Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-06-25 CDRB Packet AGENDA CITY OF MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD Tuesday, June 25, 2013 6:00 P.M. Council Chambers -Maplewood City Hall 1830 County Road B East 1.Call to Order 2.Roll Call 3.Approval of Agenda 4.Approval of Minutes: a.May 28, 2013 5. Unfinished Business: 6.Design Review: a.Design Reviewfor a Façade Improvement–Maplewood Auto Mall, 2525 White Bear Avenue b.Design Review for a Twin Home –Crockett Builders, 2010 Clarence Street c.Design Review for a Proposed Building Expansionand Parking Waiver Request – Maplewood Town Center,1845 County Road D East , d.Design Review for a Proposed Greenhouse –Harmony Learning Center1961 County Road C East 7.Visitor Presentations: 8.Board Presentations: 9.Staff Presentations: 10.Adjourn MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, MAY 28, 2013 1.CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Ledvinacalled the meeting to order at6p.m. 2.ROLL CALL Boardmember, Leo BurgerPresent Boardmember, Bill KempePresent Absent Boardmember,Jason Lamers Chairperson,Matt LedvinaPresent Boardmember,Ananth ShankarPresent Staff Present: Michael Martin, Planner 3.APPROVAL OF AGENDA BoardmemberShankarmoved to approve the agenda as submitted. Seconded by BoardmemberKempeAyes -All The motion passed. 4.APPROVAL OF MINUTES BoardmemberShankarmoved to approve theFebruary 26,2013,CDRB minutes as submitted. Seconded by Boardmember Kempe.Ayes –All The motion passed. 5.UNFINISHED BUSINESS None 6.DESIGN REVIEW a.Design Review and Parking Waiver Request -Concordia Arms, 2030 Lydia Avenue East i.Planner, Michael Martin, gave the presentationfor Concordia Armsand answered questions of the board. ii.Associate Vice President of Housing Development with CommonBond Communities, Cynthia Lee addressed the board. iii.Housing Focus Leader, Kim Breithheim, LHB Architects, the architect for the project, addressed and answered questions of the board. May 28, 2013 Community Design Review Board Meeting Minutes 1 BoardmemberShankarmoved to approvethe design and landscape plans for Concordia Arms to revise its exterior facades and courtyard area for its location at 2030 Lydia Avenue East. (changes or additions are bolded and Approval is subject to the following conditions: underlined.) 1.Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for the approved work. 2.If any existing trees are removed the applicant must comply with the city’s tree replacement ordinance. 3.Submit a cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit prior to receiving a building permit for all required landscape improvements. The amount shall be 125 percent of the cost of the work. 4.All work shall follow the approved plans. The city council may approve major changes to the plans. The Director of Community Development mayapprove minor changes to the plans. 5.The applicant shall submit exterior color choices to staff for final approval. 6. The applicant shall explore the potential installation of a rain garden. Seconded by BoardmemberKempe.Ayes –All The motion passed. Boardmember Shankar moved to approve a parking waiver to allow for 98 surface parking spaces. The parking spaces shall be at least 9.5 feet in width. This is a parking reduction of 152 parking spaces (250 parking spaces are required per city code). Seconded by Boardmember Kempe.Ayes –All The motion passed. This item will be heard by the city council in June. b.Design Review, First Evangelical Free Church, 2696 Hazelwood Street i.Planner, Michael Martin gave the presentation on First Evangelical Free Church and answered questions of the board. . ii.Phil Johnson, architect for the applicant,addressed and answered questions of the board Boardmember Shankarmoved to approvethe design plans date-stamped April 18, 2013, for the gymnasium addition to First Evangelical Free Church, located at 2696 Hazelwood Street, subject to the following conditions: 1.The materials and color of the proposed gymnasium addition shall match the existing building. 2.The applicant shall comply with all requirements of the assistant fire chief and building official. 3.The applicant shall comply with all requirements of the engineer’s report dated May 9, 2013. May 28, 2013 Community Design Review Board Meeting Minutes 2 4.The applicant shall provide maintained lawn around the proposed addition as shown on the plans. Seconded by BoardmemberKempe.Ayes –All The motion passed. 7.VISITOR PRESENTATIONS None 8.BOARDPRESENTATIONS None 9.STAFF PRESENTATIONS a.Draft Capital Improvement Plan 2014 –2018 i.Planner, Michael Martin provided the board with a disk of the draft capital improvement for 2014-2018which is also available on the city website. Thereis a public hearing at 7:00 p.m. on June 18, 2013, duringthe planning commission meeting. The city council will be meeting July 8, 2013, regarding the 2014-2018 CIP. 10.ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned by Chairperson Ledvinaat6:43p.m. May 28, 2013 Community Design Review Board Meeting Minutes 3 MEMORANDUM TO: James Antonen, City Manager FROM: Michael Martin, ACIP, Planner SUBJECT:Design Review for a Proposed Façade Improvement LOCATION: 2525 White Bear Avenue DATE: June 18, 2013 INTRODUCTION Lyudmilla Cooper, of Maplewood Auto Mall,isproposing to sell used autos in the vacant, former gas station building (building “B”) located at 2525 White Bear Avenue. Selling used autos requires a conditional use permit (CUP) be approved by the city council. In addition, the applicant is proposing to repaint the façade. Normally, this type of facade improvement would be handled with a 15-day administrative review, but because of the (CUP) request it must be handled at acommunity design review boardmeeting. BACKGROUND March 22, 1988: Thecommunity design review board approved the plans for the Maplewood Auto Center. This facility was developed as an automotive center for auto parts, sales, and vehicle repairs. April 24, 1989: The city council denied an appeal of two of the community design review board’s conditions for approval of the Maplewood Auto Center (Attachment 2) including: 1) The exit on White Bear Avenue shall have only one exit lane, a “no left turn” sign and stop sign; and 2) there shall be no outside storage or displays ofproducts or merchandise. November 22, 1999: The city council approved a CUP for Credit Equity Sales to open a motor vehicle sales business for this location. In the year 2000, this permit was taken over by Midwest Auto. July 9, 2001: The city council approved a CUP for Credit Equity to reopen a motor vehicle sales business for this location. August 27, 2001: The city council approved a CUP for Alamo Car Rental to lease motor vehicles. April 22, 2003: The CDRB (community design review board) approved a comprehensive sign plan amendment and design review change. July 27, 2004: The CDRB approved changes to the property owner’s color scheme for the larger building and its pylon sign. DISCUSSION Staff does notfind any problem with thisproposal, especially due to the fact that when the building was used as a Super America it had a different color scheme then the adjacent multi-tenant building. The proposed repainting of the building will give the building a fresh look after sitting vacant for many years. 1 Signage There is a comprehensive sign plan approved for this site. Wall Signs for Tenants of building B (former Super America Gas Station) have the following requirements: a.Wall signage is limited to two signs including one of individual channel letters not to exceed 28-inches high and one readerboard sign not to exceed 24 square feet. Both signs to be placed on the east side of the building. b.Canopy signage is limited to one individual channel letter sign not to exceed 24 inches high. Canopy signage is limited to the east side of the canopy. The applicant will be required to meet these conditions. RECOMMENDATIONS Approve the design plans attached to this report for the façade improvements on building B (former Super America) locatedat 2525 White Bear Avenue. REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Site Size:4.8 acres Existing Use: Maplewood Auto Center and former Super America building SURROUNDING LAND USES North: A multi-tenant commercial building and vacant property. South: Mapleridge Shopping Center West: Undeveloped wetlands owned by Ramsey County. East:Across White Bear Avenue areBachman’sandthe Goodwill. PLANNING Land Use Plan: C (Commercial) Zoning: BC Ordinance Requirements Section 2-290 of the city code requires that the community design review board make the following findings to approve plans: 1. That the design and location of the proposed development and its relationship to neighboring, existing or proposed developments, and traffic is such thatit 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. 2. 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. 3. 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. Section 44-512 (5) (a) requires a CUP for the sale of used motor vehicles. Section 44-1097 (a) states that the city council may approve a CUP, based on nine standards. Refer to the findings in the resolutionin Attachment 5. Application Date Staff received the complete application and plans for this proposal on June 11, 2013. 