Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/22/2005 AGENDA CITY OF MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD November 22, 2005 6:00 P.M. Council Chambers. Maplewood City Hall 1830 County Road BEast 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Agenda 4. Approval of Minutes: November 9, 2005 5. Unfinished Business: a. Maple Leaf Ridge Business Center - 2483 and 2497 Maplewood Drive b. Ashley Furniture Design Reconsideration (Neon Lighting) - 1770 County Road D 6. Design Review: a. Regions Sleep Center - 2688 Mapiewood Drive 7. Visitor Presentations: 8. Board Presentations: 9. Staff Presentations: a. Gladstone Redevelopment Concept Plan b. Community Design Review Board Representation at the December 12, 2005. City Council Meeting 10. Adjourn DRAFT MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD 1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 9, 2005 I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Longrie called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Board member John Hinzman Board member Matt Ledvina Chairperson Diana Longrie Vice chairperson Linda Olson Board member Ananth Shankar Present Absent Present until 6:50 p.m. Present Present until 7:20 p.m. Staff Present: Shann Finwall, Planner Lisa Kroll, Recording Secretary III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Ms. Finwall requested the addition of item 9. b. Gladstone Concept Plan Review under Staff Presentations. Board member Olson moved to approve the agenda as amended. Board member Hinzman seconded. Ayes - Hinzman, Longrie, Olson, Shankar The motion passed. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of the CDRB minutes for October 25, 2005. Board member Hinzman moved approval of the minutes of October 25, 2005. Board member Olson seconded. Ayes ---Hinzman, Longrie, Olson, Shankar The motion passed. V. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. VI. DESIGN REVIEW a. 3M Building 231 (Utility Plant) and Building 246 (Cooling Towers) - 3M Campus (South of Conway Avenue) Ms. Finwall said 3M Company is proposing to construct two buildings on their campus on the south side of Conway Avenue. Community Design Review Board Minutes 11-09-2005 2 The first of these, Building 231, would be adjacent to Building 210 and would measure 105 by 105-feet in size. 3M would use this space as part of their utility (chilled water and steam) operations. The exterior materials proposed for the elevations of Building 231 include orange-tan brick, pre-finished almond-colored metal panels, bronze-colored trim and windows. The second project is the expansion of Building 246 (which is now west of Building 213). 3M uses this building as a cooling tower and they are proposing to build two additional cooling towers next to the existing tower. The cooling towers are, essentially more "equipment" than building. 3M needs these cooling towers as part of their water- cooling operations. The water that is cooled in the towers is the "heated" water 3M uses in their campus building-heating operations. Building 246 (the cooling towers) would match the grey/green color of the adjacent cooling tower to the east and have metal louvers and openings to facilitate its water-cooling function. Board member Shankar asked if the existing cooling tower will match the height of the new cooling tower? Ms. Finwall said she would refer that question to the applicant. Chairperson Longrie asked the applicant to address the board. Mr. Michael Scanlon, who spoke on behalf of 3M, addressed the board. Mr. Scanlon brought building samples that would be used on the cooling tower and described how the materials would match the existing building. Mr. Scanlon also stated that the new cooling tower would be the same height as the existing towers. Chairperson Longrie asked how they feel about the staff recommendation to add more landscaping between Conway Avenue and 3M Building 246? Mr. Scanlon said the purpose of the cooling tower is to have an open area around the cooling tower to allow the air to flow through to make it an efficient unit. When you plant large vegetation around the cooling tower you start hampering the air flow. Chairperson Longrie asked how far away the trees would have to be planted away from the cooling tower so there wouldn't be any interference with the air flow? Mr. Scanlon said he wasn't sure but they are limited to the amount of space because of the street, the cooling tower, the fire access lane and a small strip of landscaping that exists, and then there is the sidewalk and street. Board member Shankar asked where the dark bronze building material would be used, would it be on the coping or on the window frames? Mr. Scanlon said the coping or parapet along the roof would be medium bronze and the doors and louvers on the elevations that are against the brick would also be medium bronze. They are coloring the doors to match the metal panel and the windows are a clear anodized aluminum color. Community Design Review Board Minutes 11-09-2005 3 Board member Shankar asked if this proposal would require any additional parking? Ms. Finwall said no. Board member Olson moved to approve the plans date-stamped October 27, 2005, for the following 3M building projects on the south side of Conway Avenue: 1. Building 231 (adjacent to Building 210). 2. Building 246 (the two proposed chillers). Approval is subject to the following conditions: a. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. b. Before the city issues a grading or building permit, the applicant must: 1) Meet all the requirements of the city engineering department. If the city engineering department requires, the applicant or project manager shall submit to city engineering staff for revised engineering and grading plans. The revised plans shall meet all the requirements of the city engineering department. 2) Work with city staff to determine the feasibility of additional landscaping between the cooling towers at Conway Avenue. c. The applicant or contractor shall complete the following before occupying the buildings: 1) Replace any property irons removed because of this construction. 2) If changed or disturbed, provide continuous concrete curb and gutter around the parking lots and driveways. 3) Install all required outdoor lighting. 4) Restore any disturbed turf areas and landscaping. d. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. Board member Hinzman seconded. Ayes -Hinzman, Longrie, Olson, Shankar The motion passed. b. CVS Pharmacy Comprehensive Sign Plan - 2180 White Bear Avenue Ms. Finwall said Crosstown Sign, Inc. is proposing to install signage at the new CVS Pharmacy located at 2180 White Bear Avenue. Community Design Review Board Minutes 11-09-2005 4 Ms. Finwall said a condition of design review approval of the new pharmacy was that all signs be approved by the community design review board (CDRB). The city's sign code specifies that all multi-tenant buildings (buildings with five or more tenants) must be reviewed by the CDRB for approval of a comprehensive sign plan. All other signs are approved administratively and must comply with the sign requirements of each specified zoning district. In this case however, the CDRB conditioned the design approval on the building on the condition that all signs are approved by the CDRB. The CDRB made this condition due to the visible location of the pharmacy on two major roads and near city hall. The CDRB should reference the board's recently adopted draft sign code when reviewing this proposal. The draft sign code, when approved by the city council, would allow one wall sign for each street upon which the property has frontage, plus one wall sign for each clearly differentiated department. The size of wall signage is determined by the gross square footage of the principal structure on the property. The size of wall signage is determined by the gross square footage of the principal structure on the property. CVS Pharmacy is 13,013 square feet in area and would be limited to wall signage of 100 square feet or less for each sign. One freestanding sign is permitted for each street upon which the property has frontage. The total size and maximum height of the freestanding sign is determined by the street classification of the closest street to which each freestanding sign is located. CVS Pharmacy is located on a minor arterial (White Bear Avenue) and a collector (County Road B) and would be allowed a freestanding sign which is 140 square feet in area and 20 feet in height. Changeable copy message boards are permitted as part of a permanent freestanding sign but are limited to comprising no more than 70 percent of the total square footage of the sign. On-site directional signs of six square feet or less which are designed to help facilitate the movement of pedestrians and vehicles within the site and identify the location and nature of a building not readily visible from the street are permitted. There is no maximum number of on-site directional signs specified in the draft sign code. Crosstown Sign is proposing four wall signs (two CVS signs and two drive-thru pharmacy signs), one freestanding sign, and seventeen on-site directional signs for the CVS Pharmacy. In order to comply with the draft sign code, one drive-thru pharmacy sign would need to be removed. Board member Olson asked if CVS Pharmacy was proposing to have directional signs on site? Ms. Finwall said yes they are proposing 17 directional signs which would be under the six square feet in area allowance as specified in the new draft sign code. In the new draft sign code it does not specify an overall number of directional signs. Board member Olson said that is something she feels the board should address. Community Design Review Board Minutes 11-09-2005 5 Board member Shankar said CVS Pharmacy doesn't address the color of the directional signs. Ms. Finwall said CVS Pharmacy didn't specify the color of the directional signs but that is something the board could address tonight with the comprehensive sign code but in the actual proposed draft ordinance colors of directional signs are not discussed. Board member Olson asked about the manual reader board and how the messages would be attached? Ms. Finwall said perhaps the applicant could address the question. Chairperson Longrie asked when the draft sign code would be adopted by the city council? Ms. Finwall said staff hopes to have public feedback by the end of November with the information compiled and brought back to the CDRB sometime in December or January so the city council would see the draft sign code sometime in February. Chairperson Longrie asked when the CVS Pharmacy signage would be constructed? Ms. Finwall said CVS proposes to construct the signs immediately. Chairperson Longrie asked the applicant to address the board. Mr. Brian Alton, Lawyer representing CVS Pharmacy, 951 Grand Avenue, St. Paul, addressed the board. He said there are 10 directional signs, not 17 as stated by staff. These directional signs are to direct traffic through the drive-thru pharmacy window. Regarding the manual reader board it will be a zip track which is a track to slide the words or letters into so it is easily changeable. There were two pylon signs on this property before it was redeveloped for CVS Pharmacy. They originally anticipated putting a monument sign on the northwest corner of the property in addition to the freestanding sign but decided not to do that because they do not want to clutter the property at the intersection up with too many signs. Now they will have one pylon sign 15 feet tall, which is shorter than the two pylon signs that were on the site before, and this sign will be 5 feet shorter than what is allowed in the proposed draft sign code. Therefore, they feel this sign plan is appropriate and should be approved as shown. The staff recommendation is to have all brick piers for the pylon signs which would be cost prohibitive and would require reengineering the sign which could take many weeks to put a new plan together and would add $8,000 to $10,000 to the cost of the sign. They propose to have brick piers that are two feet in height which they feel is adequate and should provide a strong base for the sign. The rest of the sign is designed to match the building. The building has the brick base and stucco above which will match the proposed sign. They feel the staff recommendation to have full brick piers should be eliminated. Community Design Review Board Minutes 11-09-2005 6 Mr. Alton said regarding the square footage of the wall signs, when Icon Identity Solutions read the current sign code and designed the signs for CVS Pharmacy they realized they could have 500 square feet of signs on one of the smaller sides of the building and they are not proposing anywhere near that square footage for signs. They proposed to have two wall signs on each side of the building and to have additional signage but have since dropped that request and are now requesting only two signs per elevation. Mr. Alton said they have proposed to have the CVS Pharmacy sign at 132 square feet which allows CVS to have 48 inch high lettering and the word pharmacy would be in lower case letters which they think is reasonable. For one thing they are talking about the "draft" sign code. There may be changes to the draft sign code and what if the city decides to change things; they don't feel they should be held to the standard of the draft sign code, however, they are willing to come pretty close to the city's sign code. Mr. Alton said they agreed to delete additional signage that they had planned to have on the building. Icon Identity Solutions is the company that designs the signage for CVS Pharmacy. The landscape plan was submitted with the original plan for CVS Pharmacy and the landscape plan may need to be modified because the location of the pylon sign has changed and they are happy to comply with that. Board member Hinzman said staff recommended the brick extend up the pillars of the sign, but was the recommendation for the brick to extend to the top of the sign? Ms. Finwall said staff was recommending the brick extend to the sign board. Board member Hinzman said Mr. Alton said the sign was not engineered to extend the brick that high and that the sign would require a new engineering plan which could delay the CVS Pharmacy freestanding sign for weeks. Mr. Alton said he isn't an engineer but that's what he understood. Board member Shankar said staff recommended materials be used that would be compatible to the building so they could use something other than brick on the sign. Ms. Finwall said staff was recommending this additional brick design element because with the comprehensive sign plan the board has the ability to add additional design standards over and above what the sign code requires. Board member Hinzman asked if the 100 square foot sign provision for wall signs was under the draft sign code? Ms. Finwall said correct. Chairperson Longrie asked if the plans date-stamped September 7, 2005, was for the 132 square foot wall sign versus the staff recommendation for a wall sign at 100 square feet? Mr. Alton said correct. Community Design Review Board Minutes 11-09-2005 7 Board member Shankar asked if all CVS Pharmacy signs in the Twin Cities are the same square footage? Mr. Alton said that's probably not true and he doesn't want to mislead the board. He doesn't usually get involved in these proposals but he believes the 48 inch high lettering is the standard height for CVS Pharmacy locations. Ms. Finwall said just to clarify, staff has indicated this property could have four signs which includes wall and freestanding signs. Staff is recommending CVS Pharmacy remove one of the drive-thru pharmacy signs. The sign over the drive thru itself would be considered a directional sign as that is under the allowable six square foot size for directional signs. Ms. Finwall said in order to comply with the 100 square foot height CVS Pharmacy would have to drop the size of the CVS letters from 48 inches high to 32 inches high. Chairperson Longrie asked if the applicant is asking to keep the drive-thru pharmacy sign that staff recommended be eliminated? Mr. Alton said they could eliminate one of the drive-thru pharmacy signs on the shorter of the building elevations. Chairperson Longrie said she wanted to be clear on the plan. The applicant is voluntarily deciding whether or not they want to use this as their standard. The ordinance the city has in place is the ordinance the city has in place. Even though the CDRB may recommend something different the city council may have a different opinion. The