The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About06/28/2005 AGENDA CITY OF MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD Tuesday, June 28, 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: June 14, 2005 Minutes 5. Unfinished Business: None Scheduled 6. Design Review: a. Maplewood Business Center Landscaping and Screening Plan -1616 Gervais Avenue b. Maplewood Toyota: 1) New Vehicle Parking and Sales Facility (South Site) - Located on the northwest corner of Beam Avenue and Highway 61, across the street from the existing sales lot 2) Maplewood Toyota Expansion (North Site) - Located on the west side of Highway 61, north of La Mettrey's Collision 7. Visitor Presentations: 8. Board Presentations: a. June 27, 2005, City Council Meeting 9. Staff Presentations: a. Sign Code Revisions b. Reschedule September 13 and November 8, 2005, CDRB meetings due to elections. Proposed dates - September 14 and November 9,2005. c. CDRB Representation at the July 11, 2005, City Council Meeting 10. Adjourn DRAFT MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD 1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, JUNE 14, 2005 I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Longrie called the meeting to order at 6:02 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 P rese nt Present Present Absent Staff Present: Shann Finwall, Planner Lisa Kroll, Recording Secretary III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Board member Hinzman moved to approve the agenda. Board member Olson seconded. Ayes - Hinzman, Ledvina, Longrie, Olson, The motion passed. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of the CDRB minutes for May 24, 2005. Board member Olson moved approval of the minutes of May 24, 2005. Board member Ledvina seconded. Ayes --- Ledvina, Longrie, Olson Abstention - Hinzman The motion passed. V. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. VI. DESIGN REVIEW a. Maplewood Marketplace - Northwest Corner of County Road D and Highway 61 (6:05 -7:18 p.m.) Ms. Finwall said Oppidan, Inc., is proposing to develop a 2-acre vacant parcel located within the new Trout Land plat on the northwest corner of County Road D and Highway 61, across the street from the new Venburg Tire Building. Community Design Review Board Minutes 6-14-2005 2 Ms. Finwall said the development will include a 12,600 square foot multi-tenant retail building. Five thousand square feet of the building will be leased to a bank with a drive-through banking service. Oppidan, Inc., is requesting that the community design review board (CDRB) approve the design elements for the new retail/bank building as well as a comprehensive sign plan as required by city code for a multi-tenant building with five or more tenants. Board member Olson asked why staff recommended not approving the electronic reader board sign. Ms. Finwall said the city sign code prohibits flashing and blinking signs except for time and temperature type signs. The issue staff has is the reader board sign may be approved for time and temperature now and then one year from now the bank is advertising interest rates and special announcements on the electronic reader board sign. Staff feels this type of sign is detracting to the traffic along Highway 61 and finds that type of sign incompatible to this type of building. Board member Olson said the Premier Bank on White Bear Avenue and Lydia Avenue has this type of electronic reader board sign and she asked why that bank is allowed that type of sign but this proposal would not be allowed that type of sign? Ms. Finwall said Premier Bank has a smaller electronic sign. Board member Olson said Premier Bank conveys scrolled messages on their electronic sign. Ms. Finwall thought Premier Bank was scrolling the time and temperature only. Board member Olson said she has seen messages run along the LED electronic sign and wondered what the difference would be between Premier Bank and this proposal. Ms. Finwall said Premier Bank's electronic board reader sign was permitted as time and temperature only to serve as a public service sign and over time is now displaying interest rates and other items on the sign. Board member Olson asked if Premier Bank's reader board sign was grandfathered in then? Ms. Finwall said she did not know the specifics of the particular sign at Premier Bank. It is staff's concern that the electronic reader board sign is approved for Maplewood Marketplace, with time and temperature as a public service if over time the messages could become advertisements. Board member Olson said she is afraid of an unfair playing field allowing a message board in one part of the city but not in another. Ms. Finwall said this is a comprehensive sign plan and the CDRB has the authority to make changes to create a more comprehensive plan. Staff feels it's best to remove the LED sign from the plans to be more compatible. The sign for the Premier Bank wasn't approved with a comprehensive sign plan. Community Design Review Board Minutes 6-14-2005 3 Board member Ledvina asked what the rational was for changing the retaining wall from a two tiered retaining wall to a one tiered wall. Ms. Finwall said she would prefer that the applicant speak regarding the retaining wall issue. Board member Ledvina said the applicant has indicated they prefer to use g-feet wide and 20- feet long parking spaces in their parking lot. Staff recommends gY2 feet wide and 18-feet long. Would the applicant have to apply for a variance if they chose not to change their parking lot plan to accommodate staff's recommendation? Ms. Finwall said she hasn't heard if the applicant proposes a parking lot variance, or if they are choosing to revise their parking lot site plan. Board member Ledvina asked if he understood correctly that this proposal would not need to be heard by the city council and the recommendations made by the CDRB would be worked out with the applicant and staff? He asked if the CDRB were to recommend a variance would the whole proposal have to be heard by the city councilor just the variance for the parking lot? Ms. Finwall said this proposal would only have to go before the city council if the applicant requested a variance. Board member Ledvina said the surface water drainage is draining to a storm sewer main and he asked if that was draining into a community ponding area. He was surprised the city did not have a ponding requirement for this site. Ms. Finwall said the drainage for the entire plat was taken into consideration at the time of designing the new County Road D and platting of Trout Land. There is a drainage pond to the north of this site which is on the overall plat for the Trout Land property. Board member Ledvina said at the last CDRB meeting the board discussed the Lexus dealership proposal to the north. He said it would have been nice to see this proposal at the same time to ensure landscaping and other issues were compatible. Chairperson Longrie asked the applicant to address the board. Mr. Paul Tucci, Oppidan Inc., 5125 County Road 101, Suite 101, Minnetonka, addressed the board. He said they could alter the parking spaces from 9 feet to gY2 feet wide but the spaces would start to look jammed so they would prefer to keep the green space and would like to request a parking lot variance. Typically their shopping centers have had 9 feet wide by 20-feet long parking spaces, which seem to be working fine. Regarding the retaining wall changing from a two tiered wall to a single tiered retaining wall the reason for the change is because there is a storm sewer line in that area and the city engineer did not want to have the sewer line underneath the retaining wall in case there was ever a need to repair the line. There is ponding set up on site as well as off site as part of the whole redevelopment of this area around the new County Road D. They would like to plant trees in front of the retaining wall along Highway 61, which would help break up the expanse of the wall. The lighting plan incorrectly shows the height of the light poles however, they do meet the lighting height requirements of 25 feet. Community Design Review Board Minutes 6-14-2005 4 Mr. Tucci said the architect would note the corrections on the revised lighting plan. They plan on using the same building materials to construct the dumpster enclosure and will provide a new site plan showing the exact location and the capacity of the dumpster. If they had a restaurant as a tenant in this strip mall they could run into dumpster problems as well as parking problems. However, at this time there is no restaurant or coffee shop proposed as tenants in this strip mall. They have no problem with staff's recommendation for the sign plan. They could include in the lease that the electronic reader board for the bank could only display the time and temperature. However, he has experienced the same thing staff mentioned regarding the electronic reader board starts off showing the time and temperature and then increases the messages which then becomes an issue of enforcement. He recommended the board make a decision on how to handle the sign situation. Mr. Tucci reviewed the building materials with the board and showed the building material sample board with the canvas awning color, brick color, and EIFS colors, etc. Board member Ledvina said in his experience the electrical transformers are located farther away from the buildings but in this case the transformer is shown on the northwest comer of the building. He asked if the electrical transformer could be relocated farther away from the building? Mr. Tucci said they provide the pad for the transformer for Xcel Energy and Xcel Energy prefers the transformer to be located close to the buildings for maintenance and access reasons. Board member Ledvina said he has seen these transformers closer