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 August 10, 2013, unless the city needs an extension. P:\SEC11\Maplewood Auto\CUP Amendment Request_2013 Attachments: 1.Location Map 2.Site Plan 3.Applicant’s Letter of Request 4.Building Elevations Attachment 1 2525 White Bear Avenue (Proposed Use Auto Sales) Chad Bergo Proposed Used Auto Sales - 2525 White Bear Avenue Location Map Attachment 3 Attachment 3 Attachment 4 Attachment 4 MEMORANDUM TO: James Antonen, City Manager FROM: Michael Martin, AICP, Planner SUBJECT: Twin Home DesignReview LOCATION: 2010 Clarence Street DATE: June 17,2013 INTRODUCTION Project Description Bart Crockett of, Crockett and Crockett Builders, is requesting design review approval to build a new twin home at 2010 Clarence Street. All new twin homes are required by city code to be reviewed by the community design review board. Background April 15, 1982, the city council rezoned this parcelfrom m-1, light manufacturing to R-2, double dwelling. September 27, 2010, the city council rezoned this parcel from R-2, double dwelling to R- 3, multiple dwelling. DISCUSSION Building Design The applicant is proposing a two-story home with a tuckunder garage. The main entrances to each unit would be in the sides of the building with a staircase leading up to the door. The applicant’s plans do not indicate the siding type or color. Both of these elements should be submitted to staff for approval before a building permit is issued. In addition, staff has a concern with the unvaried look of the building as proposed. The applicant should be required to resubmit, for staff approval, a building elevation that shows the use of brick on the lower level and the use of window shutter for the second story. Landscaping The applicant’s site plan shows the removal of two trees. City code requires these trees both be replaced. In addition, the applicant should submit a landscape plan that shows additional plantings in the front yard –including the replacement trees –and foundation plantings. OTHER COMMENTS Public Works Department: Jon Jarosch, staff engineer, reviewed the plans and his report is attached to this memo. RECOMMENDATIONS 1.Approve the design plans for a twin home at 2010 Clarence Street. Approval is subject to the following conditions: a.Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for the approved work. b.Comply with all requirements stated in the engineering report, dated June 17, 2013. c.Submit a revised elevation plan, for staff approval, detailing the materials and colors to be used on the twin home. The front elevation plan shall also include the use of brick on the first level and windowshutters on the second level. d.Submit a landscape plan, for staff approval,detailing the following elements: 1.Location of all trees that are to be removed. 2.Location of all replacement trees, as required by city code. 3.Additional plantings in the frontyard. 4.Foundation plantings e.Submit acash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit prior to receiving a building permit for all required landscapeimprovements. The amount shall be 125percent of the cost of the work. f.All work shall follow the approved plans. The Director of Community Development may approve minor changes to the plans. REFERENCE SITE DESCRIPTION Site size:0.46Acres Existing Use:Single Family Home SURROUNDING LAND USES North:Multi-family Residential Building South:Twin Home East:Multi-family Residential Building West:Clarence Street and Single Family Homes PLANNING Land Use Plan:High Density Residential(HDR) Zoning:Multiple Dwelling(R3) Criteria for Approval Design Review: Section 2-290 of the city code requiresthat the community design review board make the following findings to approve plans: 1.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. 2.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. 3.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 Staffreceived the complete application and plans for this proposal on June 11, 2013. 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 August 10, 2013, unless the city needs an extension. P:\SEC15\2010 Clarence Street\2010 Clarence_DESIGN_CDRB_062513 Attachments: 1.Location Map 2.SitePlan 3. Building Elevations 4.Engineering Report, dated June17, 2013 5.Large Plans (Separate Attachment) Attachment 1 2010 Clarence Street (Proposed Double Dwelling) Chad Bergo Proposed Double Dwelling - 2010 Clarence Street Location Map Attachment 3 Attachment 4 Engineering Plan Review PROJECT: 2010 Clarence Street Duplex PROJECT NO: COMMENTS BY: Jon Jarosch, P.E. – Staff Engineer DATE: 6/17/2013 PLAN SET: Preliminary Review Level Plans The applicant is proposing to remove the existing residential home at 2010 Clarence Street and replace it with a duplex. Final plans shall be submitted and approved prior to the issuance of any permits. These plans shall adhere to the comments noted below. Drainage and Stormwater Management 1)The relatively flat slopes around the proposed building will createslow moving drainage within 10-feet of the proposed building. The applicant shall review the grading plan to ensure that adequate drainage is provided around the building. Generally, slopes in turf grass areas should be 2%or greater for proper drainage. 