Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/26/20052. 3. 4. 5. 6. AGENDA CITY OF MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD Tuesday, April 26, 2005 6:00 P.M. Council Chambers - Maplewood City Hall 1830 County Road B East Call to Order Roll Call Approval of Agenda Approval of Minutes: April 12, 2005 Minutes Unfinished Business: None Scheduled Design Review: a. 3M Building 278 (Leadership Development Institute/Customer Center) - located on vacant 3M property south of Minnehaha Avenue, east of Wells Fargo Bank Visitor Presentations: Board Presentations: a. April 25, 2005, City Council Meeting - Heritage Square Fourth Addition Staff Presentations: a. Sign Code Revisions b. CDRB Representation at the May 9, 2005, City Council Meeting - 3M Building 278 10. Adjourn I1. III. IV. DRAFT MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, APRIL 12, 2005 CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Longrie called the meeting to order at 6:11p.m. ROLLCALL Board member John Hinzman Chairperson Diana Longrie Board member Matt Ledvina Vice Chairperson Linda Olson Board member Ananth Shankar Staff Present: Present Present Absent Absent Present at 6:13 p.m. Shann Finwall, Planner Lisa Kroll, Recording Secretary Andrew Gitzlaff, Planning Intern APPROVAL OF AGENDA Chairperson Longrie moved to approve the agenda. Board member Shankar seconded. The motion passed. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of the CDRB minutes for March 8, 2005. Ayes - Hinzman, Longrie, Shankar Chairperson Longde requested the last paragraph on page 16 read: Chairperson Longrie said she went to the Integra Homes meeting with the neighbors and the developer recommended a visit to the site in White Bear Township to see their development. Chairperson Longrie drove out and looked at the units in White Bear Township. She noticed there were no architectural elements of any kind on the back of the units and only very small windows on the rear elevation. Chairperson Longrie moved approval of the minutes of March 8, 2005, as amended. Board member Shankar seconded. Ayes ---Longrie, Shankar Abstention - Hinzman The motion passed. Community Design Review Board 2 Minutes 4-12-2005 V. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. VI. DESIGN REVIEW None. VII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS No visitors present. VIII. BOARD PRESENTATIONS There was no CDRB representation at the March 14, 2005, City Council meeting. The only CDRB item to discuss was the Overview Town Homes by Masterpiece Homes off McMenemy Street which was approved by the city council. IX. STAFF PRESENTATIONS a. Community Design Review Board Orientation Ms. Finwall introduced and welcomed the newest board member John Hinzman who was appointed by the city council on March 28, 2005. Mr. Hinzman replaces the vacancy left by former board member Judy Driscoll. His term runs now until January 1, 2006. The city council reappointed Board members Matt Ledvina, Linda Olson and Diana Longrie whose terms expire January 1, 2007. When a new board member joins the CDRB, staff likes to review orientation materials. The intent of the orientation is to outline the objectives, review the process, the responsibilities and scope of authority of the Community Design Review Board members. b. Sign Code Revisions Ms. Finwall introduced Andrew Gitzlaff, Planning Intern, who joined the City of Maplewood's Planning department in February 2005. Andrew has been continuing work that was done on the sign code from the former planning intern, Rose Lorsung. Andrew will present the Temporary and Off-Premise Sign Code Revisions. These revisions are part of the staff initiated three-phase plan to review the sign code and staff encourages the board to recommend revisions of the sign code before it goes to the city council. Chairperson Longrie asked what cities were included in the sign code study? Mr. Gitzlaff said the sign code study included the cities of White Bear Lake, Woodbury, Brooklyn Center, Oakdale, Roseville, and Edina. Chairperson Longrie asked which city had the most restrictive sign code? Community Design Review Board 3 Minutes 4-12-2005 Mr. Gitzlaff said White Bear Lake wasn't the most restrictive in its sign code but was the most concise of all the sign codes. Chairperson Longrie asked which city had the least restrictive sign code? Ms. Finwall said Brooklyn Center, being a larger city, was the most restrictive in their sign code compared to the other cities reviewed. Chairperson Longrie asked if the cities that were reviewed were Class A or Class B cities? Board member Shankar asked what class Maplewood was? Chairperson Longrie said Maplewood is a Class B city. Ms. Finwall said staff would check into that, however the six cities that were chosen have similar populations and character as the City of Maplewood. Chairperson Longrie asked how many sign complaints the city receives in a year? Ms. Finwall said the city receives about 10 complaint calls a year but city staff proactively addresses an additional 20 cases a year which are mostly from businesses that are repeat offenders. The largest complaint comes from businesses installing portable temporary signs and keeping the signs up longer than the 30 days allowed or putting a sign up without a sign permit. Temporary Si.qns Board members were concerned that requiring permits for all temporary signs would require too much staff time and paper work which could require an additional person on staff for code enforcement for temporary signs, which didn't seem like a good idea. Temporary Portable Signs Board members agreed temporary portable signs should be required to have a permit to monitor usage. Portable temporary signs include signs which can be installed on a temporary basis and are over 16 square feet including reader board signs, spot lights and large balloons. These signs can become a nuisance and the use should be monitored and enforced. Board members felt temporary portable signs shouldn't be prohibited as was stated in option 2. Special Event Signs Board members agreed it was a good idea not to charge non-profit and civic organizations for special event signs. ! [ ] Community Design Review Board 4 Minutes 4-12-2005 Banners Chairperson Longrie and Board member Hinzman liked option 2 requiring a permit with no permit fee for banners that do not exceed 32 square feet. Board member Shankar recommended combining the banner and the window sign square footage allowance. Having a window sign and banner together would be too much at one time on a fa(;ade. Chairperson Longrie and Board member Hinzman agreed. Window Signs Chairperson Longrie has heard from residents that too much window signage is allowed. Off-Premise Si.qns Include: Billboards Board member Hinzman recommended