Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/14/2005 AGENDA CITY OF MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD Tuesday, June 14, 2005 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: May 24, 2005 Minutes 5. Unfinished Business: None Scheduled . Design Review: a. Maplewood Marketplace - Northwest Corner of County Road D and Highway 61 b. Pondview Townhomes - Northwest Corner of Larpenteur Ave. and Adolphus St. 7. Visitor Presentations: 8. Board Presentations: a. June 13, 2005, City Council Meeting 9. Staff Presentations: a. bo co Annual Tour Update Reschedule September 13 and November 8, 2005, CDRB meetings due to elections. Proposed dates - September 14 and November 9, 2005. CDRB Representation at June 27, 2005, City Council Meeting 10. Adjourn DRAFT MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, MAY 24, 2005 I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Longrie called the meeting to order at 6:03 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Board member John Hinzman Board member Matt Ledvina Chairperson Diana Longrie Vice chairperson Linda Olson Board member Ananth Shankar Absent Present Present Present Present Staff Present: Shann Finwall, Planner Lisa Kroll, Recording Secretary Andrew Gitzlaff, Planning Intern III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Board member Ledvina requested an addition to the agenda to discuss CDRB Rules of Procedure. Board member Ledvina moved to approve the agenda as amended. Chairperson Longrie seconded. Ayes- Ledvina, Longrie, Olson, Shankar The motion passed. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of the CDRB minutes for April 26, 2005. Chairperson Longrie moved approval of the minutes of April 26, 2005. Board member Ledvina seconded. Ayes---Ledvina, Longrie, Olson, Shankar The motion passed. V. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. Community Design Review Board Minutes 5-24-2005 VI. DESIGN REVIEW a. Lexus Auto Service Center, Northwest Corner of County Road D and Highway 61 Ms. Finwall said the Ryan Companies, on behalf of Bloomer Properties, is proposing to develop the northerly commercial lot of the Trout Land Development south of Sparkle Auto with an auto-service center for Lexus of Maplewood. In the staff report it states areas in the building design that should be improved. At the May 16, 2005, planning commission meeting, Mr. Lee Coppy, of Ryan Companies, presented revised building elevations for the proposed building. The primary changes are that windows and a door were added to the west elevation. Additional EIFS is shown on the north, south and east elevations as well as the extension of the first-story roof fascia on the north and south sides. The original elevations and revisions have been included in the staff report for comparison. Staff finds the new changes are certainly improvements. Staff is still of the opinion, however, that more should be done to enhance the building, particularly on the westerly elevation for compatibility with the future townhomes located across the new County Road D. Therefore, staff still recommends additional architectural detailing and non-block materials to break up the rather large facades of concrete block. This building is in a highly visible location and staff finds that attractive design and materials are imperative. For these reasons staff recommends that the applicant submit further revisions for approval by the community design review board. Board member Olson asked which landscaping plan the board should review. Ms. Finwall said the board should review the landscaping plan in the 8¼ X 11 plans date- stamped April 11,2005. Chairperson Longrie asked the applicant to address the board. Brian Teeters, Ryan Companies, 50 South Tenth St., Suite 300, Minneapolis, addressed the board. Mr. Teeters gave revised building elevations to city staff and to each of the board members during the May 24, 2005, CDRB meeting. He displayed a color and materials sample board to refer to. Board member Olson asked if the lower level windows were decorative or functional? Mr. Teeters said the windows would be glass block and would allow natural light in but would not be functional windows. Board member Shankar asked if there were two colors of EIFS material? Community Design Review Board Minutes 5-24-2005 Mr. Teeters said there is one color of EIFS, unfortunately the colored maps don't represent the coloring correctly and he apologized for that. The EIFS material is the same color as the existing EIFS product on the Lexus of Maplewood building. Board member Ledvina said his concern is because of the grading the roof of the building will be visible. He is concerned about the visibility of the rooftop units from the street. Mr. Teeters said they are going to try to minimize the equipment on the rooftop and screen it with the existing parapet and would be working with city staff to make sure that is done properly. Board member Ledvina said he is also concerned about stacks and vents being visible on the rooftop as well. Mr. Teeters said they would try to screen anything visible on the rooftop as much as possible. Board member Ledvina asked if it would be possible to manifold those together into one? Mr. Teeters said depending on the location it may be possible but there is no guarantee. Board member Ledvina said the ABRA auto body building on Rice Street sits lower than the street, similar to this building, and the rooftop units and venting are visible and unsightly. Mr. Teeters said because that is an auto body painting facility there are many unsightly vents and piping on the rooftop that is necessary for that type of business. Lexus will not be painting cars in this facility. Chairperson Longrie asked if they had any building material samples to show the board? Mr. Teeters said no but they did bring a color sample board. He said many of the building exterior features would be the same as the current Lexus building that the board approved. Chairperson Longrie said she is trying to get a feel for what the building exterior would look like and what the actual colors would be. Mr. Teeters said Lexus has required building standards that they are following. Board member Olson asked if Lexus would have signs on both sides of the building? Mr. Teeters said yes if they can remain under the allowable sign square footage. They are not sure of the exact location of the signs but they could work with city staff on that. Board member Ledvina asked if they proposed a pylon or freestanding sign in addition to the wall signs? Mr. Teeters said not for this project. Board member Ledvina asked if it would be confusing to the Lexus customers having two buildings so close to each other and not knowing which building to go for service? Community Design Review Board Minutes 5-24-2005 Mr. Teeters said the signage would direct customers to the existing Lexus building. There would be no customer parking at the new facility. Board member Ledvina asked if there was even a need to have signage on the proposed Lexus building? Mr. Teeters said they want signage on the Lexus building and it's also good advertising. Robert Katz, General Manager, Lexus of Maplewood, addressed the board. Regarding signage, this is not a public facility for customers to visit the building. There would be parts brought to this site and it's possible somebody would go to the building to pick up a part. Otherwise, the parts and vehicles are to go to the existing Lexus building and the employees would drive the vehicles and parts to the new site. Board member Shankar asked if the new building would be more of a vehicle maintenance building? Mr. Teeters said the building will serve basically as a service operation. Board member Shankar asked what the hours of operation would be? Mr. Katz said their current service hours are until 9:00 p.m. and he doesn't anticipate the hours changing at the new facility. Board member Shankar asked if there would be administrative offices on the upper level and what time the lights would shut off? Mr. Katz said the upper level is for offices and those people typically leave about 5:00 p.m., the lower level windows would have light showing through the glass block windows. Board member Ledvina asked what type of materials would be used for the rooftop screening and how high the parapet wall would be? Mr. Teeters said they would use some type of metal material or similar building material for the four-foot high parapet wall. But they would make sure it looks attractive. Board member Shankar asked what color window frame they propose to use? Mr. Teeters said they would use an anodized aluminum frame? Board member Shankar asked if they would propose matching the window frames with the existing Lexus building? Mr. Teeters said more than likely they would match the window frames on the existing Lexus building. Board member Olson asked if the south elevation was the main entrance to the building? Community Design Review Board Minutes 5-24-2005 Mr. Teeters said the entrance to the building is on the east. Chairperson Longrie asked if they could discuss the landscape plan. Peter McEnery, Landscape Architect, Ryan Companies, 50 South Tenth St., Suite 300, Minneapolis, addressed the board. He said they are trying to enhance the building with landscaping to give it more of a residential feel and soften the edges of the building exterior. Chairperson