city doesn't want to force a company to do something they don't have a legal obligation to do and put the city in a position where they have to defend against that. She appreciates the applicant is willing to do some give and take here so that the CDRB can work with this plan and it sounds like the applicant is willing to drop one of the drive-thru pharmacy signs. Board member Shankar asked what color the individual letters would be backlit at night? Mr. Alton said the letters would be backlit with red as shown on the drawings. Board member Shankar said some colors tend to accentuate the 48 inch tall letters and make the letters look five feet tall and some colors tend to make the 48 inch tall letters look smaller. Chairperson Longrie asked the sign company to address the board. Mr. Ryan Shaw, Icon Identity Solutions, 1418 Elmhurst Road, Elk Grove Village, Illinois, addressed the board. The 48 inch tall letters for the CVS Pharmacy sign are internally illuminated and are self contained. Chairperson Longrie asked if anyone in the audience wanted to speak regarding this proposal. Community Design Review Board Minutes 11-09-2005 8 Nobody came forward. Board member Olson said she understands the city doesn't allow electronic message boards because of the flashing, blinking and scrolling but she asked if there could be a non-scrolling electronic message board? Ms. Finwall said staff has had several requests from sign companies and businesses for electronic message boards but the problem is these signs can be programmed to flash, blink etc. which would be a real code enforcement problem. Ms. Finwall said if the city were to approve electronic message board signs on the condition that the sign does not flash, blink or scroll the city would open itself up to the problem of enforcing that rule in the future. That's the reason the City of Maplewood hasn't allowed electronic message boards. Board member Olson said she brings that up because Mr. Alton said the message board sign would have a zip track where you slide the words or letters in and she feels the words or letters could easily come out or blow away which could be a maintenance issue. She personally thinks an electronic message board projects a cleaner message compared to the zip track style of wording. She said she understands staff's concern to make sure businesses keep the electronic reader board message sign static so it doesn't flash, blink or scroll. Ms. Finwall said there is a way to program the electronic message board sign so it doesn't flash, scroll or blink. The problem is maybe a new manager gets hired who isn't aware of the city's sign code and they decide to go into the computer and change the electronic message to flash, blink or scroll. It then becomes a problem for the city to deal with to enforce these rules. Board member Olson said she thinks enforcement shouldn't be an issue and managers should be made aware when the sign is installed that if they do not follow the rules of the city the sign could be disabled. Board member Olson said personally she has an objection to the zip track style signs and requested it be noted for the record. Board member Shankar asked how the area of the sign is calculated so that it equals 1 DO-square feet? Ms. Finwall said staff calculates the square footage by drawing an outline of the letters themselves boxing the area in. Board member Hinzman moved to approve the plans date-stamped October 3, 2005, for a comprehensive sign plan for CVS Pharmacy located at 2180 White Bear Avenue. Approval is subject to the following conditions: (changes made by the CORB if added are underlined and stricken if deleted.) 1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a sign permit for this project. 2. Sign criteria for the site to include the following: Community Design Review Board Minutes 11-09-2005 9 a. Number of signs: One sign per street frontage, plus one wall sign for each separate occupant of the building. b. Wall signs: One wall sign per street frontage, plus one additional wall sign for each separate occupant of the building. The wall signs must be constructed of individual letters which are limited to 132 square feet in area. Wall signs can be installed on the south and west elevations only. c. Freestanding sign: One freestanding sign at the intersection of County Road B and White Bear Avenue. The freestanding sign is limited to 15 feet in height and 140 square feet in area, with only 70 percent of the overall sign allowed as a manual reader board. The freestanding sign must maintain a 10-foot setback to all property lines, must meet the visibility requirements for signage located at an intersection, must be constructed of materials which are compatible to the building, and must have landscaping around the base of the sign. d. Directional signs: Directional signs not exceeding six square feet in area are permitted. e. Window signs: Window signs (sign painted on a window or placed inside the building to be viewed through the glass by the public) are allowed for up to 60 total days per year and must not cover more than 25 percent of the total area of the window. 3. Prior to issuance of a sign permit, the applicant must submit the following to be approved by city staff. a. Revised wall sign elevations showing that the drive-thru pharmacy sign is removed from the south elevation. b. Revised site plan showing the location of the freestanding sign which maintains a 10-foot setback to all property lines and does not impede on the required 25-foot visibility triangle. c. Landscape plan showing landscaping around the base of the freestanding sign to include low-maintenance shrubs and perennials. 4. All work shallow follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. Board member Olson seconded. Ayes - Hinzman, Longrie, Olson, Shankar The motion passed. Chairperson Longrie excused herself from the CDRB meeting at 6:50 p.m. and Vice Chairperson Linda Olson took over for the remainder of the meeting. Community Design Review Board Minutes 11-09-2005 10 c. Maple Leaf Ridge Business Center - 2483 and 2497 Maplewood Drive Ms. Finwall said Jim Kellison, of Kelco Real Estate Development Services, is proposing to build an office/warehouse condominium development on the west side of Maplewood Drive (Highway 61), in between the Acorn Mini Storage and the Hmong American Alliance Church. Ms. Finwall said this project would consist of three buildings. Building #1, closest to Highway 61, would be a 9, 120-square-foot, two-story building, Building #2, the center building, would be a 13,440-square-foot, two-story building. The front of each building would have an office front. The rear elevations would be the dock door and delivery areas. Building #1, facing the highway, would have an office fa9ade. The back side of Building #3, facing the residential neighbors, would have a service fa9ade with overhead garage doors. The current plans are different from the original plans submitted by the applicant. The original plans were presented to the neighbors at a neighborhood meeting this summer. The original plans were for a four-building project of the same nature. The primary differences were that the west elevation facing the neighbors had an office fa9ade (now overhead doors) and the proposed building setback was to have been 165 feet (now 250 feet). Some of the neighbor replies and the applicant's narrative speak to this four-building layout. The primary reason the applicant revised the plans was to address grading and drainage concerns by the city's engineering staff. Acting Chairperson Olson asked the applicant to address the board. Mr. Jim Kellison, President of Kelco Real Estate Development Services, 7300 Hudson Blvd, Suite 245, Oakdale, addressed the board. Mr. Kellison presented the board with some building materials to review and then gave a brief presentation. He said he didn't get the staff report in time for tonight's meeting and he was sure the city had received the lighting plan for this proposal. They will be using the shoe box type lighting and no matter what you do with the lighting there will be some light spill into the area. Board member Hinzman said he has some concerns about the way the buildings are configured on the site. He understands the neighbor's concerns regarding repositioning the buildings which would move the buildings closer to their homes but he believes the buildings should be reconfigured so the dock doors do not face the residential homes. He understands the problem if you shift the buildings around it moves the buildings 100 feet closer to the residential neighbors but he thinks the site would look nicer. He asked if the applicant could remove some of the parking, have proof of parking and move the pond back further to the berm on the west side. The parking count would be short but he asked if the city could make an exception. Mr. Kellison said he already had this discussion with the planning commission. Most cities' in the surrounding area use 9 feet wide parking spaces and that is what they drew the original plans from. He was informed that Maplewood has a 9.5 foot wide parking space requirement. When they reconfigure the parking at the correct 9.5 foot wide parking space width they will already be loosing parking spaces. If they eliminate some of the parking on the extreme west end and move the pond to the west there couldn't be proof of parking because of the pond so if they ever needed to use the proof of parking the pond would be a real issue for them. Community Design Review Board Minutes 11-09-2005 11 Mr. Kellison said if that could be worked out they could put a second row of buffering where the parking is now. These buildings are designed to be office/warehouse condominiums and based on history and experience there would be 30% office and 70% warehouse. If they end up with tenants who are 50% office and 50% warehouse the parking requirements may go up. Mr. Kellison said history tells them based on the size of the development with sales people out in the field, people ill or on vacation the parking should be adequate. However, the last thing you want to do is develop a property that doesn't have adequate parking because then people park on the drive and everybody knows we don't want that to happen. Acting Chairperson Olson asked what type of tenants they are marketing these condominium units to? Mr. Kellison said the following company types have reserved space on the site: a medical supply company, mortgage company, window and door company, and electrical contracting company. These companies would operate five days a week, 9:00-5:00 p.m. Loud businesses such as machine shops would not be in this space. Acting Chairperson Olson asked what types of trucks would be making deliveries to this site? Mr. Kellison said the site is designed for a full size 72-foot truck to make deliveries here. Its 40 feet in between the buildings so trucks can maneuver around. They are not encouraging that type of truck traffic where there are only over head doors, only where there are dock doors. Board member Shankar said if you have lighting on the west side the lighting would still be seen from the neighbors correct? Mr. Kellison said the lighting would come on at dusk and shut off at 10:00 p.m. as one of the conditions on the western part of the property. There is one light pole that would have two light heads that would shine back toward the building and provide parking lot lighting and near the overhead doors there will be 3 or 4 lighting fixtures that would shine down for safety and security. Anytime you put a light pole up you are going to see it. He said once he built a development in north Hudson Wisconsin on some open farmland and the people came from a half mile around and said they could see the light. There is nothing you can do to eliminate that from happening, lighting can be seen from quite a distance away. Acting Chairperson Olson asked if anyone in the audience wanted to speak regarding this proposal. Ms. Kathy O'Donnell, 2498 Adele St., Maplewood, addressed the board. She said she respects Mr. Kellison's right to develop this property but one of the options she has not heard is to "not" grant the conditional use permit. Ms. O'Donnell said none of the building options are good because moving the buildings around only puts the buildings closer to the residential homes. She asked if there was still an opportunity to look at redesigning the property without having to get the additional 1 OO-foot setback? Ms. Finwall said the planning commission recommended approval of the conditional use permit but the final decision is made by the city council which is scheduled for Monday, November 28, 2005, and she encouraged Ms. O'Donnell to attend the city council meeting. Community Design Review Board Minutes 11-09-2005 12 Ms. O'Donnell said she is concerned about what they will see from the back of their properties. These homes are walk-out lots and the top level is their main living quarters with their family room and kitchen which will look directly out onto these proposed buildings. Acting Chairperson Olson said she would encourage Ms. O'Donnell to attend the city council meeting as well to share her concerns. Board member Hinzman said he would agree with staff's opinion to move the dock doors to the opposite side of the building away from the homes and he would think that would be the best decision for the neighbors but he doesn't want to beat the issue to death. It seems the planning commission and the neighbors would prefer the larger separation between the building and the homes. He appreciates the elevations that were submitted and the cross sections and he is curious if the trees that are back there now are on the business side of the property or on the residential side of the property. Mr. Kellison said the large trees are on the berm and they will keep most of the berm on the west side but they will have to disturb some of the berm on the east side. They plan to save as many trees as possible and may use a retaining wall for the trees. They have offered and continue to offer to put a six foot high fence in the back of the residential homes at no cost to the residents. Acting Chairperson Olson asked if these homes that will overlook this property will be looking down onto the roofs of the condominium buildings? Mr. Kellison said the properties to the west are lower than this property by four feet or so. The top of the buildings will be lined up with the upper story level of their homes and will be 25 feet above the bottom of their backyards. These are three-story homes so if they are on their second floor they will be looking into the top story of the condominium building. Board member Shankar asked if there would be any mechanical equipment on the roofs of the buildings? Mr. Kellison said they are required by code to screen the mechanical equipment and would screen the equipment according to the code. Board member Shankar asked if the units are close to the edge of the buildings? Mr. Kellison said there would be unit heaters that will have a single pipe or vent coming out of the roof of the buildings and the air conditioning units would be located towards the front of the building and would be screened. Board member Shankar asked what type of material they propose to use for screening the equipment? Mr. Kellison said they would use a pre-finished metal material that attaches to the unit. Acting Chairperson Olson asked Ms. O'Donnell if the fence Mr. Kellison spoke of would help screen the property? Community Design Review Board Minutes 11-09-2005 13 Ms. O'Donnell said the fence will help screen these buildings when you are in the backyard of the homes but not when you are in the house looking out your windows. Regarding turning the building so the dock doors are away from the residential homes she would agree the other side of the building would be nicer to look at but by doing that you put the building 100 feet away from the homes. Ms. O'Donnell said whatever you can do as far as the landscaping, keeping the berm and planting tall trees the better. Right now this plan is not in the best interest of this neighborhood in her opinion. Acting Chairperson Olson asked if this proposal could be tabled for further discussion due to the fact one of the board members has to leave and there would not be a quorum? Ms. Finwall said this proposal is scheduled to be heard by the city council on November 28, 2005, and she assumed the developer would be anxious to proceed. There is however, another CDRB meeting Tuesday, November 22, 2005, so that would not delay the city council meeting. Board member Shankar agreed he thinks this proposal should be tabled. He stated he appreciates that the applicant brought building material samples which is very helpful but looking at the elevation the color appears monotone and he requested the applicant come back with a color photo of what this building is going to look like. Mr. Kellison said he has a project that was built with these exact building materials and colors and he said he would take some photos of the development and bring the photos back to the CDRB so they can see what everything would look like. Board member Shankar moved to table this proposal until Tuesday, November 22, 2005. Board member Hinzman seconded. Ayes - Hinzman, Olson, Shankar The motion to table passed. Acting Chairperson Olson said the CDRB would like the applicant to return with revised landscape plan, lighting plan, photos of the color elevations, and additional information on the proposed fence for the neighbors and bring this back to the CDRB at the Tuesday, November 22, 2005, meeting. Board member Shankar excused himself from the meeting at 7:20 p.m. VII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS No visitors present. VIII. BOARD PRESENTATIONS None. Community Design Review Board Minutes 11-09-2005 14 IX. STAFF PRESENTATIONS a. Board member Shankar will be the CDRB representative at the November 28, 2005, city council meeting. So far the only CDRB item to discuss is the Maple Leaf Ridge Business Center - 2483 and 2497 Maplewood Drive. b. Gladstone Concept Plan Review Ms. Finwall said there will be a joint meeting between the CDRB and the HRA to discuss the Gladstone Concept Plan on Tuesdav. November 22. 