to the right of way. Mr. Tucci said if you put them farther away from the building and plant landscaping around them, Xcel Energy runs into problems if they need to work on the transformer. Board member Ledvina asked how tall the electrical transformer would be? Mr. Tucci guessed around three to four feet in height. Board member Ledvina asked if that was a standard requirement to have the drive aisles 24- feet wide? Ms. Finwall said the 24-foot wide drive aisle is the standard width for two-way traffic for drive aisles. Board member Ledvina asked with the elimination of the reader board from the freestanding sign was the applicant thinking of replacing that space with signage or something else? Ms. Finwall said she wasn't sure what the applicant would propose with the removal of the reader board. Also, Ms. Finwall recommends a design element on the top of the freestanding sign. Mr. Tucci said they would replace the reader board with additional signage. Also the sign is designed to pick up the middle cornice colors and design which run along the top of the building. Community Design Review Board Minutes 6-14-2005 5 Board member Olson said the building footprint shows the potential for five tenants along with the signage for the bank, she asked if the developer assumed one tenant would want double the tenant space? Mr. Tucci said as leasing goes nothing is done until the documents are signed. There could be two, three, four, or five tenants in this mall. Depending on what tenant goes into these spaces will depend on how many signs will be on the building. However, the bank will be the largest tenant and would have the largest tenant sign. Board member Hinzman said he understands the need to run the sewer line where it is proposed and the need to change the retaining wall from two tiered to one tiered. He asked if it would make sense to run the sewer line inside the parking lot and run it directly towards the corner of the end of the lot. For maintenance purposes you limit the amount of pipe that is going to be underneath the wall for long term maintenance. The preference is to have a two tiered wall for aesthetic reasons then you don't have the large expanse of the wall and with two tiers you can have plantings in between the tiers. Mr. Tucci said because of the grade changes he believes moving the sewer line would not be possible and would prevent things from flowing properly. Their engineering company is Passe Engineering and has worked very closely with the city. He believes this plan was designed for long term maintenance. Mr. Hinzman said the entrance to the site is skewed off of the main parking lot and he understands why they don't want to bring the entrance straight to the parking lot drive aisle because of its close proximity to County Road D. But with this plan there will be traffic heading from the west to exit the site that will cross in front of the traffic entrance because of the way the plan is skewed. Mr. Hinzman said he would recommend moving the entrance further to the north. Mr. Tucci said they initially had the building pushed back further but they wanted additional spacing for the parking. It isn't the ideal situation but they feel over time people will figure out the best way to create flow through the parking lot. They have to keep the curb cut far enough away from County Road D so there is not a stacking issue with the cars. Chairperson Longrie said this was also a concern of hers. She understands the applicant proposes 64 parking spaces and 63 parking spaces are required so there aren't many spaces to alter. She is concerned about the two parking spaces located at the entrance to this building. She feels this is an awkward spot for cars to park and back out. It could cause accidents to happen with the driving pattern in the parking lot. She asked if there was a possibility of those two parking spaces being relocated. Mr. Tucci said those two parking spaces could be eliminated and relocated to the rear of the building. They could also slightly change the curb cut there for a smoother driving transition. To ease the stacking problem the bank is routing their customers to drive around the back of the building and exit back out onto County Road 0 rather than crossing back into the line of traffic in the parking lot, which would cause cars to stack up. Board members agreed that would be a good idea. Community Design Review Board Minutes 6-14-2005 6 Chairperson Longrie asked Mr. Tucci if he had an idea what type of tenants or uses would occupy this space? Mr. Tucci said it will be retail tenant space. Board member Hinzman asked if restaurants were permitted within this zoning district? Ms. Finwall said yes. Mr. Tucci said they would love to have a restaurant like Chipotle in this location but he didn't believe this is the type of site Chipotle would look for. The kind of restaurant they could see here would be a sandwich shop. Board member Hinzman said parking for a high turn over restaurant operation can be more of a problem than just parking for retail stores. Mr. Tucci asked staff if they could meet their parking requirements by having some proof of parking on this site? Ms. Finwall said the city council would have to approve of a parking reduction authorization in that case. In addition restaurant parking requirements are calculated differently so city staff should be aware of any proposed restaurants in this mall. Mr. Tucci said none of the potential tenants they are talking to are restaurants or coffee shops at this time. Chairperson Longrie thanked Mr. Tucci for bringing building samples to show the board so they have a better idea of what this building would look like. After seeing the Lexus proposal a few weeks ago she believes these building materials and colors will compliment the Lexus building as well which is very good. Regarding the fabric awnings, she asked what the longevity of the fabric would be. Mr. Tucci said Sunbrella is the maker of the awning they propose to use. Their canvas awnings tend to last about 10 years and don't fade as fast as the lighter colors. They have used these canvas awnings in all of their centers and they look nice. They prefer to use the darker colored awnings and canopies on their buildings. This model is easy to change out and replace in the long term. Board member Ledvina asked what product they would propose to use for the retaining wall and what color they would use. Mr. Tucci said they propose to use a keystone block for the retaining wall and will try to match a shade of either the lighter or the darker building color. Board member Olson asked how they proposed to screen the mechanics and rooftop units from the residential area. Mr. Tucci said they will use parapet walls and paint them to screen the units. Community Design Review Board Minutes 6-14-2005 7 The board members agreed this is an attractive proposal and congratulated staff on a nice job with the recommendations in the staff report. The board supported the 9-foot wide parking space compared to the city requirement of a 9Y,-foot wide parking space and recommended the applicant apply for a variance. Board member Ledvina moved to approve the plans date-stamped May 3, 2005, and May 27, 2005, and June 14. 2005; sign criteria date-stamped May 3. 2005; and sign elevation date- stamped May 18, 2005; and colored elevations date-stamped May 27, 2005, and June 14. 2005, for the Maplewood Marketplace development to be located on the northwest corner of County Road D and Highway 61. Approval is subject to the applicant doing the following: (Changes made by the CDRB to the conditions are underlined if added and stricken if deleted.) 1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. 2. Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit, the applicant must submit to staff for approval the following items: a. Revised grading/drainage/utility plans which comply with all city engineering department requirements as specified in Erin Laberee's June g, 2005, engineering report. b. Revised site plan showinq the two parkinq stalls on the southwest corner of the site relocated to ensure adequate and safe traffic movement in the parkinq lot. 9.5 foot wiee BY 1!l foot (or eoeper) parking spaces ('....ith the <1l1o\'lee parking space '.Vieth ane length exeR'll3tions as spocified in city ceee), or apply for a parking sl3aGo wieth vadance. c. Revised lighting and photometries plan which shows the overall height of the freestanding lights not to exceed 25 feet, including base, and the style of light fixture proposed, to ensure compatibility with the building and compliance with city lighting requirements. d. Dumpster enclosure plans to ensure the enclosure it is at least 6 feet in height, constructed of building materials which are compatible to the building, and has a 100 percent opaque gate. In addition, the applicant must approve that the enclosure will hold all dumpsters, including garbage and recycling, for the entire development. e. Revised elevations including: 1 )the additional desiqn elements on the north elevation as shown on the elevations date-stamped June 14. 2005: 2)the retaininq wall block to match the buildinq masonry block material no. 2 or no. 4 as specified on the buildina elevations. to the extent possible. 