option 2 prohibiting the erection of new billboards to remain as non-conforming structures. Many communities nationally and in Minnesota are prohibiting billboards. The cities of Brooklyn Park, Burnsville, Eagan, Hopkins, Woodbury, Roseville, St. Paul and Edina allow billboards that already exist to remain but prohibit the erection of new billboards in their sign code. Board member Shankar sees a double standard in option 2 because it allows existing billboards to remain. He prefers option 1 which requires more stringent distance requirements from residential and is comfortable requiring an annual fee. Staff recommends putting a map together showing where the existing billboards are located, then show the possible billboard locations with the recommended distance restrictions for new billboards. Real Estate Signs and Directional Signs Chairperson Longrie said she doesn't care for either option 1 or 2 restricting the use of real estate directional signs to weekends only. She feels realtors use real estate signs as a tool in the community. Realtors don't just sell houses on weekends. Advertising with real estate signs during the week lets customers know there is a house for sale and to keep an eye out for the potential open house. Board member Hinzman and Shankar agreed. Ms. Finwall said a majority of the complaints that staff receives regarding signs are about open house and directional real estate signs in the right of way. These signs can stay up for a long time, two months or more, which in her opinion adds clutter and unsightliness to an intersection and gives an unfair advantage to realtors over other businesses. Realtors are allowed on-site signage in the yard of the property for sale and they advertise their listings in the MLS, and in the newspaper. Community Design Review Board Minutes 4-12-2005 Ms. Finwall said she feels very strongly allowing an unfair advantage to realtors and to clutter the city streets is wrong and is something she would like to see changed in the code. Board member Hinzman said he can understand where staff is coming from. On the other hand he sees the need for mai estate directional signs so people can find homes that are for sale or when there is an open house. Businesses are located in commercial districts where customers expect a business. He suspects the city can remove signs in the right of way that am cluttering the streets. Chairperson Longrie said when there are too many signs at an intersection it's hard to differentiate between signs which aren't good for anyone's business. Maybe them could be a city awareness outreach to real estate companies and to realtors letting them know the sign code and the importance of taking signs down and not leaving signs up for two months. Board member Hinzman said the metal realtor signs are an investment for realtors and they would be upset if their signs were taken down. If they are paper signs then realtors are less likely to care if they are taken down or left up. Directional Signs Board member Shankar asked if it would make sense to specify colors for certain directional signs such as a different color sign for hospitals, schools, etc. Ms. Finwall said that was a good idea. Board members thanked staff for the work completed on the sign code revisions so far. CDRB representation at the April 25, 2005, City Council meeting to discuss Heritage Square 4th Addition, Town & Country Homes, Highway 61 Board member Shankar volunteered to represent the CDRB at the April 25, 2005, city council meeting. X. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 7:40 p.m. TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: DATE: MEMORANDUM Richard Fursman, City Manager Shann Finwall, AICP, Planner Design Review for 3M Building No. 278 - Leadership Development Institute/Customer Center 3M Campus - south of Minnehaha Ave., east of Wells Fargo April 20, 2005 INTRODUCTION Project Description 3M proposes to construct an 83,000 square foot building to house a new leadership development institute (LDI) and a customer center. The building will be constructed on vacant 3M Campus property located south of Minnehaha Avenue, just east of Wells Fargo Bank. The leadership development institute will be relocated to the new building from its existing site at 600 Carlton Street which is south and east of this property. The LDI is a conference center designed to serve 3M employees and other executives. The conference center will operate primarily dudng business hours with an occasional evening program. The customer center will consist of exhibition space with supporting displays, conference rooms, and dining facilities to serve as a marketing function for current and future 3M customers. The customer center wilt serve a limited population and operate primarily during business hours and occasional evenings. Requests In order to construct the new building, 3M is requesting the following city approvals: A conditional use permit (CUP) to construct a building closer than 350 feet to a residential zoning district. City code requires all extedor uses within the M-1 zoning district, except parking, to maintain a distance of 350 feet to a residential zoning district. 3M proposes to construct their building within 325 feet of the residential zoning distdct located to the north of the site. 2. The vacation of two unused right-of-ways. 3. The vacation of an unused utility easement. A parking reduction authorization. City code requires 416 parking stalls for this development. 3M proposes to construct 286 parking stalls and supply 147 proof- of-parking stalls for future development if needed. 5. Design review. The planning commission reviewed and recommended approval of the CUP and the street and utility easement vacation requests at their April 18, 2005, meeting. The community design review board (CDRB) should review and make a recommendation on the parking reduction authorization and design review at the April 26, 2005, meeting. The city council's final review of the whole proposal is currently scheduled for May g, 2005. DISCUSSION Parking Reduction City code requires one space per 200 square feet of office space. The LDI building requires 433 parking spaces. 3M's parking reduction authorization statement (Attachment 5) states that the city code parking space requirement exceeds the number of vehicles that can be reasonably expected. 