2005, at 6:00 p.m. in the city council chambers. X. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 7:25 p.m. MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: DATE: City Manager Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner Maple Leaf Ridge Business Park 2488 & 2497 Maplewood Drive November 3, 2005 INTRODUCTION Project Description Jim Kellison, of Kelco Real Estate Development Services, is proposing to build an office/warehouse condominium development on the west side of Maplewood Drive (Highway 61), between Acorn Mini Storage and the Hmong American Alliance Church. This project would consist of three buildings. Building #1, closest to Highway 61, would be a 9,120-square-foot, two-story building, Building #2, the center building, would be a 13,440-square-foot, one-story building and Building #3, the wester1y building, would be a 16, 320-square-foot, two-story building. The front of each building would have an office front. The rear elevations would be the dock door and delivery areas. Building #1, facing the highway, would have an office fa~de. The back side of Building #3, facing the residential neighbors, would have a service fa~de with overhead garage doors. Refer to the applicant's letter, narrative and the attached maps. Plan Revisions The current plans are different from the original plans submitted by the applicant. The original plans were presented to the neighbors at a neighborhood meeting this summer. The original plans were for a four-building project of the same nature. The primary differences were that the west elevation facing the neighbors had an office fa~de (now overhead doors) and the proposed building setback was to have been 165 feet (now 250 feet). Some of the neighbor replies and the applicant's narrative speak to this four-building layout. The primary reason the applicant revised the plans was to address grading and drainage concerns by the city's engineering staff. Requests Mr. Kellison is requesting: . A conditional use permit (CUP) for a reduced setback from the residential lot property line to the west. The code requires that buildings in M1 (light manufacturing) districts that are closer than 350 feet to an abutting residential proper1y have a CUP. The proposed wester1y building would be 250 feet from the abutting residential lot line. . Approval of design plans. BACKGROUND The subject properly previously had two single family dwellings. The applicant demolished these homes to make way for the proposed project. The properly to the north was recently converted from an industrial complex to the Hmong American Alliance Church. The properly to the south was developed a few years ago with Acom Mini Storage. DISCUSSION Conditional Use Permit The proposed use is allowed under the M1 zoning code. The reason for this CUP request is because the westerly building would be 250 feet from the back lot line, not 350 feet or more. Code requires a CUP for a building with less than a 350-foot setback. The reason is to allow the city to consider impacts on the abutting residential neighborhood. Typically, with such requests, the main concem is to protect the abutting home owners from any negative impact due to visual impacts and potential noise problems. Screening is an important concem. The applicant is proposing a row of 14 evergreen trees along the wester1y lot line with three river birch trees in the northwest and southwest comers of the site. Staff feels that this is a good start, but these trees will not provide the required six-foot-tall and 80 percent opaque screen required by ordinance. The planning commission required doubling this screen by adding a condition for a second row of evergreens. The screen required by code may be comprised of evergreens, decorative fencing, berming or a combination of these. Staff recommends that the applicant extend the screening material to the back line of Building #3 along each side properly line. The screening along the side lot lines is to provide buffering for the neighbors that are northwest and southwest of this properly who can view this site at an angle from their homes and yards. This plan may take into account existing vegetation and existing screening. Noise One concem noted by neighbors is what type of businesses might there be? Could there be nuisance-causing or noisy operations taking place? A recent example of such a business activity is that of the St. Paul Pioneer Press' night-time paper distribution activity at the Maplewood Business Center on Gervais Avenue and Germain Street on the north side of Highway 36. Staff feels that the council should require specific noise controls for this project to try to protect the neighbors from "after hours" disturbances. City En!lineerin!l Department's Concems Chuck Vermeersch, of the Maplewood engineering staff, has reviewed the applicant's revisions. The revised plans are much better than the original design in his opinion. His previous concems have been addressed. Please review his attached memo. 2 Neiahbor Concerns Staff surveyed the neighbors for their input. Their complete replies are listed in the Citizen Comment section of this report and their letters are included as attachments. The following is a summary: . Don't remove all the trees. Keep a buffer. . Provide a sufficient buffer. . Concerns include: Noise, lights, mosquitoes from the proposed pond and traffic increase. . Require a greater setback. . Don't allow the reduced setback. . Loss of trees and wildlife. . The existing buildings should not be construed to set a precedent due to the difference in the types of uses. Staff shares many of these concerns. Primarily, sufficient screening should be provided. The applicant has a right to develop this property, but in exchange for the reduced setback, there should be better than average screening. Architectural and Building Orientation The proposed buildings would have attractive fronts and sides. These would consist of a decorative mix of concrete-block materials and colored in brown tones. The back of the buildings would be rock-face concrete block. Building #3, the rear building, would have its service and dock side facing the residential neighbors to the west. The applicant's earlier four-building plan had the more attractive office-front view of the westerly building facing the neighbors. Refer to the attached map of this four-building layout. This site plan also had a lesser building setback from the west lot line-165 feet vs. the currently-proposed 250 foot setback. Site Plan Alternatives At the planning commission meeting, staff presented two alternative site plans for consideration. Refer to these alternative designs. The benefit of both of these scenarios moves the large truck-dock area away from the neighbors and allows the nicer office-fronts to face the neighbors instead. The disadvantage of this is that it moves the buildings closer to the neighbors. The setback of the westerly building from the west lot line would be about 165 feet as was originally proposed with the four-building design. At the planning commission meeting, neither the planning commission nor the neighbors felt strongly about it. Their primary concern was that there be adequate screening and that there not be a loss of privacy as there might be if the office windows faced the homes. Staff feels that it is a good idea to reorient the buildings to have the office front face the west lot line. Since neither the planning commission nor the neighbors preferred those scenarios, staff simply wants to make sure that the CDRB and city council take this into consideration. Sign Plan Considerations The applicant has not proposed any signage criteria. Ordinance requires that they provide a signage plan for this development for approval by the community design review board. Developments with five or more tenants must have such a plan for sign uniformity. 3 Site Considerations Parkina The use of the proposed complex is anticipated to be 30 percent office and 70 percent warehouse. To determine parking needs, staff took the total square footage and applied these percentages. By these ratios, the applicant would need 141 parking spaces. The applicant is proposing 156. There would be a sufficient number of parking spaces provided by this count. The applicant must, however, revise the plan to meet the 9 %-foot-wide parking stall requirement for customer parking. Employee parking may be 9 feet wide if it is posted as such. Site Uahtina The lighting plan is incomplete. The plan does not extend to the westerly lot line which is critical due to the residential neighbors. Landscapina The landscaping plan is a good start, but staff has the following recommendations as noted above: . Increase the screening along the rear property line to meet code requirements of a six- foot-tall and 80 percent opaque screen. The planning commission recommended a double row of evergreens along the west lot line to address this matter. The screening proposal is still "thin" based on the code requirements. Staff, furthermore, is recommending that this visual screen be extended along the side lot lines to the back line of the westerly building to provide screening for close neighbors that are not directly behind this lot. . The plantings in front near the street should be increased. This area is rather sparse. Trash Outdoor trash storage is not proposed on the plans. If the applicant later wishes to provide outdoor trash storage, they should provide a plan for the design and location of the dumpster enclosures. Dumpsters kept between buildings may not need to be screened if they are not visible to neighbors or streets. The community design review board should review this matter. City Department Comments Fire Marshal Butch Gervais, the Maplewood Fire Marshal, has the following comments: . There must be a 20-foot-wide emergency-access road provided around all buildings. . There must be a fire protection system, per-codes and monitored. . There must be proper marking of doors where fire protection systems are located. . There must be a fire department lock box installed. See the fire marshal for an order form. 4 Police Lieutenant Kevin Rabbett reviewed this proposal and has no public safety concems. He recommends the standard business security lighting and video surveillance systems. Buildina Official Dave Fisher, Maplewood Building Official, reviewed this proposal. Refer to his report. SUMMARY From the standpoint of potential noise problems, staff does not feel that it is in the best interest of the neighbors to have a truck dock facing their properties. Also, from an aesthetic viewpoint, the dock area of the westerly building would be substantially less attractive than the office fronts on the proposed buildings. Staff is not in favor of the proposed site plan for those reasons. Neither the neighbors nor the planning commission, however, felt that strongly. The neighbors, in fact, preferred as much building setback as they can get regardless of the type of activity on their side of the project. Staff is not recommending a change to the site plan because of this preference by the neighbors. We do, however, feel that approval of this design is not in the residents' best interest. COMMITTEE ACTIONS October 17, 2005: The planning commission recommended approval of the CUP. They did, however, recommend that the applicant plant a double raw of evergreens along the westerly lot line to enhance the screening. The planning commission also required that the paoong stall widths meet code requirements. Code requires that stalls are 9 1I.z feet wide. Employee paoong stalls may be 9 feet wide if posted as such. RECOMMENDATIONS A. Adopt the resolution approving a conditional use permit for a proposed building setback of 250 feet from the rear lot line for an office/industrial condominium development at 2488 and 2497 Maplewood Drive. Approval is based on the findings required by ordinance and subject to the following conditions: 1. All construction shall follaw the site plan that the city has date-stamped October 11, 2005. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 2. The proposed construction must be substantially started, or the proposed use utilized, within one year of council approval or the permit shall become null and void. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 3. The city council shall review this permit in one year. 5 4. The hours of operation shall be limited to the city's hours for noise control for the westerly building as stated in Section 18-111 of the city code. This means that there shall be no noise generated between the hours of 7 p.m. and 7 a.m. Monday through Saturday and all day Sunday. This condition applies to any and all business activities occurring on the west side of Building #3. The applicant's sale or lease agreements should specify this. 5. The site lights, west of Building #3, the westerly building, shall be turned off after 10 p.m. unless required to be on by the police department for security reasons. The lights on the west side of Building #3 shall also be of a design that conceals the lens and bulbs of these light flXlures. Light-intensity maximums must meet code requirements. 6. Combine the two legal descriptions into one legally-described lot prior to obtaining a building pennit for this development. 7. Provide a landscaping/screening plan, including a double row of trees along the west boundary, prior to the issuance of a building pennit, which provides a visual screen that is at least 80 percent opaque and six feet tall upon installation. If the double row of trees does not accomplish this, additional screening must be provided. This screen shall be an all-seasons buffer of items like decorative fencing, benning or evergreen trees. This visual screen shall be provided along the rear of the property and extend from there along both side lot lines to the rear setback line of Building #3. This plan may take into account existing vegetation and existing screening. 8. Meet all requirements of the community design review board and city code for architectural design, landscaping, site lighting and parKing. 9. Meet all requirements of the city engineer for site grading, drainage, erosion control, dust control, utilities and removal of roadway dirt build-up. 10. Outdoor storage of any materials shall not be allowed unless a conditional use pennit for outdoor storage is obtained from the city council. B. Approve the site plan date-stamped October 11, 2005, the landscaping plan date- stamped October 17, 2005 and the lighting plan date-stamped October 28, 2005. Approval is subject to the applicant/developer complying with the following conditions: 1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building pennit for this project. 2. Comply with all conditions of Chuck Venneersch's engineering report dated October 17, 2005. 3. Obtain necessary pennits from the Minnesota Department of Transportation before the issuance of a building pennit. 