3)CDRB approval also allows the applicant to locate additional supplemental windows on the north side of the buildina subiect to staff approval. elevatioRs showing additional eesign oloments on the nortA (back) elevation. Suggested design eloR'lents include additional R'lasonry columns, addition of false windows, or more attractive rear door entrios. Community Design Review Board Minutes 6-14-2005 8 f. Revised landscape plan showing the following: 1) Freestanding sign landscaping including shrubs and perennials to be located around the base of the sign. 2) Locate planting materials below the retaining wall located on the east side of the site to soften the vertical effect of the revised 9-foot-high retaining wall. Or as an alternative, maintain a two-tiered retaining wall system with landscaping as proposed in the date-stamped May 3, 2005, landscape plan. 3) An underground irrigation plan to ensure all landscaping on the site is watered as required by city code. g. Revised sign criteria plan showing the following changes: 1) Each retail tenant is allowed two signs (one to be installed on the front of the tenant space and one to be installed on the monument sign). The proposed 5,000 square foot bank is allowed three signs including two wall signs (one to be installed on the front of the bank and one to be installed on the drive-through canopy), and one on the monument sign. 2) Maximum height of individual letters on wall signs not to exceed 36 inches. 3) No signage allowed on awnings. 4) Applicant must submit revised freestanding sign elevations showing the removal of the proposed electronic reader board and the location of five sign panel spaces. In addition, the elevation must show the maximum height of the sign to be 18 feet and the proposed sign materials which must be compatible to the building. h. Watershed district approval. i. A cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit for all required exterior improvements. The amount shall be 150 percent of the cost of the work. 3. The applicant shall complete the following before occupying the building: a. Replace any property irons removed because of this construction. b. Provide continuous concrete curb and gutter around the parking lot and driveways. c. Install all required landscaping and an in-ground lawn irrigation system for all landscaped areas. Community Design Review Board Minutes 6-14-2005 9 d. Screen or paint the rooftop mechanical equipment to match the building color and buildinq materials. e. Install all required outdoor lighting. 4. If any required work is not done, the city may allow temporary occupancy if: a. The city determines that the work is not essential to the public health, safety or welfare. b. The above-required letter of credit or cash escrow is held by the City of Maplewood for all required exterior improvements. The owner or contractor shall complete any unfinished exterior improvements by June 1 if occupancy of the building is in the fall or winter, or within six weeks of occupancy of the building if occupancy is in the spring or summer. 5. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. Board member Olson added a friendly amendment to incorporate the engineering plan review memo dated June 9, 2005, which includes a six-foot wide sidewalk along County Road 0 for the 7 foot wide boulevard. Chairperson Longrie added a friendly amendment that the freestanding sign shall be no more than 18-feet in height. Board member Olson seconded. Ayes - Hinzman, Ledvina, Longrie, Olson The motion passed. Chairperson Lonqrie recommended to the citv council that based upon the retail use of this buildinq and the anticipated tenants and usaqe the CDRB feels a variance would be recommended to revise the site plan to show the parkinq spaces be 9 feet wide bv 20 feet deep and as the applicant has requested. Board member Ledvina seconded. Ayes - Hinzman, Ledvina, Longrie, Olson This item goes to the city council on July 11, 2005. Chairperson Longrie said the CDRB recommends approval based on the findings in Section 2- 290 that the design and location of the proposed development and its relationship to neighboring, existing or proposed developments, and traffic is such that it will not impair the desirability of investment or occupation in the neighborhood; that it will not unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring, existing or proposed developments; and that it will not create traffic hazards or congestion. Community Design Review Board Minutes 6-14-2005 10 Chairperson Longrie said the design and location of the proposed development is in keeping with the character of the surrounding neighborhood and is not detrimental to the harmonious, orderly and attractive development contemplated by this article and the city's comprehensive municipal plan. The design and location of the proposed development would provide a desirable environment for its occupants, as well as for its neighbors, and that it is aesthetically of good composition, materials, textures and colors. b. Pondview Townhomes - Northwest Corner of Larpenteur Avenue & Adolphus Street (7:18 - 8:13 p.m.) Ms. Finwall said in 2002, the city acquired five single-family houses located on the northwest corner of Larpenteur Avenue and Adolphus Street with the city's Housing Replacement Program funds. The city originally purchased three of these houses after they were flooded during a rainstorm in April 2001. The two adjacent older houses, which were not flooded, were purchased by the city in order to combine them with the three previously purchased lots to create a larger building site to allow the development of up to eleven town house units on the site. Jack Krongard of Krongard Builders, Inc., has purchased the properties from the city and is now proposing to develop the 1.92-acre site with eleven town house units. The town houses will be constructed within two separate buildings - one with five units and the other with six units. Board member Olson did not agree with staff's recommendation to put landscaping in between the driveways because it has been noted that landscaping in between the driveways is very hard to maintain particularly because of the snow, salt, and sand that ends up on the planting areas which makes it near impossible to keep the plantings alive. Board member Hinzman wanted to ensure that the large oak tree on the site is preserved and protected during the construction on this site. As far as the pine trees along the west end of the site, he asked if these pine trees would be planted on the base of the hill or more toward the upper portion of the hill, closer to the residential homes? The reason he asks is the residential home would benefit more having the trees higher on the hill rather than at the base of the hill. Ms. Finwall said staff does not have a recommendation regarding the pine tree locations but perhaps the board could request that be clarified in the conditions. Chairperson Longrie asked the applicant to address the board. Mr. Jack Krongard, Krongard Builders, Inc. 14791-60th Street North Stillwater, addressed the board. He put in a request for this project and he was lucky enough to be the only one who responded to the project request. He received the building footprint from the City of Maplewood and built the plan around the building footprint and that is how this design came about. He has put many windows on the rear of the buildings to take advantage of the view. He plans on using some of the extra dirt on the site to build berms which will help protect the units from the busy street frontage and add visual interest to the site as well. Community Design Review Board Minutes 6-14-2005 11 Mr. Krongard said he would prefer to enhance the front of the units as staff recommended with brick and vinyl siding and shakes rather than on the rear or on the sides of the units where nobody really sees those areas. Mr. Krongard said he would prefer to not put additional parking stalls between the buildings. He doesn't think that would look very nice and he already meets the parking requirements and believes there is plenty of parking on site. He has no problem with the recommendation to plant pine trees for additional screening to the residential property. Board member Hinzman asked about putting a board band along the side elevation to break up the wall mass. He recommended using the fish scale pattern of the vinyl shakes on the side elevation as shown on the front building elevation to add more visual impact. Mr. Krongard wasn't opposed to doing that. Chairperson Longrie asked Mr. Krongard if he had a building materials board to show the CDRB? Mr. Krongard showed the building materials samples to the board members. He would be using two building colors so each group of buildings would not look identical. Chairperson Longrie said she would really prefer using even more than two colors on this development. Staff recommended adding brick to the front entries and she asked how Mr. Krongard felt about that. Mr. Krongard said he has no problem adding more brick to the front entries but does not feel it's necessary to add a brick wainscot to the side or rear of the buildings since the buildings are mostly visible from Larpenteur Avenue. Chairperson Longrie said she isn't completely sold on not putting brick along the east side like staff recommended. The board has recommended adding additional brick elements to other developments and it does add interest to the buildings. Mr. Krongard said that was fine. He hasn't decided if the wainscot will be ledgestone or brick, but whichever product he decides it would be in complementary colors. If it's okay with the board he would prefer to use a stone material rather than brick. Board members agreed that the look of the stone with the surroundings on this site. Chairperson Longrie said this is a premier housing site located right off the freeway when people are coming into Maplewood and it's one of the city's gateways. People visiting Champp's Restaurant will see these homes and it's important for this site to look its best. Chairperson Longrie asked how much visitor parking would be required. Ms. Finwall said there is no additional parking required for this site because the parking requirements have already been met by the two car garages. Community Design Review Board Minutes 6-14-2005 12 Board member Ledvina asked if the applicant considered