Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-07-28 CDRB Packet revised AGENDA CITY OF MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD Tuesday, July 28, 2015 6:00 P.M. Council Chambers - Maplewood City Hall 1830 County Road B East 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Agenda 4. Approval of Minutes: a. May 27, 2015 5. New Business: 6. Design Review: a. Approval of Comprehensive Sign Plan, HealthEast Properties, 1600 St. John’s Boulevard b. Approval of Design Review, Shores at Lake Phalen – Parking Lot, 1870 East Shore Drive c. Approval of Design Review, Minnesota Women’s Care Clinic, 2603 White Bear Avenue 7. Visitor Presentations: 8. Board Presentations: 9. Staff Presentations: 10. Adjourn MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, MAY 27, 2015 1. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Kempe called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL Boardmember, Leo Burger Present Chairperson, Bill Kempe Present Boardmember, Jason Lamers Present Vice Chairperson, Matt Ledvina Present Boardmember, Ananth Shankar Present at 6:03 p.m. Staff Present: Michael Martin, Planner Chris Swanson, Environmental & City Code Specialist 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Boardmember Ledvina moved to approve the agenda as approved. Seconded by Boardmember Lamers. Ayes - All The motion passed. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Boardmember Ledvina requested additional information be added to page 4 in the conditions and to relisten to the audio for the March 24, 2015 CDRB meeting and the comments made by Boardmember Shankar. (The recording secretary did relisten to the audio and added further comments and clarified what Boardmember Shankar had said.) Boardmember Ledvina moved to approve the March 24, 2015, CDRB minutes as amended. Seconded by Boardmember Shankar. Ayes – Chairperson Kempe, Boardmembers Ledvina, Shankar Abstentions – Boardmembers Burger, & Lamers The motion passed. 5. NEW BUSINESS None. May 27, 2015 Community Design Review Board Meeting Minutes 1 6. DESIGN REVIEW a. Approval of Design Review, Kline Volvo Expansion, 3040 Maplewood Drive i. Environmental, City Code Specialist, Chris Swanson gave the Kline Volvo report and answered questions of the board. ii. Planner, Mike Martin answered questions of the board regarding the project. The applicant was not present. Boardmember Ledvina felt condition number 2 was not necessary and the board agreed. The board agreed to adding conditions 5 & 6 regarding screening the roof top equipment and matching the blue accent color. Boardmember Ledvina moved to approve the plans date-stamped May 13, 2015, for the proposed building addition at 3040 Maplewood Drive. Approval is subject to the following (Changes or additions to the staff conditions are in bold and underlined and conditions: deletions are stricken). 1. Approval of design plans is good for two years. If the applicant has not begun construction within two years, this design review shall be repeated. Staff may approve minor changes. 2.The applicant’s proposed addition shall not be any closer to the front property line, the Highway 61 (Maplewood Drive) right-of-way, than the setback established by the existing building. 3. The proposed improvements require the submittal of a parking lot paving permit. An erosion control plan is also required, depicting how the neighboring wetlands will be protected throughout construction. 4. The applicant must pull all required permits before starting work. Any new signage has not been approved. Sign permits are required. 5. All roof top equipment must be screened according to ordinance requirements. 6. The blue accent color on the building and the blue color on the main pylon sign shall be of a matching hue. Seconded by Boardmember Lamers. Ayes – All The motion passed. b. Approval of Design Review, Beam Avenue Medical Building, Northeast of Beam and White Bear Avenues, between Walgreens and Maplewood Heights Park i. Planner, Michael Martin gave the report and answered questions of the board. ii. The applicant, Dan Regan, Launch Properties, 1875 Highway 36 West, Suite 200, Roseville, addressed and answered questions of the board. iii. Rob Stenger, RJ Ryan Construction, 1100 Mendota Heights Rd, Mendota, addressed and answered questions of the board. May 27, 2015 Community Design Review Board Meeting Minutes 2 Boardmember Shankar moved to approve the site and design plans, date-stamped May 13, 2015, for the medical office building to be located northeast of the Beam and White Bear avenues intersection, east of the Walgreens. Approval is subject to the applicant doing the following: a. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. b. Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit, the applicant must submit to staff for approval the following items: 1) Revised grading/landscaping/drainage/utility plans which comply with all city engineering department requirements as specified in the May 20, 2015, engineering report. 2) Revised photometric plan meeting code requirements. 3) Any needed watershed district approval. 4) 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. 5) Submit to community development staff, an approved easement agreement between the applicant and the city outlining the use and maintenance of city park land and the shared parking lot. 6) The 2011 city council approved vacation of the unused right-of-way between the applicant’s parcel and the city park parcel must be recorded with Ramsey County. 7) Revise the site plan to extend the sidewalk to access the road and explore the potential of cross stripping for pedestrian access to Walgreens, subject to staff approval. c. 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 driveways. 3) Install all required landscaping and underground irrigation. 