2)As the slopes are flat along the east side of the proposed building, gutters shall be installed along the eastern roofline with downspouts directing roof generated runoffaway from the building foundation andinto the proposed swale areas. Grading and Erosion Control 3)A rock entrance pad shall be installed to minimize sediment tracking onto nearby streets. 4)Clarence Street shall be swept on a regular basis to remove any materials tracked from the project site. Sanitary Sewer and Water Service 5)One sanitary sewer service is currently present at 2010 Clarence Street. An additional sanitary sewer service shall be installed to provide service to the second unit of the proposed duplex. 6)An additional SAC charge will be required for the additional residential unit proposed for this property. Attachment 4 7)One water service is currently present at 2010 Clarence Street. An additional water service shall be installed to provide service to the second unit of the proposed duplex. 8)An additional WAC charge will be required for the additional residential unit proposed for this property. 9)The applicant shall submit plans for approval detailing the construction of the required sanitary sewer and water services. 10) Water service modifications are subject to the review and conditions of Saint Paul Regional Water Services(SPRWS). The applicant shall submit plans and specifications to SPRWS for review and meet all requirements they may haveprior to the issuance of a grading permit by the City. Other 11)It is likely that portions of the road will need to be disturbed to install the new water and sewer services to the property. The applicant shall restore any disturbed portion of the right-of-way (ROW) per the City’s ROW ordinance. 12)The developer shall submit a copy of the MPCA’s construction stormwater permit (SWPPP) to the city before the city will issue a grading permit for this project. 13)The Owner shall satisfy all requirements of all permitting and reviewing agencies. MEMORANDUM TO:James Antonen, City Manager FROM:Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner Maplewood Town CenterBuilding Addition and Parking Waiver SUBJECT: LOCATION:1845County Road DEast DATE:June 17, 2013 INTRODUCTION Pope Architects, representing H. J. Development, LLP, is requesting approval of plans to Build a 7,900-square-foot addition onto the east side of Maplewood Town Center. This expansion would also require a parking waiver from the city councilof 87 spaces. The code requires 607parking spaces for Town Center and there would be 520spaces after the proposed addition. Requests Approval of building and site plans Approval of a parking waiver for 87 parkingspaces fewer than code requires. BACKGROUND August 27, 1986: The community design review board (CDRB) approved the plans for Maplewood Town Center.Since then the Center has gone through many changes. Significant changes have been the relocation of Best Buy to their present location on the west side of the site, the recent remodel of the buildingto include the addition of DSW Shoe Store and the conversion of the Pannekoeken Huis Restaurant into a Pizza Ranch. August 22, 2005: The city council approved the new Best Buy building on the westerly end of the Maplewood Town Center property.Part of this approval included a 36-stall parking reduction. Theapproved site plan also accepted the parking stall spaces at nine-feet-wide which was their striped width for the shopping center at that time. DISCUSSION Building Design Changes The proposed building renovations would be attractiveand would match the design, materials and colors of the shopping center. Accessaround the Building The proposed addition would extend to within five feet of the easterly property line closing access around the building on the east side. Butch Gervais, the assistant fire chief, has reviewed this proposal and has stated that “they will need to make sure they meet all fire code requirements when they do construction.” Mr. Gervais feels that with code compliance, the fact that the building has an automatic fire suppression system and that there is access from the nearby neighboring parking lot to the next door, he is comfortable with this proposal. Parking Waiver The applicant is requesting approval of a parkingwaiver to provide 87 fewerparking spaces than the required 607.This amounts to a 14 percent reduction. The applicant states in their letter that, over time, the site has gone through several building to parking ratios due to the demoof various building sections and the additions of new construction. They state that they once were 113 spaces short and functioned fine with that reduction. Staff