raising the floor elevation of the westerly building to give the buildings a step up appearance to add more interest to the site? Mr. Krongard said he asked the engineers if he could raise the buildings four inches but because of the slopes of the driveways and the drainage in the area they said it's better to leave it this way and add berming and landscaping. Board member Olson asked if these buildings would be slab on grade with no basements? Mr. Krongard said correct. Board member Ledvina asked if Mr. Krongard had built this particular plan anywhere else? Mr. Krongard said he has not built this particular plan. They designed this plan about five years ago. He builds about 85 townhouses a year but mostly concentrates on back to back units. Board member Ledvina said he is concerned about the shared front entry with the doors right next door to each other and the exposed roofline. Mr. Krongard said there are other builders that have built plans similar to this with the front doors right next door to each other and the plan seems to work. Board member Ledvina said in his opinion this plan looks like a long tunnel going to the front door area. Mr. Krongard said the entrances to these units are tunnellike but with a site like this you don't have many designs you can build. Board member Olson asked if there was a roof overhang to protect people from the weather elements at the entrance of these units? Mr. Krongard said there is no roof overhang to the front entryways of these town home units. Chairperson Longrie asked if these units would be run by a town home association? Mr. Krongard said yes there would be an association which would take care of things like snow removal and lawn care for the units. Chairperson Longrie said she likes the idea of adding berming to add interest to the site, the money that is being saved by not putting additional parking could go into landscaping. Community Design Review Board Minutes 6-14-2005 13 Mr. Krongard said that would be fine with him. He said he not only has to build these units but he has to sell these units as well and he wants to make the site look as appealing as possible for potential buyers. Board member Olson said she has mixed feelings regarding the parking spaces on the west end. She is fine eliminating one or two spaces but would like to keep at least three spaces because there needs to be some guest parking and there should be a turn around there for cars. She wondered if a fire truck could maneuver around on the site? Ms. Finwall said the fire marshal indicated no concerns with the existing plan provided. Chairperson Longrie said she believed the fire marshal had no concerns but that was with the western parking area in place. Ms. Finwall said correct. Board member Ledvina said he likes the elevations but he still has concerns about the entryways to the units and he understands the limitations of the site plan. He would like to see the landscaping done around the drive aisles as recommended by staff. He has seen it work and he believes the developer should do what he can to make it work. Chairperson Longrie said the association would be responsible for making the landscaping work and keeping it looking nice. Mr. Krongard said they have tried to put the landscaping in many times before and it doesn't work. After he's done with the building site and winter has come and gone, the landscaping dies from the snow plow and chemicals and never gets replaced and the association puts sod there because it's easier to maintain. Landscaping looks nice but it's not practical in that location. He doesn't have a problem with the additional cost to install the wainscoting or to add the benms. Board member Olson wanted assurance the builder would make sure construction would not kill the large oak tree. She especially wanted to make sure no trucks would drive over the root system of the tree. It's such a large tree with a large presence and she would hate to lose the tree because of the construction on the site. Mr. Krongard said he would make sure the tree was taken care of. Board member Hinzman moved to approve the plans date-stamped April 18 and May 9, 2005, for the Pondview Townhomes to be located on the northwest corner of Larpenteur Avenue and Adolphus Street. Approval is subject to the applicant doing the following: (Changes made by the CDRB to the conditions are underlined if added and stricken if deleted.) 1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. Community Design Review Board Minutes 6-14-2005 14 2. Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit. the applicant must submit to staff for approval the following items: a. Revised grading/drainage/utility plans which comply with all city engineering department requirements as specified in Erin Laberee's June 7, 2005, engineering plan review, including, but not limited to, the developer entering into a developer's agreement with the city to ensure the sidewalk, easements, right-of-way and other items are provided for. b. Revised site plan showing the following: 1) Relocation of the guest parking areas to ensure a 15-foot setback to the right-of-way. One wav of accomplishinq this is bv reconfiqurinq the easterlv 90 deqree 5 parkinq stalls as 3 parallel parkinq stalls. 2) The location of a 20-foot-wide wetland buffer easement (20 feet from the ordinary high water mark of the wetland). c. Revised landscape plan showing the following: 1) A row of black hills spruce or Austrian pine trees (at least 8 feet in height) to be installed along the western property line, running from the front of the town house to the back of the town house. 2) Landscaped planting beds to include low maintenance shrubs and perennials to be located in the following areas: a) In between the driveways, adiacent to the buildinqs: in front of tho doors; b) Along the end unit sidewalks; c) Along the back of the buildings, on the sides of the patios. d) Landscaping to be located on the berms along Adolphus Street and Larpenteur Avenue. Landscaping to include low maintenance perennial shrubs, flowers, evergreen and deciduous trees. 3) An underground irrigation plan to ensure all landscaping on the site is watered as required by city code. d. Submit a lighting plan that shows the location and style of all proposed exterior lights. e. Revised elevations as follows: Community Design Review Board Minutes 6-14-2005 2) 4) 15 1) Extend the brick or ledaestone wainscot along the entire east side of the easterly building. This extension of brick or ledaestone wainscot should include along the east side of the attached garage and the east side of the town house. Adding a more prominent front entry for each unit by adding brick or ledaestone to the front wall of the entries. 3) Addition of decorative vinvl shakes within the aables of the east elevation on the east buildina. Addition of a contrastina color bellv board alona the middle of the east elevation on the east buildina. 5) The staff shall aoorove the final buildina oroducts. f. A cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit for all required exterior improvements. The amount shall be 150 percent of the cost of the work. 3. The applicant shall complete the following before occupying the buildings: a. Replace any property irons removed because of this construction. b. Provide continuous concrete curb and gutter around the parking lot and driveways. c. Install all required landscaping and an in-ground lawn irrigation system for all landscaped areas. d. Install all required outdoor lighting. e. Install the required six-foot-widesidewalk along Larpenteur Avenue. f. Install wetland buffer signs that prohibit any building, mowing, cutting, filling, or dumping with the wetland buffer. g. Remove all unneeded silt fence from the site. 4. If any required work is not done, the city may allow temporary occupancy if: a. The city determines that the work is not essential to the public health, safety or welfare. b. The above-required letter of credit or cash escrow is held by the City of Maplewood for all required exterior improvements. The owner or contractor shall complete any unfinished exterior improvements by June 1 if occupancy of the building is in the fall or winter, or within six weeks of occupancy of the building if occupancy is in the spring or summer. Community Design Review Board Minutes 6-14-2005 16 5. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. Board member Ledvina seconded. Ayes - Hinzman, Ledvina, Longrie, Olson The motion passed. This item goes to the city council on June 27, 2005. VII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS No visitors present. VIII. BOARD PRESENTATIONS a. Board member Olson represented the CDRB at the June 13, 2005, city council meeting. The only CDRB item was the Lexus Auto Service Center at the Northwest corner of County Road D and Highway 61 which was approved by the city council. The Public Works building addition was approved but for the purpose of saving money the life-time roof was changed to a 10 year roof. IX. STAFF PRESENTATIONS a. Annual Tour Update The annual city tour is scheduled for Thursday, July 28, 2005, 5:30 - 8:30 p.m. at city hall, so mark your calendars. Please RSVP to Community Development at 651-249- 2300 or contact Ken Roberts at 651-249-2303. b. Reschedule the CDRB meetings for Tuesday, September 13, and Tuesday, November 8, 2005, due to elections. Proposed dates are Wednesday, September 14, and Wednesday, November 9,2005. These dates will be discussed at the next board meeting so bring your calendars to finalize the rescheduled dates. c. Diana Longrie will be the CDRB representative at the June 27, 2005, city council meeting. Items to discuss include the Pondview Townhomes - Northwest corner of Larpenteur Avenue and Adolphus Street. X. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:22 p.m. MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: DATE: Richard Fursman, City Manager Shann Finwall, AICP, Planner Maplewood Business Center 1616 Gervais Avenue June 22, 2005 INTRODUCTION Patrick Lensing with Steiner Development, leasing agent for the Maplewood Business Center, is requesting that the Community Design Review Board (CDRB) review a landscape and screening plan for the west side of their property. This plan was required by the city council after a revision to the center's conditional use permit (CUP) following noise complaints the city received from an adjacent neighbor. Project Description The applicants are proposing two landscape/screening plans for review. The first plan consists of 57, five-foot-high techny arborvitaes, planted in a double row (Attachment 2). The second plan consists of 150 linear feet of a 6-foot high, white PVC fence and five Black Hills spruce (Attachment 3). BACKGROUND The Maplewood Business Center is a multi-tenant office/warehouse building located at 1616 Gervais Avenue. The center was constructed in 1981 after the city council approved a conditional use permit to construct the building closer than the 200-foot setback requirement to the adjacent residential property, which was the city code requirement at that time. One of the center's tenants is the 5t. Paul Pioneer Press distribution facility. They have been leasing space in the building for approximately 12 years. Last fall the city received a complaint from neighbors located across the street from the center. The complaint was in regard to excessive late night/early morning noise from activities within the distribution facility. According to the neighbor the activities taking place at the distribution facility are very loud, and most of this activity occurs between the hours of 2 and 6 a.m. Due to the neighbors' concerns about noise, the city council reviewed the Maplewood Business Center's CUP. On February 14, 2005, the city council approved a revision to the CUP (Attachment 4). The revision included several new conditions to help mitigate the noise from the newspaper facility to the adjacent residential properties. One condition specified that the owner submit a detailed landscape and screening plan for the area between the parking lot and Germain Street. The plan was to be reviewed by the CDRB and should show how new materials, either landscaping or fencing, would provide screening that is at least six feet tall and at least 80 percent solid. DISCUSSION Noise Complaint The neighbors who filed the complaint, the Halls, indicate in their letter to the city manager (Attachment 5) their various concerns with excessive noise from the newspaper facility. Their letter states that they hear noises such as car doors slamming, loud radios, people talking, metal carts and truck horns, particularly between the hours of 2 and 6 a.m. The neighbors also state that these activities have affected their sleep and that it has been going on for several years. The building is located approximately eight feet below the grade of the residential properties across Germain Street. There is an approximately four to eight foot high berm located in between the center's parking lot and Germain Street. The newspaper facility has an entrance door and a loading dock on the west side of the building, facing Germain Street. As such, much of the noise from the late night newspaper facility's activities resonates from the building, up the berm, and across the street to the neighbor's bedroom window. The landscape/screening should be substantial enough to mitigate these types of noises. Landscape/Screen Plans Following is staff's review of the two plans submitted: Option One (Living Fence): This is the applicant's preferred plan. They state that the installation of a living barrier would be more suitable to the project than a traditional fence for aesthetic, maintenance, and functionality reasons. As such, they propose 225 linear feet of 5-foot high techny arborvitaes, 57 plants in all. The arborvitaes would be planted on top of the berm. It is staff's opinion that this option would not mitigate the noise from the newspaper facility to the adjacent residential properties. First, the plantings proposed are only 5 feet high, which does not meet the 6-foot height requirement. Second, it will take several years for the plants to mature to a substantial screen. And finally, the sound may be slightly buffered by the plantings, but will still resonate through the plantings to the residential properties across the street. Option Two (PVC Fence): The applicants do not prefer this plan. They state that the installation of a fence may not be as effective in dissipating sound because it would add to the echo. Also, they state that a traditional fence is not as attractive and it poses long- term maintenance issues for the landowner. The PVC fence plan they propose includes 150 linear feet of fencing to run from the south side of the south building, to the south side of the north building, which is where they feel most of the newspaper facility's activity is concentrated. The fencing proposed is a 6-foot-high, solid PVC fence, white in color to be installed on top of the berm. 2 It is staff's opinion that a fence would help mitigate the noise better than the live fence option as the noise from the newspaper facility would bounce off the solid fence back into the property, rather than resonate through to the adjacent residential properties. As such staff finds Option Two more acceptable, but recommends several changes as follows: 1. The neighbors state that much of the distribution facility's activity takes place in the parking lot along the entire length of Germain Street. For this reason staff feels it is important to extend the fence from the south side of the south building, to the north side of the north building, for a total of approximately 285 linear feet. 2. The fence color should be modified to match the colors and materials of the building, which include a beige-colored brick and a brown-colored upper fascia and doors. Staff recommends the fence be beige or brown. 3. In order to add interest to the fence along Germain Street, staff recommends that the applicants plant six landscape areas in front of the fence. Each landscaped area should include six low-maintenance evergreen and deciduous shrubs (5 gallon pots), planted in a rock mulch. The landscape areas should be staggered along the west side of the entire length of the fence, along Germain Street. 4. Because of the additional fencing and shrubs as described above, staff recommends the applicants remove the five Black Hills spruce trees from the plan. CDRB APEAL PROCESS Section 2-285(c) of the city's CDRB ordinance states that the board's decision shall be final, unless someone appeals it to the city council within 15 days after the board's decision. All appeals are heard by the city council. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the "PVC Fence" landscape/screen plan date stamped June 17, 2005, for the Maplewood Business Center located at 1616 Gervais Avenue with the following revisions and conditions: 1. The fence shall be installed on top of the berm, along Germain Street, and shall extend from the south side of the south building, to the north side of the north building (approximately 285 linear feet). 2. The fence color should match the colors and materials of the building, either beige to match the color of the bricks on the building or brown to match the color of the upper fascia and doors. 3 3. Six landscape areas should be planted in front of the fence, along Germain Street. Each landscape area should include six low-maintenance ever9reen and deciduous shrubs (5 gallon pots), planted in a rock mulch. The landscape areas should be staggered along the west side of the entire length of the fence, along Germain Street. 4. Removal of the five Black Hills spruce trees from the plan. P:\com-devlsec101m.plewood business centerljune 28, 2005, cdrb report Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Landscape/Screen Plan - Option One 3. Landscape/Screen Plan - Option Two 4. February 14, 2005, City Council Minutes 5. October 1, 2004, Neighbor Correspondence 4 Attachment 1 , '"'' L.r-jU<j'--"I'-'-'IW I_IUI--Y"-'Hd~ ~~ ~\- / "-----.J' , /J c;:J1~Ci Qc:J ~ H:vr- ~ 0 liJk [J\CJI~I () ~llff . < 0 ~ . "ff' -q ti I". ~I 1JJllf m "r, [2]c ~ IqjCJ qp ~ '-./. .~~~ D;'=o 0 ,Jl ~ ~I~ $ ,r'; n. ~ U'H1LclP!illl&9o'b9doc\1J I tQ:. ~ I () \;]1;) u lo"'C1il-'..l- "\,, 1""/ Jf IIIl Vel<;:\: q, III ~ DO, ',D' M",lewood Bu'~'" Ce"te'v l.f InJ~..g 11\l~ O'Clo1C-' ~ 1616 Gervais Avenue ';J1';jtJ "'-1~c Li ~ ~o=goooa ",g r;;:'~p'D 1-'- ~ 0 ,4 U I~CoCJ oo~ 0 -: r-CJCJO I ~ U Q rI ~ no ~~ I ''l ILcJ ,CJu_ )~ ~...,.. :::::::::::: .I~ I U ~L1<Jgg~lo} I ~ "'" ':' D 0 i:'J ~ 8l[1i]IIIl a OClOt:JCJ Cl [:J 0 ~ ~ II I ~cCl<;) D Cl.IJCl[;lc rIolDBD.I~f'b1i 0 ;] 0 ;:::.[\ ~I . -1~IIL-o.L;LJ;l. V, N W+E s Location Map Proposed Landscaping and Screening Plan 3 T ~ ~ ' !t.. . I !t I I EY. (1.\ I ..... ii . t =:J ~ I ~ <;: i II ') I r I \!! ~! J N ~~r ~~~ W E s , .1\. ~ ~ ,,\] f; I ~ -I I ~ ~. . ~ 1 I >\ ~ I' ~ . ~ ~ $ I', " :: "\ :~-: *: ; -- JI ~'. ,ll . .