4) Screen or paint the rooftop mechanical equipment to match the building color. All rooftop equipment shall be screened from the residential properties to the north and south. 5) Install all required outdoor lighting. 6) Install fencing along any retaining walls built as part of this project subject to staff approval. d. 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. May 27, 2015 Community Design Review Board Meeting Minutes 3 2) 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. e. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. Seconded by Boardmember Ledvina. Ayes – All The motion passed. This item goes to the city council on June 8, 2015. 7. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS None. 8. BOARD PRESENTATIONS Chairperson Kempe gave an update on the April 13, 2015, City Council meeting as the board representative regarding the Villages at Frost-English which was passed by the city council. 9. STAFF PRESENTATIONS None. 10. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned by Chairperson Kempe at 6:55 p.m. May 27, 2015 Community Design Review Board Meeting Minutes 4 MEMORANDUM TO: Melinda Coleman, City Manager FROM: Michael Martin, AICP, Economic Development Coordinator DATE: July 21, 2015 SUBJECT: Approval of Comprehensive Sign Plan,HealthEast Properties,1600 St. John’s Boulevard Introduction Abigail Stone, of HealthEast Properties, is requesting approval of a comprehensive sign plan for the 1600 Medical Building, located at 1600 St. John’s Boulevard. The site currently is part of the overall comprehensive plan for HealthEast’s St. John’s Hospital campus. In the original comprehensive sign plan for St. John’s there were no signs approved for the 1600 Medical Building but over time minor amendments were approved to add a freestanding sign and one wall sign for the building. Healtheast is now requesting a formal plan for this specific building. Background July 28,1998:The community design review board approved a comprehensive sign plan for the St. John’s Hospital campus. Discussion HealthEast Properties, owner of the 1600 Medical Building, is requesting city approval of a comprehensive sign plan that is specific for this site. The applicant is proposing that up to five tenants are allowed two wall signs each –one on the north elevation and one on either the west or east elevations. The wall signs would be limited to no more than 50 square feet in size. This sign plan also incorporates the existing freestanding sign and wall sign. Appeals For reference purposes, the applicant, staff and city council may appeal the CDRB’s decision. An appeal shall be presented within 15 days of the CDRB decision. If the decision is appealed, staff will schedule a hearing with the city council. Recommendation Approvethecomprehensive sign planforthe 1600 Medical Building,1600 St. John’s Boulevard. Approval of the comprehensive sign plan amendment is subject to the following conditions: a.Not more than five tenants may have wall signage. b.Walls signs shall not exceed 50 square feet. c.Each tenant may have one wall sign on the north elevationand one additional sign on either the east or west elevation d.Wall signs are prohibited on the south elevation e.One freestanding sign, up to six feet in height and 20 square feet in size, is allowed f.Staff may approve minor changes, CDRB major changes Reference Information Site Description Site size: 0.75acres Existing Use: Medical Office Surrounding Land Uses North:St. John’s Hospital Campus South:St. John’s Hospital Campus East:St. John’s Hospital Campus West:St. John’s Hospital Campus Planning Land Use Plan: C (commercial) Zoning: BC (business commercial) Attachements 1.Location Map 2.Site Map 3.Building Renderings Maplewood Heights Kohlman Lake Hazelwood Sherwood Glen Parkside Western Hills Gladstone Hillside Beaver Lake Battle Creek Vista Hills Highwood Carver Ridge Maplewood, City of Maplewood 1600 St. John's Boulevard - 1600 Medical Building Maplewood, Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i- Comprehensive Sign Plan - Overview Map cubed, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community, Esri, HERE, DeLorme, TomTom, MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community Attachment 2 Attachment 3 Attachment 3 Attachment 3 MEMORANDUM TO: Melinda Coleman, City Manager FROM: Michael Martin, AICP, Economic Development Coordinator DATE: July21, 2015 SUBJECT: Approval of Design Review, Shores at Lake Phalen –Parking Lot, 1870 East Shore Drive Introduction Greg Johnson of Maplewood Senior Living, LLC, is requesting approval of a conditional use permit (CUP) revision for a planned unit development (PUD) to add 16 surface parking spaces to the Shores of Lake Phalen, anassisted living developmentlocated at 1870 East Shore Drive. Background On August 9, 2010, the city council approved the following for this site: 1.A lot split. 2.A conditional use permit (CUP) for the planned unit development. 3.Site, building and landscape plans. 