Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-07-23 CDRB Packet AGENDA CITY OF MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD Tuesday, July23, 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.June 25, 2013 5. Unfinished Business: 6.Design Review: a.Design Reviewfor building additions to the police department at Maplewood City Hall, 1830 County Road B East b.Design Review for a reinforced-turf parking lot addition at the Bruentrup Farm, 2170 County Road D 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, JUNE 25, 2013 1.CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Ledvinacalled the meeting to order at6:00p.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 BoardmemberKempemoved to approve the agenda as submitted. BoardmemberShankarsecondedthe motion.Ayes -All The motion passed. 4.APPROVAL OF MINUTES BoardmemberKempemoved to approve the May 28, 2013,CDRB minutes as submitted. Boardmember Shankarsecondedthe motion.Ayes –All The motion passed. 5.UNFINISHED BUSINESS None 6.DESIGN REVIEW a.Design Review for a Façade Improvement -Maplewood Auto Mall, 2525 White Bear Avenue i.Planner, Michael Martin, gave the report and answered questions of the board. ii.Attorney, Dan Westerman, representing theowners of Cooper Motors, Mila and Sean Cooper, addressed and answered questions of the board. BoardmemberShankarmoved to approvethe design plans attached to the staff report for the façade improvements on building B (former Super America) located at 2525 White Bear Avenue. (Additionsto the motion are in bold and underlined.) June 25, 2013 Community Design Review Board Meeting Minutes 1 a.Color of stucco should be tan, matching building A. b.Color striping sequence on the canopy shall match the existing sequence on building A. Seconded by BoardmemberKempe.Ayes–All The motion passed. b.Design Review for a Twin Home –Crockett and Crockett Builders, 2010 Clarence Street i.Planner, Michael Martin gave the report and answered questions of the board. ii.Applicant,Crockett and Crockett Builders, Bart Crockett, White Bear Lake addressed and answered questions of the board. (additions BoardmemberShankarmoved torecommend the conditions listed in the staff report: to the motion are in bold and underlined.) 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 revisedelevation 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 (Material and color samples shall first level and window shutters on the second level. be submitted to staff for approval. All materials and colors shall match the plan as submitted at the June 25, 2013, CDRB meeting.) 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 front yard. 4.All work shall follow the approved plans. The Director of Community Development may approve minor changes to the plans. e.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. f.All work shall follow the approved plans. The Director of Community Development may approve minor changes to the plans. g,The driveways to the twin home shall be continuous with no landscaping in between them. June 25, 2013 Community Design Review Board Meeting Minutes 2 Seconded by BoardmemberKempe.Ayes –All The motion passed. c.Design Review for a Proposed Building Expansion and Parking Waiver Request i.Planner, Michael Martin gave the report and answered questions of the board. ii.Pope Architects, Daniel Pollastriniaddressed and answered questions of the board. BoardmemberShankarmoved to approvethe plans date-stamped June 4, 2013, for the proposed addition to the east side of the Maplewood Town Center shopping center, located at 1845 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.Repeating this 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 official and assistant fire chief as 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 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. Seconded by BoardmemberKempe.Ayes –All The motion passed. d.Design Review for a Proposed Greenhouse–Harmony Learning Center, 1961 County Road CEast i.Planner, Michael Martin gave the report and answered questions of the board. ii.ISD 622, Chuck Ericksen, and Brian Schlottman, Century College addressed and answered questions of the board. June 25, 2013 Community Design Review Board Meeting Minutes 3 BoardmemberShankarmoved to approvethe design plans date-stamped May 21, 2013, for the greenhouse at Harmony Learning Center, 1695 County Road C 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 submitplans detailing any grading or footing work for review prior to commencing with the greenhouse construction to 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 the 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 beconsidered to be the edge of the cat tails. Seconded by BoardmemberKempe.Ayes –All The motion passed. 7.VISITOR PRESENTATIONS None 8.BOARDPRESENTATIONS Chairperson Ledvina stated he would like to see more consistency of maps submitted with the staff reports including location maps and aerial photos. 9.STAFF PRESENTATIONS None. 10.ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned by Chairperson Ledvinaat7:10p.m. June 25, 2013 Community Design Review Board Meeting Minutes 4 MEMORANDUM TO:Chuck Ahl,City Manager FROM:Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner Dave Fisher, Building Official Approval of Plans for Building Additions to the Police Department at SUBJECT: Maplewood City Hall LOCATION:1830 County Road B East DATE:July16, 2013 INTRODUCTION Project Description Lawrence Koch, with SEH and representing the City of Maplewood, is requesting approval of five building additions to the police department at City Hall. These are: A 1,275-square-foot patrol room addition A 1,120-square-foot locker room addition A 1,810-square-foot records and administration addition A 12,985-square-foot garage addition A corridor additionadjacent to the motor-vehicle waiting area windows The proposed additions would require approval by the community design review board. There is also a parking waiver required for 74fewer parking spaces than code would require. City ordinance requires 240 parking spaces and there are 166 on site. Refer to the letter from Mr. Koch. Requests Approval of building and site plans Approval of a parking waiver for 74parkingspaces BACKGROUND The city hall campus has been under renovations including relocating building inspections, planning, health inspections, environmental operations and parksand recreationto 1902 County Road B. Work is currently underway to remodel the former community development area for use by police. The proposed additions are part of the city hall campus expansion plan. DISCUSSION Building Design The proposed building additions would all match the materials and colors of city hall.There is one exception. The east andsouth sides of the proposed police garage addition would be precast concrete panels, painted to match the building colors, since they will not be visible sides of the building. Site Considerations Tree Replacement The addition would cause the removal of two treesaccording to the attached letter from SEH. These trees are proposed to be replaced in Maplewood Parkssince there is limited space on the city hall campus to place additional trees. Staff sees that one maple tree in front of city hall is fairly close to the proposed front addition. If it becomes necessary to remove this tree, it should also be replaced. Any trees that have already been removed in the courtyard should be replaced as well. Staff estimates with the two trees to be removed, the possible tree in front and the large evergreen in the courtyard, the city should replant at least four trees on site as required by the tree replacement ordinance. If locations for new trees cannot be found on the city hall campus, these replacement trees, according to the proposal, shall be planted in Maplewood parks. Parking Waiver The proposed additions are neededto meet the officespace needs for the police department. There are no additional employees planned which would affect parking at city hall.The city has supported parking waivers of this nature for other commercial parking needs. The most recent wasfor Maplewood Town Center at1885 County Road Dto have 87fewer parking spaces than city code requires. Engineering Report Jon Jarosch, staff engineer, reviewed theproposal. Please refer to Mr. Jarosch’s report. Fire Marshal Butch Gervais, Assistant Fire Chief, commented that theremust be a fire protection system installed to meet code requirements and to abide by all state and local codes. Building Official Dave Fisher, Building Official, stated that the proposed expansions would comply with all applicable codes. 2 RECOMMENDATION Approve the plansdate-stamped July 11, 2013,for the proposed additions to Maplewood City Hall for the Police Department expansion. This approval includes a parking waiver for 74 fewer parking spaces than code requires since a) city hall has adequate parking available for its needs, b) there are no new employees proposed that would impact parking needs and,c) many employees have already relocated to 1902 County Road B which opens up several parking spaces at city hall. Approval is subject to the applicant complying with the following conditions: 1.The applicant shall meet all building code and fire code requirements and comply with all requirements as outlined in the engineering report dated July 15, 2013 by Jon Jarosch. 2.The applicant shall plant fourtrees preferably within the city hall campus if suitable locations can be found. As an alternative, they shall be planted in Maplewood parks, subject to the approval of the director of parks and recreation. 3 REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Site size: 15.53 acres Existing Use: Maplewood City Hall Campus SURROUNDING LAND USES North:Single Dwellings South:Gateway Trail and Ramsey County Property East:Maplewood Campus1902 Building West:Maplewood Community Center PLANNING LandUse Plan: G (government) Zoning: F (farm residence) APPLICATION DATE We received the complete applicationonJuly 11, 2013. State law requires that the city take action within 60 days. A decision on this request is required by September9, 2013. p:sec14\City Hall Campus\Police Wing Expansion 7 13 te Attachments 1.Location Map 2.Zoning Map 3.Land Use Plan Map 4.FloorPlan 5.Letter from SEH dated July 11, 2013 6.Engineering Report from Jon Jarosch dated July 15, 2013 7.Plans date stamped July 11, 2013(separate attachment) 4 MEMORANDUM TO:Charles Ahl, City Manager FROM:Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner Dave Fisher, Building Official Turf Parking Lot at Bruentrup Farm SUBJECT: LOCATION:2170 County Road D East DATE:July 15, 2013 INTRODUCTION On July 23, 2012, the city council amended the parking ordinance to allow reinforced-turf, overflow parking areas. This ordinance revision was proposed by the Maplewood Area Historical Society(MAHS)in preparation ofinstallingsuch a parking lot. They now are requesting approval to amend their conditional use permit (CUP) for the addition of a turf parking lot east of their existing blacktop parking lot.The applicant is also proposing to install a sidewalk from the current parking lot to the garage. Refer to the attachments. Request Amend the CUP to permit the addition of a reinforced-turf parking lot and new sidewalk at the Bruentrup Farm. BACKGROUND The MAHS manages the 2.36 acre Bruentrup Farm. The site is surrounded on three sides by the 22-acre Prairie Farm Neighborhood Preserve, which ispart of the City’sNeighborhood Preserve System.The 21-stall parking lot east of the farm buildings is on the preserve land and is maintained by the city for visitors to the Farm and to the preserve. Under the CUP approved for the Farm, MAHS may host six private events annually, such as weddings andother celebrations.Revenue from these events goes to MAHS to help support the Farm’sprograms and facilities. The 21-stall parking lot is not adequate for large events. Under the terms of the CUP, MAHS is required to have agreements with localbusinesses to use their parking lots.Getting permission to use these lots has not been an issue,but it is inconvenientfor visitors, since they mustcross a street and walk about a block to the Farm. While this can be an enjoyable walk and a fun part of a public event, it is very inconvenientfor some elderly visitors and groups like wedding parties that may come in formal clothing and footwear. Inaddition,MAHS hasconcerns aboutsafety since some visitors park on local streetsand cross County Road D without a crosswalk. County Road D is very narrow and it is dangerous for pedestrians to walk along this road. DISSCUSSION MAHS would like to expand the existing parking area to provide overflow parking foritsevents. Because they are restricted tosixlarge events per year, they do not need an asphalt lot. They would like to install an overflow turf parking lot east of the existing parking lot, on city land. Criteria to Allow Turf Parking The parking ordinance would allow reinforced-turf parking lots when they would meet the following criteria: When the needfor overflow parking is infrequent or limited to occasional parking events. Where there is already hard-surfaced parking that provides for handicap-accessible parking needs. Where the turf parking lot would meet setback and screening requirements. Where the parking need is seasonal (non winter) so snow plowing is not needed. Where there would be an environmental benefit due to storm water management or meeting shoreland/wetland/flood plain ordinance impact needs. Where the turf-parking plan meetsthe approval of the city engineer from the standpoint of using proven construction materials engineered for durability and aesthetics. Where the turf-parking plan meets the approval of the police and fire chief from the standpoint of meeting public safety requirements. This parking surface alternative shall not apply to single and double dwelling residential properties which are governed under Section 44-17 (j), the residential parking ordinance apply. The proposed parking lot expansion would meet thesecriteria, subject to the city engineer, police chief and fire chief reviewingand approvingthe plans prior to construction. Proposed Parking Lot Construction The proposed overflow turf parking lotwould be alawn areathatis constructed of a durable mesh toaccommodate occasional parking.This mesh product would be staked down to a prepared soil base and would allow thegrass to grow through. This product helps spread out vehicle weight and reduces soil compaction. Turf parking areas have environmental benefits since they reduce the amount of impervious surface needed for parking,they allowrain to infiltrate, and they are cooler than an asphalt lot. MAHS would like to use the product TM GrassProtectafor this project. Refer to the attached data sheet. Neighborhood Supportand Screening MAHS has talked to adjacentneighborsand neighborssupport this project as long as an evergreen buffer is installed to screen the property to the east of the parking lot. The landscape design includes evergreen screening.The city and MAHS would seek agrant from the Ramsey Washington Metro Watershed District (RWMWD)for this project, with matching funds from MAHS and in-kind services from Maplewood staff. CONCLUSION If installed, this would be the first turf overflow parking lot in Maplewood. One of the city’s goals is to continue to be an environmental leader. This project is consistent with that goal. The Farm is an excellent site to demonstrate this type of project due to itslocation, existing parking lot, and the level of use is appropriate for turf parking. If this project is approvedby the citycouncil,it would proceed only if grant funding is received from RWMWD. RECOMMENDATION Adopt theconditional use permit revision resolution for the Bruentrup Farm, located at 2170 CountyRoad D East, to allow the addition of a 22-stall reinforced turf parking lot for overflow parking and a new sidewalk from the existing parking lot to the garage. Approval is based on the findings required by ordinance and subject to the following conditions: 1.All of the conditions of the existingconditional use permit approval, as required by the city council on July 27, 2009, shall remain in effect. 