2005 6. Resolution 7. Plans date-stamped December 17, 2004 (separate attachment) HIGHWAY 36 Attachment 1 PUBLIC WORKS PROPERTY CITY' HAll GOODRICH GOLF COURSE HOLLOWAY AVE LOCATION MAP 9 Attachment 2 m '10 Attachment 3 11 12 OERTEL ARCHITECTS 1795 SAINT CLAIR AVENUE, SAINT PAUL, MN 55105 Attachment 4 TEL: 651/696-5186 December 16, 2004 City of Maplewood 1830 East County Road B Maplewood, MN 55109 MAPLEWOOD PUBLIC WORKS EXPANSION CONDITIONAL USE / PUD APPLICATION COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD APPLICATION FAX: 651/696-518g RECEIVED DEC 1 7 200 STATEMENT OF INTENDED USE It is the intent of the City of Maplewood Public Works Department to expand their existing operations in order to meet the growing needs of the community. The existing building was designed and built in 1978, and since this time the community's service requirements have grown considerably. The building expansion project included a two story, Zl12 square foot office expansion (footprint) to the west of the existing office, and a 20,240 square foot one story vehicle storage expansion to the south. In addition to the building expansion, the master plan includes selected site improvements, a retention pond, fencing and a salt storage building. The provision of a retention pond is consistent with the City's long-range plans, except that there is one pond proposed in lieu of three smaller ponds as indicated on some of the City's record planning documents. The provision of a single pond was previously reviewed and accepted by Planning staff. The salt building is proposed in order to help contain and protect the stored salt mixture, which is currently covered with a tarp. The new salt storage structure will help control mn-off from storage of the pile, as well as mixing and loading operations. The building is enclosed on three of four sides, with an open end (for access) facing the east. This eastern exposure is the preferred orientation to limit the effects from prevailing winds and storms. The salt structure proposed is a barrel-vaulted, rigid structural frame with a fabric cover. The fabric is flame-resistant and comes in a limited number of colors. COMPLIANCE WITH CRITERIA The proposed expansion will not effect the use of the property, and there will be no significant change in character to the surrounding property. It is presumed that there will be no depreciation of property values. The normal operations on site will not 13 change in any significant manner. Public works operations, by definition, can be noisy and active due to the nature of work and the requirement of back-up horns on the vehicles. The design of the building may actually assist with reducing noise and commotion since more of the ongoing operations can take place indoors, as the new building layout will help minimize double handling of vehicles and outdoor staging of activities. Concerning environment effects, the overall plan proposed will improve current issues with environmental impacts, and further assist the City as the proposed design will: Reduce some noise and movement from ongoing operations Eliminate covering and uncovering the current salt pile Better contain salt run-off Better retain and control storm water run-off Improve the workability of the salt mix for snoa~ice events Provide far better daylighting and exterior views for staff Achieve a higher level of ADA compliance and accessibility Attachment 5 From: Jeffrey Rueber [jrueber@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2005 8:52 AM To: Tom Ekstrand Subject: Comments on the Building Addition Proposal - PW Garage Tom, My wife Sue and I are concerned about the application to add additional construction to the City Hall Complex. The concern that I had spoken to you about the possible increase in traffic on an already busy road is only a secondary concern. Our first concern is that in this time of budget issues that spending money on some project that is currently deemed not important for public safety. We question the use of funds towards this project when they could be used to reduce already huge increases in property taxes for home owners or used to hire additional/needed police officers that are part of public safety. We could support the construction of on additional garage based on your comments that the city is crowding itself out of the old one. But spending taxpayers money to add a new two-story building when the city already has space is a concern. The construction of a fabric-domed structure for salt and sand we don't understand why its needed. What does the Cost Benefits Analysis (CBA) say that we lose each year having it covered versus not covered versus the cost of the fabric-dome. But we think that biggest waste of taxpayer money is to refurbish the front entry to match the new additions. This is just plain, for lack a better word, stupid. Why would we spend money to redo a building that nobody but the employees sees. We are a city, who are we trying to impress? We see most of these projects as a waste of taxpayers money that we need in other areas of the city. Please let us know if you have any questions. Sincerely, Jeff and Sue Rueber Please send our comments to the city council member and the mayor. Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - now with 250MB free storage. Lemq~ m0re~ 1/7/2005 15 Attachment 6 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION REVISION WHEREAS, Jeff Oertel, of Oertel Amhitects, applied for a conditional use permit revision for the Maplewood Public Works Facility: WHEREAS, this permit applies to property located at 1902 County Road B East. The legal description is: SECTION 14 TOWN 29 RANGE 22 PART NWLY OF SO0 LINE RR RAN OF FOL; EX E 196 FT OF N 283 FT; THE W 256 FT OF NE 1/4 OF NW 1/4 & PART LYING E OF W 256 FT OF N 300 FT OF W 10.55 ACRES OF PART OF SD 1/4 1/4 (SUBJ TO RD) IN SEC 14 TN 29 RN 22 WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: On January 20, 2005, the planning commission held a public hearing and recommended that the city council this permit. The city staff published a notice in the paper and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The planning commission gave everyone at the headng a chance to speak and present wdtten statements. The planning commission also considered reports and recommendations of the city staff. 2. On February 14, 2005, the city council reviewed this proposal. The council also considered reports and recommendations of the city staff and planning commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approves the above- described conditional use permit based on the building and site plans. The city approved this permit because: 1. The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be in conformity with the city's comprehensive plan and code of ordinances. 2. The use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area. 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. 5. The use would generate only minimal vehicular traffic on local streets and would not create traffic congestion or unsafe access on existing or proposed streets. 6. The use would be served by adequate public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, water and sewer systems, schools and parks. 7. The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services. 8. The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and scenic features into the development design. 9. The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects, Approval is subject to the following conditions (deletions are crossed out and additions are underlined): All construction shall follow the plans date-stamped December 2004. The director of community development may approve minor changes. The proposed expansion of the facility outlined in this permit must be started within one year after city council approval or the permit shall end. The city council may extend this deadline for one year. 3. The city council shall review this permit in one year. This permit allows a waiver of the parking code to allow 23 fewer parking spaces than the code allows since there is adequate parkin.q ava lab e for the existin.q use and the proposed expansion. The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on February 14, 2005. 17