Longrie said staff has recommended the need for additional landscaping and trees and she asked how they plan to address that recommendation? Mr. Teeters said they would work with staff regarding where they would like the additional landscaping on the site for the better of the community. Board member Shankar asked who would be using the parking lot? Mr. Katz said the parking lot would be used to park and store loaner vehicles that Lexus customers would use while their vehicle is being serviced. They would also use the parking lot for vehicle overflow from the main Lexus building and the employees would use the parking lot. There is very little customer parking since this is really not a public facility. Chairperson Longrie asked what outlot B was going to be used for in the future? Mr. Teeters said outlot B is owned by Sparkle Auto and is not part of the Lexus property. Board member Olson asked if expanding the parking stall size and the width of the drive aisles was going to affect their parking lot calculations? Mr. Teeters said that should not be an issue. Board member Shankar asked if there was a large enough radius for garbage trucks or service trucks to get in and out of the facility? Mr. Teeters said there is a large enough turning radius for the garbage trucks. At this time they don't plan to have transport trucks coming to this site, however, should that change in the future, they would ensure the parking lot would be able to handle the turning radius and space that is needed. Chairperson Longrie is concerned about the landscaping for the south elevation. She wondered how the landscaping would affect the parcel shown as future automotive use and how the city would ensure that the landscaping is enhanced because the parcel would be looking at the back of the building. Mr. Teeters said they are in control of the future automotive use parcel and they would make sure that the landscaping would look as aesthetically pleasing as possible for the surrounding area. Chairperson Longrie asked what guarantee the city has that the landscaping would take place? Community Design Review Board Minutes 5-24-2005 Mr. Teeters said the future tenant would have a say regarding what type of building they would like to put on that parcel but they would also have to come before the planning commission and community design review board just as they did to get this proposal approved. Chairperson Longrie asked how the city could go back and request additional landscaping in the future if parcels south of this development were developed? Mr. Teeters said there is not a lot of room between the two lots to plant additional landscaping but they could maximize the landscaping as much as possible along the south foundation. Chairperson Longrie asked if they wanted to discuss the lighting plan for the parking lot? Mr. Teeters said they are not at that point yet but they could work with city staff regarding the lighting standards for Maplewood to ensure they are using acceptable lighting. Mr. Katz said because this is close to residential they have planned to use a down cast light so the light does not cause light pollution into the residential areas. Mr. Teeters said one of the benefits of this site is that it is built lower into the ground so that residents across the street wouldn't have light overflow. Board member Olson asked if they were proposing to have a retaining wall along outlot B because of the grading on the site? Mr. Teeters said yes. Board member Olson asked what type of product they proposed to use? Mr. Teeters said it would be a keystone block similar to the earth tone color on the building. Chairperson Longrie said looking at the variety of trees it appears there are only four conifers in relation to the deciduous or ornamental trees. She asked if they planned on increasing one variety of trees over another type of tree? Mr. McEnery said when he creates a landscape plan he likes to mix different varieties of trees together in case a disease wipes out one species of tree, such as Dutch elm disease. Chairperson Longrie said she prefers a mixture of trees on the site. Board member Ledvina likes the changes that have been proposed by the applicant and he thinks the additional detail for the building elevations are a nice improvement. Board member Olson thinks the staff and the applicant have brought more interest to this structure and this is a nice improvement. Regarding the rooftop units, if the venting and rooftop equipment were the same color this would help screen the equipment as well. Community Design Review Board Minutes 5-24-2005 Board member Shankar said the applicant said the parapet wall is going to be four-feet high and he asked if it would be acceptable to recommend in the conditions that any vents that exceed the four-foot height of the parapet be set back 30 feet from the eastern facade of the building. Chairperson Longrie said she knows the applicant is going to get a site line study done. This will ensure the screening of the rooftop units from the street. Board member Shankar asked if the board should be concerned about the cars driving down Highway 61 and seeing the rooftop equipment or the residential homes looking at the rooftop equipment? Board member Ledvina believes the applicant can work with staff regarding the details for approval with screening the rooftop equipment. Chairperson Longrie likes the additional windows, the glass block windows on the lower level, the residential look of the building, and thinks the need for landscaping should be addressed on the south. Once the new development is done the city can't go back and ask the applicant to increase the landscaping. If the landscaping issue is addressed now then the board doesn't need to be concerned about how the vacant parcel will be affected by the landscaping. The retaining wall block bordering outlot B should match the color of the building and complement the building. When the lighting plan and parking lot revisions are complete she would like the applicant to come back before the CDRB for approval. Screening the rooftop equipment is very important whether it is from Highway 61 or from the residential area. Board member Ledvina moved to approve the plans date-stamped May 3, 2005, and the building elevations submitted at the May 24, 2005, community design review board meetinq for the Lexus Service Center south of Sparkle Auto on the Trout Land development property. Approval is subject to the following conditions: (changes made by the CDRB to the conditions are underlined if added and stricken if deleted,) , Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. 2. Comply with all requirements of the city engineer. 3. Before getting a building permit, the applicant shall: ao Dedicate a cross easement on or across this site for Sparkle Auto or provide an acceptable alternative across other properties. This cross easement, or any alternative, shall be subject to the city engineer's approval. bo Provide evidence that cross easements have been granted between all effected property owners for the shared access driveway to the County road D extension. c. Meet all requirements of the assistant city engineer's report dated May 6, 2005. d. Revise the site plan for staff approval providing: Community Design Review Board 8 Minutes 5-24-2005 · A five-foot pavement setback from the south lot line. A 20-foot parking lot setback from the northerly lot line where the site abuts residential property. Customer and employee parking spaces that measure at least nine feet wide and drive aisles that measure at least 24 feet wide. These dimensions may be less for inventory parking, but drive aisles must be at least 20 feet wide. There must also be enough handicap-accessible parking spaces provided to meet ADA requirements for customers and employees. The number and placement of these spaces shall be determined by staff. The location and design of a screening enclosure for trash and recyclable materials, unless such containers are to be kept inside. Trash enclosures must be compatible with the building in materials and design and must have a 100 percent opaque closeable gate. e. Revise the landscaping plan for staff approval providing for: More plantings along the north lot line adjacent to the single dwelling property to the north. Code requires a six-foot-tall and 80 percent opaque screen here to buffer the parking lot from this neighbor. Additional trees along the highway frontage for a tree spacing of 30 feet on center rather than the 50-foot spacing proposed. Three additional trees along the County Road D frontage to create a fuller tree line. These trees are shown at 30 feet on center. A tighter planting row will help to buffer the site from the future town homes to the west. The applicant shall work with staff to enhance the landscaping located on the south side of the building to ensure an attractive landscape desiqn for future developments located to the south of the site. Provide engineered plans for any retaining walls that exceed four feet in height. Any walls over four feet in height must also have a fence on top. go Revise the architectural plans to show the window frames on the buildinq match the existinq window frames on the Lexus Automobile Dealership buildinq located across the hiqhway (3000 Hiqhway 61). In addition, the plans must show that all retaining walls are designed and constructed of materials which are compatible · · to the buildinq materials, for ,.