2.Minor revisions may be approved by staff. 3.Construction shall begin on the proposed turf parking lot within one year or this approval shall end. The city council may extend this approval for one additional year. 4.The city engineer, police chief and fire chief shall review the plans, as required by ordinance, before construction on the turf parking lot can begin. 5.Screening must be provided, as proposed, to buffer the proposed parking lot from the neighbor to the east.This screening shall be completed before the parking lot may be used, unless the applicant provides escrow to guarantee its completion. Escrow shall be, as is typically required,in the amount of 150 percent of the cost of installing the landscaping. P:Sec2N\CDRB Report for Farm Parking Lot 7 15 13 te Attachments: 1.Resolution of CUP Revision to allow turf parking 2.Zoning Map 3.Land Use Plan Map 4.Parking lot design 5.Landscape design TM 6.GrassProtectaCase Study 7.Turf-Parking Ordinance 8.Existing CUP Conditions dated July 27, 2009 9.Letter from Robert Jensen of MAHS dated July 9, 2013 Attachment 1 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT REVISION RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the Maplewood Area Historical Society has applied for a conditional use permit revision to construct a 22-stall reinforced-turf parking lot at the Bruentrup Farm. WHEREAS, Section 44-17, the off-street parking ordinance requires city council approval of turf parking lots. WHEREAS, Section 44-1092(1) of the city code requires a conditional use permit for public building uses. WHEREAS, this permit applies to the property located at 2170 County Road D East. The property identification numbers for this property is: 022922110009 WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit revision is as follows: 1.On ____________, 2013, the planning commission held a public hearing. The city staff published a notice in the paper and sent notices to thesurrounding property owners. The planning commission gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The planning commission also considered the reports and recommendation of city staff. The planning commission recommended that the city council approve this permit. 2.On ____________, 2013, the city council considered reports and recommendations of the city staff and planning commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council _________ the above-described conditional use 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 ofthe 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 anyperson 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. 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. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council also determines that the above- described conditional use permit meets the following criteria: 1.When the need for overflow parking is infrequent or limited to occasional parking events. 2.Where there is already hard-surfaced parking that provides for handicap-accessible parking needs. 3.Where the turf parking lot would meet setback and screening requirements. 4.Where the parking need is seasonal (non winter) so snow plowing is not needed. 5.Where there would be an environmental benefit due to storm water management or meeting shoreland/wetland/flood plain ordinance impact needs. 6.Where the turf-parking plan meetsthe approval of the city engineer from the standpoint of using proven construction materials engineered for durability and aesthetics. 7.Where the turf-parking plan meets the approval of the police and fire chief from the standpoint of meeting public safety requirements. 8.This parking surface alternative shall not apply to single and double dwelling residential properties which are governed under Section 44-17 (j), the residential parking ordinance apply. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1.All of the conditions of the existing conditional use permit approval, as required by the city council on July 27, 2009, shall remain in effect. 2.Minor revisions may be approved by staff. 3.Construction shall begin on the proposed turf parking lot within oneyear or this approval shall end. The city council may extend this approval for one additional year. 4.The city engineer, police chief and fire chiefshall review the plans, as required by the ordinance, before construction on the turf parking lot canbegin. 5.Screening must be provided, as proposed, to buffer the proposed parking lot from the neighbor to the east. This screening shall be completed before the parking lot may be used, unless the applicant provides escrow to guarantee its completion. Escrow shall be, as is typically required, in the amount of 150 percent of the cost of installing the landscaping. The Maplewood City Council _________ this resolution on _______, 2013. A v 17 - - f