4. Awetland buffer variance 5. The creation of a tax increment financing (TIF) housing district Discussion During the annual review of this permit in 2014 staff discovered an overflow parking lot had been installed to serve the Shores at Lake Phalendevelopment. This lot did not meet the city’s basic standards for parking lot construction and crossed over a property line. The property this lot crosses into is slated as a second phase of the Shores development. The existing and approvedplanned unit development for this siteallowsflexibility from the city’s zoning ordinances. Parking lots next to other residential properties are supposed to have a setback of at least 20 feet. The proposed parking lot is setback five feet from the site property line. Staff feels this request for flexibility is acceptable since there will be a phase two development that is related to the Shores development. This is also the only part of the site that a parking lot could be built and not impact a wetland or buffer area. Because of its proximity to Lake Phalen this property is limited to having 40 percent of the site be covered with impervious surfaces. Currently,33.3 percent of the site iscovered by impervious surfaces. With the overflow parking lot, 36.4 percent of the site will be covered by impervious surfaces. The applicant did state in theoriginal 2010 approval that a reduction in thenumber of spaces the city required would be workable for this development however this has not proved true as additional spaces are needed for employees to park. Approving this overflow lot keeps cars from parking on the street and ensures that the lot that was installed last year is removed and all standards of construction are met. The parking stallsare proposed to be 9’ wide which is allowed for employee parking. Staff is recommending a sign be installed marking this lot for employees only. Department Comments Engineering See Jon Jarosch’s staff report attached to this report. Commission Review The planning commission recommended approval of theproposed revision at its meeting on July 21, 2015. The commission did add a condition requiring the applicant to add more spaces to the parking lot if possible. The community design review board will review the proposed revision at its meeting on July 28, 2015. Budget Impact None. Recommendations 1.Approve the revised conditional use permit for a planned unit development resolution to allow an additional 16 parking spaces be added to the property located at 1870 East Shore Drive. Approval is based on the findings required by ordinance and subject to the following conditions(additions are underlined and deletions are crossed out): a.The engineering department shall review and determine approval of all final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall comply with all requirements as specified in the city engineering department’s June 7, 2010 reviewandthe city engineering department’s July 10, 2015review regarding the overflow parking lot. b.All construction shall follow the plans date-stamped May 24, 2010, and with revisions as noted in this approvaland the overflow parking lot shall follow the plansdate-stamped July 2, 2015. The city council may approve major changes to the plans. City staff may approve minor changes to the plans. c.The project is approved with 28 underground and 2440surface parking spaces. This is a parking reduction of 158142parking spaces (210 parking spaces are required per city code). d.The project is approved with a 147 square foot floor area reduction in the required unit floor area for the memory care and assisted living studio units (580 square foot units are required per city code; 433 to 578 square foot units are proposed). e.The project is approved with a 20-foot front yard setback along Frost Avenue for the one-story dining room and kitchen portion of the building (30-foot front yard setback required per city code). f.The project is approvedwith a 5-foot side yard setback along the south property line for the overflow parking lot (20-foot side yard setback is required per city code) g.The project is approved with storage space of not less than 30 cubic feet for the memory care and transitional care units (120 cubic feet of storage area per unit required per city code). h.All signs on the property must be approved by the community design review board. i.Approval is conditioned on the owner constructing or funding a Gladstone neighborhood entry monument sign at the intersection of Frost Avenue and East Shore Drive. j.Approval is conditioned on the applicant implementing interior or exterior signage which reflects the previous use of the property as the St. Paul Tourist Cabin site. k.The approved landscape plan and tree preservation requirements shall be subject to monitoring by city staff to assure compliance. Minor modifications to these plans shall be subject to review by staff while major modifications shall require city council approval. l.The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of city council approval or the permit shall end. The city council may extend this deadline for one year. m.The city council shall review this permit in one year. n.Approval is conditioned on the owner submittinga revised site plan for the overflow parking lot showing location, size, and species of trees that will be removed due to the construction of the parking lot.Applicant must follow city’s tree preservation and replacement requirements. o.A sign shall be installed indicating the overflow parking lot is for employee parking only. p.If site conditions and ordinance requirements allow, the applicant shall maximizethe amount of parking spaces that can be added to the overflow parking lot. 2.Approvethe plans date-stamped July 10, 2015 for the proposed parking lot at the Shores at Lake Phalen, 1870 East Shore Drive. Approval of subject to the applicant doing the following: a.Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued permits for this project. b.Submita revised site plan for the overflow parking lot showing location, size, and species of trees that will be removed due to the construction of the parking lot. Applicant must follow city’s tree preservation and replacement requirements. c.If lighting is added to this parking lot, a photometric plan must be submittal to staff for approval to ensure compliance with ordinance. d.All sod and required native plantings must be restored to existing conditions. Citizen Comments Staff surveyed the 24property owners within 500 feet of this site for their comments. There was one reply and it was in favor of the project. For If they are already doing it might as well let them do it right and meetrequirements.But communicate that no moreparking will be allowed.Was at original meetings saying there was not enough parking.