is comfortable with the proposed parking reduction. Code requires one parking stall for each 200 square feet of floor area. With the proposed shortage of 87 spaces, thisequates to one parking space for 213 square feet of floor areawhich is very close to code requirements. Site Considerations The addition would cause the removal of six locust trees and two light poles. Tree replacement would not be feasible next to the proposed building addition. There is only five feet in which to plant. Code, however, requires the replacement of trees on a one-to-one basis. Replacement trees must beat least two inches in caliper. The applicant should replace any trees that they remove somewhere on the property. Wall mounted lights are proposed on the new east wall. These couldserve as decorative building lighting, but site-security lighting is not needed since thereis virtually no site remaining east of the proposed addition that needs lighting. There is a new trash enclosure shown on the plans behind the proposed addition. The applicant did not provide a design for this. The review board should require that the applicant provide a design plan for staff approval. Engineering Report Jon Jarosch, staff engineer, reviewed the applicant’s plans and forwarded recommendations relative to the drainage, utility and paving plans. Refer to Mr. Jarosch’sreportdated June 12, 2013. Fire Marshal As stated above, Butch Gervais, Assistant Fire Chief, can accept the building addition as proposed with no east-side access to the back of the building since the building is fully sprinklered. Police Chief Kvam reviewed the plans and felt there were no public safety concerns. 2 Building Official Dave Fisher, Building Official, stated that the applicant must comply with all applicable codes. RECOMMENDATION Approve the plansdate-stamped June 4, 2013,for the proposed addition to the east side of the Maplewood Town Center shopping center,located at1845 County Road D East.This approval includes a parking waiver to allow 87 fewer parking spaces than the city code requires. Approval of the parking waiver is because: the proposed parking reduction only amounts to 14 percent, which is a minor reduction, and because the Maplewood Town Center shopping center has functioned with a reduced amount of parking in the past and has never experienced a difficulty in providing adequate parking for patrons. Approval of the proposed addition is subject to the applicant complying with the following conditions: 1.Repeatingthis review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. 2.Comply with the requirements of the city’s engineering department and building officialand assistant fire chiefas stated in this report. 3.Before getting a building permit, the applicant shall provide a design plan for the proposed trash enclosure. The design of this enclosure shall match the materials and color of the building. 4.The community design review board shall approve major changes to these plans. Minor changes may be approved by staff. 5.Replace any trees that are removed on a one-to-one basis. Replacement trees must be at least two inches in caliper. The applicant should replace any trees that they remove somewhere on the property and submit a replacement plan to staff prior to obtaining a building permit. 6.Provide acash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit for all required exterior improvements. The amount shall be 150 percent of the cost of the work. 3 REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Site size: 8.76acres Existing Use: Maplewood Town Center Shopping CenterwithBest Buy and the Pizza Ranch SURROUNDING LAND USES North:I-694 South:County Road D, Circuit City, Toys R Us and the Myth Night Club East:Aamco Transmission Shop West:Slumberland PLANNING Land Use Plan: BC, business commercial Zoning: BC APPLICATION DATE We received the complete applicationonJune 4, 2013. State law requires that the city take action within 60 days. A decision on this request is required by August 3, 2013. p:sec35-30\Town Center Remodel June 2013 te Attachments 1.Location/Zoning Map 2.Existing Site Plan 3.Proposed Site Plan 4.Applicant’s Narrative 5.Engineering Report from Jon Jarosch dated June 12, 2013 6.Plans date stamped June 4, 2013 (separate attachment) 4 Attachment 2 Attachment 3 Attachment 4 Attachment 5 MEMORANDUM TO:James Antonen, City Manager FROM:Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner Chuck Ahl, Assistant City Manager SUBJECT:Approve a Resolution for a Conditional Use Permit Revisionfor a Planned Unit Development and Design Review for the Proposed Harmony Learning CenterGreenhouse LOCATION:1961 County Road CEast VOTE REQUIRED:Simple Majority Vote Required to Approve DATE:June 11,2013 INTRODUCTION Independent School District 622 is requesting