4. Obtain a permit from the RamseyIWashington Metro Watershed District before the issuance of a building pennit. 6 5. Provide fencing on the top of all retaining walls that exceed four feet in height. The fencing shall be a black chain link fence at least 3.5 feet tall. Retaining walls that exceed four feet in height must be designed by a structural engineer, and the applicant must obtain a building penn it. 6. The applicant must provide a revised landscaping plan for staff approval that provides a landscaping/screening plan, including a double row of trees along the west boundary, prior to the issuance of a building permit, which provides a visual screen that is at least 80 percent opaque and six feet tall upon installation. If the double row of trees does not accomplish this, additional screening must be provided. This screen shall be an all-season screen that may include decorative fencing, benning and evergreen trees. This visual screen shall be provided along the rear of the property and shall extend from there along both side lot lines to the rear setback line of Building #3. This plan may take into account existing vegetation and existing screening. 7. Obtain approval of a comprehensive sign plan from the community design review board before any sign permits may be issued. 8. Submit a complete lighting plan to staff for approval. The site lights, west of Building #3, the westerly building, shall be turned off after 10 p.m. unless required to be on by the police department for security reasons. The lights on the west side of Building #3 shall also be of a design that conceals the lens and bulbs of these light fixtures. Light-intensity maximums must meet code requirements. 9. Provide a revised landscaping plan to staff for approval for the area along the street frontage, increasing the amount of plantings in this area. This shall be provided before the issuance of a building permit. 10. The applicant must provide an in-ground inigation system as required by code. The area around the pond does not need to be sprinklered. 11. The rear elevations of all buildings, and any parts of the side elevations that are rock- face block, must be painted to match the front building colors. 12. Provide cash escrow, in the amount of 150 percent of the cost of completing the landscaping and exterior site improvements, before the applicant shall obtain a building permit. 13. All customer par1dng spaces must be at least 9 Y, feet wide. Employee parking spaces may be nine feet wide if signs are posted identifying them as employee parking only. 14. The community design review board shall approve major changes to these plans. Minor changes may be approved by staff. 7 CITIZEN COMMENTS Staff surveyed the 38 surrounding property owners within 500 feet of the proposed site for their opinions of this proposal. Of the nine replies, many were clearly opposed. Some were accepting of the proposed type of development, but noted concerns about the plans. 1. No objection. 2. Refer to the letter from Gwen Kingsbeck, 2498 Adele Street. Ms. Kingsbeck stated that, though they understand the land will be developed and accepts the proposed usage, they have concerns about there being a sufficient buffer. They also feel that there is too much development proposed for this site. 3. My main concern is the "noise" level. What kind of businesses exactly will be in this site? Many of us do not wort 8-4, Monday through Friday. Hours of wort fluctuate with the neighbors who will be affected by this. (Cathy Brown, 2496 Cypress Street) 4. My concerns are: any water/drainage from the development that would affect the water table for my property, light leakage to the residential area, noise during non-normal business hours. Also, how far away from the north property line will any of the development be? (Margaret Peterson, 2522 Adele Street) 5. Refer to the letter from Daniel Ward, 2514 Adele Street. Mr. Ward stated concerns about clearing this site to the property line and constructing a mosquito-infested slough. The applicant should consider alternative designs that impact the site less. 6. I "do not" support a conditional use permit for this development. I also do not support removing any existing trees on the current property. (Kristen Scholl, 1017 Demont Avenue) 7. The applicant's letter states that the mini storage already infringes on the 350 foot setback, thereby setting the standard. This is not true. Codes and ordinances are written for a reason and should not be routinely dismissed. This building will lower my property value. (As stated by a realtor.) Please do not allow this. (Mike Trenda, 2474 Adele Street) 8. Refer to the letter from Deanne Lynn Dick and Jeffrey Scott Dick, 2505 Adele Street. Ms. Dick stated that this development would be a hindrance to the neighborhood. The tree loss is a detriment and there would be too much traffic. Mr. Dick stated that he too is adamantly opposed to the tree removal. The office condos, themselves, are not a problem, but the tree removal proposed would ruin a wonderful barrier between them and Highway 61. 9. Refer to the letter from Thomas and Melissa O'Connor of 2506 Adele Street. Their comments and concerns are, in summary, loss of trees and the minimal screening proposed. Loss of privacy with the small trees planted as a buffer to attempt to screen a two story building. There is no comparison with Acorn Mini Storage's reduced setback. This should not set a precedent. The two uses are distinctly different. 8 REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Site size: 4.6 acres Existing Use: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USES North: South: East: West: Hmong American Alliance Church Acorn Mini Storage Maplewood Drive Single dwellings PLANNING Land Use Plan: M1 Zoning: M1 Code Reauirements Section 44-637(b) requires a CUP for buildings in M1 districts that would be within 350 feet of a residential district. Findinas for CUP Approval City code requires that to approve a CUP, the city council must base approval on the nine required findings for approval. Refer to the attached resolution for a listing of these findings. APPLICATION DATE We received the revised and resubmitted plans for this proposal on October 17, 2005 (the date the applicant provided the remaining plans needed for this review). State law requires that the city take action within 60 days of receiving complete applications. A decision on this request is required by December 16, 2005. 9 p:sec9\Maple Leaf Ridge Design2 10'05 Allachmems 1. Location Map 2. S~e Plan 3. Landscaping Plan 4. Original4-Building S~e Plan 5. S~e Plan Alternative #1 6. S~e Plan Alternative If!2 7. Building Elevations 8. Applicanfs Letter dated June 23, 2005 9. Amenities Statement 10. Buiding Ollicial's Report dated July 5,2005 11. Letter from Gwen Kingsbeck 12. Letter from Daniel Ward 13. Letter from Jeffrey and Deanne Dick 14. Letter from Thomas and Melissa O'Connor 15. Enginee(s Report from Chuck Vermeersch dated October 17. 2005 16. Conditional Use Permi Resolution 17. Plans date-stamped October 11,17 and 28,2005 (separate attachments) 10 ffilsl- i~~I'R~~L 1041 110491 1055110~1 -[~Ii1~! !~~~~C<>rner , COUNTY ROAD C . ' f-, '11101/1 i ~~ls.JR!B!lJj, . I.. I!li Ii" mi'I'lt j ~ "t~'--~----."-~i ~ .....:....~::..c,_;,.__~~_____l :;: ..., ' a: , iW lCJ:J , I , j , I , \ ".1 I, _____j j t ~ f- ~ ,. 12611. , , , [.-----1 Ii ,~O :-~.; i~--~OO ,.._~._._.._! 1.. :"At.n ..r d i ".,.. '11I11I . 'ifII"'"" "....,. d!l1iIII 'L,~-rJ~-! : .;:!!BA: .::.e;"~1 ii' J"'~, ~o :__._~ L ~8' ~ ~.- f -:.--1 zS! i ~~~~-.,~ U! I. . 981_--'----' : ~o 1 m III M7 i 111 1 -.-,:--'"'T---' r--~ U.J>lIl.li, 1WLLECRE f .4:."Ill!~: ill'" &" t\\\\. ~ ~ \J4i! !I.l" )\U >.\~7~ i kML~L~~r aD ~~.-" ! jl.i~il025/ 1033,1 -- >-----j' I .~. . ...-----r-l_) l~ I I,'...! . 1.111 !en---~.-."-... -'221 a~\ i-;;&~~ I i! i -', ).--'-- , ,I __ 'W I ' 2SI!!l. I ... '--~-r-'i1---=-1o:: _ I~! iJI-' Iff / I ~ ig: ! "2 i ._1 ~p ,._,~3 i ~ JUt ~'i 11liillPa )-&1r i 2.! ~ 12. luJ ,.! ,"-' 1lIl!lil4 rarl H iCl I : 11I8' ~~ i l-P I 2~< I fJ2 j l..J 1Wl I~ 12fI i i 114 I I.. 247.J I.~ 12~ ,i lies: ' 1--2.~ $,' EXTANT AVE.,/.jg--_." II i / , 1Iil!iit-.J r-=-r ' AIf!1'2458 '2441 #!:... I /".liIi"'! 111_1.\'-' i 1.--/ '".'2~'! f--_ I j\'fl26\, 1032-'1' 1l'2'&/ M"'fi!"/ l!t---..l.. ',-" \ / ... /~ Ii i ,....:/ ---"Y.. / ( .. _ 1041/' 1055 I . '2411 ,:-- ~' r- ! I' 241 L_.___ llll!ll"i ad L___~/' __.::I!i_, GERVAIS AVE ----1-.------ 1_,./" -----l ~1.1 J/./ Spoon I-ak_j i /__:",~~~ ___1______.______'-__ ....1 ._.___~~ -.(.\'2> " '. \ ., \. \ , / ~15.'/ .' , J i '040- PROPOSED SITE I I I "-J ./ i I i I " i '----- Attachment 1 /_:-1 . (-. r-i .~L__+ ____J " ! "-" i _._____........L, ! j i i .,'- _' i I .11 . - " ," " ;: L--II~ i_,il ~ I' i~~ .> ...... li X! if- I :1 g .. ,I .... I en I ~ ~ I I J: [ I; ~~NORAW~ 3 '1 I ! .I:J I 1 i . iCl J ''" ,I ,I .L._"'! ' . , , , , ~~ !' f / j i ,-"-- /.... jl /.,,/ ,.../ ~ I ..; 1,-""'" v ,~_. / .-' ,: /----r- / II \ , , .h49liiill / 1 i I " / .I / ! / / , 0 ! Ill" 2484 - III . .'.- II i J I \ ~ . .'\~---c-I~II ,.~ \_-~I-IU-... LOCATION MAP Ii! II 1211 11 Attachment 2 ,..-..-------..-..-..-------------...., ! ~~ i l/~' i , I ! < I ! i I I - ~'14'-# .. ~ ~'..", '4'., ,~ ,~ '" '" ~~ '" ~ ~. ~ ~ SS~ Ii::;; Jtl --. ""' ~~ (j'I -x --{ ~~ 0 0 ; r m. . --{ 1:: r M --{ ""' ~~ :11 . . ~oo . , .. '" '" ; ~- ~~ g; :-: m l~ 11 ~ '" r . - l> g~ Z . . S . . ~ - l .D ~ U~ ~~ ?l H::r :;; 1) << '. \J m :I~ ~ . ~ --{ -( , 11 . . RECEIVED Dei 1 1 2005 .> MAPLE ~ eusNE56 ~ SI7E F'l.AN li~K~ :1 MAPLEUl::lOO,rtl 0It./I&M1In,1II"I -~~ ....... m_I.w.sun::l:lD . . ". CG't1'1EFaCIAL. EGlIITY PARINERS QJI(IllU.NN!i!l12l1 ...... .. OAKDALE:./1Il PH. !851jn4-8115FAlC.(851)n.-12211 I! ~ ~ i ~ .~ " I ! ! ! !@ L .-.-..-.. ~ -'.- f .--..-..-..-..-.. '" = SITE PLAN 12 f'RUJECT o '" ~ ~ '" ~ N <: o '" ffi 0 l.lAf'LEL[AF8USINESSC[NllR 1111.E TREE PLANTING ltjISPLAN,SlH(PROPERIYOFWlNCOLAND5CAPEANODESION" NO PARI OF T>lISPLAN "AYBEREf'ROOUCEOINANYfORt.lOR"E"'NS\\11HOUT~ITTENPER"'ISSION I 1 1'1 S j ~ LANDSCAPE AND DESIGN ..".......,...."'.",""" ("'I"'-Jlj70 ~l , Attachment 3 LANDSCAPING PLAN KEN OWL ORA.... Y .JRICkAROSON 1" ~ 30"-0" c-, 7;20/05 NORn. 13 r'..-..-.-----..----..-.---.-------..: i1r;:'-r- ~~: l ! ~ ) : I --- I i< : j II I II> : I ! I j i I ! I i i i ! j ! I i i I i i , ! i I U 0 i n ~ i :;; 1) x. i x, tJ j 1~ ! O! =< i :n i i ! ......... i ORIGINAL 4-BUILDING SITE PLAN r-& U'-r ~. (J> .~ ::; :: m l;ll lJ ..r .. ~ .. Xx x, i i I' i i , g ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ i ! .. ~ Attachment 4 . . D "" HI; ~ !.~ . . nU ~ ~I~ ~ . ~ " '"= ~ ~ '" I! ;, IlJ'I .".. i UI ~ ~~ ~! MAPL.E LEAF euslNE:ss CENT'Eili! S,'TEFI..AN zfEA-.,;,;.<<~ MA1"'L.9UOOD. ~ . ~IIT..., -~. ; l-' 1DI111l!Dl1Ull.UI:DI - . i~ !n COI'1I"'IEFCCIAL EQUlrr F'~=R5 , -.t..",l2II -. OAKDAI..E,1"t<! ' PH.(I5I)71~ISF4(J5'lns-lm ~BT,!:IC:N5MlI!IIi ~ '" f!1' ur ....~, ~ . ;, ! i i i I i I '" '" ~.~ '" : '" ~ A~ '" : ~ "- '- .~............. ..-..-..-..-..-..-. 14 ,-------.-----.----------..-----'---., I (/(1 ~~Ji 1 I i ! ! ! ! I i I j ! )> . -i m ::u z )> -i - < m ~ ...a. ::u o E m OJ c - . o - z G> ~ w > ~ ~~ on '" __ N .. "'/J .n ........r ~ . ..... .t,..........AI ! ! ! ! (! I i i I I I , ~ ~ '" '" Jil ~ -~ W . -- ~ ~ \>> 6" .1'>. ~ . ~ ~ @ -l. --. -.---.- ~ '---._ i ..----..-..-.. " Attachment 5 ~ as ~ .. ~2 ~ ., ::r :;; 1) " '. \J :, ~ . ~ r -< ~ . 1) . . ....""""" SITE FLAN D~K~ _~,111 ~~ TTPARTNERS .....aWll.:ME2lD -.r. .55128 "'115l)7M-I1~1JIl.'1lS1)m-122ll ALTERNATIVE #1 15 )> . -I m ::u z )> -i - < m ~ en OJ~ c-i -(") 5:1: -'"'0 ~s;: 00(") ",m )>3: zm OZ w-i o "TI ss ~ ~~ ;lJ .. ~ 4'''~ J 00 ""' ~~ (p .. --i ~; 0 0 ~~ r - '" ~ - _ D '" '" m --i ~ '" r ~! 1~ --i ""' ~~ d :11 ,..-..-..----------..----..----.--.., : i rlfi' 51JJ;1 . ~ JEl '" ~ ~ . ... ~... ~ u ~ · < ~~ ~ " ::r :;; 1) ;, tJ Jg ~ < ~ r --i ""' :11 . Attachment 6 RECEIVED OCT 1 1 2005 : lEAF ~ c:&lTCR SI1Ef'L)>N r}~K~ 9I.tlCO,rtl ~fl'l',," -~ ERCtAL EGlJrTr PAmHER5 13IID_ll\u'!Ul(DD ....."'" lALE.~ P1L{I51)7W-Ilf5FJ,t.{I51)m-122II '" '" - ~ I! '" ~ ~ '" '" .. ;i;i , -= @ l.. '-. -..-..-.. -~ --'_ i "-"- . -'-"-.. ALTERNATIVE #2 16 Attachment 7 1IU.~(L9iJ..J~LI9-tLl(LStlllO N:XI'J4~ JoI,J'n;G)pto. ...... 1R1!iJ;1IR'l1lUlMI lIZllJ'I$lKIiItU;tJIll&l 9<!i3Nll:i'Vd .Lllm:l ""'I~ i: . , C:~~O ~- l.lIl'J.81OOW1 I'IoJ 'aocrn;1dVJ.l (')2 $r-ol.1."1I\313 ( t I . ~1Q1111S ~:;iIJ.re:> 9a4/ilOQ:lfl1 :n~ ~ h i I~~itm~ I Ii CDan all OJ. J.ON ~ i ~b . . ~ g ~ ~t; , ! i . h I!i I!i -on ~ ii Ci Ci ~~ . ..1 " ..1 ii III II III Ii I!i i {5 '. II {5 '. --ji " " Ii Ci .= .= i= ~~ II i= ." ..1 ~ ~ ~~ :11 III ill ~" II ill ~" ~ '. ..1 aa ..1 aa '. ill ill !i =: II i= ~~ -" --t1 <( > f~ li I ill as 11 ..1 Ii ill ; i! i i I! ~ ~ I! ~ i i . ~~ B B ii ~ ~ ~ II . ~ ii . I) ~ ~ II II . II II ~j Ii i I 11 t ~ [i ~ ~B ~~ . ~~ ~~ !i . ~ II I Ii ~ I Ii ii I I. i Ii II i !i i --~j ~ Ii ii -~ ii --R I!i II Ci , it ..1 Ii Ii ii III . Ii t- '. Ii ii '" " :11 ill .- 3 ~~ II I "" Ii !ri ii 0 n Ii .. z I] " ^ :1 iJ -u BUILDING #1 17 ilUl-w.(~!;8J.XfJ~~~<";:: NW ii"l"a::fItO ~ C\I tu1lJlS~1I1lOSl1nHOlEl. 9lI3lill1'1..1.uln:r.l1\>'l~ ~~ J CR~Cl ~~- ..-'J..iI_ t-IJ'CIOCl'IS1cl'tIol ~S (') 9NOI.l.'7A3T::1 ~. 9NlCTllna al3lN3:) S93N9rl8 ~ 21d'tlol ~ I i ~ ~ Ii ~i ,~ ~ i' I ~~ ~r; ~ ~a Id ~~ . " . " " " " --11 " " " " I I " " N N " " d I!i " u Ci Ci -" " ..1 ..1 0 u III III -" " " " N i -" I!i ~ '. es '. n " " " .- -" Ci r- 0' f- H n ..1 ~ ~~ <I III > ill ~. ill ~" Z '. ..1 aa ..1 U 0 ~~ ill ill i= ;; -. . ~ !!l , , ill " .. ..1 ~~ . ~~ ill ~ n I H n i Hi II I ~ I~ h ~ . . I l ~b ~ -" " " " " " " " , N I I!i Ci ..1 III -" z '. 0 " -~ .= i= .' " ~~ " ~ " " ~" " ill " ~a " ..1 " ill " " ~ " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " ~ " --u BUILDING #2 18 IlUHU ho;g)'lVJ~~IHil ho;gj"Hd n~ 1'4./"31';'Q')IIfO. ~J IItIS!ON~~ Ilil:JJIlS"G',lItm1l1Jl<lltl. ~3tillI\fd .u1rr>3"'I~ i: ICH~9 ~~- to&.l"~:;'1c,lv'loI SNOU'VA313 E I 9N1C!11na ~~993'lI;n;l::flt31:r'\dltW ~ I Ii I ~~ ~ f1 I! '" ii I!i i )1 Ci ..1 II III ~ '. Xx Ji ;; -on i= ~~ ii ~ ~~ ill aa Ii ..1 ill !! il ~ . I~ ~ i! ii II :~j I Id ~~ ~ ~ --n :: JI Ii ii ii " il ii Ii g i: ..1 . III , . Zo ~~ .- ~ ~~ > ~" ~ aa --}.! Ii ~ ii ~ ii I II ~ il il " Ii ---{j ~ ~. f '- ~~ ---fl Ii Ii Ii ii ii :1~" . Ci . ..1 III ii -jj i' i1 ii II Ii ii ii Ii " ii -{j :n ~i ill .- 3 .' I ~~ I- .: Il>:H ~ aa ! ~ HI q~ Hl INOI~itm ~ I ~ cmn ... 0, !ON h i ~ I ~~ , . '" I!i Ci --fi...J i !ilD :: I i :IZ '. i i!o Xx .. iij:: .' Imm ii<t ~~ II> ~. "ill il---l aa iiw imm Ii - ii I 1\ i i n--U i Ii i i Ii ~ i i !I ~ i I i (}--rl ~ i Ii imm . ii ii Ii I li i I ii n-il i Ii i i !i i II i i :\---n .. ii i !i Imm Ii Ii Imm Ii ii !i I !i i Ii j ii " BUILDING #3 19 Attachment 8 Real 'Estate Development Services 7300 Hudson Blvd. Suite 245 Oakdale, MN 55128 Office: [651J 730-2020 Fax: [65!] 730-2055 June 23, 2005 Mr. Tom Ekstrand City of Maple wood 1830 East County Road B Maplewood, MN 55109 RECEIVED JUL 2 7 2005 RE: Maple Leaf Ridge Business Center Maplewood Drive Maplewood, ~ Dear Tom: I am representing Mr. Mark Gossman, principal of Commercial Equity Partners in the development of the Maple Leaf Ridge Business Park to be located at 2483 Maplewood Drive, Maplewood, MN. The project is intended to consist offour building totaling approximately 45,000 sfoffootprint and, with second floors, a total of approximately 55,000 sf which will be divided into bays of approximately 2,400 sf each and sold as condominiums for use as office/showroom, officefmdustrial! and office/warehouse uses, all of which are approved uses in the M1 zoning that covers this property. Enclosed please find the applications for design review and condition use permit as well as the requisite drawings for submittal and review and approval. Since the property abuts a residential neighborhood, the 350' setback requirement' is applicable to the property. The conditional use application is to allow for the westerly most building to be constructed at a distance of 157' from the west property line to the front door of the vestibule of the building. As can been seen from the rendering, these buildings will be of an office nature in appearance from the exposure to the residence and, by allowing for this building to be constructed facing west, the overhead doors will all be inboard and not visible from the residential neighborhood. The types of uses anticipated in this project will not generate high volumes of visitor traffic and are typically open weekdays during normal business hours. Also, since the units will be individually owned, there is a sense of ownership, pride, and neighborliness will be more prevalent than if the spaces were leased. The mini storage project to the south of this property is encroaching in the 350' setback and therefore has established a precedent to allow for relief from the maximum setback. 