(Mindy Mac Runnel, 1890 Adele Street North) Reference Information Site Description Site Size:4.41 acres Existing Use: Senior/Assisted Living Apartments Surrounding Land Uses North:Parkway Drive South:Vacant Land West:Parkview Court apartments East:East Shore Drive Planning Land Use Plan designation: High Density Residential (hdr) Zoning: Planned Unit Development(pud) Application Date The city received the complete application for a conditional use permit on July 2, 2015. The 60- day review deadline for a decision is August 31, 2015. As stated in Minnesota State Statute 15.99, the city is allowed to take an additional 60 days if necessary in order to complete the review of the application. Attachments 1.Conditional Use Permit Resolution 2.Location Map 3.Land Use Plan Map 4.Jon Jarosch’s Engineering Report, dated July 10, 2015 5.Applicant’s Letter of Request, dated June 26, 2015 6.Applicant’s Site Plan 7.Plan Set (separate attachment) Attachment 1 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Greg Johnson of Maplewood Senior living, LLC, applied for a revised conditional use permitfor a planned unit development to create 16 additional parkingspaces at 1870East Shore Drive. WHEREAS, this permit applies to the property at 1870 East Shore Drive. The legal description is: LOT 1, BLOCK 1, THE SHORE OF LAKE PHALEN, RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA THAT LIES NORTHERLY OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED LINE: COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 1, THENCE NORTH 27 DEGREES 23 MINUTES 03 SECONDS WEST, ALONG THE SOUTHWESTERLY LOT LINE OF SAID LOT 1, A DISTANCE OF 509.1 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE LINE TO BE DESCRIBED; THENCE NORTH 64 DEGREES 53 MINUTES 46 SECONDS EAST A DISTANCE OF 105.83 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 61 DEGREES 19 MINUTES 41 SECONDS EAST, A DISTANCE OF 74.90 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 1 AND THERE TERMINATING. (PIN 16-29-22-31-0029) WHEREAS, on July 21, 2015, the planning commission held a public hearing. The city staff published notice in the Maplewood Review and sent a notice to the abutting property owners. The planning commission gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The planning commission also considered reports and recommendations from the city staff. The planning commission recommended that the city council__________ this request. WHEREAS, onJuly 212015, the city council reviewed this request after considering the recommendations ofstaff and the planning commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council________________ the above- described conditional use permit because: 1.The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be inconformity withthe City’s Comprehensive Plan and Code of Ordinances. 2.The use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area. 3.The use would not depreciate property values. 4.The use would not involve any activity, process, materials, equipment or methods of operation that would be dangerous, hazardous, detrimental, disturbing or cause a nuisance to any person or property, because of excessive noise, glare, smoke, dust, odor, fumes, water or air pollution, drainage, eater run-off, vibration, general unsightliness, electrical interference or other nuisances. 5.The use would generate only minimal vehicular traffic on local streets and would not create traffic congestion or unsafe access on existing or proposed streets. Attachment 1 6.The use would be served by adequate public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, water and sewer systems, schools and parks. 7.The use would not create excessiveadditional cost for public facilities or services. 8.The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site’s natural and scenic features in to the development design. 9.The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects. Approval is subject to the following conditions(additions are underlined and deletions are crossed out): a.The engineering department shall review and determine approval of all final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall comply with all requirements as specified in the city engineering department’s June 7, 2010 reviewand the city engineering department’s July 10, 2015review regarding the overflow parking lot. b.All construction shall follow the plans date-stamped May 24, 2010, and with revisions as noted in this approvaland the overflow parking lot shall follow the plans date-stamped July 2, 2015. The city council may approve major changes to the plans. City staff may approve minor changes to the plans. c. The project is approved with 28 underground and 2440surface parking spaces. This is a parking reduction of 158142parking spaces (210 parking spaces are required per city code). d.The project is approved with a 147 square foot floor area reduction in the required unit floor area for the memory care and assisted living studio units (580 square foot units are required per city code; 433 to 578 square foot units are proposed). e.The project is approved with a 20-foot front yard setback along Frost Avenue for the one-story dining room and kitchen portion of the building (30-foot front yard setback required per city code). f.The project is approvedwith a 5-foot side yard setback along the south property line for the overflow parking lot (20-foot side yard setback is required per city code) g.The project is approved with storage space of not less than 30 cubic feet for the memory care and transitional care units (120 cubic feet of storage area per unit required per city code). h.All signs on the property must be approved by the community design review board. i.Approval is conditioned on the owner