3M feels that 286 cars would be the maximum number anticipated in any given time. They also state that many of the visitors to the site will first be visiting the main campus, just to the south, and will be shuttled to the site by 3M's internal shuttle system. City staff feels that 3M has a good handle on the number of parking spaces needed for this development, particularly since 3M has been offering the LDI service at the 600 Carlton building for quite some time. However, in the event of future parking demands, 3M is also showing 147 proof-of-parking spaces on the project plans. The city should support parking reduction authorizations when warranted to allow for more green space on a site and lessen storm water runoff. This is particularly important when the site is adjacent a wetland, such as this. Traffic The issue of traffic was discussed by the planning commission during the April 18, 2005, planning commission meeting but warrants mention here. 3M states that traffic on the site will be reduced by the reduced number of parking spaces. In addition, the facility will serve a limited population and operate pdmadly during business hours with occasional evening activities. In order to ensure the use would not create traffic congestion, Erin Laberee, Maplewood Civil Engineer, states in her engineering memorandum (Attachment 12) that 3M should conduct a traffic study to analyze trip generation for the proposed and future development on the site. In addition, 3M should install two right-turn lanes into the two ddveway entrances. The planning commission included both of these recommendations as conditions of 3M's CUP approval. Design Review Site Plan The parking lot will be constructed 40 feet to the Minnehaha Avenue right-of-way (15 feet is required by code). This is 60 feet from the actual paved portion of the road and approximately 106 feet from the closest residential structure across the street. To help alleviate negative impacts caused by vehicle headlights onto the residential properties, 3M proposes to construct a 4-foot-high berm in front of the parking lot, with landscaping on top. The parking spaces will be designed to face east/west, instead of north/south 2 which could cause headlight glare onto the residential properties across the street. And finally, the easterly driveway will line up with the new Crestview Court cul-de-sac and the westerly driveway will line up between two residential properties to ensure vehicle headlights do not glare into the homes. The parking lot and building will be constructed 200 feet from the westedy property line, adjacent the Wells Fargo Bank property. City staff inquired about the possibility of 3M shifting the building to the west toward Wells Fargo, which would allow 3M to utilize one existing ddveway currently shared with Wells Fargo and reduce the impacts to the small wetland which needs mitigating. 3M states they have future development plans for this area to include a 20-unit residential facility to house out-of-town guests attending the LDI. Since Minnehaha Avenue is a county read, the county public works department has indicated that any future development on this site must be accessed through the shared ddveway with Wells Fargo or one of the two proposed driveways with this development. There is a loading dock proposed on the west side of the building which will be used for trash and recycling pick up and deliveries with box-style vans (i.e., UPS truck). Only on rere occasions will this use require large loading and unloading services and therefore should not pose a nuisance to the homes to the north, all of which will be located over 383 feet from the dock itself. One of the concerns expressed by neighbors dudng the planning commission was the safety of pedestrians. Dudng the meeting the planning commission added a condition of CUP approval to include the installation of a sidewalk or trail along Minnehaha Avenue. Wetland/Shomland Dist~fct The large wetland to the south of the building site is classified as a Class III wetland in the city's wetland ordinance. The required wetland buffers are a 50-foot average, and a 25-foot minimum. The wetland is also classified as a Class I water in the city's shoreland ordinance. The required setback from the ordinary high water mark for this class of water is 50 feet. The maximum amount of impervious surface allowed by code is 50 percent. 3M's LDI building is proposed with an average 100-foot setback, with only one area of the building coming within 50 feet of the wetland and/or the ordinary high water mark. The total disturbed area for this development is 11.8 acres. Of that 3M proposes 5.2 acres (44.1 percent) of impervious surface including parking lot and building. The development will also require the filling of a small wetland which is located in the center of the proposed parking lot. 3M proposes to mitigate this wetland at a 2:1 ratio on site. RamseyM/ashington Metro Watershed Distdct will review 3M's wetland mitigation plan in May or June, after they can vedfy the wetland delineation. Tina Carstens, Permit Program Coordinator with the RamseyNVashington Metro Watershed District, states that the watershed distdct staff is comfortable with 3M's wetland impact statements and delineation detailing. A condition of city approval must also include watershed distdct approval for the development. 3 Tree Preservation/Landscaping The city's tree preservation ordinance requires that a commercial development replace all large trees removed from the site at a ratio of one to one, but in no case does a developer have to replace more than ten trees per acre. A large tree is defined as an 8- inch caliper tree, measured at a 4-foot trunk height, excluding box elders, poplars, and other nondesirables as determined by the city. 3M conducted a tree survey of the 11.4- acre site and found 94 large trees (17 ash and 77 oak). With the development 3M is proposing to remove 36 large oak trees. City code would require 3M to replace all 36 trees; 3M's landscape plan proposes 92 trees on the site which exceeds this requirement. However, 3M should take measures to ensure the protection of all large trees on the site where possible. In addition to the 92 trees, the proposed landscape plan includes 202 shrubs, 1,275 perennials, and native grasses and wildflower plantings. The plant materials proposed will be attractive; however, 3M should address two issues in a revised plan. First, additional landscaping (both trees and shrubs) should be planted on the berm in front of the perking lot to ensure the perking lot is screened from view of the residential properties across the street. Second, a row of evergreen trees should be planted along the west side of the loading dock driveway to ensure the dock is screened from view of the residential properties across the street. Building Elevations The north fagade of the building, facing Minnehaha Avenue, is one story in height. This is the public side of the structure and serves as the main entrance. The site will be graded to expose a two-story fac~ade on the south fac~ade of the building, facing the wetland. The exterior materials proposed for all elevations include brick, prefinished metal panels, and windows. 