20 Mr. Tom Ekstrand June 23,2005 Page 2 A neighborhood meeting will be held on Tuesday, June 28, 2005 at the fire station in the local neighborhood. All landowners within 500' of the property have been notified to attend this meeting for information regarding the project. A separate report will be sent to the City of impressions we have from the neighbo~ at that meeting. When the City approves this project, it is our intent to start construction late this summer for occupancy in mid-winter. The project will probably be phased with two buildings constructed initially and the other two buildings to be completed in 2006. I have enclosed for your review an amenities list that has been developed for promotional pwposes for these buildings. As you can see, these will be very high-quality and aesthetically pleasing buildings that will lend themselves well to this neighborhood. The additional tax base and the new jobs created will benefit the City and the neighborhood in general. I look forward to the opportunity to present this project in the approval process for the City of Maplewood. Please call me with any questions are any requests if additional information is required. ames E. Kellison President JEK/jj c Enclosures 21 Attachment 9 Maple Leaf Ridge Business Center Amenities 1, Integral colored concrete block units for IDllch grater aesthetic appeal and for minimum maintenance. Resealing is only necessary every 5-7 years at approximately 1/3 the cost of painting. 2. The metal coping material for the parapet and canopies is factory painted finish over aluminum so that it does not rust. 3. All exterior windows are I" insulated glass set in thermally broken aluminum mullions which are factory anodized for extended life on this finish. . The glass is a light tint with low E for superior solar reflectance and minimum transmission. 4. The rear man doors have glass above them for natural light into the warehouse areas. The man doors have drip caps to minimize water getting in through the door or into the door system causing rust. The doors have anti-pick plates. The thresholds are bronze anodized material which wears much better than aluminum. 5. The overhead doors have high lift tracking and 30,000 cycle commercial grade spring and track systems. 6. The roof is a 45-mil EPDM rubber roof system with rock ballast. It is insta11ed with a 10- year guarantee for labor and materials from the manufacturer and a prorated wamurty on the material for an additiona1lO-years. 7. The concrete block is insulated using a 2-part foam which produces a R-ll insulation factor for the concrete block. 8. The concrete slab is 5" thick of 4,000 psi concrete with a fiber mesh system which reduces hairline cracking and crazing.' 9. The roof system has a polyisosanurated and expanded polystyrene foam insulation system providing an R-22.2 insulation factor. 10. Each vestibule will have a 12" x 12" porcelain tile floor with 4" bull-nose base. The walls of the vestibule will be taped, sanded and painted as will the drywall ceiling. The vestibule will have a sprink1er head, 2 kW electric fan driven wall heater and light fixture. II. ne demising walls will be constructed of full height 2 x 6 steel studs at 24" on center with the bottom track being caulked to the concrete and the, top being stuffed with insulation and filled with Struct-O-Lite. The studs will be insulated with R-19 insulation and 5/8" drywall will be installed on each side of the wall, full height with taping and two coats of drywall joint compound. 22 12. Each unit will be provided with a floor drain connected to a flammable waste system as required by code for vehicle entry into the building. 13. There will be a continuous 3' wide concrete apron along the overhE:ad door side of each of the buildings constructed of 6" of concrete with fiberglass reinforcing mesh. , 14. Six-inch diameter steel pipe bollards are installed at each side of each overhead door for protection from vehicles. 15. The air conditioning units are a 10 SEER rated unit providing a very economical operation. Thermostats for the air conditioning units are night setback programmable thermostats. 16. Each bay will be served with 200-amps of 110/208 volt, 3-pbase, 4-wire electrical service. Each bay will have a 1" empty conduit back to the equipment room for telephone home runs. 17. The paved areas will receive two 1-1/2" lifts of asphalt over minimum of 6" of Class 5 recycled base material 18. The site will have 20' tall pole lighting with two heads on each pole in locations that provide for security lighting. There will be wall packs for lighting of the truck areas between the buildings to provide for security and loading illumination. Each canopy will have a metal halide down light for illumination of the entry. All exterior lighting will be controlled with a photocell to turn on and a time clock to turn off. 19. All landscaped areas will be inigated by an automatic inigation system with a rain sensor system. 23 Attachment 10 Memo From: David Fisher, Building Official July 5, 2005 To: Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner Re: Maple Leaf Ridge Business Center - New Multi-tenant Condo Style Office/Industrial Buildings. A complete building code analysis will be required when plans are submitted for permit. All new office buildings over 2000 square feet are required to be fire sprinklered and to meet NFPA 13. The new building must be built to meet Minnesota State Building Code and 2000 IBC. Provide accessible parking to comply with Minnesota State Building Code 1341 for accessibility. The accessible parking needs to spread out for the tenants and one van accessible space will be required for each building. Must meet the Minnesota State Energy Code. Any occupancy with the occupant load of 30 or more requires an elevator for accessibility. I would recommend a pre-construction meeting with the building department. 24 Attachment 11 Tom Ekstrand From: Gwen Kingsbeck [gwen@resolutiongraphics.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 10:29 AM To: Tom Ekstrand Subject: Maple Leaf Ridge Business Center Tom, My husband Jeff and I live at 2498 Adele Street, directly behind the proposed development. We received a request, for our opinions regarding the development, dated August 8th. I didn't immediately respond to your request because an additional informational meeting had been scheduled between Kelco and the affected neighbors. While we do understand that this land will be commercially developed and we are accepting of the proposed usage, we do have have deep concerns regarding the CUP, layout and landscape. At the informational meeting held June 28th the neighbors let Mr. Kellison know that we were extremely unhappy about the proposed removal of all of the natural buffer between the neighbors property and the proposed development. The existing commercial developments in the area have kept a much wider buffer zone between themselves and the neighbors. At the additional informational meeting on August 9th Mr. Kellison proposed a more acceptable landscape plan which includes a row of evergreen trees as a buffer between the development and the neighbors. Mr. Kellison is also looking into saving the existing 20 foot evergreens near the property line. The big issue for us is the requested 150 foot setback as well as paved parking with in 50 feet of the property line. Mr. Kellison has informed us that ifthe 150 foot setback is granted we will look at the nicely finished front side of a building, however, if the CUP is not granted we will look at the back side of building with large dock doors and paving will be 50 feet from the property line regardless of the CUP issue. While Jeff believes the best choice is to have the buildings as far away as possible and look at dock doors, I feel there is no good choice is this situation - I don't want to look at dock doors but I also don't want a 2 story building 150 feet away looking directly into my family room and bedroom windows with nothing to block the view. In conclusion we would be happy to have Maple Leaf Ridge Business Center as a neighbor but we feel their proposed development, as planned, is to large for the site and would not leave a reasonable buffer between them and the neighborhood. Sincerely, Gwen Kingsbeck 2498 Adele Street Maplewood, MN 55109 651-481-0785 Home 651-e97-1100 Office 8/17/2005 25 August21,2005 Mr. Tom Ekstrand City of Maplewood 1830-East County Road B Maplewood, MN 55109 RE: Maple Leaf Ridge Business Center Maplewood Drive Maplewood. MN Dear Tom, Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed Kelco development. My concern is not with where Kelco wants to constuct their building, but rather with what they intend to do right up to the propertyline: cut down all existing trees and constuct a mosquito infested slough. I notice they made reference to to the adjoining mini storage for a precedent in not conforming to the 350' setback requirement, even though their proposal is in no way remotely similar to what the min storage contructed. I'm certain there are alternate plans that could be enacted that would be both profitable and satisfactory to their prospective neighbors. If Kelco believes they need to construct such a large comples to make the project a worthwhile venture, then maybe the property is'nt as valuable as the they and the seller think it is. I apologize for not getting back to you sooner as I have been out of town. I've offered very brief comments on the subject, but I think you probably have a feel for what I'm thinking, (the same thing any resident would be thinking in this position). Thank you for your involvement with this, and if I can be of any further help please let me know. Sincerely, Daniel Ward 2514 Adele Street Maolewood,MN55109 651-486-7824 Attachment 12 26 Attachment 13 Tom Ekstrand From: Dick, Jeff S. [JDick@northstar.orgj Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2005 3:31 PM To: Tom Ekstrand Cc: DeanneDick@comcast.net; Jeff.Dick@comcast.net Subject: Comments regarding Maple Leaf Ridge Business Center Dear Mr. Ekstrand, Here are comments from my wife and me regarding the Development Proposal for the Maple Leaf Ridge Business Center: Comments from Deanne Lynn Dick: My family and I thoroughly enjoy the trees on the site of the proposed development. They not only offer beauty, they also provide a sound and visual barrier from Highway 61. I've sat on our porch many evenings and relaxed to the swaying sound of the leaves and the great view of the sunset reflecting off the trees. I'm fmding it very hard to believe that cutting the trees would benefit the neighborhood. From talking to the neighbors, it would be doing quite the opposite. One resident is already selling their house due to the condominiums and another resident, who is directly affected, will sell if the plan passes. From where I stand, the business condos are already causing problems without even being built, not to mention the increase in traffic to the area if the plan goes through. I see them and everything that comes along with them as a hindrance to our neighborhood rather than an attraction. Comments from Jeffrey Scott Dick: I am adamantly opposed to the removal of the trees on the proposed site. While I don't have a problem with the office condos themselves, I think removing the trees would be a major detriment to our neighborhood. The trees offer a wonderful barrier from highway 61 that gives our neighborhood the feeling of being "tucked away" from the neighboring areas. These trees are also the home of plenty of wildlife, including many deer that feed behind 2506 Adele St. I urge you to reject any proposals that involve removal of the trees from the proposed site. Thank: you in advance for considering our comments. Sincerely, Jeffrey S. Dick & Deanne L Dick 2505 Adele St. N. 651.482.1905 8/17/2005 27 Attachment 14 Dear Mr. Ekstrand, Thomas F O'Connor Melissa L O'Connor 2506 Adele St N Maplewood MN 55109 We are the O'Connor family and live at 2506 Adele St directly behind the proposed development. When we bought our home in June of2001 we were told that the property's behind us were zoned commercial but that the burm and several feet on the other side of the burm including the main tree line were owned by the developer of the residential neighborhood as a buffer between the new residential development and the two at the time residential properties. This was something we considered when buying our home but thought as long as the burm and the main tree line would not be affected by a commercial property we would welcome a commercial project because we wouldn't see it and would be able to maintain our wooded view and buffer from Hwy 61. So you can imagine how disappointed we are to see the Maple Leaf Ridge proposal removing all mature trees and coming right up to our property line. A lesson leamed I guess. Just a comment on how much we have enjoyed our wooded view and the wildlife that comes with it. We have watched for the last four years a doe have two fawns every mating season and have greatly enjoyed watching them grow. We also have for the past year watched the Bald Eagle collect from our woods materials for the new nest on hwy 36 and 61 which has been wonderful to be a part of. Our main concerns are the proposed buffer between the proposed commercial development and our residence and the conditional use permit that has been requested. The proposed plan includes removing all mature trees along the entire back and both sides of the properties opening us up to not only this new development but to the American Hmong Church, Acorn Mini Storage and to all ofHwy 61 traffic noise, car dealership speaker noise -and lighting from all. The proposal replaces them with small 8 to 10 foot trees along the back that won't even attempt to cover the 24 foot tall two story building looking us straight in the eye 157 feet away. We have attended two meetings with Jim Kellison and representatives from Commercial Equity Partners. In the first meeting we expressed our biggest concern being the buffer between the two properties that we didn't have a problem with what types of business that were going in as long as we didn't have to be exposed so openly to them. They stated they would go back and redo some landscaping and show us views of what we would see from our properties and have a second meeting. When we attended the second meeting we were very disappointed. They had one sketch only showing our homes from behind only two levels high and they are three levels high. Our lower levels are below the bunn and with the proposed two story building facing our direction being built up to the height of the top of the bunn the first level of the building will be level with our main floor and the buildings second story would be level with our upstairs. The houses this is affecting are all designed with the main living spaces facing the back family rooms, kitchens, kitchen eating areas, dining room, master bedrooms and baths all with large windows. The new proposal had such minor changes moving the holding pond back a little allowing room for 10 foot trees on top of the burm for our buffer and that's it. The building is 24 feet tall with 8 to 10 feet buffer trees. The top floor businesses will be looking directly into our upstairs level and our main living level. With that building being requested to be 157 feet from our property we feel this is way to close, we will have to have every window covered at all times and any outside activities will be easily viewed by several business units which is not very comfortable. When we mention this being to close the response we received was that the 350 ft was an archaic rule and we should worry more about what types of business's were coming in and not the buffer between us so if they got moved back that we would not be seeing the astatically pleasing front of one of the buildings but they would have to put in shipping and receiving dock type building facing us. Which they stated didn't matter to them either way. Being they want to open everything up and only buffer with small trees and if this building is 350 ft away we would prefer this also at 350 ft we shouldn't be able to see much and wouldn't have office window units looking directly at us. 28 As far as Acorn Mini Storage setting precedent encroaching in the 350 ft which I believe it is still 220ft back: These are two totally different types of business's you barely have any workers or customers at Acorn Mini Storage and they also hide the holding pond from our sights keeping it forward on the property and they left all trees and foliage on the remainder of there property as a good buffer between us all you can't eVen see them. The American Hmong Church also left the tree line alone. It is our request that since there is going to be a removal of all mature trees and a parking lot within several feet of our property regardless of how close the building is that you enforce the 350 ft which we believe is there to protect us as home owners living in the City of Maplewood. 