constructing or funding a Gladstone neighborhood entry monument sign at the intersection of Frost Avenue and East Shore Drive. j.Approval is conditioned on the applicant implementing interior or exterior signage which reflects the previous use of the property as the St. Paul Tourist Cabin site. Attachment 1 k. The approved landscape plan and tree preservation requirements shall be subject to monitoring by city staff to assure compliance. Minor modifications to these plans shall be subject to review by staff while major modifications shall require city council approval. l.The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of city council approval or the permit shall end. The city council may extend this deadline for one year. m.The city council shall review this permit in one year. n.Approval is conditioned on the owner submittinga revised site plan for the overflow parking lot showing location, size, and species of trees that will be removed due to the construction of the parking lot.Applicant must follow city’s tree preservation and replacement requirements. o.A sign shall be installed indicating the overflow parking lot is for employee parking only. p.If site conditions and ordinance requirements allow, the applicant shall maximize the amount of parking spaces that can be added to the overflow parking lot. The Maplewood City Council____________ this resolution on ___________, 2015 Maplewood Heights Kohlman Lake Hazelwood Sherwood Glen Parkside Western Hills Gladstone Hillside Beaver Lake Battle Creek Vista Hills Highwood Carver Ridge Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, TomTom, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Maplewood, City of Maplewood Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), swisstopo, MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the The Shores at Lake Phalen GIS User Community, Maplewood, Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, Earthstar Geographics, Planned Unit Development Revision - Overview Map CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community, City of Maplewood, Esri, HERE, DeLorme, TomTom, MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community Maplewood, Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, Earthstar The Shores at Lake Phalen Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community, City of Legend Maplewood, Esri, HERE, DeLorme, TomTom, MapmyIndia, © Planned Unit Development Revision - Land Use Map OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community High Density Residential Park Low Density Residential Engineering Plan Review PROJECT: The Shores of Lake Phalen – Parking Lot PROJECT NO: 15-13 COMMENTS BY: Jon Jarosch, P.E. – Staff Engineer DATE: 7-10-2015 PLAN SET: Engineering plans dated 6-23-2015 The applicant is proposing to add a 16 stall parking lot at the Shores of Lake Phalen. The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit revision to install this lot. The installation of this parking lot will require the applicantto meet the City’s stormwater quality, rate control, and other stormwater managementrequirements. This review does not constitute a final review of the plans, as the applicant will need to submit construction documents for final review.Thefollowing are engineeringreview comments on the design and act as conditions prior to issuing permits. Drainage and Stormwater Management 1)As this project is creating more than 5,000 square feet of new impervious surface, the applicant shall meet the requirements set forth in the City’s stormwater ordinance. This includes maintaining pre-improvement flow rates and providing water quality treatment for the new impervious surfaces. The current drainage plan for this parking lot depicts the runoff being directed onto adjacent property. This plan does not meet the requirements of the City’s ordinance. The plans shall be revised to meet the ordinance. It should be noted that the existing infiltration basin, in the center of the existing parking lot, appears to have been oversized and has additional water quality capacity available. 2)A grading and erosion control plan shall be provided to depict how the proposed parking lot ties into the site and neighboring property. If grading is proposed on the neighboring property, the applicant shall obtain necessary rights of entry or temporary easements and provide a copy of such to the City prior to the issuance of a grading permit. Grading and Erosion Control 3)All slopesshall be 3H:1V or flatter. 4)The existing infiltration basinshall be protected from sedimentation throughout construction. 5)Inlet protection devices shall be installed on allexistingand proposedonsite storm seweruntil all exposed soils onsite are stabilized. 6)All pedestrian facilities shall be ADA compliant. 7)The total grading volume (cut/fill) shall be noted on the plans. 8)All emergency overland overflows shall contain adequate stabilization to prevent soils from eroding during large storm events. 