~t.,i,.,,v.,.,, ,,.,`7 v ~,,v,, "',7 ~F ~4 &.,~ I I I I ~. ~.,~ ~t~4 I I I ~,4`7 ~]1 ~ g ~.,1~ ~.,~ } ~lgll~ll I~ I~1 11111~11~ ~11~ ~1 ~1111~gi~l ~1 ~i~llll I~ gl I Il I~ ~of~rl~ ~l~f;n~ ~n~ fh~ o~ ~hof;f~ ~f;nn nr ~nh~nn~m~nf nf fh~ ~nnnr~f~ hln~ h. Have a recorded plat so the subject lot is a legally buildable site. Community Design Review Board Minutes 5-24-2005 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. Submit detail plans for screening the rooftop mechanical units for staff approval. The plan must attempt to reduce negative visual impacts caused by the units to the residential property owners located to the west. This can be accomplished by combininq the mechanical units or vents, installing the units toward the center of the roof, etc. 4. Obtain the required permit from the Ramsey/VVashington Metro Watershed District. 5. Comply with all requirements of the Maplewood Building Official and Fire Marshal. 6. Install lawn irrigation as required by code. 7. Comply with the city's lighting ordinance. 8. Install a stop sign at the driveway intersection at County Road D. o Construct the shared-access driveway with pavement and curbing. Escrow may be accepted in lieu of full completion in consideration of curb cuts that will be needed for the two southerly sites. 10. If any required work is not done, the city may allow temporary occupancy if: The city determines that the work is not essential to the public health, safety or welfare. The above-required letter of credit or cash escrow is held by the City of Maplewood for all required exterior improvements. The owner or contractor shall complete any unfinished exterior improvements by June 1 if occupancy of the building is in the fall or winter, or within six weeks of occupancy of the building if occupancy is in the spring or summer. 11. All work shall follow the approved plans and these conditions. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 12. The lic~htin~ plan is not included in this approval. A new lighting plan must be submitted for review by the community design review board for approval. The plan must ensure no neqative lighting impacts to the residential properties located to the west by such means as reducing the light pole heiqhts, reducing the number of lights, using a downcast liqht fixture, etc. Chairperson Longrie added a friendly amendment that the parking lot revisions and the lighting plan come back to the CDRB for approval. Board member Ledvina recommended that be a separate recommendation. Community Design Review Board Minutes 5-24-2005 ]0 Ms. Finwall said Mr. Teeters submitted a lighting plan which was included in the large maps on page C5 which reflects 5 freestanding lights and 5 wallpack lights. However, this plan was not clearly addressed in the staff report. Mr. Teeters said they have not determined the final plan yet and he asked if they could work with city staff on the final plan. Ms. Finwall said the freestanding lights are 25 feet high with a base of three feet, making the lights 28-feet high overall. City code allows the height of a freestanding light to be 25-feet high, so the light pole height needs to be reduced. Staff feels confident that the applicant could work with city staff to finalize the plan. Chairperson Longrie said the board wants the applicant to come back to have the parking lot and lighting plan revisions reviewed for approval. Board member Shankar recommended the applicant match the lighting for this proposed location with the lighting at the current Lexus building. He would be agreeable to the applicant working with city staff on the approval of the lighting plan. Board member Ledvina and board member Olson agreed that the lighting plan could be worked out with city staff but since the parking lot revisions have to come back before the board they are okay with that decision. Board member Olson seconded Ayes- Ledvina, Longrie, Olson, Shankar The motion passed. This item goes to the city council on June 13, 2005. VII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS No visitors present. VIII. BOARD PRESENTATIONS al Ms. Finwall reported on the May 9, 2005, city council meeting that the 3M Bldg 278 LDI/Customer Service building (2350 Minnehaha Avenue E) was approved by the city council with the additional condition that no deliveries be made to the building between the hours of 10 p.m. and 6 a.m. to protect the residential properties on Minnehaha Avenue. Ms. Finwall said Home Depot has been expanding their outdoor storage area without city approval so the city was revising the conditional use permit to allow these expansions. The city council had some concerns about the fencing Home Depot placed around the outdoor storage area. The city council approved the CUP revision on the condition that the fence design goes before the CDRB. Community Design Review Board Minutes 5-24-2005 b. CDRB Rules of Procedure Board member Ledvina requested that the board discuss the Rules of Procedure when a board member abstains from voting because of a conflict of interest. Ms. Finwall said the Rules of Procedure for the CDRB refer to Roberts Rules of Order in regard to conflict of interest. A board member should indicate their conflict to the chairperson prior to debate indicating the board member would not be voting and then abstain from the voting process. IX. STAFF PRESENTATIONS a. Sign Code Revisions Ms. Finwall said staff is working on phase 3 of the sign code revisions. Staff will be discussing BC, BC(M), SC, M-l, and M-2 District sign code revisions at tonight's meeting. Andrew Gitzlaff, planning intern, is here to report on the third phase of the sign code revisions. Signs in BC, BC(M), and SC Districts The current code specifies sign restrictions based on the unique needs and issues in each zoning district. Signage in the SC (shopping center), BC(M) (business commercial modified), and BC (business commercial) must meet separate regulations from other commercial districts. The sign code is the least restrictive for these districts because of the importance of signage to the success of these high-intense commercial districts. Wall Signs Under the current code, one wall sign is allowed for each street upon which a building has frontage. The total copy area of the wall sign can cover up to 20 percent of the gross wall surface to which the sign is attached. Staff finds the current restriction allows businesses excessively large signs, which may not be compatible with surrounding uses. Staff suggests the maximum square footage for wall signs could be based on the square footage of the principle structure in addition to an overall coverage restriction. The coverage are could be reduced from 20 to 10 percent of the facade, depending on the square footage of the building. Chairperson Longrie said a business on a corner lot has paid a premium price to be on the corner lot and that is an advantage. Saying that signage on two streets is excessive and gives the business owner an advantage is unfair to judge. She believes it would be more appropriate to stick with aesthetics of the signage rather than size and number of signs. Community Design Review Board Minutes 5-24-2005 ]2 Canopy Signs A canopy sign is a sign that is affixed to the surface of a canopy. Under the current code, canopy signs are grouped as wall signs and are allowed on canopies as part of a businesses' total allotted area for wall signs. Wall signs can encompass 20 percent of the gross wall area to which the sign is attached. Board member Olson said she likes the rules for canopy signs. At first she thought of canopy signs as canvas awning signs with the company name on the canvas awning. She doesn't like that type of signage because that doesn't hold up well and tends to deteriorate faster. Her preference is to not allow canvas canopy signs and the signage should be affixed to the wall rather than to an awning. Chairperson Longrie said sometimes, because of the way a store front faces, the canvas awning is important because it provides a shield from the sun. If there is no other place for the store name to go other than on the awning that is important as well. As part of getting the permit there should be some regulations or verification on the sign permit that specifies the awning will be maintained or replaced. Freestandin.q Si.qns Under the current code, one freestanding sign is allowed for each street that the building has frontage in the SC, BC(M), and BC districts. Two freestanding signs are permitted if located on two different streets and are separated by more than one hundred feet. If a business has two freestanding signs the square footage of both signs cannot exceed 150 percent of the total allowable square footage. Staff is recommending that the size and height of freestanding signs in these districts be based on the type of street the business has frontage. The board thought this was a good proposal. Temporary Signs Under the current code, temporary sign restrictions are the same for every district. Staff suggests that the revised sign code should adjust some temporary sign ordinance based on the unique needs and issues in each district. Businesses in the BC, BC(M), and SC districts have the greatest need to use temporary signage for advertisement purposes. Therefore, the total maximum allowable square footage