3M and their architects are still working out the final design work including the tint of the glass, color of the brick and metal and will present those to the CDRB during the meeting. City staff finds the overall building elevations to be attractive. Lighting 3M proposes 22 freestanding lights within the parking lot. These downcast lights will be mounted on 24.5-foot-high poles. City code allows for a maximum light illumination at all property lines of .4 foot candles. The lighting plan submitted by 3M reflects the light illumination from the parking lot lights exceeding this requirement, with a light illumination of zero at the front property line. OTHER COMMENTS Police Depertment: Lieutenant Dave Kvan states that there are no public safety concerns with the proposed development. Fire Depertment: Butch Gervais, Fire Marshal, had the following comments in regard to the development: 1) fire protection system shall be installed according to state and local codes (sprinkler system); 2) fire alarm system shall be installed per state and local codes; 3) emergency access road of 20 feet wide shall be provided; 4) if there are any storage areas with hazardous materials they must be properly marked. 4 Building Department: Dave Fisher, Building Official, had the following comments in regard to the development: 1) the building setbacks must comply with the 2000 IBC for exterior wall protection; 2) a complete building code analysis will be required when plans are submitted for permits; 3) provide fire department access; 4) the buildings are required to be fire spdnklered; 5) retaining walls over four feet in height require engineering and a building permit; 6) a pre-construction meeting with the building department is recommended. Engineering: The city's engineering department and the Ramsey County Engineering Department reviewed 3M's proposal for grading/drainage and traffic issues. Erin Laberee, Civil Engineer with the City of Maplewood, outlines the two engineering department's comments in the attached memorandum dated April 12, 2005 (Attachment 12). RECOMMENDATIONS Approve the parking reduction authorization for the proposed 3M Leadership Development Institute/Customer Center building located on 3M Campus property just south of Minnehaha Avenue, east of Wells Fargo Bank (670 McKnight Road). This reduction will allow the property owner to have 286 parking spaces (130 fewer than the city code requires) for the following reasons: The parking requirements for office buildings such as this are generally excessive. Fewer parking spaces would presarve green space and lessen storm runoff. The applicant has reserved space to add 147 parldng spaces should the need arise. Approve the plans date-stamped March 18, 2005, for the 3M Leadership Development Institute/Customer Center building located on 3M Campus property just south of Minnehaha Avenue, east of Wells Fargo Bank (670 McKnight Road). Approval is subject to the following conditions: Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. Pdor to issuance of a grading or building permit, the applicant must submit to staff for approval the following items: 1) Revised engineering and grading plans. These plans shall comply with all requirements as specified in the city engineering report dated April 12, 2005, which requires, among other items, a traffic study to analyze trip generation for future and proposed development and the installation of two right-turn lanes. In addition, the applicant shall include a 6-foot-wide concrete sidewalk or 8-foot-wide bituminous trail along Minnehaha Avenue as determined by the engineering department. The grading plan 5 must also reflect measures taken to ensure the protection of all large trees on the site where possible. 2) Revised site plan. The plan should include a 6-foot-wide concrete sidewalk or 8-foot-wide bituminous trail along Minnehaha Avenue as determined by the engineering department. 3) Revised landscape plan. The plan should include additional plantings (to include evergreen trees at least 6 feet in height, deciduous trees at least 2 % caliper inches in size, and shrubs) on top of the berm in front of the parking lot to ensure the parking lot is screened from view of the residential properties across the street. The plan should also include a row of evergreen trees should be planted along the west side of the loading dock driveway to ensure the dock is screened from view of the residential properties across the street. Obtain a permit from Ramsey County for construction on county right-of- way for the ddveway access, utility work, and sidewalk. Watershed distdct approval. To ensure the building does not straddle a property line, the applicant must submit proof that the two lots are combined for tax and identification purposes, or replatted as necessary. A cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit for all required extedor improvements. The amount shall be 150 percent of the cost of the work. The applicant shall complete the following before occupying the building: 1) Replace any property irons removed because of this construction. 2) Provide continuous concrete curb and gutter around the parking lot and ddveweys. 3) Install all required landscaping and an in-ground lawn irrigation system for all landscaped areas. 4) Install all required outdoor lighting. 5) Install the required sidewalk or trail along Minnehaha Avenue. If any required work is not done, the city may allow temporary occupancy if: 1) The city determines that the work is not essential to the public health, safety or welfare. 2) The above-required letter of credit or cash escrow is held by the City of Maplewood for all required extedor improvements. The 6 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 spdng or summer. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. CITIZEN COMMENTS Staff surveyed the 62 surrounding property owners within 500 feet of this site for their comments. Of the 62 surveys sent, one property owner responded by mail and three property owners responded by telephone with the following comments: 1. Roger Vanderhoff, 2300 Stillwater Road (responded by mail): "Let them build." Peggy Auchter, 2375 Minnehaha Avenue (responded by telephone): Ms. Auchter expressed concern about the location of the parking lot across the street from her home, the added traffic onto Minnehaha Avenue, and the need for 3M to address drainage issues associated with an existing culvert located in her front yard, running under Minnehaha Avenue to the development site. Robert Rubbelke, 2369 Minnehaha Avenue (responded by telephone): Mr, Rubbelke expressed concern about added traffic onto Minnehaha Avenue and the need for 3M to address drainage issues associated with an existing culvert located in his front yard. Chad Robinson, 2315 Minnehaha Avenue (responded by telephone): Mr. Robinson indicated that he was under the impression that 3M was able to purchase the old drive-in movie theater site on the condition that they never develop the land, and was therefore surprised at the proposal. Mr. Robinson also expressed concerns over the resurfacing of Minnehaha Avenue, which took place a few years ago, the need for additional landscaping/screening on the west side of the loading dock, and the added traffic. SITE DESCRIPTION Site size: 11.8 Acres Existing Use: Vacant Land SURROUNDING LAND USES North: South: East: West: PLANNING Single Family Homes 3M Pond and 3M Campus REFERENCE Vacant 3M Campus Property and Single Family Homes Beyond Wells Fargo Bank Land Use Plan Designation: Light Manufacturing (M-l) Light Manufacturing (M-l) Zoning: 8 Design Review Section 2-290 of the city code requires that the community design review board make the following findings to approve plans: That the design and location of the proposed development and its relationship to neighboring, existing or proposed developments, and traffic is such that it will not impair the desirability of investment or occupation in the neighborhood; that it will not unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring, existing or proposed developments; and that it will not create traffic hazards or congestion. That the design and location of the proposed development is in keeping with the character of the surrounding neighborhood and is not detrimental to the harmonious, orderly and attractive development contemplated by this article and the city's comprehensive municipal plan. That the design and location of the proposed development would provide a desirable environment for its occupants, as well as for its neighbors, and that it is aesthetically of good composition, materials, textures and colors. Application Date We received the complete application and plans for this proposal on Mamh 18, 2005. 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 May 17, 2005, unless the applicant agrees to a time extension. P:\com-dev\sec36~3m\building 278',building 278 426-05 CDRB memo Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Zoning Map 3. Conditional Use Permit Statement 4. Design Submittal Narrative 5. Parking Reduction Authorization 6. Site Plan 7. Grading Plan 8. Landscape Plan 9. Elevations 10. Floor Plan - First Floor 11. Floor Plan - Second Floor 12. Engineering Plan Review 9 Attachment 1 3M Leadership Development and Customer Center Union Cemetery Bank 3M Pond 3M Campus Conway ~venue. OB ~ ,o~.,r~s N Location Map Attachment 2 Farm Union Cemetery Light Heavy Manufactunng N Zoning Map BWBR ARCHI~ Attachment 3 Leadership Development Institute/ Customer Center 3M Building 278 Commission No. 2004.160.00 February 25, 2005 Conditional Use Permit Statement A. Screen Wall and Canopy City of Maplewood Zoning Ordinance section 44-637 requires that the proposed structure be located no closer than 350'-0" from the adjacent residential zoning district located on the north side of Minnehaha Avenue. Strict enforcement of this provision will cause undue hardship due to the location of an existing sanitary sewer pipeline and associated easement on the south side of the structure. As currently designed, the proposed mechanical equipment screen wall and automobile drop-off canopy located on the north facade will infringe upon the requized setback by approximately ten feet. Allowing the setback requirement relative to these elements to be waived will not v/olate the spirit and intent of the zoning ordinance setback requirements because the screen wall in question is provided to minimize the visual and acoustic impact of mechanical and electrical equipment and the canopy does not enclose habitable space. Conditional Use Permit Statement BWBR Attachment 4 Leadership Development Institute/ Custosxxer Center 3M Building 278 Commission No. 2004.160.00 February 25, 2005 Design Submittal Narrative The 3M LDI/CC facility is an 83,000 sf building housing two independent functions. The Leadership Development Institute is a conference center located on two stories on the east side of the building. The LDI houses conference rooms of several different sizes and two larger assembly hails, seating. Also included is a cafeteria and commercial kitchen seating approximately 150. This fadxlity wiI1 serve 3M employees primarily during business hours with an occasional evening program. The Customer Center consists of an exhibition space with supporting display, conference, and dining facilities. This one story portion of the building is located on the west side of the building and serves a marketing function for current and future 3M customers supported by a limited staffof permanent 3M employees. This facility will serve a limited population and operate primarily during business hours with occasional evening activities. The north facade of the building, facing Minnehaha Avenue, is one story in height. This is the public side of the structure and serves as the main entrance. The service dock and exhibition hall service entry are located near the northwest comer of the building. The exterior materials of this facade are brick and metal panel, with glass fenestration. The site is graded to expose a two story facade on the south facade of the building, facing "3M pond." This side of the building is finished with brick and metal panel and features large areas of glass fenestration allowing views of the pond and outdoor patio spaces. The building is designed to eliminate as much exterior mechanical equipment as possible. Mechanical system chillers and the building transformer and emergency generator are located on the north side of the building adjacent to the delivery dock and are screened by a wall. Any rooftop mechanical equipment */ill be screened. Design Submittal Narrative BWBR ARCHI~S Attachment 5 Leadership Development Institute/ Customer Center 3M Building 278 Commission No. 2004.160.00 February 25, 2005 Parking Reduction Authorization A. Parking Count City of Maplewood Zoning Ordinance section 44-17 requires that one parking space be provided for every 200 square feet of an office building. Strict enforcement of this provision would require that approximately 433 parking spaces be provided. This quantity exceeds the number of vehicles that can be reasonably expected; therefore, it is proposed that parking be provided for 286 cars, which is the maximum number of veh/cles anticipated. The site design does allow for additional parking spaces to meet the quantity mandated if necessary. A reduction to the quantity requirement relative to the parking count -0/ill not violate the spirit and intent of the zoning ordinance because providing parking based upon actual need w/Il minimize the impact of the parking upon site and increase the open area and green space. Parking Reduction Authorization Attachment 6 Site Plan ° I o Attachment 7 Grading Plan Attachment 8 Attachment 9 Elevations Attachment 10 Floor Plan - First Floor Attachment 11 I I o I Floor Plan - Second Floor Attachment 12 En~ineerin~ Plan Review PROJ[CT: 3M Leadership Development Institute PROJECT NO: 05-12 REVIEWED BY: EHn Laberee, Maplewood Engineering Department DATE: April 12, 2005 3M is proposing to develop some vacam property within their campus. There are several wetlands on the 3M property. The developer is proposing to fill in one of the wetlands and provide mitigation at the south end of the site. A series of rainwater gardens and ponds are proposed to treat runoff from the site. The developer and the project engineer shall address the following issues. Gradin~ & Erosion Control 1. The project plans shall show inlet protection devices at all inlets. 