29 Attachment 15 EnGineering Plan Review PROJECT: Maple Leaf Ridge PROJECT NO: REVIEWED BY: Chuck Vermeersch DATE: October 17, 2005 Background: Commercial Equity Partners is proposing the construction of a multi-tenant, condominium-style officelwarehouse complex. Revised plans and drainage calculations dated October 10, 2005 were reviewed. The development is to be constructed on 4.5 acres fronting on Maplewood Drive west between the Hmong American Alliance Church and Acom Mini-Storage. The property consists of two paraels, both of which were previously single family homes. The south parcel also had a bam and two outbuildings which were demolished about a year ago. Runoff from all three of these sites works its way through a system of wetlands, ditches and storm sewer, north to Kohlman Lake. The revised development consists of three buildings, rather than four as originally proposed, and associated parking areas. The revised plan addresses most issues raised in the review of the previous submittal. The applicant or their engineer shall address the following comments. 1. The revised pond configuration, together with the reduction in impervious surface, meets the city's water quality standards. Peak flows from the site are reduced compared to existing conditions. Although there is a significant increase in runoff volume, soil borings indicate the pond may be able to infiltrate a significant amount if excavated to the layer of poorly graded sand. 2. The proposed sanitary sewer design has been reviewed by engineering and the city's utility superintendent, and the design is approved. The applicant's contractor shall coordinate all connections to the city's system with the city's utility superintendent All new piping and structures shall be inspected and must be accepted prior to occupancy. 3. A maintenance agreement will be required for the pond and storm sewer system. The pond shall be seeded with a native seed mix approved by engineering. 4. Flow from the Mini-Storage pond to the south has been separated from the proposed system as recommended in the review of the previous submittal. The pond outlet orifice size has also been revised as recommended. 5. Retaining walls have been labeled with top of wall and bottom of wall elevations and the use of retaining walls for live storage containment in the storm water pond has been eliminated. However, retaining walls are still proposed along the west half of both the north and south property lines. It may be possible to reduce the length and 30 height of the walls further. However. if the walls are to remain. the followina conditions shall applv: a. The retaining walls will require a separate building permit from community development. b. The walls will require a certified, engineered design. c. A special inspections schedule is required and must be completed and certified by the design engineer. d. The wall must be designed to withstand potential loadings. The potential loading shall include the largest vehicle combination that can be accommodated at the loading dock of the west building. e. Guard rails shall be installed along the length of the retaining walls, including along the existing retaining wall of the Mini-storage facility near the south east comer of the property. 6. No aradina penn it will be issued for the site until: a. Plans have been submitted to Saint Paul Regional Water Service, and have been approved. b. Plans have been re-submitted to Ramsey Washington Metro Watershed District, and have been approved and a grading permit secured. c. An NPDES permit has been obtained from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. 31 Attachment 16 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Kelco Real Estate Development Services has applied for a conditional use permit to be allowed to build an office/industrial complex 250 feet from the abutting residential district. The code requires 350 feet. WHEREAS, this permit applies to the property at 2488 and 2497 Maplewood Drive. The legal description is: W. H. HOWARD'S GARDEN LOTS EX STH 61-1 N 85 FT OF LOT 3. W. H. HOWARD'S GARDEN LOTS EX STH 61-1 AND EX N 85 FT LOT 3. WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: 1. On October 17. 2005, the planning commission recommended that the city council this permit. The planning commission held a public hearing. City staff published a notice in the paper and sent notices to the surrounding property owners as required by law. The planning commission gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The planning commission considered the recommendations of city staff and the public. 2. The city council reviewed this request on , 2005 and considered the recommendations of the planning commission and city staff. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above- described conditional use permit because: 1. The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be in conformity with the City's Comprehensive Plan and Code of Ordinances. 2. The use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area. 3. The use would not depreciate property values. 4. The use would not involve any activity, process, materials, equipment or methods of operation that would be dangerous, hazardous, detrimental, disturbing or cause a nuisance to any person or property, because of excessive noise, glare, smoke, dust, odor, fumes, water or air pollution, drainage, water run-off, vibration, general unsightliness, electrical interference or other nuisances. 5. The use would generate only minimal vehicular traffic on local streets and would not create traffic congestion or unsafe access on existing or proposed streets. 6. The use would be served by adequate public facilities and services, induding streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, water and sewer systems, schools and parKs. 7. The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services. 32 8. The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and scenic features into the development design, g, The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. All construction shall follow the site plan that the city has date-stamped October 11, 2005. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 2. The proposed construction must be substantially started, or the proposed use utilized, within one year of council approval or the pennit shall become null and void. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 3. The city council shall review this permit in one year. 4. The hours of operation shall be limited to the city's hours for noise control for the westerly building as stated in Section 18-111 of the city code. This means that there shall be no noise generated between the hours of 7 p.m. and 7 a.m. Monday through Saturday and all day Sunday. This condition applies to any and all business activities occurring on the west side of Building #3. The applicant's sale or lease agreements should specify this. 5. The site lights, west of Building #3, the westerly building, shall be turned off after 10 p.m. unless required to be on by the police department for security reasons. The lights on the west side of Building #3 shall also be of a design that conceals the lens and bulbs of these light fixtures. Light-intensity maximums must meet code requirements. 6. Combine the two legal descriptions into one legally-described lot prior to obtaining a building penn it for this development. 7. Provide a landscaping/screening plan, including a double row of trees along the west boundary, prior to the issuance of a building pennit, which provides a visual screen that is at least 80 percent opaque and six feet tall upon installation. If the double row of trees does not accomplish this, additional screening must be provided. This screen shall be an all-seasons buffer of items like decorative fencing, benning or evergreen trees. This visual screen shall be provided along the rear of the property and extend from there along both side lot lines to the rear setback line of Building #3. This plan may take into account existing vegetation and existing screening. 8. Meet all requirements of the community design review board and city code for architectural design, landscaping, site lighting and parking. 9. Meet all requirements of the city engineer for site grading, drainage, erosion control, dust control, utilities and removal of roadway dirt build-up. 10. Outdoor storage of any materials shall not be allowed unless a conditional use pennit for outdoor storage is obtained from the city council. The Maplewood City Council approved this resolution on ,2005. 33 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: DATE: City Manager Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner Design Reconsideration - Ashley Furniture 1770 County Road D East November 16, 2005 INTRODUCTION Background On October 25, 2005, the community design review board (CDRB) discussed the neon accent lighting on the Ashley Furniture store. This issue came up during the board's recent review of The Myth nightclub across the street from Ashley Furniture. While reviewing the proposed neon lighting on The Myth, the CDRB noted that the new Ashley Furniture store had neon lighting that was not part of their approved building design, The CDRB felt that The Myth was a suitable use for displaying neon. The board felt that it fit in with the type of business they were operating. The CDRB did not necessarily feel that way about a furniture store. The CDRB subsequently moved to have staff inform the owner of Ashley Furniture that they must either. . Remove the neon accent lighting, or . Submit a request to the CDRB that the board accept the neon accent lighting as a revision to their approved architectural plan. Request Michael Diem, of Architectural Network, the architect for the Ashley Furniture building, has requested that the CDRB accept the neon lighting that has been installed on the Ashley Furniture store. He explained to staff that this is trademark accent lighting for Ashley Furniture stores. He also feels that their use of neon is considerably softer in appearance since it is concealed lighting, not exposed like other businesses in this area. Buildings in the area with exposed neon are The Myth, Arby's, Maplewood Best Western and the BP filling station at County Road D and White Bear Avenue. DISCUSSION Neon Discussed Previously While reviewing this matter for CDRB consideration, I found "notes to the file" documenting that Mr. Diem and I had discussed the addition of a "band of neon in the front parapet cove detail." I accepted this change as a minor revision to the approved plan. Refer to the attached copy of an email transmittal dated December 13 and 14. This request from Mr. Diem had stated, however, that he was requesting approval for a neon band in the front parapet cove detail of the building, not around the perimeter of the building as is now in place. Is Neon Accent Lighting Appropriate? The question to be considered is whether the hidden neon strip is attractive on the building. Staffs opinion is that it is attractive and not garish, gaudy or obtrusive in any way. Staff understands the CDRB's dissatisfaction in not having had the opportunity to review the neon with the initial review. As noted above, the applicant did later propose neon on the front of the building and I did not see a problem with that. In spite of the quantity of neon installed, staff does not feel that the perimeter neon band is a detriment to the building's appearance or the neighborhood. One remaining factor that the CDRB pointed out is that there will be a 50-unit town house development adjacent to this site and that the neon strip would not be appropriate for these residential neighbors. Staff feels that this area is largely commercial and that neon lighting is an acceptable, and already frequently used, lighting element in this area. To avoid any possible light-glare problems with this neon lighting, staff recommends that the store tum off the neon lights at the end of business hours. RECOMMENDATION Approve a revision to the Ashley Furniture building design that allows the blue neon accent lighting that is in place on the building. This is conditioned on the neon lights being turned off at the end of Ashley Furniture's business hours. p:sec3\AshleyFurn~ure Neon 2 Attachment December 13 and 14. 2004 Email Transmittal 2 Attachment 1 Tom Ekstrand From: Sent: To: Subject: Tom Ekstrand Tuesday. December 14.20049:57 AM 'Betsy Johnson' RE: Ashley Maplewood Hi, Betsy. Mike explained this change to me, but once I reveived your email, I unrolled the plans to take a look. Just for clarification, it looks to me that the Accent Brick is just a Field Brick. And they are now the same color and type. Is that true. a clarification on this so I know I am understanding this correctly. top course on the I just would like Thanks, Tom -----Original Message----- From: Betsy ~ohnson [rnailto:betsy@archnetusa.com] Sent: Monday, December 13, 2004 2:43 PM To: Tom Ekstrand Cc: Michael Diem Subject: Ashley Maplewood Hello Tom, Please note the following change to the Ashley Maplewood store... Accent: Glen-Gery Brick Heartland Series: Adrian Field: Glen-Gery Brick Heartland Series: Woodbury As per your conversation with Mike Diem, Ashley prototype utilize a band of neon in the front parapet cove detail. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact Mike Diem. Thank you Betsy L. Johnson Administrative Assistant 1').-/ Ii ~)~ Jr' -. ~ 1V- ~ "'5~" 7 3 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: DATE: City Manager Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner Regions Sleep-Health Center 2688 Maplewood Drive November 15, 2005 INTRODUCTION Project Description Pope Architects is proposing to build a 7,084-square-foot, one-story building at 2688 Maplewood Drive. This building would be a sleep-health center for Regions Hospital. The proposed building would have an exterior of brick, cement-board siding and asphalt shingles on a hip roof. Refer to the attachments. Requests The applicant is requesting the following: . A rezoning from R1 (single dwelling residential) to M1 (light manufacturing) for the back of the lot which currently has residential zoning. . A setback variance since the proposed building would be less than 50 feet from a residential lot line. This applies only to the setback from the cabin property to the north. The proposed building setback would be 30 feet. The building setback to other residential neighbors would exceed the 50-foot minimum. . A conditional use permit (CUP) for a reduced setback from residential property lines. There are residential properties to the north, south and east. Some of the properties to the north and south are developed residentially but are zoned M1. The code requires a CUP for buildings in M1 districts that are closer than 350 feet to residentially-zoned properties. The proposed building would be set back varying distances from these lot lines at 55 feet, 67 feet and 122 feet. . Approval of design plans. DISCUSSION Rezoning The proposed rezoning to M1 would be in compliance with the comprehensive plan which already designates this rear portion of the lot as M1, This proposal would also meet the requirements for rezoning as outlined in the ordinance. It also makes sense that this property has one zoning to enable its logical and sensible development. The existing split zoning would hinder development by limiting the size of the site. Setback Variance City code requires that the proposed building be set back 50 feet from the northerly lot line because of the neighboring cabins. This abutting property, however, is presently planned and zoned M1 for commercial or industrial use. This adjacent property is also for sale; therefore, its continued use as residential is limited and likely to be short lived. Staff supports the proposed 20-foot setback variance since it meets the findings required by state law. Providing a 50-foot setback would cause the