~ :g; ~ " If-= i ~- "ti' .' "ld\ i! ~ j \ ! ~',: , z...:... , ',' ,",:t- ? ." # \"<.,~1 ~ .;.; t U Attachment 2 Option One Landscaping Proposal: "Living" Fence on Western Border of 1600-1636 Gervais Ave. E, Maplewood, MN Project goal: To create a considerable sound barrier between the commercial property and the residential area opposite it on Germain Street (specifically concentrating on noise spilling towards the Hall residence at 1596 Grandvlew Ave.) Historical notes: The property was originally granted CUP with the understanding that some deciduous and coniferous trees would be planted on top of the 4 foot turf berm created between the commercial and residential properties. Some of these plantings have since died out. Project description: We do not believe that replacement of the original trees would be adequate to create an effective sound barrier. In addition, we feel that the installation of a fence may not be as effective in dissipating sound because it wouid add to echo. A traditional fence certainly is not as attractive, and it poses long-term maintenance Issues for the landowner. We have had various vendors survey the site and make recommendations. Many concluded that a "living" barrier would be more suitable to the project than a traditional fence for aesthetic, maintenance, and functionality reasons. As such, we propose to Install a 225' long "living" fence of 5' tall Techny Arborvitae, which will be planted tightly together in a staggered double row. These evergreens may increase in height over time to as much as 15' tali. We believe that 5' tall evergreens are adequate after accounting for the height of the berm (4' above street levei). Additionally, a wood mulch maintenance strip will be created around the "living" fence. (see attached plan marked as "Exhibit A") Project cost: This project is estimated to cost almost $17,750, including materials, installation, and irrigation repairs necessary to ensure project longevity. Arborvitae, Techny. Scientific Name: Zone: Light Requirements: Height: Width: Shape: Foliage Color: Description: Thuja occidentalis 'Tech ny' 3 Sun/light shade 12-15' 6-8' upright, pyramidal dark green Broadly pyramidal evergreen with dense, dark green foliage that holds its color in winter. '". _,_~~::,~,~~~~~,~.~~~:5~~~11~~ . Note that the image to the left depicts a single row, while we propose a staggered double row of trees to be installed. Applicant's Written Narrative Concept One ==:J N w ,,~~ ~~~ s t ! . [ r'" il < .p .!t ,.. ~ 1 . . ..-- 1" ___-- \" -;1 ~ ----- .' ~ __- .0 < .:; ')1'.' .. " I '1,1; _/ ~:i ~ ? :j ~.~ ~ J €. ~~ j -~ q ~ '" ~'- ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ f ~ i ~ rn ~ [! " , '\' . ~ . :1- ~. .. . . ~. . . I~i ././ <' --1-=1"---_ ,~ h ~3 ~~ S~ N" ~ ~ -< ,/",- .", ( ~ ,. ~ . f .- / " i ---.l--..-_ " /~- - -- ; I 1 ,I.' I ~J II I :(_(rJ::' 'I II,., I - _-'1 ..-.( ,:' :(=(J-:.I:' Ii I -=- i.J~':.1 \ {,) r:::'l '- _, I:' / - ,--'\- I ~m " / rn ij. - 0\';: ~. '" .tf I - 1_ f I /1 ,,----~ ! '" I I ,,' // ,- ('-1 ( -..t - ----- .'" " I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~' " m ,. > 2" ~ " I I I I I /~ Q' , ,2 ~ o ~ "- " Attachment 3 --- ----. -'" '" ---- -~ :/[ " if , ~ m ~ :l n .~ ~. " ~ if .a ~ 1 ~~ g"~ =- " N s: ~ 0; " " '" ,il' 'I' ----- --1 !-1' ~ _./>. !TI 7l"" m ~.. [ ~ .2' cil' <lS ~ <r it ~; ~ [ [ [ ~' Ii ~ ::-:<: )> U ;;:-1 mrTl I r, ~u ,~. III ;:.j :7 '-"--' ~ C) r<) IUJ J>c LCD OL- (ji r: \ 1-:--') ()"') )>-- Cn U (-, 0QJ 1.4 L....- -I ill 70 ~ Proposed Landscaping and Screening Plan E " ~ .. u> f Option Two - ~ -- -"" - ~ --- ~- -" - - - -- - --- -- - --- - -~ -- - -- - - -- ~- -" - -" - - -- - --- ~-- - -"- -- - - -- - -- -- --~ ~ -" - -"- - -- - - -- Alternative Landscaping Proposal*: PVC Fence on Western Border of 1600-1636 Gervais Ave. E, Maplewood, MN "" - -" - ~ - -" - -" -" - -" -" - -- - -- - - -- - -- -- ~ ~- - - - -- -- ~"-" - - - -- - -- - ~- - - -- - -- - -- - - -- - - -- - ~~ - - - -- -" - -- -- Project goal: To create a sound barrier between the commercial property and the residential area opposite it on Germain Street (specifically concentrating on noise spilling towards the Hall residence at 1596 Grandview Ave.) Historical notes: The property was originally granted CUP with the understanding that some deciduous and coniferous trees would be planted on top of the 4 foot turf berm created between the commercial and residential properties. Some of these plantings have since died out. Project description: We do not believe that replacement of the original trees would be adequate to create an effective sound barrier. The installation of a fence would reduce noise coming from the property, and 5 Black Hills Spruce will be planted between the fence and the building's various entrances to help defray any echo from the building and fence. The fence is constructed of a PVC material so as to minimize future maintenance. In addition, a rock maintenance strip will be installed around the fence to further reduce potential damage from lawnmowing equipment. The PVC fence comes in 2 colors, and we wili install a tan fence to best match the building. The installed fence will be 6' tall, and will extend 150 linear feet, entirely parallel to the width of the building in which Pioneer Press is a tenant. The spruce trees will be 12' tall at installation and will have a mulch ring installed around each. (see attached plan marked as "Exhibit B"). Project cost: This project is estimated to cost almost $14,700, including materials, installation, and irrigation repairs necessary to ensure project longevity. Avalon fence to be installed without lattice: Black Hills Spruce: Avalon w/Latti Height: 72" Post Size: S~ Picket Size: Spacing Between Pickets: none BOCA Pool Code: Yes !lG Scientific Name: Zone: Light Requirements: Height: Width: Shape: Foliage Color: Description: Picea glauca densata 3 Sunllight shade 30-40' 20-30' upright, pyramidal dark green SlowiJrowing native of the Black Hills with a compact, dense habit and bright to dark green needles. Height: Length: 72 inches (6 feet) 150 feet * It should be noted that this is an alternative plan, as the property owner believes a more effective and easier to maintain noise barrier option exists (specifically a double-staggered row of techny arborvitae). Applicant's Written Narrative Concept Two MINUTES MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL 7:02 P.M. Monday, February 14, 2005 Council Chambers, City Hall Meeting No. 05-03 Attachment 4 G. CONSENT AGENDA 1. Conditional Use Permit Revision - Maplewood Business Center (1616 Gervais Avenue) Adopted the following resolution approving revisions to the conditions of approval for the conditional use permit for the Maplewood Business Center at 1616 Gervais Avenue: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REVISION RESOLUTION 05-02-012 WHEREAS, the Maplewood Community Development Director, representing the city, requested a revision to the conditional use permit for the Maplewood Business Center at 1616 Gervais Avenue. WHEREAS, this permit applies to the existing office/warehouse facility on the property at 1616 Gervais Avenue. The legal description is: EG Rogers' Garden Lots, subject to state highway and easements, the part north of TH 36 of Lots 11 and 12 in Section 10, Township 29, Range 22 (PIN 10-29-22-42-0001) WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit revision is as follows: 1. The city council held a public hearing to review this permit revision on January 24,2005. City staff published a notice in the paper and sent notices to the surrounding property owners as required by law. The council gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The council also considered reports and recommendations ofthe city staff. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above-described conditional use permit revision for the following reasons: 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, including streets. police and fire protection, drainage structures, water and sewer systems, schools and parks. 7. The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services. 8. The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and scenic features into the development design. 9. The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects. The approval of the permit revision is subject to the following conditions (the additions are underlined and the deletions are crossed out): 1. All uses must meet the following requirements: It, The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency noise regulations shall apply. Tests to ...erify iliis shalllle HUlae Ily an inllejleHlIeftt testing Hffil. The iaitialeost shall Be JlaiEl BY the e'.\"er. lfthe test shews a '/iolatiaH, the east efthe test shall Be flaid far BY the JlreJlerty ewaer. b. Outdoor storage of materials will not be permitted without approval from Maplewood's Director of Community Development. 2. Occupancy permits must be obtained for each tenant space from the City Building Official as required by the State Building Code. 3. Those businesses involved with exterior vehicle storage, such as vehicle rentals or moving companies, shall have one parking space for each such vehicle, in addition to those required by City Code, on the site. 4. Adequate signing for vehicle and pedestrian traffic shall be provided, subject to the approval of the Director of Public Safety. 5. Approval oflandscaping, building, and site design plans are required by the Community Design Review Board. The property owner shall have a detailed landscape and screening plan preoared for the area between the parking lot and Germain Street. This plan shall show how the new materials would provide screening that is at least six-feet-tall and at least 80 percent solid (code requirement) and landscaping should be located on both sides of the fence. This plan shall be subiect to the approval of the Community Design Review Board and the owner shall implement the approved plan bv Julv L 2005. 6. As part of the required design review process, the applicant shall provide a detailed drainage and grading plan which provides for the five acre-feet of ponding required by the Maplewood Drainage Plan. 7. The ailJllieaHt shall aMaia a IllliltiiRg Jleffilit withia eRe yeer ef COHHeil aJlJlre...al. 8. The property owner and the property manager shall not allow garbage or trash pick-up between the hours of II :00 p.m. and 5:30 a.m. 9. The property owner and property manager shall be responsible for the maintenance and clean UP of the ponding areas on their propertv. 