2. The city, Ramsey Washington Metro Watershed District, and MPCA (new NPDES Construction Permit) all require grading permits. 3. The bottom comours of the rainwater gardens shall be shown on the plans. Drainage The developer and engineer have proposed several ponds and rainwater gardens to treat runoff from the site. Depressed parking lot medians have been designed as rainwater gardens to treat runoff from the parking lot. A four cell pond has been designed on the west side &the site for additional treatment and storage. These are good best managemem practices designed to capture sedimem and treat pollutants from the parking lot. The applicant shall address the following drainage issues. The applicant is proposing several ponds and rainwater gardens to treat runoff from the sight. For any ponding area to function as a rainwater garden the normal water level shall be no deeper than 2 feet. Rainwater garden 4 shall include a rock sump if it is intended to function as a rainwater garden. Any ponding area intended to function as a pond must meet NURP standards and include a 10 foot safety bench. The project plans shall show a detail of how the contractor is to construct the rainwater gardens. Maplewood's standard plate No. 115 is an example of how rainwater gardens may be constructed. The project engineer shall provide a detail and description in the plan of how the contractor will prepare the rock sumps. Additional information on rainwater garden design is available on the city's website at www.ci.maplewood.mn.us. The drainage calculations do not indicate that runoff from the site is restricted to predevelopmem conditions. The engineer shall revise the proposed drainage system to restrict flow from the site to predevelopment rate and volume conditions. Engineering Plan Review There are several inconsistencies between the HydroCAD model and the storm sewer on the plans. The engineer shall submit revised drainage calculations that reflect the proposed storm sewer. The necessary revisions are listed below: a. The outlets from rainwater gardens 3, 4 and 5 and pond 3 need to be revised. b. The outlet from rainwater garden 1 shall be directed into rainwater garden 5, not 2 as is currently shown on the Hydro CAD model. Any changes made to the HWL shall be reflected on the plans. c. All drainage areas to the proposed ponds shall be accounted for in the Hydro CAD model. Part of subcatchment 3 drains to rainwater garden 4. A grass area south of the parking lot and building drains to rainwater garden 4 also. The drainage area west of ponds 1, 2, 4, and 5 shall be accounted for in the drainage calculations. 5. The applicant shall submit the soils report for the proposed development. 6. Catch basin 7 shall include a 2' sump to collect sediment from the parking lot. The developer shall enter into a maintenance agreement with the city for the annual maintenance and cleaning of the sump structure and rainwater gardens. The maintenance agreement will also require the developer to establish and maintain the native and wetland seed areas for three years afler seeding has occurred. Permanent soil stabilization blanket (Enkamat) shall be installed at ail areas where concentrated flow will occur. The areas downstream of the concrete flumes, the area just south of the flat curb (east of the building) and the outlet to pond 3 and rainwater garden 4 shall be protected with stabilization blanket. 9. The existing culverts under Minnehaha shall be connected to the proposed storm sewer at a manhole connection. 10. The applicant is proposing a rainwater garden over the existing sanitary sewer. The engineer shall revise the rainwater garden such that the normal water level does not encroach into the sanitary sewer easement. 11. The proposed pond outlet design is prone to clogging. It may be difficult to maintain the outlet structure as it is currently designed. It is recommended that the outlet structure be designed to allow for maintenance activities and reduce the potential for clogs. 12. Several areas of flat curb located at the south end of the parking lot will allow runoffto sheet offthe parking lot and onto the sidewalk and an outdoor area. It is recommended to redirect runoffto prevent it from sheet draining across the sidewalk and outdoor area. Utilities The applicant shall vacate the portion of the existing utility easement that does not include the existing sanitary sewer. The utility easement shall be rededicated to follow the current sanitary sewer alignment. 2. The proposed 4" sanitary service connections seem undersized. The applicant shall verify that 4" services are adequate to serve the facility. Traffic 1. Ramsey County has indicated to the city the need for additional turn lanes on Minnehaha Avenue. The developer shall mitigate additional traffic on Minnehaha Avenue with the addition of 2 right mm lanes into the proposed development. The city and Ramsey County realize the need to restrict access connections onto Minnehaha Avenue. No additional access connections onto Minnehaha Avenue will be allowed for the entire site. The developer must accommodate any future developmem on site through the two proposed access connections or the existing Wells Fargo driveway. Several residents have expressed their concern that the proposed 3M development will create additional congestion on an already busy Minnehaha Avenue. The developer shall conduct a traffic study to analyze trip generation for future and proposed development, peak traffic hours, and the affect of additional right turn lanes on Minnehaha Ave. Misc. The applicant shall submit plans to Ramsey County and obtain a right of way permit for the proposed water main connection and access connection to Minnehaha Ave. MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: DATE: Community Design Review Board Andrew Gitzlaff, Planning Intern Residential and Commercial Districts Sign Code Revisions City of Maplewood April 21, 2005 INTRODUCTION Proposal Sign codes are in existence to help protect the public health, safety and welfare, and to give guidelines to businesses for visibility and promotion. The City of Maplewood's sign code has only undergone minor changes in wording and consistency since the city adopted it in 1977. Upon recommendation by the community design review board (CDRB), staff initiated a three- phase plan to review the sign code and make recommendations to the city council on revisions to the code. Such changes should bring the code up-to-date and more in line with the vision for the City of Maplewood. During phase 1, the sign code was researched and reviewed in comparison to other cities. Phase 2 involved receiving input from the many businesses and residents that will be affected by the city's potential sign code revision. Staff is currently working on phase 3, which entails gathering and examining all input, and drafting sign code revisions. Staff's goal is to have a final revised sign code submitted to the city council for their acceptance by fall 2005. To accomplish this, staff proposes to bring suggested sign code revisions to the CDRB through a series of meetings to receive comments, guidance, and eventual recommendation to the city council. This memorandum will serve as an overview of the work that has been complete, provide suggestions for areas of the sign code that staff believes need revising, and open the code revision process to further input from the CDRB. Residential and LBC, CO, and NC commercial districts sign code revisions The first meeting with the CDRB discussed the sections of the code pertaining to the regulation of temporary signs and off-premise signs. Staff greatly appreciates the suggestions and feedback received from the CDRB. The next meeting will discuss sign regulation in residential and commercial districts. The sections of interest are Sec 44-911 to Sec 44-931. The sign code is included as attachment (AH. 1) with the relevant sections highlighted. Staff is also including a sign permit chart (AH. 2) specifying the types of signs allowed and prohibited in each district and the necessary permits or approval needed BACKGROUND February 14, 2003: The CDRB recognized in their annual report (2002) the need to review and make recommendations on potential modifications and updates to the city's sign ordinance. February 2, 2004: The CDRB recognized in their annual report (2003) that the sign code is outdated and allows for excessive signage within the commercial and industrial zoning districts. The CDRB also recognized the time and effort involved in the boards work on the sign code design criteria for the mixed-use zoning district. June 2004: The city began phase I of the sign code update. This involved researching and comparing the sign code of the following cities: Woodbury, Oakdale, Roseville, White Bear Lake, Brooklyn Center, and Edina. In each analysis, the sign codes were compared based on style and format of written code, quantitative data associated with written code, definitions of sign types, and associated terminology and restrictions based on zoning districts. The comparison illustrates that, on average, Maplewood has the fewest number of prohibited types of signs, allows above average sign sizes, and allows the greatest number of temporary signs without permits. July 17, 2004: Staff presented the detailed summary report highlighting the City of Maplewood's sign code and a comparative analysis of six other cities to the CDRB. The purpose of the meeting was to familiarize the board with Maplewood's current sign code and the different approaches, through code writing and enforcement, that cities utilize pertaining to sign approval and enforcement. August 2004: The city began phase 2 of the sign code update. This phase involved the local business associations, the chamber of commerce, and residents and business owners of the general public through surveys, newsletters, and open forum meetings. September 2004: Staff created the first online opinion survey published on the City of Maplewood's website. Educational materials on the website informed the survey takers of the types and sizes of signs allowed by the code as well as information on the current sign code revision process. The survey intended to gauge the opinions of interested residents and business owners within the city in order to create awareness and validate the cooperative nature of the project. To market the survey, an advertisement ran for two months in the Maplewood City News. In addition, staff sent the survey to a randomly selected group of 200 business owners in Maplewood. September 21, 2004: Staff attended a luncheon with the White Bear Avenue Business Association presenting information and surveys to business owners regarding revising the sign code. October 3, 2004: The city received 50 survey responses from the online survey and mailings. The responses were coded and input into a statistical database for comparison and interpretation. The general opinion of the residents and business-related individuals that took the survey is in favor of sign code writing, enforcement, and the proposal to revise the sign code. In general, the main types of signs the respondents expressed concern over were billboards and temporary signs. March 2005: Staff began phase 3 of the sign code update. This includes gathering all input and drafting sign code revisions. Staff sent a memorandum to the CDRB serving as an update to the work that has been completed up to date and offering a proposed structure and timeline for the completion of the sign code revisions. 2 1'l I April 12, 2005: Staff presented the suggested revisions to the sections of the sign code dealing with temporary and off-premise signs to the CDRB. The purpose of the meeting was to familiarize the board with areas of the sign code that staff believes need revising and to receive comments and guidance from the CDRB. DISCUSSION Signs in residential districts The current code specifies sign restrictions based on the unique needs and issues in each zoning district. The residential section of the sign code applies to signs in the F (farm residence district), R-1 (single dwelling residence district), R-lS (small lot single dwelling residence district), R-E (residential estate district), R-2 (double dwelling residence district), and R-3 (multiple dwelling residence district). Sign ordinances in the residential districts are the most restrictive because of the need to balance the right to display signage and the rights of residents to protect the aesthetic and economic value of their neighborhoods. Staff feels the residential section to the sign code needs revising and updating. Under the current code, one fascia sign of no more than two square feet giving the name and occupation of the occupant of a building carrying on a permitted home occupation is allowable by permit. Wall signs up to 24 square feet and freestanding signs up to 32 square feet are allowable by permit for apartments or town home complexes, churches, schools, libraries, community centers, or other institutions. The code permits one fascia and one freestanding sign for each street frontage. The maximum allowable height for a freestanding sign is eight feet and there are no construction or design standards. All other types of signs that are not specified in the residential section or are not permitted as special exemptions of the code are prohibited in residential districts. 