for temporary signs in these districts should be greater than in the less intensive commercial districts. Signs in M-1 and M-2 Districts Under the current code, signs in the M-1 (light manufacturing) and the M-2 (heavy manufacturing) districts must meet separate regulations from other commercial districts. The intended use in the district is for any commercial activity allowed in the BC district and for manufacturing, warehousing, mining and laboratory research. Community Design Review Board Minutes 5-24-2005 Freestanding and Wall Siqns Freestanding signs and wall signs in the M-1 and M-2 districts have the same dimension, placement, and height restrictions as in the SC, BC(M), and BC districts, except for the exception for auto dealerships. Staff suggests the previous changes proposed for the SC, BC(M), and BC districts should also be applicable to the M-1 and M-2 districts, including auto dealerships, due to the fact that the signage needs are similar between the two groups of districts because of the commercial nature of the intended uses. The board discussed freestanding signs for auto dealers and felt the exemption of this use to allow one freestanding sign per dealer, plus one freestanding sign per auto vehicle make was acceptable. Temporary Signs The temporary signage needs and issues in the M-1 and M-2 districts are similar to the BC, BC(M), and SC districts. Staff suggests that the proposed changes to the maximum allowable size of window signs, temporary portable signs, and banners should also apply to the M-1 and M-2 districts. b. Discussion of CDRB representation at City Council meetings. Ms. Finwall said city staff asks for CDRB representation at each of the city council meetings in addition to the board's attendance twice a month for the CDRB meetings. City council meetings can sometimes get long and waiting to give a three minute report can be frustrating after sitting through a lengthy meeting. Therefore, staff is asking board members for their input regarding attending the city council meetings. Chairperson Longrie thinks it's important for board members to attend the city council meetings because it gives board members the opportunity to be visible in the community and to discuss concerns the board had on specific applications and why the CDRB voted the way they did. Board member Shankar said his experience at the city council meetings has been that Melinda Coleman has given a brief report and has summed up what needed to be said. Therefore, there has been nothing additional for him to add. Sometimes after sitting through the whole meeting the Mayor doesn't call on the board member to come forward anyway. Chairperson Longrie said there have been times the Mayor has called for a board member to give a report on the item and the person whose turn it was to be the CDRB representative did not show up at the meeting. When people ask why there isn't a board representative present to give the report that doesn't look good for the CDRB either. Staff stated it's easier for some board members to attend the city council meetings more than it is for others. It would be helpful if the board members that can attend volunteer more frequently. Community Design Review Board Minutes 5-24-2005 14 The consensus was to evaluate the need for CDRB representation at city council meetings on a case by case basis. The board will review the items on the agenda to see if there are issues that need to be brought to the attention of the city council, otherwise staff will report on the item to the city council. Gm CDRB Representative at the June 13, 2005 City Council meeting. Board member Olson will represent the CDRB at the June 13, 2005, city council meeting. The only item to discuss was the Lexus Auto Service Center, Northwest corner of County Road D and Highway 61. X. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m. TO: FROM: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: LOCATION: DATE: MEMORANDUM Richard Fursman, City Manager Shann Finwall, AICP, Planner Design Review and Comprehensive Sign Plan - Maplewood Marketplace Oppidan, Inc. Northwest Corner of County Road D and Highway 61 June 8, 2005 INTRODUCTION Oppidan, Inc. is proposing to develop a 2-acre vacant parcel located within the new Trout Land plat on the northwest corner of County Road D and Highway 61, across the street from the new Venberg Tire building. The development will include a 12,600 square foot multi-tenant retail building. Five thousand square feet of the building will be leased to a bank with a drive-through banking service. Requests Oppidan, Inc. is requesting that the community design review board (CDRB) approve the design elements for the new retail/bank building as well as a comprehensive sign plan as required by city code for a multi-tenant building with five or more tenants. DISCUSSION Site Plan The site plan shows a driveway entrance from County Road D. The driveway will be a shared driveway between the Maplewood Marketplace development, the Lexus Automobile Service Center (located to the north), and a future automotive use (located to the west). There are four drive-through banking lanes proposed on the east side of the building. These lanes will be accessed from the south (front) side of the building, with exit around the north (back) side of the building. The parking lot and building meet required setbacks which are a 15-foot setback for a parking lot to a right-of-way and at least a 30-foot setback for a commercial building to the right- of-way. Parking City code requires a retail store to have one parking space per 200 square feet of retail space. This development requires a total of 63 parking spaces. The applicants are proposing a total of 64 parking spaces. City code requires the size of retail center parking spaces to be 9.5 feet wide by 18 feet deep. Parking spaces can be reduced in length by 2.5 feet when adjacent a curb, sidewalk, or landscaped area. Also, city code allows employee parking with reduced widths. The applicant is proposing 9 feet wide by 20 feet deep parking spaces. As the CDRB is aware, the City of Maplewood approved reduced parking widths within the mixed- use zoning district. During research on parking spaces, staff found that the engineering field recommends parking spaces at 8.5 feet wide by 18 feet long, according to the 2000 Urban Land Institute's Dimensions of Parkinq. Because the city's adherence to the older standards can result in additional land unnecessarily being consumed by parking lots, the city council supported the reduction of parking space widths within the mixed-use zoning district from 9.5 feet to 9 feet wide. Therefore, staff would also support the reduction of parking space widths within the Maplewood Marketplace development. However, varying from the specified code would require a variance. Therefore, the applicants must either revise the site plan to reflect 9.5 foot wide by 18 foot (or deeper) parking spaces (with the allowed parking space width and length exemptions specified above), or apply for a parking space width variance. G radi n g/D rai nage Erin Laberee of the city's engineering department reviewed the grading, drainage, and utility plans. Ms. Laberee's comments are included in her attached engineering report (Attachment 10). In general, the developer must install sump structures to treat runoff from the parking lot upstream of the main storm sewer line, enter into a maintenance agreement for the annual cleaning of the sump structures, enter into a cross easement agreement for the main storm sewer line with Trout Land Auto Dealers, coordinate entrance to County Road D with Trout Land Auto Dealers, etc. Landscaping Staff finds the landscape plan attractive and adequate with 9 deciduous, 6 evergreen and 7 ornamental trees; 72 deciduous and 28 evergreen shrubs; and 6 perennial plants. However, additional landscaping should be added around the base of the proposed freestanding sign. This will be discussed in the comprehensive sign plan section within this staff report. Lighting City code requires the submittal of a lighting and photometrics plan which ensure all freestanding lights maintain a height of 25 feet or less and that the maximum foot candles of illumination at all property lines does not exceed .4-foot-candles. The applicant's lighting and photometrics plan shows four freestanding lights within the parking lot. These lights will have a 25-foot-high pole with 250 waft, double-head fixture; and will have a maximum foot candle of illumination at all property lines of .3 or below. The applicant must submit a revised lighting and photometrics plan which shows the overall height of the freestanding lights not to exceed 25 feet, including base, and the style of light fixture proposed, to ensure compatibility with the building and compliance with city lighting requirements. Dumpster Enclosure The proposed location of the dumpster enclosure is on the northwest corner of the site. The applicant must also submit elevations of the proposed dumpster enclosure to ensure it is at least 6 feet in height, constructed of building materials which are compatible to the building, and has a 100 percent opaque gate. In addition, the applicant must prove that the enclosure will hold all dumpsters, including garbage and recycling, for the entire development. Building Elevations The exterior of the building will be constructed with