approval of a conditional use permit revision for their planned unit development (PUD) to construct a greenhouseat the Harmony Learning Center. The applicant is proposing to build a 21-footby 36-foot greenhouse on the north side of their building adjacentto the existing garden. The school district has a program for teaching gardening and horticulture skills at Harmony.Their Community Garden Education programservesas an“experimental learning program providing hands on learning to 622’s students: a) immigrant and refugee studentsb)alternative learning center students.” The greenhouse would be provided in association with Century College to augment the gardening program. Refer to the applicant’s letter and the attached maps. Requests City ordinance requires a conditional use permit for schools. Expansions of facilities with an existing CUP must also obtain a CUP revision from the city council. The applicant is requesting the following: Approval of a CUP revision of their PUD to construct the proposed greenhouse. Approval of site and building design plans. BACKGROUND November 6, 1985: The city council approved a PUD for the HarmonySchool site for a proposed 116-unit senior housing development. This approval included a parking variance. This development was not built, butthe PUD approval remained. Refer to the attached PUD approval dated 11/6/85and the site plan for that project. Since 1985, the school has gone through various changes. Most recently, the addition of a T-Mobile cell phone tower was installed in the parking lot area east of the school. This tower was approved by the city council on December 14, 2009. DISCUSSION 1985 Senior Housing PUDApproval Staff recommends that the city council amend the PUDto delete all references to the 1985 approval forsenior’s housing. This project was never built and the approval is no longer relevant. Staff proposes to combine the CUP granted for the T-Mobile tower into anamended PUD resolution. This amended resolution would also acknowledge that the school district’s educational function is permitted by this approval, since that was never addressed. CUP/PUDRevision The zoning ordinance requires that the city council determine that all nine “standards” for CUP approval be met to allow a CUP. In short, these state that the use would: Comply with the city’s comprehensive plan and zoning code. Maintain the existing or planned character of the neighborhood. Not depreciate property values. Not cause any disturbance or nuisance. Not cause excessive traffic. Be served by adequate public facilities and police/fire protection. Not create excessive additional costs for public services. Maximize and preserve the site’s natural and scenic features. Not cause adverse environmental effects. The proposed greenhouse would meet those criteria. Wetland Setback Requirement There is a Manage B wetland north of the proposed greenhouse and garden area. This wetland is protected from intrusion by a fence, but city code requires a 75-foot, non-encroachment buffer around it. Thecat tails surrounding this wetland delineate the edge of the wetland and are 25to 30 feet south of the fence. The applicant would need to be sure to install the greenhouse at least 75 feet from the cat tails in order to satisfy the 75-foot buffer requirement. Staff feels that this can be accomplishedand the city council should require thissetback be met as a condition of the CUP. Design Review The proposed greenhouse is of a basic greenhouse design. Staff does not have any concern with its appearance since it is located between the school and a wooded wetland. It would be visible from White Bear Avenue, but, there are some trees on this side that would provide a little screening. Staff does not recommend additional treessince they could eventuallyshade the proposed greenhouseandsun light is needed for growing plants within. 2 The only other proposed site revision is the extension of the chain link fence to the west to contain the proposed greenhouse. Refer to the site plan. Staff has no concern with that. Assistant Fire Chief and Building Official Comments The applicant must meet applicable codes. Engineer’s Report Jon Jarosch, staff engineer with the city, stated: Depending upon the level of earthwork necessary to grade the area level and install footings, a grading and erosion control permit may be necessary. The applicant shall submit plans detailing any grading or footing work for review prior to commencing with the greenhouse construction. The applicant shall comply with any requirements generated by the review or grading and erosion control permit. RECOMMENDATION A.Adopt the resolution amending the conditional use permitfor a planned unit development for the Harmony Learning Center, located at 1695 County Road C East,to allow the construction of a greenhouse.This resolution deletes the 1985PUD approvalfor senior housing,which was never built, andincorporates the more recent CUPapproval for the T-Mobile cell phone tower (deletions are crossed out and additions are underlined.) Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Maplewood City Council that a conditional use permit be granted for the Harmony School site planned unit development, including the following variances: 1.Allow 79 parking spaces for the 52-unit senior’s residence, rather than the 104 required by code. 2.Allow 26 enclosed parking spaces rather than the 52 enclosed spaces required by the code. Approval of the conditional use permit and variances is subject to: 1.If council determines that there is insufficient on-site parking for the 52-unit seniors residence, within one year of 95% occupancy, additional parking may be required. 2.Maplewood and North St. Paul shall have continued use of the athletic facilities in the northeast portion of the site until that part of the site develops, provided the use of these facilities do not interfere with the applicant’s use of the property. 3.The 52-unit seniors residence shall not be converted shall to non-seniors housing without revision of the planned unit development. For purposes of this permit, senior’s housing is defined as a residence occupied by persons in their retirement years with a significant number of one-person households. 3 4.The auditorium attached to the 52-unit senior’s residence shall only be used by the residents of that building. Public assembly unrelated to senior use would be prohibited without a revision of this permit. 5.The commercial portion of the development shall be limited to the uses allowed in the BC(M), business commercial (modified) zoning district. 6.The eight parking spaces (marked “future”) located south of the driveway to the garage for the 64-structure shall be constructed. 7.The proposed 575 square foot units in the 52-unit residence (October 8, 1985 plans) shall be increased in area to at least 580 square feet of habitable floor area. 8.Move the 64-unit residence to the west to comply with the required minimum setback of 50 feet. 9.Adherence to the site plan dated October 8, 1985, except as required in these conditions, unless a change is approved by the community design review board. 1.All construction shall follow the site plans approved by the city. The community development staff may approve minor changes. 2.The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of council approval of the permit shall become null and void. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 3.The city council shall review this permit in one year. 4.This conditional use permit is conditioned upon T-Mobile allowing the co-location of other provider’s telecommunications equipment on the proposed tower. T-Mobile shall submit a letter to staff allowing co-location before a building permit can be issued. 5.If any required landscaping for the T-Mobile towerdies, plantings must be replaced pursuantto the city policy and standards. 6.The school district shall provide a site plan with their building permit submittal that verifies that the proposed greenhouse would be placed no closer than 75 feet to the wetland to the north. For the purposes of defining the edge of the wetland, that shall be considered to be the edge of the cat tails. 7.This approval acknowledges that the school district’s educational activities are permitted by this permit. Any new construction or exterior improvements are subject to compliance with the design-review requirements in the city code, and perhaps, may require amendment of this conditional use permit. 4 B.Approve the design plansdate-stamped May 21, 2013for the greenhouse at Harmony Learning Center, 1695 County RoadC East, subject to the following conditions: 1.The applicant shall comply with all requirements of the building official and assistant fire chief. 2.The applicant shall submit plans detailing any grading or footing work for review prior to commencing with the greenhouse constructionto the city engineer.The applicant shall comply with any requirements generated by the review or grading and erosion control permit. 3.The applicant shall provide a site plan with their building permit submittal that verifies that the proposed greenhouse would be placed no closer than 75 feet to the wetland to the north. For the purposes of defining the edge of the wetland, that shall be considered to be the edge of the cat tails. 