9)The applicant shall satisfy the requirements of all other permitting agencies. Please provide copies of other required permits and approvals. - END COMMENTS - MEMORANDUM TO: Melinda Coleman, City Manager FROM: Michael Martin, AICP,Economic Development Coordinator DATE: July 21, 2015 SUBJECT: Approval of Design Review, Minnesota Women’s Care Clinic, 2603 White Bear Avenue Introduction Minnesota Women’s Care Clinic,at 2603 White Bear Avenue, is requesting approval to expand itsexisting 2,380square-foot building with a new 5,050square foot addition to the north.The applicant is purchasing the vacant lot to the north to facilitate this expansion. Discussion Building Design The north, west and south walls of the clinic will be a gray tinted stucco finish with dark anodized aluminum windows. The east wall of the new addition and entrance vestibule will be white metal panels with clear anodized aluminum windows. The entrance canopy will be metal with a yellow finish. Site Plan The existing building is setback approximately 21 feet from the front property line. Ordinance typically requires a building setback of 30 feet from the front property line but does allow additions to use non-conforming setbacks. The applicant is proposing to build the addition with a 25 foot setback which meets city requirements. All other building and parking lot setbacks would be met. No additional curb cuts will be required because of this project. The existing sidewalk along White Bear Avenue will not be impacted. Parking City ordinancerequiresmedical officesto have one parking space per 200 square feet of floor area. The total usable floor area of both the existing and new clinic is approximately 6,780 square feet–requiring a total of 34 spaces. There are existingagreements for parking and access between Minnesota Women’s Care Clinicand both properties to the north and south. The existing building to the north has 2,100 square feet of usable floor area and requires 11 parking spaces. The existing building to the south has 5,400 square feet of usable floor area and therefore requires 27 parking spaces. Total parking required for all threeproperties is 72 parking spaces. The applicant’s plansshow 72 parking spaces plus ninefuture parking spaces for a total of 81 parking spaces. Trash Enclosure Currently, there are trash receptacles on site and not screened by an enclosure which is a violation of city ordinance. The applicant is proposing to house trash receptacles inside the building. Tree Preservation The tree plan shows 9 trees on the site, 5 of those are defined as significant trees (equaling 86 diameter inches). Redevelopment of the site will result in the removal of 3 significant trees (equaling 62 diameter inches).The applicant must replace 48.44 caliper inches of trees based on the City’s tree replacement calculation. The landscape plan shows 14 new trees planted on the site (equaling 32 caliper inches). In order to meet the City’s tree preservation ordinance, the applicant must: 1) add 16.44 caliper inches of new trees to the site (increase the tree sizes or plant additional trees); 2) pay into the City’s tree fund at a rate of $60per replacement caliper inch that is not planted on the site; or 3) a combination of both. Landscaping The landscaping plan shows a new landscaped area on the east side of the building facing White Bear Avenue. Landscaping is also provided around theperimeter of the building. Two large poplars and one birch clump need to be removed for construction of the new addition. Existing box elders and an elm are being retained along White Bear Avenue. A number of new birch trees are added in the landscapingplan. Lighting The applicant’s photometric plan shows the proposed lighting will be meeting the city’s lighting ordinance requirements. Department Comments Building Department Nick Carver, building official –Applicant must follow all Minnesota State Building Code requirements. Fire Department Butch Gervais, fire marshal –Applicant will berequired to add fire protection to the entire building this includes the existing building. Applicantwill need analarm system that is monitored, Fire DeptLockbox. Police Department Paul Schnell, police chief –No issues. EngineeringDepartment See Jon Jarosch’s staff report attached to this report. Environmental Review See Shann Finwall’s staff report attached to this report. Recommendation Approve the plans date-stamped July 14, 2015for the proposedbuilding additionat 2603 White Bear Avenue.Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1.Approval of design plans is good for two years.If the applicant has not begun constructionwithintwo years, this design review shall be repeated. Staff may approve minor changes. 2.Theapplicant’s proposed addition shall not be any closer to the front property line, the White Bear Avenueright-of-way,than the setback established by the existing building. 3.All trash receptacles must either be kept inside the building or an outside trash enclosure must be built on site. 4.Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit, the applicant must submit to staff for approval the following item: a.Parking and access agreements with the properties at 2599 and 2607 White Bear Avenue. 5.Satisfy the requirements set forth in the staff report authored by staff engineer Jon Jarosch, dated July 17, 2015. 6.Satisfy the requirements set forth in the staff report authored by environmental plannerShann Finwall, dated July 20, 2015. Reference Information Site Description Site size: 0.52acres Existing land use: Medical clinic and vacant land Surrounding Land Uses North: Office building South: Multi-tenant commercial building West: Vacant commercial land East: White Bear Avenue and Bachmans Planning Land Use Plan designation: C (commercial) Zoning: BC(business commercial) Application Date The application for this request was considered complete on July 14, 2015.State law requires that the city decide on these applications within 60 days. The deadline for city council action on this proposal is September 12, 2015. Attachments 1.Location Map 2.Land Use Map 3.Zoning Map 4.Applicant’s Letter, July 7, 2015 5.Proposed Site Plan 6.Building Elevations 7.Engineering report, Jon Jarosch, July 17, 2015 8.Environmental Report, Shann Finwall, July 20, 2015 9.Plans date-stamped July 14, 2015(separate attachment) Maplewood Heights Kohlman Lake Hazelwood Sherwood Glen Parkside Western Hills Gladstone Hillside Beaver Lake Battle Creek Vista Hills Highwood Carver Ridge Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, TomTom, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Maplewood, City of Maplewood Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), swisstopo, MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the 