two colors of exterior insulation finish system (EIFS), which is a stucco-like product, four colors and types of masonry, clear anodized aluminum storefront windows, and fabric awnings above each bay. Staff finds the south, east, and west elevations to be attractive and adequate. However, the north (back) elevation will be quite visible from Highway 61 and as such should include additional design elements. Suggested design elements include additional masonry columns, addition of false windows, or more attractive rear door entries. Color elevations and building samples should be supplied during the CDRB review for approval. Comprehensive Sign Plan The city's sign ordinance requires all multi-tenant buildings with five or more tenants to have an approved comprehensive sign plan. The Maplewood Marketplace building will have six tenants. The applicants have submitted their proposed sign criteria (Attachment 2). Proposed signage includes two signs per tenant, either two wall signs (one on the front and one on the back of the building), or one wall sign and one monument panel. The wall sign to be constructed with internally illuminated letters; with an average height of 36 inches (capital letters shall not exceed 48 inches in height). The freestanding sign proposed is a 20-foot high sign with tenant panel space and an electronic reader board panel. The freestanding sign will be constructed on the corner of County Road D and Highway 61, with a 15-foot setback to the right-of-way. Staff has the following proposed changes to the applicant's sign criteria: Each retail tenant is allowed two signs (one to be installed on the front of the tenant space and one to be installed on the monument sign). The proposed 5,000 square foot bank is allowed three signs including two wall signs (one to be installed on the front of the bank and one to be installed on the drive-through canopy), and one on the monument sign. 2. Maximum height of individual letters on wall signs not to exceed 36 inches. 3. No signage allowed on awnings. . Applicant must submit revised freestanding sign elevations showing the removal of the proposed electronic reader board and the location of five sign panel spaces. In addition, the elevation must show the proposed sign materials which must be compatible to the building. . Applicant must submit a revised landscape plan showing shrubs and perennials planted around the base of the sign. OTHER COMMENTS Butch Gervais, Fire Marshal: Mr. Gervais outlines the fire code issues regarding the proposed development in his memorandum attached (Attachment 11). David Fisher, Building Official: Mr. Fisher outlines the building code issues regarding the proposed development in his memorandum attached (Attachment 12). Lieutenant Kevin Rabbett, Police Department: Lieutenant Rabbett states that there are no significant public safety concerns. The standard recommendations for adequate lighting, etc., apply to this commercial building. In addition, the bank should have a high quality video surveillance system. RECOMMENDATION Approve the plans date-stamped May 3, 2005 and May 27, 2005; sign criteria date stamped May 3, 2005; and sign elevation date stamped May 18, 2005; and colored elevations date stamped May 27, 2005, for the Maplewood Marketplace development to be located on the northwest corner of County Road D and Highway 61. Approval is subject to the applicant doing the following: . Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. , Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit, the applicant must submit to staff for approval the following items: a, Revised grading/drainage/utility plans which comply with all city engineering department requirements as specified in Erin Laberee's June 7, 2005, engineering report. bo Revised site plan showing 9.5 foot wide by 18 foot (or deeper) parking spaces (with the allowed parking space width and length exemptions as specified in city code), or apply for a parking space width variance. Co Revised lighting and photometrics plan which shows the overall height of the freestanding lights not to exceed 25 feet, including base, and the style of light fixture proposed, to ensure compatibility with the building and compliance with city lighting requirements. d° Dumpster enclosure plans to ensure the enclosure it is at least 6 feet in height, constructed of building materials which are compatible to the building, and has a 100 percent opaque gate. In addition, the applicant must prove that the enclosure will hold all dumpsters, including garbage and recycling, for the entire development. e° Revised building elevations showing additional design elements on the north (back) elevation. Suggested design elements include additional masonry columns, addition of false windows, or more attractive rear door entries. f. Revised landscape plan showing the following: 1) Freestanding sign landscaping including shrubs and perennials to be located around the base of the sign. . . . g. h. 2) An underground irrigation plan to ensure all landscaping on the site is watered as required by city code. Revised sign criteria plan showing the following changes: 1) 2) 3) 4) Each retail tenant is allowed two signs (one to be installed on the front of the tenant space and one to be installed on the monument sign). The proposed 5,000 square foot bank is allowed three signs including two wall signs (one to be installed on the front of the bank and one to be installed on the drive-through canopy), and one on the monument sign. Maximum height of individual letters on wall signs not to exceed 36 inches. No signage allowed on awnings. Applicant must submit revised freestanding sign elevations showing the removal of the proposed electronic reader board and the location of five sign panel spaces. In addition, the elevation must show the proposed sign materials which must be compatible to the building. Watershed district approval. A cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit for all required exterior improvements. The amount shall be 150 percent of the cost of the work. The applicant shall complete the following before occupying the building: a. b. c. d. Replace any property irons removed because of this construction. Provide continuous concrete curb and gutter around the parking lot and driveways. Install all required landscaping and an in-ground lawn irrigation system for all landscaped areas. Screen or paint the rooftop mechanical equipment to match the building color. a. b. The city determines that the work is not essential to the public health, safety or welfare. The above-required letter of credit or cash escrow is held by the City of Maplewood for all required exterior improvements. The owner or contractor shall complete any unfinished exterior improvements by June 1 if occupancy of the building is in the fall or winter, or within six weeks of occupancy of the building if occupancy is in the spring or summer. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. If any required work is not done, the city may allow temporary occupancy if: e. Install all required outdoor lighting. REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Site Size: Existing Land Use: 2 acres Vacant Property SURROUNDING LAND USES North: South: East: West: Proposed Lexus Automotive Service Center County Road D and Venberg Tire Across the Street Highway 61 Future Automotive Dealer Use PLANNING Land Use Plan: Zoning: Light Manufacturing, M-1 Light Manufacturing, M-1 CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL 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 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 The city received the complete applications and plans for this development on June 3, 2005. State law requires that the city take action within 60 days of receiving complete applications for a proposal. As such, city action is required on this proposal by August 2, 2005, unless the applicant agrees to an extension. P\Sec4~laplewood Marketplace 6-14-05 CDRB Report Attachments: 1. Applicant's Statement 2. Sign Criteria 3. Location Map 4. Site Plan 5. Grading Plan 6. Utility Plan 7. Landscape Plan 8. Elevations 9. Building Plan 10. Engineering Plan Review 11. Fire Marshal Memorandum 12. Building Official Memorandum OPPIDAM BsN~et o/tows& Cteato~ Attachment 1 5125 COUNTY ROAD 101 · #100 - MINNETONKA, MN 55345 · PHONE: 952/294-0353 · FAX: 952/294-0151 · WEB: www. oppidan.com May 31, 2005 Ms. Shann Finwall, Planner City of Maplewood 1830 County Road B East Maplewood, MN 55109 Design Review Narrative Maplewood Marketplace Dear Shalm: This letter shall serve as a brief written narrative for the proposed 12,600 square foot retail building on Lot 3, Block 1 Trout Land, the plat has been approved and is in process of being recorded. The parcel consists of approximately 2 acres and lies on the southeast comer of the Trout Land site. In addition to the retail component, there is approximately 6 acres that is currently planned to house an automotive dealership/service center and approximately 12 acres for multi-family housing. Maplewood Marketplace will contain approximately 12,600 square feet of multi-tenant retail shop space. As currently planned, 5,000 square feet of the space on the east side will be leased to a retail banking facility, with an attached drive-thru for banking services. The remaining spaces could house up to 5 tenants. The building is designed