5 REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Site size: 8.52 acres Existing land use: Harmony Learning Center SURROUNDING LAND USES North:Kohlman Creek County Open Space East:Single Family Home South: Single Family Homes, vacant lots and commercial buildings West: White Bear Avenue, commercial buildings and a church PLANNING Land Use Plan designation: G(government) Zoning: PUD CODE REQUIREMENTS Section 44-1092(3)of the city ordinances requires a CUP for schools. Findings for CUP Approval Section 44-1097(a) requires that the city council base approval of a CUP on nine findings. Refer to the findings for approval in the resolution. APPLICATION DATE The applicationfor this request was considered complete on May 21, 2013.State law requires that the city decide on theseapplications within 60 days. The deadline for city council action on this proposal is July20, 2013. 6 p:sec2S\Harmony School CUP Revision for Greenhouse PC Report 613 te Attachments: 1.CUP Revision Resolution 2.Location/ZoningMap 3.Land Use Plan Map 4.Site Plan date-stamped May 21, 2013 5.Applicant’s Narrativedated April 30, 2013 6.Greenhouse plans date-stamped May 21, 2013 7.November 6, 1985Senior’s Housing DevelopmentProposalat Harmony School 7 Attachment 1 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REVISION RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Independent School District 622, applied for a conditional use permit to amend the planned unit development for the Harmony Learning Center, to install a 21-foot by 36-foot greenhouse. WHEREAS, this permit applies to 1961 County Road C East. The legal description is: That part of the Southwest ¼ of Section 2, Township 29, Range 22, Ramsey County. More particularly described as: Beginning at the intersection of White Bear Avenue and the South link of Said Southwest 1/4; thence northerly on said center line 420.55 feet; thence east parallel with said South line 311 feet; thence northerly parallel with said center line 140 feet; thence north 107.07 feet, thence east 391.55 feet to a point 658.95 feet north of said South line; thence to said South line at a point 200 feet west of said ¼ corner; then West to the point of beginning. WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: 1.On June 18, 2013, 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 persons at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The commission also considered reports and recommendations of the city staff. The planning commission recommended that this CUP amendment be __________. 2.On _____________. 2013, the city council discussed the proposed conditional use permit amendment. They considered reports and recommendations from the planning commission and city staff. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council ____________the above- described conditional use permit revision, 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. 4.The use would not involve any activity, process, materials, equipment or methods of operation that would be dangerous, hazardous, detrimental, disturbing or cause a nuisance to any person or property, because of excessive noise, glare, smoke, dust, odor, fumes, water or air pollution, drainage, water run-off, vibration, general unsightliness, electrical interference or other nuisances. 5.The use would 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. 8 7.The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services. 8.The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and scenic features into the development design. 9.The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1.All construction shall follow the site plans approved by the city. The community development staff may approve minor changes. 2.The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of council approval of the permit shall become null and void. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 3.The city council shall review this permit in one year. 4.This conditional use permit is conditioned upon T-Mobile allowing the co-location of other provider’s telecommunications equipment on the proposed tower. T-Mobile shall submit a letter to staff allowing co-location before a building permit can be issued. 5.If any required landscaping for the T-Mobile towerdies, plantings must be replaced pursuant to the city policy and standards. 6.The school district shall provide a site plan with their building permit submittal that verifies that the proposed greenhouse would be placed no closer than 75 feet to the wetland to the north. For the purposes of defining the edge of the wetland, that shall be considered to be the edge of the cat tails. 7.This approval acknowledges that the school district’s educational activities are permitted by this permit. Any new construction or exterior improvements are subject to compliance with the design-review requirements in the city code, and perhaps, may require amendment of this conditional use permit. The Maplewood City Council _________ this resolution on _______, 2013. 9 Attachment 3 Attachment 4 Attachment 5 Attachment 6 Attachment 7