2603 White Bear Avenue - Minnesota Women's Care Clinic GIS User Community, Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus Design Review - Overview Map DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community, City of Maplewood, Esri, HERE, DeLorme, TomTom, MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community Attachment 2 Maplewood, Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, Earthstar 2603 White Bear Ave - Minn Women's Care Clinic Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Legend Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community, City of Maplewood, Esri, HERE, DeLorme, TomTom, MapmyIndia, © Design Review - Land Use Map Low Density Residential Commercial OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community Government Open Space Attachment 3 Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, TomTom, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), swisstopo, MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community, Maplewood, Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, Earthstar 2603 White Bear Ave - Minn Women's Care Clinic Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Legend Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community, City of Maplewood, Esri, HERE, DeLorme, TomTom, MapmyIndia, © Business Commercial (bc) Design Review - Zoning Map Open Space/Park OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community Single Dwelling (r1) Farm (f) Planned Unit Development (pud) Attachment 4 ULY J7,2015 ITY OF APLEWOODINNESOTA CM,M OMMUNITY ESIGN EVIEW OARD PPLICATION FOR CDRBA: INNESOTA OMENS ARE MWÈC HITE EAR VENUE 2603WBA Minnesota WomenÈs Care proposes to add a 5,050 square foot addit 2,380 square foot clinic building located at 2603 White Bear Ave ITE AYOUT SL The Maplewood Zoning Code stipulates a front setback of 30È, how established an existing setback of 21.2È at the front corner of front corner of the existing building. We request the use of a 2 closely align with the existing building and other adjacent prop established existing setbacks of less than 25È. All other required setbacks are met. URB UTS CC Existing curb cuts will be maintained. The existing curb cut to shared by Minnesota WomenÈs Care and the property owner to the n property. The existing curb cut to the south of the existing cli WomenÈs Care and the property owner to the south; it is located There are existing Shared Property Agreements for parking and ac Care and both properties to the north and south. IDEWALKS S There is an existing 8È wide public sidewalk in the easement alo place. ARKING P City code requires commercial buildings, including medical offic square feet of floor area. The total usable floor area of both t 6,780 square feet (this total excludes the exterior wall, entran the proposed clinic building including the addition requires a t There are existing Shared Property Agreements for parking and ac Care and both properties to the north and south. The existing building to the north has approximately 2,100 squar therefore requires 11 parking spaces. The existing building to t usable floor area and therefore requires 27 parking spaces. Total parking required for all 3 properties is 72 parking spaces future parking spaces for a total of 81 parking spaces. 1229 Tyler Street NE | Minneapolis | Minnesota 55413 | Studio 20 shelterarchitecture.com Attachment 4 ANDSCAPING L The Landscaping Plan shows a new landscaped area on the east sid Avenue. Landscaping is also provided around the perimeter of the Two large poplars and one birch clump need to be removed for con Existing box elders and an elm are being retained along White Be trees are added in the landscaping plan, but the total diameter replace removed trees, therefore we propose to provide a contrib stipulated in the application form. The existing building sign is proposed to remain. IGHTING L Proposed exterior lighting for the existing building and additio fixtures around the north, west and south facades of the buildin illumination. A recessed LED down-light is to be provided at the at the entry. As shown on the Photometric Plan there is no spill exceed 0.4 foot-candles except at the shared parking area to the the proposed fixtures are submitted with this application. RASH T We propose that all trash facilities will be located within the UILDING LEVATIONS BE The north, west and south walls of the clinic will be a gray tin aluminum windows. The east wall of the new addition and entrance with clear anodized aluminum windows. The entrance canopy will b 1229 Tyler Street NE | Minneapolis | Minnesota 55413 | Studio 20 shelterarchitecture.com Attachment 5 7/7/2015 1:21:14 PM :);:%)$A&0#+% 2>&B&8G2>&B&8G =5>&B&6G2<>&B&==G=5>&B&6G ==&.:(@%.&F&C>&B&8G :);:%)$A&0#+% 5&.:(@%. Attachment 6 7/7/2015 10:28:11 AM Attachment 7 Engineering Plan Review PROJECT: Minnesota Women’s Care PROJECT NO: 15-15 COMMENTS BY: Jon Jarosch, P.E. – Staff Engineer DATE: 7-17-2015 PLAN SET: Engineering plans dated 7-7-2015 REPORTS: Storm Water Management Reportdated 6-30-2015 The applicant is proposinga 5,050 square foot addition to their existing building at 2603 White Bear Avenue. Included with this addition is the installation of an underground infiltration system, the installation of new sewer and water services, the installation of a new bituminous parking lot, and site landscaping. As this project is creating more than 5,000 square feet of new impervious surface, the applicant is required to meet the City’s stormwatermanagement requirements. It appears that the current plan is adequate to meetthese requirements, pendingverification of geotechnical information. This review does not constitute a final review of the plans, as the applicant will need to submit construction documentsand geotechnical informationfor final review.Thefollowing are engineeringreview comments on the design and act as conditions prior to issuing permits. Drainage and Stormwater Management 1)The project shall be submitted to the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District (RWMWD) for review. All conditions of RWMWD shall be met. 2)The applicant is proposingthe use ofinfiltrationor filtrationto meet water quality requirements.As such, the applicant shall submit copies of geotechnical information (soil borings, infiltrations tests, etc.) to support infiltration rates shown in the hydraulic calculations. Grading and Erosion Control 3)The proposed infiltration areasshall be protected from sedimentation throughout construction. 