to be a combination of masonry and EFIS with raised parapets on the building comers to set of the building. In addition, columns are used to break up the runs of glass and wall around the building. Adequate parking has been provided to meet the requirements of the City of Maplewood and the desires of the identified tenant. The parking has been set up to provide available stalls in the rear for employees and ample stalls in the front for customers. A retaining wall in identified on the east side of the site given the elevation changes from Highway 61 to the site. Landscaping is planned to meet the requirements of the city. A combination of over-story, conifer and shrubs is planned for the entire site. The site includes a monument sign for the site on the southeast comer. This is designed to have a base made from materials similar to the building and will be lower than allowed by the City, given the site elevations. Building signs will be as dictated by the City Ordinance and per the submitted sign criteria. Overall, the project will be constructed in a manner to provide a finished look equal to or greater than what exists in the immediate area today. We look forward to working with you on this project. Please feel free to contact me with any questions you have. Paul J. Tucef CC: Gonzalo Medina Attachment 2 Si n Criteria Genera[ A. Be Tenant shat[ be at[owed two signs for the development, un[ess the Premises has two street frontages, per City of N~ap[ewood codes. The area above the storefront of the Premises shat[ be identified by a sign. In addition, the tenant can either sign the rear of the building or have a pane[ on a monument sign, if approved by the City. The furnishing and installation of a'sign and the cost incurred shat[ be the responsibility of the Tenant. It is intended that the signing of the retail stores on the center shat[ be developed in an imaginative and varied manner, and although previous and current signing practices of the Tenant wit[ be considered, they wit[ not govern signs to be ins[aired on the retail stores. C. Each tenant wit[ be required to identify its premises by a sign. D. Service doors, if any, wi[[ be provided with uniform signs identifying addresses. Tenant shat[ not post any other additiona[ signs on or around service doors. E. Att signs are required to conform to city ordinances. It is the responsibility of the Tenant to obtain approvals and permits as required by the city. II. Sign Criteria A. The wording of the signs shat[ be tim[ted to the store name on[y, and such name shat[ not include any items sold therein. B. The use of corporate shields, crests, [ogos, or insignias wi[[ be permitted (subject to Landlord's approval), provided such corporate shields, crests, [ogos or insignias shat[ not exceed the average height for sign letters. C. Multiple or repetitive signing wi[[ be at[owed only with the approval of the Landlord, provided the area of such signing conforms to the [imitations set forth herein. D. The average height of sign letters or components shat[ not exceed 36". Capita[ letters shat[ not exceed 48". E. Sign length shat[ be determined by centering in tease frontage area, ho[ding back a minimum of 2' from tease tine on each and for 20' fronts, 3' for 30' fronts and 4' fronts for 40' fronts and larger. Exampte: 40' wide space coutd have a 32' max. tength 20' wide space coutd have a 16' max. tength F. Sign letters to be constructed with internally illuminated letters. G. Letter shat[ not project beyond the face more than five (5) inches, except if constructed on a raceway. III. Prohibited Types of Signs or SiRn Components A. Moving or rotating signs B. Back-illuminated signs C. Signs employing moving or flashing tights. D. Signs employing exposed ballasts boxes or transformers E. Signs employing painted and/or non-ittuminated letters. F. Signs of box or cabinet type employing transparent, translucent or luminous plastic background panets. G. Ctoth, wood, paper or cardboard signs, stickers, decals or painted signs around or on exterior surfaces (except interior surfaces of doors and/or windows) of the Premises. H. Signs employing noise making devices and Components. I. Signs, letters, symbols or identification of any nature painted directly on surfaces exterior to the Premises. J. Freestanding signs. K. Rooftop or exterior signs. IV. Monument SiRn A. Monument Signs shat[ not exceed 20 feet in height for the project. B. The monument sign wii[ meet alt ordinance requirements of the City, inctuding setback and pane[ size. C. An electronic reader board wilt be at[owed on the monument sign. D. The base of the sign sha[t be constructed from similar materials as used on the buitdin~. Attachment 3 COUNTY ROAD SPARKLE AUTO GULDEN'S ROADHOUSE LOCATION MAP Attachment],4 I ! I I I ! I I I I I % % I I I '1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I TRUNK HIGHWAY 61 Maplewood Retail Center Attachment 5 ~x I /I ! : © Attachment 6 / / / / /,~ Iii l ii,,I~ ;I I J Attachment 7 Z ,--t -r m 0 CZ f- ro / i L ......... .j TRUNK HIGHWAY 61 r%. ~ IIMaplewood Retail Center L,, "/I ~11 ~l ~'11 ~L Attachment 8 Attachment 9 C :~l: ) ~ (. :~: ) : Maplewood Retail Center MAPLEWCX30, ~A Attachment l0 En~ineerint~ Plan Review PROJECT: Maplewood Retail Center PROJECT NO: REVIEWED BY: Erin Laberee, Maplewood Engineering Department DATE: June 7, 2005 Oppidan Inc. is proposing a retail center and bank at the northwest corner of Highway 61 and the new County Road D. The developer and engineer shall address the following issues. Grading and Erosion Control o The city requires building permits for all retaining wall greater than 4 feet in height. The contractor will need to submit a detailed plan of the retaining wall when applying for a building permit. 2. The engineer shall show proposed contours for the site and how they tie into the proposed contours for the adjacent lots. 3. Inlet protection and the location of the silt fence must be shown on the plans. Drainage There seems to be an insufficient number of inlets to handle runoff from the parking lot. The engineer shall ensure there are sufficient inlets to prevent runoff from overtopping the curb and flowing down the retaining walls. 2. The drainage calculations submitted on June 6th do not match the plans dated May 3'a. The engineer shall submit the most current plans and drainage calculations. . The engineer shall relocate the storm sewer outside of the retaining wall. It is recommended to provide one connection point from the parking lot storm sewer system to the main line. 4. A 3' sump structure shall be added to treat runoff from the parking lot upstream of the main storm sewer line. 5. The developer shall enter into a maintenance agreement for the annual cleaning of the sump structures. 6. The developer shall enter into a cross easement agreement for the main storm sewer line with Troutland Auto Dealers. S~e~s 1. The developer shall coordinate the entrance to Country Road D with Troutland Auto Dealers. Utilities 1. The engineer shall specify the whether the sanitary sewer is schedule 35 or 26 on the plans. Misc. The developer shall ensure that there is an adequate visual barrier between the parking lot on the east and south sides of the building and the retaining walls. This may be accomplished by appropriate vegetation or a guard rail. Attachment ll Plan Review Comments Date: 5/12/2005 Project: Cty D Retail Center Planner: Tom Ekstrand Reviewed by: Butch Gervais, Fire Marshal Comments: 1. Install fire protection system in the entire complex and shall be monitored according to code 2. Install fire alarm system according to code where required 3. 20 fi emergency access to the complex 4. Fire department lock box require (information from the Fire Marshal) 5. If entry to fire protection system shall be properly marked (Fire Sprinkler Controls) Attachment 12 Memo May 5, 2005 From: David Fisher, Building Official" To: Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner Re: Retail Center at 61 & County Road D - Provide soils report. - Move the accessible parking in front of the retail spaces and spread it out equally. - The building setbacks must comply with the 2000 IBC for exterior wall protection. - A complete building code analysis will be required when plans are submitted for permits. - Provide Fire Department access. - The building is required to be fire sprinklered. - Retaining walls over 4 feet require engineering and permit. - I would recommend a pre-construction meeting with the building department. TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: DATE: MEMORANDUM Richard Fursman, City Manager Shann Finwall, AICP, Planner Pondview Townhomes Northwest Corner of Larpenteur Ave. and Adolphus St. June 8, 2005 INTRODUCTION Project Description In 2002, the city acquired five single-family houses located on the northwest corner of Larpenteur Avenue and Adolphus Street with the city's Housing Replacement Program funds. The city originally purchased three of these houses after they were flooded during a rainstorm in April, 2001. The two adjacent older houses, which were not flooded, were purchased by the city in order to combine them with the three previously purchased lots to create a larger building site to allow the development of up to eleven town house units on the site. Jack Krongard of Krongard Builders, Inc., has purchased the properties from the city and is now proposing to develop the 1.92-acre site with eleven town house units. The town houses will be constructed within two separate buildings - one with five units and the other with six units. Requests In order to construct the eleven town house units, Mr. Krongard is requesting the following city approvals: . A preliminary plat for the creation of a common interest community plat for the proposed 11 townhome units. , A 16-foot side yard setback variance in order to allow one of the buildings to be constructed closer than the required 50 feet to the adjacent residential property. 