10. The propertv owner shall post the drivewavs and drive aisles as no parking zones. 11. The property owner shall review the paper distribution activities and take operational measures to reduce or eliminate noise. These measures should include but not be limited to: install rubber bumpers on the carts. train emplovees as to where to park and to be respectful of adioining residences and maintain security staff to patrol during the evening and earlv morning hours. 12. The city council shall review this permit revision in six months (Julv 2005). Attachment 5 October 1, 2004 Richard Fursman City Manager 1830 E, County Road B Maplewood, MN 55109 Re: Noise Ordinance Dear Mr. Fursman, I am writing to you today because I would like to know if something can be done about the noise level at the warehouse across from my home On Germain & Gervais. My address is 1596 Grandview Avenue. I have been in my home for twelve years and I think it has been long enough that my family has been subjected to this noise problem. When we bought the home 8MP was using the space that is now leased by 81. Paul Pioneer Press and is used as a paper distribution office. S~ was there for a few years. St. Paul Pioneer Press hours of operation are from 2:00 a.m. to anYWhere from 4:30 a.m. to 6 a.m. every day of the week. My bedroom windows are directly across from the large warehouse doors. I have in the past called the police (non-emerge.ncy) to address the noise issues. Here are the issues: Any given night there could be 20 to 30 vehicles coming and going in less than an hour. Car doors slamming, radios too loud and oeople taIkinlt. veiling - everything echo's off the building. The St. Paul Pioneer Press trucks blowing their air horns. Then there is the problem of the metal carts that they use to bring the papers from inside the building to their cars. The metal hits the buildin~ and the noise is very loud. The distance between my bedroom window and the parking lost is 145 feet.' I can't have my windows open and I wear ear plugs to bed. It has been so loud that even with all of that and the heat or air on, I can still can't sleep at night. I have spoken to Patrick Lensing and Steve Hobarth at the leasing office. I have told them of the problem - no response. I have even told them that when they re-surfaced our street and put new curbing in (I paid over $4,000) that the ground crew they have working for them , tore out the old sprinkler plastic and threw it into the pound and I believe it is still there. I was told by Patrick Lensing that he was having the inside of the building because the workers at St. Paul Pioneer press had vandalized the inside of the building. . " We have even had rocks from around the landscaping thrown into our yard and have dented our garage. (more than 20 to 30) . I have spoken to Butch GelVaiS, Fire Marshall and he had me contact Lieutenant Kevin Rabbittz. I have talked to the Lieutenant numerous times and he is very nice and does call me back - but I still do not have a resolution to my problem. I have spoken to City Council Member, Cathy Juenemann and she suggested that I write this letter. I am very frustrated because I own my horne, I was in my home before St. Paul Pioneer Press leased space. I would think that there would be a noise control issue since the warehouse is so close to a housing development. Lieutenant Rabbittz did say that earlier in the year there was a problem with garbage trucks at Maplewood Mall being too noisy for the homes that surround the mall and they had to change their pickup times. I have enclosed pictures from my bedroom window to the warehouse and also of the metal carts. I am a responsible homeowner and I can't tell you what it would mean to me to have one good night sleep. I can't remember what that is like. Please let me know what other action I can take. My best solution would be for SI. Paul Pioneer Press to move to another location - there are openings in that building. Sincerely, ~ Kev\-n~ Hall 1596 Grandview Ave Home Phone 651-770-3467 Work Phone 952-838-6805 Cc: Butch Gervais, Fire Marshal Cc: Ken Roberts, City Planner Cc: Lieutenant Ke,~n Rabbittz Cc: Kathy Juenemann, Council Member MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: DATE: City Manager Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner Maplewood Toyota Parking Ramp Proposal Northwest Comer of Beam Avenue and Highway 61 June 21, 2005 INTRODUCTION Project Description Steve McDaniels, of Maplewood Toyota, and his consultants, BWBR Architects, are proposing to build a one-story parking ramp on the existing Maplewood Toyota parking lot at the northwest comer of Beam Avenue and Highway 61. This proposed ramp would be a one-level ramp above the existing parking lot. Mr. McDaniels proposes to continue to store and sell cars from this site. The proposed ramp would have a ground-level sales office in the southeast comer of the structure near the intersection. The elevated level would be at grade with the abutting Maplewood Toyota site to the north and would be bridged across to that site for vehicular access. The proposed ramp would have an exterior of precast concrete spandrels (panels) and precast concrete columns. The proposed sales office in the southeast comer of the structure is designed to be the more decorative and prominent element. The proposed outside walls of the office would have an exterior of metal panels, aluminum framing and glass. The upper-level fascia material of the office area would be constructed of reinforced metal panels. Temporarv ParkinQ Lot During the construction of the proposed ramp, the applicant proposes to move the cars from this site to his vacant lot between Gulden's Roadhouse and LaMettry Collision. Mr. McDaniels proposes to put in a graveled parking lot here to temporarily store the cars. Refer to the applicant's letters and plans. Requests Mr. McDaniels is requesting that the community design review board and city council approve the ramp design, site and landscaping plans. This request also requires a CUP (conditional use permit) revision to allow the parking ramp with car sales within 350 feet of residential property. The proposed ramp structure would be 200 feet from the nearest residential property. Mr. McDaniels owns the nearest house to the west which he rents out. This house is on the subject property. The planning commission reviewed this request on June 20, 2005. BACKGROUND January 18,1979: The city council approved a CUP for the original Maplewood Toyota dealership on the south side of Beam Avenue. October 8, 2001: The city council approved the parking IoU sales lot on the north side of Beam Avenue by CUP. There were subsequent annual reviews by the council. March 28, 2005: The city council granted an indefinite CUP approval-to be reviewed again only ifthe applicant proposes a change. DISCUSSION The main issues for the board's consideration are ramp design, landscaping/screening and site lighting. Ramp Design The front (southeast) comer of the building is certainly the most attractive view of the proposed ramp. This is the sales-office comer with a decorative facade. The material of the majority of the proposed ramp, however, is utilitarian in appearance. Precast concrete spandrels seem to staff to be the minimum in terms of design quality that is available. During early meetings with the applicant, staff stressed the need for an attractive ramp design. There are many new examples of improved parking ramp designs staff has seen on recent redevelopment tours in other cities. Here in Maplewood, in fact, we have a very good example of what a ramp can look like that would be considerably more attractive and compatible in a location that is both residential and highly visible to the public. The SI. John's Hospital ramp on the comer of Hazelwood Street and Beam Avenue, one half mile to the east of the proposed ramp, is very attractive with its brown- colored aggregate finish and architectural detailing. This is also a one-level ramp (ground level and one upper deck) like the one proposed. The top level of this ramp also tapers into the grade on the north side as the proposed one would. Staff is not able to forward a recommendation of approval for the proposed ramp. As a guideline, the applicant should redesign the exterior of their proposed ramp to be at least as decorative in materials and appearance as the SI. John's Hospital ramp. Landscaping/Screening The site is already screened fairly well from the homes to the west by existing trees. This is clearly the case during the summer. In the winter, when the deciduous trees are bare, the Toyota site will be more open to view. The applicant is not proposing any additional landscaping. A few neighbors had requested some. Staff's opinion is that there should be evergreens added on the west side of the holding pond to help provide winter screening. Granted, it will take many years for any evergreens to grow tall enough to provide screening for the neighbors. Even though, the applicant should attempt to improve the buffer/screen for the neighbors. Lights Certainly, the applicant needs his site lit for security. The city code and the police department, as well, require site-security lighting. We did receive survey comments from neighbors, though, stating that the site lights are a nighttime problem. 