applicant undue hardship by requiring a setback from a nonconforming use that is temporary and destined to be redeveloped with an M1 use. Approval of a variance would also be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance since there would still be an ample 30-foot setback from the northerly lot line. Conditional Use Permit The proposed use is allowed under the M1 zoning code. The reason for this CUP request is because the westerly building would be within 350 feet of residential properties. In this situation, the ordinance requires a CUP so the city council may consider special precautions due to possible impacts on the abutting residential property. The usual concerns are to consider safeguards for issues like the potential for noise and any negative visual impacts. Noise Staff does not envision a problem with noise from this sleep center. This use should actually be a very quiet neighbor. Staff questioned the applicant as to whether there would be any late-night noise from cars and drivers in the parking lot. The applicant stated that this would not be a problem. Patients would arrive in the early evening hours for preparation and then have their sleep monitored throughout the night. There is no late night coming-and-going anticipated. Visuallmoacts The proposed building would be attractive and would have a residential design. The only concern staff might have is that there be adequate parking lot screening next to the abutting residential properties. Neiqhbor Concerns The replies from neighbors were concerns with traffic noise from area auto dealers, the loss of trees and the potential for any late-night disturbances. Refer to the Citizen Comments section of this report for all of the comments received. Building Design The proposed building would be attractive and is designed to be compatible with the nearby residential homes in the area. The building materials would be no-maintenance materials and are proposed to have a variety of tan and brown color tones with a subtle green siding material. The applicant has given staff a color and material sample board to present at the meeting, 2 Site Considerations Parkinq The applicant would meet the commercial parking ratio of one parking space for each 200 square feet of floor area. This is the ratio applied to office, clinic and retail uses. The 36 spaces proposed will meet code requirements for this sleep clinic. Site Liqhtinq The photometric plan meets light-intensity maximum requirements. The applicant should take care to make sure that the rear parking lot light has a concealed lens and bulb. Staff also recommends that this lighting fixture be as subdued as possible emitting no more than a typical residential yard or wall light to prevent any possible complaint from residential neighbors. Landscaoinq The proposed landscaping is attractive. Staffs only additional recommendations are that the north/northeast and the south/southeast sides of the rear parking lot have additional landscaping to more fully screen this area from residential views. City code requires that parking lots be screened with a visual buffer that is six feet tall and 80 percent opaque. The applicant has a nice start at this. Staff recommends that the landscaping be increased to meet this requirement. Trash An outdoor trash enclosure is proposed. The design of this structure should be submitted to staff for approval. The construction and materials should match the building. City Department Comments Fire Marshal Butch GeNais, the Maplewood Fire Marshal, made several comments. Refer to the attached report from Mr. GeNais. Police Lieutenant Kevin Rabbett reviewed this proposal and stated the following: "I have no significant public safety concerns. I am somewhat concerned that the 24 hour operation is so close to the residential area. I anticipate complaints of noise from arriving and departing vehicles, doors slamming, etc. I would recommend that a noise-controlling fence or earthen berm be considered to minimize this type of complaint." 3 Buildinq Official Dave Fisher, Maplewood Building Official, reviewed this proposal. Refer to his report. City Enqineer The city's engineering staff is currently reviewing this proposal. They have not completed their work review, but will do so for the planning commission meeting. Staff will present their comments then. The main issue will be to make sure that the proposed infiltration pond meets the city's criteria for stormwater retention and water quality. SUMMARY Staff supports this proposal. This clinic would be an improvement to this site and the neighborhood. RECOMMENDATIONS A. Adopt the resolution rezoning the back of 2688 Maplewood Drive from R1 (single dwelling residential) to M1 (light manufacturing). This rezoning is based on the findings required by code and also because the Maplewood Comprehensive land Use Plan already guides this property as M1. B. Adopt the resolution approving a 20-foot setback variance allowing the proposed Regions Sleep-Health Center to be constructed 30 feet from the northerly lot line. Approval is because: 1. Providing a 50-foot setback would cause the applicant undue hardship by requiring a setback from a nonconforming use that is temporary and destined to be redeveloped with a complying, M1 use. 2. This variance would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance since there would still be an ample 30-foot setback from the northerly lot line. C. Adopt the resolution approving a conditional use permit for 2688 Maplewood Drive for a building in an M1 (light manufacturing) district that would be within 350 feet of residentiai property. Approval is based on the findings required by ordinance and subject to the following conditions: 1. All construction shall follow the site plan that the city has date-stamped October 27, 2005. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 2. The proposed construction must be substantially started, or the proposed use utilized, within one year of council approval or the permit shall become null and void. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 4 3. The city council shall review this permit in one year. 4. The parking lot lights for the rear parking lot must be of a style that has concealed bulbs and lenses. This lighting must not give off more light than a typical residential wall or yard light. Light-intensity maximums must meet code requirements. 5. Provide a revised parking lot screening plan for the rear parking lot that provides screening that is at least six feet tall and 80 percent opaque on the north/northeast and south/southeast sides. D. Approve the plans date-stamped October 27, 2005 for the proposed Regions Sleep- Health Center at 2688 Maplewood Drive. Approval is subject to the applicant/developer complying with the following conditions: 1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. 2. Comply with any conditions of the city engineer regarding grading, drainage, erosion control, shoreland ordinance compliance and utilities. 3. Obtain a permit from the RamseylWashington Metro Watershed District before the issuance of a building permit. 4. Provide a revised parking lot screening plan for staff approval for the rear parking lot that provides screening that is at least six feet tall and 80 percent opaque on the north/northeast and south/southeast sides. 5. The applicant must provide an in-ground irrigation system as required by code. The area around the pond does not need to be sprinklered. 6. The design of the trash enclosure shall be submitted to staff for approval. The materials and colors of the enclosure shall match the building. 7. Provide cash escrow, in the amount of 150 percent of the cost of completing the landscaping and exterior site improvements before the applicant shall obtain a building permit. 8. The community design review board shall approve major changes to these plans. Minor changes may be approved by staff. 5 CITIZEN COMMENTS Staff surveyed the 68 surrounding property owners within 500 feet of the proposed site for their opinions of this proposal. Of the 11 replies, four were in favor, two had no comment and five were either opposed or gave miscellaneous comments In Favor 1. As long as this Regions Center does not have ambulances coming to and from to disrupt the residential area, I do not see a problem. (Binsfeld, 1268 County Road C) 2. As long as you don't cut the trees down at the end of my lot. I'm thinking you're not going to be on my land, so I'm OK with it. (Novak, 2667 English Street) 3. I think it will be quieter and less disruptive than what is there now. (Buesing, 1247 Kohlman Avenue) 4. This proposal sounds just fine to me, (Berqual, 1270 Kohlman Avenue) Opposed/Miscellaneous Comments 1. I'm more concerned about the traffic and sound of cars on the frontage road off of Duluth with all the new car dealers building going on. The huge serni trucks are a nuisance also. Continue to watch this concern, (Leonard, 2627 Duluth Street) 2. Concerned about hours. I don't understand if they will be open 12 hours or possibly 24 if need be? (Peltier, 1236 Kohlman Avenue) 3. I would like six-foot-high privacy fence trees on your property cut down. (Pitt, 1237 County Road C) 4. (1) I don't want rny property value to decrease! (2) I don't want my taxes to go up. (3) already don't like the increase in traffic on County Road C and now the frontage road after you allowed the Audi development. So more traffic is not appealing. Finally, why ask for residents' input when it doesn't do any good? (Bertelsen, 2631 Duluth Street) 6 REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Site size: 1.55 acres Existing Use: Timber & Turf Outdoor Services, Inc. SURROUNDING LAND USES North: South: East: West: Cabins on property zoned M1 North Star Auto Body and single dwellings The back yards of residential properties Single dwellings PLANNING land Use Plan: M1 Zoning: M1 and R1 Code Reauirements Section 44-637(b) requires a CUP for buildings in M1 districts that would be within 350 feet of a residential district. Findinas for CUP Approval City code requires that to approve a CUP, the city council must base approval on the nine required findings for approval. Refer to the attached resolution for a listing of these findings, Findinas for Variance Approval State law requires that the City Council make the following findings to approve a variance from the zoning code: 1. Strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the property under consideration. 2. The variance would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. "Undue hardship", as used in granting of a variance, means the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property, not created by the landowner, and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality, Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the city code. 7 FindinGs for RezoninG Approval 1. The proposed change is consistent with the spirit, purpose and intent of the zoning code. 2. The proposed change will not substantially injure or detract from the use of neighboring property or from the character of the neighborhood, and that the use of the property adjacent to the area included in the proposed change or plan is adequately safeguarded. 3. The proposed change will serve the best interests and conveniences of the community, where applicable, and the public welfare. 4. The proposed change would have no negative effect upon the logical, efficient, and economical extension of public services and facilities, such as public water, sewers, police and fire protection and schools. APPLICATION DATE We received the applications and plans for this proposal on October 27,2005. State law requires that the city take action within 60 days of receiving complete applications. A decision on this request is required by December 26, 2005, p:sec4\Regions Sleep Center 11'05 Attachments 1. location and Zoning Map 2. land Use Plan 3. Site and landscaping Plan 4. Building Elevations 5. Rezoning Narrative dated October 17. 2005 6. Variance Statement dated October 17. 2005 7. Conditional Use Permit Narrative dated October 17, 2005 8, Building Officiai's Report dated October 31. 2005 9. Fire Marshal's Report dated November 1,2005 10, Rezoning Resolution 11. Variance Resolution 12. Conditional Use Permit Resolution 13, Plans date-stamped October 27,2005 (separate attachments) 8 {.;.4.""h..,.,..,.. ~ ~ Fisher's Corner R1 l! I ! I i \ i i I I I I j= ! R1 1263 1257 1281 1293 III. m ['II I!!ll I I I I Attachment 1 2780 .... <0 ~ ~ Q .:z:- Q: sp tJ .:z:- ~ /% "-' , I ' r----~T--7 i ,. /' t:~':-;n~~~l\~~,:;~,. ~/.Ij ,'>.>.......n ..... ...., ... jl2361 /":-:')-:::-:;;1 ,~ I.. t.:...:.....::... ":-'-.-:~; , l~_ , 1244 I , II 11II .: 121 I' B II, .'L_.jJ\ 1264 1270 i" 1284 i A1 ,--tlL i 21 ---.--,IIJ..., 2667 mlll1l __JIL. KOHLMAN AVE " i I------~/ I ! i ,~ I , , -Rt-.- _.--_.-.'~n----l -..".-.-..--..------..-.....----...--. , 1.~ I " [, '. i : ; r~~~i.~h ,,. :.." i ~I '=,. :>n. ,~ (:~\,:~~:~r~-,..IIL~~l.lj ~__~_~!Ii p COUNTY ROAD C , . , , ' 211. ~2...: 11290 . I"; ~: IJ j i ! ! j ! I , ' , IIlIil liFil -.-.-------- ~, -- 26~1 -- ---i . ..._"".._....._n._n_. 4'/"25aJ1 1\11 I' iR2 LOCATION AND ZONING MAP 9 L/ , , ' ! '-P.,. .= ; - ; i i IiIII i j i i " I ~S I -'.__~ 1- , , ! I " ! Fisher's Corner 1-----_-....' ! , , L I ! 6 i , " 2780 Attachment 2 '----j --~-j f I j j c;;- ,:.. I ' ~ .. ,""",,-f r,' .m_ _____,...__" ~ ~ i ---I !~1Y/<t i 0,/ .-t--~ ,2720 \ 1263 , --~~ " ,--.: I II'IilIIi I - '. ,/ 1. !12571 .,/ I III!. ..,.. ;.1 . .,..t ! . ',I _! ..,___ - - ____i._ ,_ ___ , \1281 1287 1 3 ,'" '.. i_,,' \"'I!,.:: I KOHLMAN AVE II !.! : 121 "', ' " ~i III I i L__II. 1264 1270 i III 1 84 ::il1 L.l1L ' ,~ L_m 2667 Dill ____,..111. i~ 11267 j 1273 !." jllil 1283 ~iI1 Ii" , ,.- i! ! ___ ___.1. _._______~._____...___ ,--.........,-----.,-----1'--------,---,.------1 ! i ! ' I I i j12'" r2' !,. i 11~ r--'---,---j-.c--'..~ i &I /12. /fIl/ ;,' ,i_";-r. .-41--" I!fr, ) , ':-----L,.____il , // , 87~.--.._~..--------~ , _." H1l.l. -fO ...--\ >).0. / /--->_ Pc.,. " ~_ " ;2:fr~ii>!:.~- 260'( 1..:< !~,i.'/Jf!t8..../:i.21.- .... < .21.____....... .- , . 'Q1 ,~..- 2581 LAND USE PLAN MAP 10 = I; - . II' 010 'I III . I .! .. . ej ~ - ct:1ii ~~ NI'I 'pooNIO/dOI'I '0 pooM8Id.1'I889~ J8lU8:> _H dHis :/II/IIlSoH .UO/I1a~ NY7d ;U-':>SONY7 1111.1.1111111 I ~ ~ ~ ~ . . . ~:" ! Li ! iJ i ~ !: ~I' !:li! I II i i '!! ~ 11!i! III'" III ;.~ I ~e! I !211 'I ~ i!lii~ ;llh 5 '.!i II 'I - Ii i'... ~I~ ~~li'~ !'I'O:II!! ~i l! H:lIlI' ~ ;r;~1 ~; ~~ ~:~~JI~~ ~. ~,~~ I , I I I (I I IH. t Iii i i .11. . ij lJ i Ilil I 'II 3.,rz-{'t.iOS ,t:O"6Bi -- ..... ~- ,f'6"9t? M.,f'z.['I.tON '.lOl"'~"" U ~ u <t '" ~ ig " z . 5 u " z i.i 8 ~ U <t ~D ~I I W ~ ~ '0 ---- ~ . .~ .... i..... 'I I 'I! , III: . ! un UI' -.) I' II i> ~~ ~~ \()~ .l - . i i At achment3 a. c( :E Cl z - a. c( o tn Q Z :5 Q Z c( W I- - tn 1 ~~ ii lIlI .. i" 11 ~ <~ II.. . :!!' ;:; ~~!". ~ a~ o ~ :' ,',,', .Sill : - 1I~~ l. <( ~~ @-_.- : :.J :i :l " " " " " ii 11 i: ~ ii !< Ii ~ " w -H-- ~ ~ Ii 6' _1.: 0:;: tn Z o - ~ ~ W ...J W C) Z - Q ...J - ::>> m e- 0------ , , Ii :! Iii Illll 0----7- - ~. e- " " " " :: Ii ii " " " ~ " " ii i5 :: ~ Ii (ij " ~ :: w " I- ---l:-ffi I 3: , jI ! I I II! II II !.I . h L ~z gg I ffi ~ ~ ~ 5~ II ill .II :I! J I ~ r: m !~T · 0------ -- e- @--- 'J .l 8-- _cr;- J -~ " I: ii " " " :: " ~ " z o ~ w ~!? 