3. Design review. The planning commission reviewed and recommended approval of the preliminary plat and setback variance at their June 6, 2005, meeting. The community design review board should review and make a recommendation on the design review during the June 14, 2005, meeting. The city council's final review of the entire request is currently scheduled for June 27, 2005. BACKGROUND December 13, 1999: The city council approved a Housing Replacement Program in order to improve the condition of the city's housing stock. July 23, 2001: The city council authorized the purchase of three houses at 209, 211 and 215 Larpenteur Avenue with Housing Replacement Program funds. March 4, 2002: The planning commission reviewed the redevelopment options for the Larpenteur Avenue properties and agreed that if all five lots were obtained, rezoning to a higher density would be a good redevelopment strategy. April 9, 2002: The Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) reviewed the redevelopment options for the Larpenteur Avenue properties and recommended that the city maximize the returns from the three lots purchased by purchasing the adjacent two lots and developing the site with town houses. May 13, 2002: During a city council workshop, the city council directed staff to negotiate the purchase of 1701 Adolphus Street and 189 Larpenteur Avenue. The city council also stated that the town house approach for the area seemed appropriate. September 23, 2002: The city council authorized the purchase of 189 Larpenteur Avenue with Housing Replacement Program funds. October 28, 2002: The city council authorized the purchase of 1701 Adolphus Street with Housing Replacement Program funds. December 9, 2002: During a city council workshop, the city council authorized city staff to begin the public hearing process for the rezoning and comprehensive land use plan change from Single Dwelling Residential (R-l) to Medium Multiple Dwelling Residential (R-3M). March 31, 2003: The city council rezoned and reguided the five properties from Single Dwelling Residential (R-l) to Medium Mulitple Family Residential (R-3M). The city council also approved a concept plan for the development of up to 11 townhomes on this property. June 23, 2003: The city council directed city staff to proceed with the request for proposal process to seek developers for this site. September 15, 2004: Jack Krongard submitted an offer to purchase and develop the site. February 28, 2005: Jack Krongard purchased the five properties from the City of Maplewood for the development of eleven town house units. DISCUSSION Site Plan The site plan submitted reflects the city council's approved concept plan with eleven town house units developed on the site, which is the maximum number of units allowed on this site with the Medium Multiple-Dwelling Residential land use designation. All units will have access from a shared driveway extending onto Adolphus Street. The units will be constructed with tuck-under garages, front entries and rear facing, pond view patios. City code requires a 50-foot setback for a multiple dwelling structure to an adjacent residential lot line. The property located to the west is zoned Double Dwelling Residential (R-2) and therefore the westerly town house must maintain a 50-foot setback from this property line. The intent of this requirement is to ensure an adequate buffer from a multiple dwelling unit to an adjacent residential property. The planning commission recommended approval of a 16-foot side yard setback variance for the westerly building in order to allow the building to be located within 34 feet of the adjacent residential property. The concept plan approved by the city council in 2003 did reflect the 34-foot setback to the western property line. It was determined by the city council during concept review and the planning commission in their recommendation that the reduced setback would be warranted and mitigated by several factors: The developable area for the two buildings was limited due to: a) the additional 15 feet of Adolphus Street right-of-way required by the city; b) the location of a proposed storm sewer in the center of the property; c) and the required 30-foot front yard setback to Adolphus Street. , The westerly town house will be located approximately 11 feet lower than the adjacent residential lot line. . The structure proposed will be a two-story town house and not a large multi- dwelling building. , Additional landscape screening could be added to buffer the two properties. This will be discussed further in the landscape section of the report. A six-foot wide sidewalk is proposed along Larpenteur Avenue. The city's engineering department is requiring the developer enter into a developer's agreement with the city to ensure the sidewalk is installed to city specifications. Parking The city's parking code requires two parking spaces per unit. All units are proposed to have two-car garages. In addition, each unit will have a separate driveway which could accommodate up to two more vehicles and the site will have two areas of guest parking which could accommodate 11 more vehicles. City code requires parking lots to maintain a 15-foot setback to the right-of-way. The two proposed guest parking areas are shown with an 11-foot and a zero setback. The site plan must be revised to ensure that these maintain the required 15-foot setback. Suggested changes include relocating the westerly guest parking area on the north side of the driveway, in between the two buildings; and shifting the easterly guest parking area further to the east to achieve the required setback from the Larpenteur Avenue right-of-way. GradinglDrainagelUtilities A majority of the grading and site work has been completed by the city's public works department after the removal of the houses. This grading was needed in order to ensure no future flooding on the site. A storm sewer is proposed to run from the pond to the storm sewer located in Larpenteur Avenue as a means of ensuring no additional flooding as well. The plat reflects a utility easement for this storm sewer. As required by the St. Paul Regional Water Services, the plat also reflects a 30-foot-wide water main easement located under the proposed driveway, extending into Adolphus Street. Erin Laberee, Civil Engineer, Maplewood Engineering Department, discusses other engineering concerns in her attached engineering report (Attachment 8). Wetland The wetland on the site is classified as a utilized wetland (Class 5), which requires a 10- foot building foundation setback to the ordinary water mark. However, the concept plan approved by the city council last year reflected a 20-foot-wide wetland buffer. This buffer was recommended by the city's environmental management specialist to improve the quality of the wetland and its aesthetic value. The town house structures will be setback from 43 feet to 95 feet from the wetland. However, the site plan and plat should be revised to reflect a 20-foot-wide wetland buffer and should prohibit any building, mowing, cutting, grading, filling or dumping within the buffer. Landscaping/Screening The landscape plan submitted shows 8 deciduous trees (Maples and Ash), 5 ornamental trees (crabapple), 22 shrubs, and 207 perennial plants (rudbeckia and feather reed grass). Staff recommends additional landscaping as follows: . To ensure screening between the new town house and the adjacent residential property, a row of black hills spruce or Austrian pine trees (at least 8 feet in height) should be installed along the western property line, running from the front of the town house to the back of the town house. . Landscaped planting beds to include Iow maintenance shrubs and perennials to be located in the following areas: a) In between the driveways, in front of the doors; b) Along the end unit sidewalks; c) Along the back of the buildings, on the sides of the patios. In addition, city code requires that an underground irrigation system be installed to ensure watering of all required landscaping. Lighting Exterior lights are proposed above each garage unit and in the back patio. Staff finds this lighting proposal to be adequate to offer enough light for security, without over lighting the site. Final light fixture details should be submitted to staff for approval before issuance of a building permit. Building Elevations The exterior of the buildings will be constructed with vinyl siding, brick wainscot on the front elevation, asphalt shingles on the roof, decorative vinyl shakes within the dormers, and false shutters on the front windows. Staff recommends the following building elevation revisions: , Extend the brick wainscot along the entire east side of the easterly building. This extension of wainscot should include along the east side of the attached garage