1. Suggested design standards changes Freestanding signs in the district could be required to be constructed of materials and design features similar to those of the front fac..ade of the building. Under the current code, signs must only comply with city building codes and the state electrical code before approval. Material and design standards would help insure the construction of quality signs and promote more unified signage. 2. Suggested size changes Reduce the maximum allowable height of freestanding signs from 8 feet to 6 feet in all residential districts. The signs do not need to be very large because they are not intended to be visible from a far distance. 3. Suggested sign content changes Under the current code, signs expressing opinions or points of view that do not advertise any product, service, or display a commercial message are not regulated. Citizens have a right to display these signs under the first amendment to the constitution. However, staff feels there should be some limits to the number of these signs the can be displayed, the size of the sign, or the amount of time the sign can be 3 displayed. For example, the City of Woodbury allows only one opinion sign per street frontage per parcel that does not six square feet and four feet in height. In the past, staff has received complaints from residents about signs displaying controversial messages. Limiting the dimensions of these signs would allow the city some control over the signs while still letting community members express there opinions and points of view through signage. 4. Suggested temporary sign changes Reduce the maximum allowable square footage for all types of temporary signage to 32 square feet in residential districts. Limiting the size of temporary signage would prevent more intrusive and undesirable types of signage from being erected in residential neighborhoods. Under the proposed change, small portable reader board signs and banners would still be allowed but the oversized neon reader boards and large inflatable signs would not. 5. Suggested permitted sign changes Permit neighborhood signs or bulletin boards in residential districts where the public can obtain general information. Staff feels that these types of signs provide a public service by promoting awareness and involvement in neighborhood-based activities. The signs could be required to meet uniform design and placement standards and could require city council approval. Signs in LBC, CO, and NC commercial districts Under the current code, signs in the LBC (light business commercial district), CO (commercial office district), and NC (neighborhood commercial district) must meet separate regulations from other commercial districts. The sign code is more restrictive towards these districts for the following reasons: Structures in the NC district serve the neighborhood in which they are located so the intended use of the buildings and signage needs to be at a scale compatible with the adjacent residential land uses. The intended uses in the CO and LBC districts are primarily for professional, administrative, financial, and medical offices. Generally, the amount of signage needed for advertisement and identification is much less compared to that of a shopping center or restaurant. Staff feels the section of the sign code referring to LBC, CO, and NO districts needs revising and updating to reflect the unique needs and issues in these districts. In the LBC, CO, and NC districts, each occupant of a building is allowed two signs per each street upon which the building has frontage. Wall signs must not exceed 20% of the business's surface area to which the sign is attached. There is, however, no maximum allowable size for wall signs. In addition, the total area of a freestanding sign must not exceed 80 square feet or 25 feet to the top of the sign. All other types of signs, unless permitted as special exemptions in the code, are prohibited in the LBC, CO, and NC districts. 1. Suggested height changes · Reduce the maximum height from 25 feet to six feet for all freestanding signs in the LBC, CO, and NC districts. The six-foot height restriction would prevent the 4 construction of disproportionately large pylon signs. A pylon sign is classified as having a sign face elevated above ground level by a pole with the area below the sign face open. Pylon signs often overshadow the streetscape adding to visual blight. In addition, tall pylon signs are only visible from a distance and may not be noticeable to pedestrians. Businesses in these districts do not need to use large pylon signs because the surrounding uses are mainly residential. The six-foot height limit would promote the construction of monument type freestanding signs, which are more aesthetically pleasing. 2. Suggested size changes Reduce the maximum allowable square footage of freestanding signs in the LBC, CO, and NO districts to 64 square feet. Freestanding pylon signs that are $0 square feet dwarf over the single and double story structures that are common in these districts and monument signs of that size can interfere with the sight lines of motorists and passersby's. 3. Suggested temporary sign changes Reduce the maximum allowable square footage for temporary portable signs to 32 square feet in the LBC, CO, and NO districts in order to restrict oversized neon reader boards. RECCOMENDATION The proposed revisions to the section of the code pertaining to residential and commercial districts are only suggestions at this stage. Staff recommends that the CDRB offer comments and guidance on the suggested revisions to the sign code found in this memo. City staff looks forward to meeting with the CDRB to continue our work on the sign code revisions at our next regularly scheduled CDRB meeting. P:\com_dvpt\ord\4-26-2005 CDRB Sign Code Revisions Document Attachments: 1. City of Maplewood Sign Code 2. Sign Permit Chart Attachment 1 Attachment 2 ]' i T