0::; o. z_ " " " :: " Ii II d n " " " " " " " " " " " " " " ~ " " " " " " " " " " " :: " " " " " ~ " Ii " fl ~~ t ~~ U i~ ] 12 .J October 17, 2005 City of Maplewood 1830 County Road BEast Maplewood, MN 55109 Re: Rezoning Board Regions Hospital Sleep Health ~enter Maplewood, M nnesota PAl Commission ,No. 26172-05130 On behalf of Frauenshu~ Companies, Pope Associates is submitting for your re 'ewand approval, the rezoning qf Parcel A for the proposed Sleep Health Center building to be located on a site of apPrPximately 1.55 acres on Maplewood Drive, just north of ounty Road C, Maplewood, MIfI Rezoning Narrative Parcel A will be purchased with Parcel B as part of a proposed outpatient clinic fo Regions Hospital. The propose~ building is a new 7,084 SF, freestanding, single-story utpatient clinic. The zoning change will ~romote the public welfare by developing the Parcel A as part of a new facility for Regions Hospital. This zoning change wil~not injure or detract from the use of the neighboring p perty or from the character of e neighborhood because the proposed develop on P reel B is allowed in M-1 Light Man facturing standards. The proposed facility Will have sewer and water line connections with the uti/ilie located within the Maplewood Dr ve right-of-way. All storm water run-off will be handled ith a rain garden and retention ponfj, prior to flowing into the city system. If you have questions ~Iease feel free to call me at 651-789-1618 or via -mail at iiohnson@popearch.com: G:\7S372\04110\CORR\23_24\City Site Plan $ubmittall_7 _OS.doc Attachment 5 POPE ASSOCIATES Architects Interior Designers 1255 Energy Park Drive St. Paul, MN 55108-5118 Phone: (651) 642-9200 Fax: (651) 642-1101 www.popearch.com 13 October 17, 2005 Revised - October 24~ 2005 Planning Commission City of Maplewood , 1830 County Road B E;jIst Maplewood, MN 551091 Re: Zoning Code I(ariance Regions Hosp~tal Sleep Health qenter Maplewood, Minnesota PAl Commission No. 26172-05130 On behalf of Frauenshuh Companies, Pope Associates is submitting for your re iew and approval, a zoning codelvariance for a proposed Sleep Health Center building to be located on a site of apPrPximately 1.55 acres on Maplewood Drive, just north of ounty Road C, MapJewood, Mr!l Variance Statement We are requesting a Z~ning variance from the city code requiring a 50 fee building setback and 20 foot parking setback from abutting property that is used as residential along the n rth side of the property. The proposed facility has 28-foot building setback and a 6-foot parking lot setback along the north property 'ne. The proposed building ext~nds 21 feet into the 50-foot setback. The propos parking lot extends 14 feet into p'e 2o-foot setback. The proposed building i~ a new 7,084 SF, freestanding, single-story outpatient Iinic with parking for 36 spaces. i We are requesting a Zoning Code Variance to comply with M-1 Light Manufacturing. A ~oning Code Variance has been requested based on the following two reasons. 1. Strict enforcem~nt of the City ordinance would cause building and parking setbacks restricting the building size and parking count. The proposed property and parcels im~ediately north and south of the property are zoned or Light Manufacturing tM-1). However, private residences exist on the parcels immediately norith and south of the property, creating Residential L nd Use setbacks for buil~ing and parking. The proposed ~ariance would be in keeping with the spirit and inte t of the ordinance as se~ forth for development within a Light Manufacturing zo e, It is our understandi~g that this property and adjacent properties are to be d veloped as M-1 Light Ma(1ufacturing and BC Business Commercial District. 2. Attachment 6 POPE ASSOCIATES Architects Interior Designers 1255 Energy Park Drive St. Paul. MN 55108.5118 Phone: (651) 642-9200 Fax: (651) 642-1101 www.popearch.com 14 If you have questions please feel free to call me at 651-789-1618 or vi e-mail at iiohnsonlaloooearch ,corn. Sincerely, ~ John Project Manager G:\7S372\04II01CORR\23_24\City Site Plan Jubmiltall_' _OS.doc 15 October 17, 2005 City of Maplewood 1830 County Road BEast Maplewood, MN 55109' Re: Conditional Use Permit Regions Hos~ital Sleep Health ~enter Maplewood, Minnesota PAl Commissioni No. 62335-05130 On behalf of Frauensh~h Companies, Pope Associates is submitting for your re iewand approval, the applicatiom for a Conditional Use Permit for the proposed Sleep H Ith Center building to be lo<:ated on a site of approximately 1.55 acres on Maplewo Drive, just north of County Ro~d C, Maplewood, MN Conditional Use Permit Narrative We are requesting a Gonditional Use Permit because the proposed building closer than 350 feet to a ,residential district. The intended use of th$ property is an outpatient Sleep Health Center clinic fo Regions Hospital. The facility w,1 be a 7,000 sq. ft. single story building with 36 parking s lis. The facility includes 12 patiemt rooms, 2 exam rooms and supporting office and servi spaces. Patients will be monito~d while they sleep to diagnose sleep disorders. The patient's typical visit to the clinic wlll be about 12 hours; some may stay as long as 24 hours. The proposed facility wo~ld be located, designed, maintained, constructed and 0 erated to conform to the city's ~-1 Light Manufacturing zone. It's use and design ould be consistent with the exi$ting character of the adjacent commercial facilities. It is not expected to depreciate ~roperty values for this site or any adjacent site. The roposed landscaping will create visual enhancement of the site, also providing required creening from adjacent residential iusage properties. The proposed facility w~uld re-develop the site to include a new building, park ng area, landscaping and stormw~ter filtration/retention system. The facility will be full s rinklered and connected via a fire lllarm to local fire departments. The facility will be oper tional 24 hours a day for 6 days a Week. All doors will be locked for off-hours, and fitted wit security system for safety. The use of the proposeq facility would generate minimal vehicular traffic on loca streets. The drive entrance would be located near the existing drive entrance, not creating ehicular congestion anywhere elsEl along the right-of-way. Attachment 7 POPE ASSOCIATES Architects Interior Designers 1255 Energy Park Drive SI. Paul. MN 55108-5118 Phone: (651) 642-9200 Fax: (651) 642.1101 www.popearch.com 16 If you have question~ please feel free to call me at 651-789-1618 or via e-mail at iiohnsonllilDoDearch .co(n. SI/IIC . Johnson AlA Project Manager G:\7S372\0411O\CORR\23_24\CitySitc Plansul:mittall_7_0S,doi;: 17 Memo To: Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner From: David Fisher, Building Official ~ Attachment 8 Re: Regions Hospital The Sleep Health Center Proposed Building October 31, 2005 A complet$ building code analysis will be req plans are submitted for permit. The building is required to be fire sprinklered nd to meet NFPA 13. Separate male and female restrooms will be r quired on each floor. The new building must be built to meet 2000 IBC, Minnesota State BuilcUng Code and the Minnesota State Energy Code. I would redommend a pre-construction meeti g with the building dElpartment. 18 Attachment 9 Plan Review ComnjJ.ents Date: Project: Planner: Reviewed by: 11/1/2005 Regions Sleep Center Toni Ekstrand Butch Gervais, Fire Marshal Comments: I. Need 20 ft emergency access road 2. Fire Protection System pre-codes and monitored 3. Proper marlj:ing of door where fire protection system is located 4. Fire Alarm System pre-code (NFP A 72) which requires mini sunders and strobes in all sleep areas 5. Floor Plan ~equired at main entrance 19 RESOLUTION: ZONING MAP CHANGE Attachment 10 WHEREAS, Polpe Associates applied for a change in the zoning ap from R1 (single dwelling residential) to M1 (light manufacturing). WHEREAS, this change applies to the property at 2688 Maplewo Drive. The legal description is: Back portion of the parcel (Parcel A): The South 189.50 feet Lot 6, Kohlman's Lakeview Addition, as measured t a right angle to the South line of said Lot 6" according to the recorded plat thereof on file and f record in the office of the County Recorder Ramsey County, Minnesota. Front portion of the parcel (Parcel B): Commencing at a point on the West line of Lot 6, Kohlman's Lakeview Ad ition, and 200 feet South of the Northwest; corner of said Lot 6; thence West on a line paralle to the South line of Section 4, Township 29, North, Range 22 West, to a point on the Easterly line of the White Bear Road known as Highway Number One; thence Southwesterly along the S utheasterly side of said White Bear Road (0 a point 383.8 feet North of the South line of Sect on 4; thence East on a line 383.8 feet North of and parallel to the South line of said Section 4 t a point on the West line of said Lot 6; thenoe North along the West line of said Lot 6 to the poi t of beginning, Ramsey County, Minnesota. Abstract Property (ParCel A) Torrens Property (Parcel B) Torrens Certificate No. 530624 WHEREAS, the history of this change is as follows: 1. On NovE/lmber 21, 2005, the planning commission held a p blic hearing to consider this rezoning. The city staff published a notice in he Maplewood Review ilnd sent notices to the surrounding property owne . The planning commission gave everyone at the hearing an opportunity t speak and present written statements. The planning commission recommend d that the City Council the change. 2. On , 2005, the city council reviewed this rezoning and the change. The Council also considered reports and recomm ndations from the city staff and planning commission. 20 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council appr ve the above- described change in the zoning map for the following reasons: 1. The proposed change is consistent with the spirit, purpose nd intent of the zoning code. 2. The proposed change will not substantially injure or detrac from the use of neighboring property or from the character of the neighbor ood, and that the use of the prtoperty adjacent to the area included in the propos d change or plan is adequajely safeguarded. 3. The proposed change will serve the best interests and con eniences of the commurnity, where applicable, and the public welfare. 4. The proposed change would have no negative effect upon he logical, efficient, and economical extension of public services and facilities, uch as public water, sewers, police and fire protection and schools. 5. The Maiblewood Comprehensive Plan already designates t is property for M1. The Maplewood City Council approved this resolution on ,200 21 Attachment 11 VARIANCE RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Pope Associates has applied for a variance from the oning ordinance. WHEREAS, thi$ variance applies to 2688 Maplewood Drive. The I gal description for the portion of the subject lot to be rezoned (Parcel A) is: Back portion of the parCel (Parcel A): The South 189.50 feet 1L0t 6, Kohlman's Lakeview Addition, as measured t a right angle to the South line of said Lot 6~ according to the recorded plat thereof on file and f record in the office of the County Recorder Ramsey County, Minnesota. Front portion of the parcel (Parcel B): Commencing at a poinl on the West line of Lot 6, Kohlman's Lakeview Ad ition, and 200 feet South of the Northwest corner of said Lot 6; thence West on a line paralle to the South line of Section 4, Township 29, North, Range 22 West, to a point on the Easterly line of the White Bear Road known as Highw<ly Number One; thence Southwesterly along the S utheasterly side of said White Bear Road to a point 383.8 feet North of the South line of Sect n 4; thence East on a line 383.8 feet North of and parallel to the South line of said Section 4 to a point on the West line of said Lot 6; thenoe North along the West line of said Lot 6 to the poi t of beginning, Ramsey County, Minnesota. Abstract Properly (pardel A) Torrens Property (Parc(31 B) Torrens Certificate No. 1530624 WHEREAS, Seption 44-20( c)(6)(b) of the Maplewood Code of Or inances requires that commercial buildings be set back at least 50 feet from a residential lot line WHEREAS, the applicant is proposing to construct a commercial uilding with a 30-foot setback from a residential lot line. WHEREAS, this requires a variance of 20 feet. WHEREAS, the history of this variance is as follows: 1. On November 21,2005, the planning commission recomm nded that the city council this variance. The planning commissio held a publiC hearing. City staff published a notice in the Maplewood Re iew and sent notices to the surrounding property owners as required by law. Th planning commission gave everyone at the hearing an opportunity to speak and resent written statements. 22 2. The city council reviewed this request on , 20 5. The council considered reports and recommendations from the city sta and planning commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council appr ve the above- described variance for the following reasons: 1. Providing a 50-foot setback would cause the applicant un ue hardship by requirin9 a setback from a nonconforming use that is temp rary and destined to be rede'l'eloped with a complying, M1 use. 2. This variance would be in keeping with the spirit and intent f the ordinance since there would still be an ample 3D-foot setback from the nort erly lot line, Adopted on ,2005. 23 Attachment 12 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Pope Associates applied for a conditional use permit 0 construct a commercial building) within 350 feet of residentially-zoned property. T e proposed building would be set back varying distances from abutting residential lot lines t distances of 55 feet, 67 feet and 122 feet. WHEREAS, this permit applies to 2688 Maplewood Drive. The Ie al description is: Back portion of the parcel (Parcel A): The South 189.50 feet 1L0t 6, Kohlman's Lakeview Addition, as measured t a right angle to the South line of said Lot 6', according to the recorded plat thereof on file and f record in the office of the County Recorder Ramsey County, Minnesota. Front portion of the parcel (Parcel B): Commencing at a point on the West line of Lot 6, Kohlman's Lakeview Ad ition, and 200 feet South of the Northwest corner of said Lot 6; thence West on a line paralle to the South line of Section 4, Township 29, North, Range 22 West, to a point on the Easterly line of the White Bear Road known as Highw<lly Number One; thence Southwesterly along the S utheasterly side of said White Bear Road to a point 383.8 feet North of the South line of Sect on 4; thence East on a line 383.8 feet North of and parallel to the South line of said Section 4 to a point on the West line of said Lot 6; thende North along the West line of said Lot 6 to the poi t of beginning, Ramsey County, Minnesota. Abstract Property (Parcel A) Torrens Property (Parcel B) Torrens Certificate No. 530624 WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: 1. On NovEllmber 21, 2005, the planning commission recomm nded that the city council this permit. The planning commissi n held a public hearing. City staff published a notice in the paper and sent notices to the surrounqling property owners as required by law, The plan ing commission gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present wri ten statements. 2. The city'council reviewed this request on , 005. The council considered reports and recommendations of the city staff a d planning commisSion. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council appr ve the above- described conditional use permit because: 24 1. The usewould be located, designed, maintained, construct d and operated to be in conformity with the City's Comprehensive Plan and Code 0 Ordinances. 2. The usewould not change the existing or planned character f the surrounding area, 3. The use' would not depreciate property values. 4. The usewould not involve any activity, process, materials, e uipment or methods of operation that would be dangerous, hazardous, detrimenta , disturbing or cause a nuisance to any person or property, because of excessive n ise, glare, smoke, dust, odor, fUimes, water or air pollution, drainage, water run off, vibration, general unsightliiness, electrical interference or other nuisances. 5, The use'Would generate only minimal vehicular traffic on loc I streets and would not create trtaffic congestion or unsafe access on existing or pr posed streets. 6. The use would be served by adequate public facilities nd services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, wat r and sewer systems, schools ,and parks. 7. The use would not create excessive additional costs for pu lic facilities or services, 8. The use' would maximize the preservation of and incorpora the site's natural and scenic f$atures into the development design. 9. The useiwould cause minimal adverse environmental effec s, Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. All construction shall follow the site plan that the city has date- tamped October 27, 2005. The director of community development may approve mi or changes. 2. The proposed construction must be substantially started, or th proposed use utilized, within one year of council approval or the permit shall ecome null and void. The council'may extend this deadline for one year. 3. The city cowncil shall review this permit in one year. 4. The parkingi lot lights for the rear parking lot must be of a style hat has concealed bulbs and lenses. This lighting must not give off more light tha a typical residential wall or yard 'light. Light-intensity maximums must meet code r uirements. 5. Provide a rElvised parking lot screening plan for the rear parkin lot that provides screening tt)at is at least six feet tall and 80 percent opaque on the north/northeast and south/sputheast sides. The Maplewood City Council approved this resolution on ,2005. 25