and the east side of the town house. . Due to the fact that the front entries are setback from the attached garage, a more prominent front entry for each unit should be achieved. Examples of how this can be accomplished include installing more decorative front doors, adding brick to the front wall of the entries, adding a dormer (rather than an awning) over the doors, etc. OTHER COMMENTS Dave Fisher, Building Official: If the buildings are over 8,500 square feet in area, sprinklers are required per Section 1306 of the building code. Lieutenant Rabbett, Police Department: I have reviewed the plans and find no significant public safety concerns. I am pleased to see that the access to the property is from Adolphus and not Larpenteur. I believe that there will be adequate turnaround space for squad cars. RECOMMENDATION Approve the plans date-stamped April 18 and May 9, 2005, for the Pondview Townhomes to be located on the northwest corner of Larpenteur Avenue and Adolphus Street. Approval is subject to the applicant doing the following: Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. , Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit, the applicant must submit to staff for approval the following items: a. Revised grading/drainage/utility plans which comply with all city engineering department requirements as specified in Erin Laberee's , June 7, 2005, engineering plan review, including, but not limited to, the developer entering into a developer's agreement with the city to ensure the sidewalk, easements, right-of-way and other items are provided for. b. Revised site plan showing the following: 1) Relocation of the guest parking areas to ensure a 15-foot setback to the right-of-way. 2) The location of a 20-foot-wide wetland buffer easement (20 feet from the ordinary high water mark of the wetland). c. Revised landscape plan showing the following: 1) A row of black hills spruce or Austrian pine trees (at least 8 feet in height) to be installed along the western property line, running from the front of the town house to the back of the town house. 2) Landscaped planting beds to include Iow maintenance shrubs and perennials to be located in the following areas: a) In between the driveways, in front of the doors; b) Along the end unit sidewalks; c) Along the back of the buildings, on the sides of the patios. 3) An underground irrigation plan to ensure all landscaping on the site is watered as required by city code. d. Submit a lighting plan that shows the location and style of all proposed exterior lights. e. Revised elevations as follows: 1) Extend the brick wainscot along the entire east side of the easterly building. This extension of wainscot should include along the east side of the attached garage and the east side of the town house. 2) Adding a more prominent front entry for each unit. Examples of how this can be accomplished include installing more decorative front doors, adding brick to the front wall of the entries, adding a dormer (rather than an awning) over the doors, etc. f. A cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit for all required exterior improvements. The amount shall be 150 percent of the cost of the work. The applicant shall complete the following before occupying the buildings: a. Replace any property irons removed because of this construction. , o b. Provide continuous concrete curb and gutter around the parking lot and driveways. c. Install all required landscaping and an in-ground lawn irrigation system for all landscaped areas. d. Install all required outdoor lighting. e. Install the required six-foot-wide sidewalk along Larpenteur Avenue. f. Install wetland buffer signs that prohibit any building, mowing, cutting, filling, or dumping with the wetland buffer. g. Remove all unneeded silt fence from the site. If any required work is not done, the city may allow temporary occupancy if: a. The city determines that the work is not essential to the public health, safety or welfare. b. The above-required letter of credit or cash escrow is held by the City of Maplewood for all required exterior improvements. The owner or contractor shall complete any unfinished exterior improvements by June 1 if occupancy of the building is in the fall or winter, or within six weeks of occupancy of the building if occupancy is in the spring or summer. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. CITIZEN COMMENTS Staff surveyed the 20 surrounding property owners within 500 feet of this site for their comments. Following are the two comments received: . Shirley and Gary Walker, 1748 Onacrest Curve North: "We have concerns of flooding in this area due to pond overflow. Unless pond is cleaned and deepened it has potential of flooding. This is a filled lot and has potential for eroding around buildings." 2. L03 Holdings, LLC: "Let them do it. It is a great idea." REFERENCE SITE DESCRIPTION Site size: 1.92 Acres Existing Use: Vacant Land SURROUNDING LAND USES North: South: East: West: Pond Larpenteur Avenue and Vacant St. Paul Property Across the Street Adolphus Street and Sinclair Gas Station Across the Street Duplex PLANNING Land Use Plan Designation: Medium Multiple Dwelling Residential (R-3M) Zoning' Multiple Dwelling Residential (R-3) Application Date We received the complete application and plans for this proposal on May 9, 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 July 8, 2005, unless the applicant agrees to a time extension. P: Sec 18~Pondview Townhomes 6-6-05 Attachments: 1. Applicant's Statement 2. Location Map 3. Zoning Map 4. Preliminary Plat 5. Site Plan 6. Landscape Plan 7. Elevations 8. Engineering Plan Review Attachment 1 KRONGARD CONSTRUCTION COMPANY 14791 60TH STREET NORTH, SUITE 2 STILLWATER, MINNESOTA 55082 PHONE: (651) 430-2314 · FAX: (651) 430-3921 K-rongard Builder, Inc. proposes to build eleven town hen:es on the cromer lot at Larpenteur Avenue ,'u~d Adolphus Street in Maplewood. KBI responded to a request lb.r proposal..t¥om the. City of Maplewood, fo Ilowing the concept approved by the City Council. It in,cludefl street layom, l'tot:tle pad size and water and sewer designs fttmished by Maplewood s Engineering Depamncnt'. The project will consist of two buildings, on.e 5 unit and one 6 trait. E~.ch unit will be approximately 1740 ~quare feet with 3 bedrooms, 2 ¼ baths m~d a 2 car attached garage. .Price range is between $190,000 and $220,000. These milts and site layout fit the approved concept plan set by the City Council. Thank You, Krongard Builders Inc. Attachment 2 Proposed 11-Unit Townhome Development Larpenteur Sinclair Gas Station N Location Map Attachment 3 Proposed 11-Unit Townhome Development Larpenteur Aven N Zoning Map Attachment 4 I NB9'4 7'2 7"W 958.14 '- ........NORTH LINE NE 1/4 SEC 19, T 29 N, R 22 :AST IRON MONUMENT '4 CORNER '29 N, R 22 W \ \ \ N \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ I'IlT~/ I Ir-I/'~l 1"1-~'-'~ , I i 'l I '~.__ ] 172.14 __~..r4,5.1 . ', 14 l I'~ '. i; ", ' ~l~' ~ :' [ ~1-~' ~, ~ ................. ~ .... l~_- J~ ................................... ~ ............... I~ ~ ", ~ I -/ I t" ..... ~ .... K___J ........~o ........................... I I ~ __ ~ ....................... 225 ......................... ~~ ~-"--- '~ ..... ~ i ~, ~ ~ ............... 150 ............. /24.4 75 65 ' , 5' 8j-jd j~. E' N- 6.29~ u~$'z~'E _ S a~9. ~ ~ _~ ZO ~-- I~ I t ,, , NOR TH RIGHT OF WA Y 335. LARPENTEUR A VENUE t ~ S89'47'27"E 3?5.06 L.I-tI ~,~ L_I ¥1L_ L~I ~ I-t V ~_I glJ~.-_ NBg'4 7'2 7"W 2626. 40 N Preliminary Plat Attachment 5 OUTLOT N Site Plan Attachment 6 o~ Landscape Plan Attachment 7 ! I ~ FR rTl m FI] Fl] " " 1 m m Fl] ~ Elevations Attachment 8 En~ineerin~ Plan Review PROJECT: Pondview Townhomes PROJECT NO: REVIEWED BY: Erin Laberee, Maplewood Engineering Department DATE: June 7, 2005 Jack Krongard is developing the property at the northwest corner of Larpenteur Avenue and Adolphus Street into 11 townhome units. The developer shall address the following issues: Grading & Erosion Control 1. The first floor elevations shall be shown on the plans. . The grading plan in the architecture drawings does not match the grading plan in the engineering drawings. The architecture plans shall be revised to match the engineering plans. . The city did some preliminary soil correction work on site for an approximate building dimension of 35 by 25 feet. The developer is showing structures approximately 50 by 25 feet. The soils corrections were not made for a building depth of 50 feet. It shall be the developer's responsibility to ensure that soil corrections are adequate for the proposed buildings and make any additional corrections that may be necessary. Utilities 1. Submit plans to Saint Paul Regional Water Services for their review and approval. 2. Eight feet of cover is required over the watermain. 3. The engineer shall add the storm sewer MH 11 as shown on the city's plans to the wetland outlet. Landscaping The landscaping plan shall show additional plantings within the rainwater garden that are able to withstand wet conditions. Bedding material and mulch shall be placed in the rainwater garden. 2. The developer shall enter into a maintenance agreement for the upkeep and maintenance of the rainwater garden. Misc. 1. The developer shall enter into a developer's agreement with the city to ensure the sidewalk, easements, right of way and other items are provided for.