4)The parking lot and entrance drive on the adjacent property to the south shall be protected from sedimentation throughout construction. Attachment 7 5)Storm sewer inlets along White Bear Avenue shall be protected throughout construction until all exposed soils onsite are stabilized. 6)Adjacent streetsand parking lots shall be swept as needed to keep the pavementclear of sediment and construction debris. 7)All pedestrian facilities shall be ADA compliant. 8)A copy of the project SWPPP andNDPES Permit shall be submitted prior to the issuance of a grading permit. 9)Stabilized construction entrances shall be placed at all entry/exit points to the site, including the access off of White BearAvenue. 10)The total grading volume (cut/fill) shall be noted on the plans. 11)All emergency overland overflows shall contain adequate stabilization to prevent soils from eroding during large storm events. Sanitary Sewer and Water Service 12)Sanitary sewer service piping shall be schedule 40 PVC or SDR 35. 13)The proposed water service modifications are subject to the review and conditions of Saint Paul Regional Water Services(SPRWS). The applicant shall submit plans and specifications to SPRWS for review and meet all requirements they may haveprior to the issuance of a grading permit by the City. 14)The applicant shall be responsible for paying any SAC, WAC, or PAC charges related to the improvements proposed with this project. Other 15)The plans shall be signed by a professional engineer currently licensed in the State of Minnesota. 16)ARamsey County right-of way permit shall be submitted for any work within the public right-of-wayalong White Bear Avenue. All areas within Ramsey County right-of-way shall be restored per County specifications. 17)The Owner shall sign a maintenance agreement, prepared by the City, for all storm water treatment devices (sumps, storm sewer, infiltration systems, etc.). Attachment 7 18)The application materials note the existence of ‘Shared Property Agreements’ for parking and cross access. A copy of this agreement shall be provided to the City prior to the issuance of a grading permit. 19)The applicant shall provide a self-renewing letter of credit or cash escrow in the amount of 125% of the proposed site improvements including earthwork, grading, erosion control, site vegetation establishment, aggregate base,utilities,and paving. 20)The applicant shall satisfy the requirements of all other permitting agencies. Please provide copies of other required permits and approvals. - END COMMENTS - Attachment 8 Environmental Review Project: Minnesota Women’s Care Dateof Plans: July7, 2015 Date of Review: July20, 2015 Location: 2603White Bear Avenue Reviewers: Shann Finwall, Environmental Planner (651) 249-2304orshann.finwall@ci.maplewood.mn.us Background: The project adds a 5,050 square foot addition to the north side of the existing 2,380 square foot clinic building. The project includes the removal of significanttrees. Tree Preservation Ordinance :Maplewood’s tree preservation ordinance describes a significant tree as a hardwood tree with a minimum of 6 inches in diameter, an evergreen tree with a minimum of 8 inches in diameter, and a softwood tree with a minimum of 12 inches in diameter. The ordinance requires any significant tree removed during redevelopment of the site to be replaced based on a tree mitigation calculation. The calculation takes into account the size of a tree removed versus overall significant treessituated on the property. Tree Removal :The tree plan shows 9 trees on the site, 5 of those are defined as significant trees (equaling 86 diameterinches). Redevelopment of the site will result in the removal of 3 significant trees (equaling 62diameterinches). Tree Replacement: The applicant must replace 48.44 caliper inchesof trees based on the City’s tree replacement calculation.The landscape plan shows 14new trees planted on the site (equaling 32caliper inches).In order to meet theCity’s tree preservation ordinance, the applicant must: 1)add 16.44 caliper inches of new trees to the site(increase the tree sizes or plant additional trees); 2)pay into the City’s tree fund at a rate of $60 per replacement caliper inch that is not planted on the site ($986.40);or 3) a combination of both. Tree Preservation Recommendations: 1.Revised Tree Plan: The tree plan includes a tree replacement calculation that is incorrect. Based on the size of significant trees on the site, versus the size of significant trees removed, the applicant is required to replace 48.44 caliper inches, not 62 caliper inches as called out on the plan. The applicant should submit a revised tree plan which reflects the City’s tree replacement calculations accurately. 2.Revised Landscape Plan or Tree Fund Payment: a.The applicant must submit arevised landscape plan which shows a total of 48.44 caliper inches of replacement trees on the site; or b.The applicant must submit a payment to the City’s tree fund at a rate of $60 per replacement caliper inch that is not planted on the site($986.40); or c. The applicant must combine a and b measures above. 1