2 In the last few years, Mr. McDaniels installed new site lights throughout his property. These flXlures were properly designed to aim downward and not allow horizontal shining. Staff has a concem, though, that any lights proposed for the ramp be designed to comply fully with city code to prevent any light-glare nuisance from occurring. The applicant has provided light-intensity measurements on Sheet 901-FL in the plans. This plan identifies four existing back-to-back pole lights, and six others are noted but are not shown on the drawing. The proposed design details for the lighting fixtures are not shown either. Staff does not know where any new lights would be placed, but it seems obvious to staff, that they would be on top of the proposed ramp. Pole height could be a problem. The city will require a full photometric plan with fixture design, pole heights and light-spread intensities at residential lot lines. The applicant's goal in designing such a plan should be to ensure that neighbors cannot see any light bulbs or lenses directly and that light intensity and light spread meet the parameters of the city lighting ordinance. This plan should be submitted for CDRB review and approval. Department Comments Police: Lieutenant Kevin Rabbett stated that "I have reviewed the attached plans and have no public safety concems. This project actually will help solve the lack of surface parking that leads many dealerships to park on unimproved grass surfaces. I would recommend the standard security lighting and video surveillance systems for commercial installations such as Maplewood Toyota already has in place in the rest of the complex." Fire Marshal: Butch Gervais, the fire marshal, has noted that there must be a standpipe for the fire department to connect to in case of fire. Buildina Official: Dave Fisher, the building official, has the following comments: . Proposed building must meet the 2000 Intemational Building Code (IBe), MSBC 1341 accessibility requirements and all related codes. . Separate permit is required for this comer site and the northerly site by Gulden's. . Separate permit and engineering is required for retaining walls over four feet in height. City Enaineer. Chuck Vermeersch, one of the Maplewood staff engineers, reviewed this proposal and has submitted the attached report. Mr. Vermeersch found that there are no engineering or drainage concerns with the proposal for the ramp site. The applicant would not be increasing the amount of impervious surface on the site and there would be no increase in surface runoff. They would, in fact, be improving the storm water discharge by installing a storm water treatment structure for the removal of sediment from the runoff prior to discharge into the onsite storm water pond. COMMITTEE ACTIONS June 20, 2005: The planning commission recommended approval of the CUP. They also added: . A requirement that a traffic study be done to evaluate the current problem of traffic congestion at Beam Avenue and Highway 61 as it relates to Maplewood Toyota's existing operation as well as the potential effect from the proposed parking ramp addition. 3 . A requirement that the easter1y curb cut on the Maplewood Toyota site south of Beam Avenue be clear1y marked as an "exit only." RECOMMENDATION Deny the plans date-stamped May 26, 2005, for the proposed parking ramp proposal for Maplewood Toyota at the northwest comer of Beam Avenue and Highway 61. The concept of the proposed one-level parking ramp is acceptable. This recommendation for design plan denial is to give the applicant the opportunity to revise the plans for a more attractive and compatible design. Plans required for review board review shall include: 1. The ramp-design plan, with bridge details, shall be revised and resubmitted for community design review board approval that improves the exterior design and choice of materials. As a guideline, the applicant shall redesign the exterior of the proposed ramp to be at least as decorative in materials and appearance as the 51. John's Hospital ramp. 2. The landscaping plan shall be resubmitted to the community design review board for approval providing for a continuation of evergreen trees on the west side of the holding pond. 3. A detailed lighting plan shall be submitted to the community design review board showing fixture design, pole heights and light-spread intensities at residential lot lines. The applicant's goal in designing such a plan should be to ensure that neighbors cannot see any light bulbs or lenses directly and that light intensity and light spread meet the parameters of the city lighting ordinance. 4 CITIZEN COMMENTS Staff surveyed the 53 surrounding property owners for their opinions about the two Maplewood Toyota proposals. Of the 11 replies, none were in favor, nine were opposed and two expressed concems or raised questions. Opposed . Traffic is too unbearable at Beam and 61 already. This will make it worse. Make them stop parking on Beam Avenue. The site is already fully developed. (Leanne Hammer, 1227 Countryview Circle) . I have a number of questions and concems. Who in our community will benefit from these projects? How will noise be contained? Loudspeakers and car alarms are ever present! Why does the city consider this a valuable consideration/project? What will the owner/developer give back to the city and the neighbors? I presume those projects will benefit the auto dealers by providing larger inventory, additional sales and greater profits. Is this what the city wants to see? I say don't. (Donald and Marguerite Newpower, 2946 Duluth Street) . Absolutely Nol Since this development (Kohlman Lake) has been built, Toyota has expanded, LaMettry has been built, Country View is gone-The feel of the neighborhood is fast diminishing. A parking ramp?! And then another (north lot)? No way! It is hard enough to feel safe on Duluth Street for my kids with biking and walks. The traffic light & three entrance/exits for Toyota (61/Beam) already create traffic backup and unsafe residential conditions. The traffic light needs to be green longer-the right tum lane should be right tum onlv. We need sidewalks from Duluth Street/Beam Avenue all the way to the library/mall area. No other dealership has a 2-story raised parking ramp/lot. Let alone a dealership that neighbors a residential area. As you can tell, I'm very much opposed to this plan, as I'm sure much of my neighbors are. Please pass this along to any applicable parties. If I can be of further help, please let me know. (Karen and Rich Mahr, 1243 Duluth Court) . Please refer to the attached letters from Lynn Benson, 2898 Duluth Street Greg and Lorraine Johnson, 1233 Duluth Court James Anderson, 2890 Duluth Street Christopher and Mary Trembath, 2908 Frank Street Karen Carlson and Tracy Sellin, 2882 Duluth Street Michael Schenian and Judi Johnston Schenian, 1221 Countryview Circle In summary, these letters express the following concems and comments: . There is a current lack of landscaping. More is needed to screen the parking lot. . The current lighting is very bright. Perhaps a roof on the ramp will be beneficial. . Pedestrian traffic in Toyota's crosswalk across Beam is a nuisance. . There's no allowance for employee or customer parking. Stop their on-street parking. . The easterly curb cut of their original site is too close to the comer. . Lot lighting is a nuisance now. . Loudspeakers are a nuisance currently. 5 . A concrete ramp to look at would be unsightly. . Traffic at this intersection is crazy and too congested. . Why do we have zoning laws if they are not followed? . Restripe the lanes and improve traffic flow on Beam so traffic isn't so jambed up. . Have Toyota build a noise wall to eliminate garbage-hauler and P.A. system noise. . The ramp would degrade the residential properties. . The parking on Beam should end. . Safety concems: Blind spot due to the ramp? Traffic bad already. Concerns/Comments/Questions . Keep lights & noise down! (Robert Anderson, 1242 Duluth Ct) . Would this project be possible in some other configuration without a variance? (Hubbard Broadcasting, 3415 University Avenue) 6 REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Existing Use: Maplewood Toyota parking/sales lot and an existing single dwelling owned by the applicant. Site size: 2.62 acres (total). The single dwelling site is 9,280 square feet in area and the existing sales lot is 2.41 acres in size. SURROUNDING LAND USES North: Maplewood Toyota building South: Beam Avenue and the main Maplewood Toyota dealership site East: Highway 61 and the Country View Golf Course (now closed) West: Single dwellings PLANNING Land Use Plan Designation: M1 (light manufacturing) Zoning: M1 APPLICATION DATE We received the complete application and plans for this proposal on May 26, 2005. State law requires that the city take action within 60 days of receiving complete applications for a proposal. City council action is required on this proposal by July 25, 2005. p:sec4\Maplewood Toyota Ramp Design 6'05 te Attachmenls: 1. Location Map 2. Property LinelZoning Map 3. Land Use Map 4. Sae Plan 5. Landscaping Plan 6. Parking Ramp Oesign Elevations 7. Parking Ramp Design Perspectives 8. Project Summary Narrative date-stamped June 6, 2005 9. CUP Submittal Justification date-stamped June 6, 2005 10. Setback Variance Submittal Justification date-stamped June 6, 2005 11. Letter from Lynn Benson dated June 6, 2005 12. Letter from Greg and Lorraine Johnson dated June 5,2005 13. Letter from James R. Anderson dated June 1, 2005 14. Survey-reply from Christopher and Mary Trembath dated May 26,2005 15. Letter from Karen Carison and Tracy Sellin dated June 1, 2005 16. Survey-reply from Michael Schenian and Judi Johnston Schenian dated May 26, 2005 17. Engineering Review Commenls from Chuck Vermeersch dated June 7,2005 18. Plans date-stamped May 26, 2005 (separate attachmenls) ~ 7 Attachment 1 ,IJ! . .;,., i / il I '~ ' .--\ ".' /1 / .. I~-"" ~, . .... \".' I. Ii!' ,.' g' ,- r , II _,' I' ~(.J I~~_ __(I ,.. I t m I I , .. I -'I ' ~ c I I-" /iii \ \-'-1 \. I ' 1''fI71' .. [~..jl !~I='~_ _ --ir\ \l'---1 "",,~ ~ 'jl ; I"~ . i I II I -~~ l--- -"'~ 0 ' I--" \,f' I... 1 I _= -,-' '~~ I' t! I 11 . ,Jor" j;; I '" I l VENBURG', ------.!.-- / ' __I' Ij:f'-i "-.. I' nR' ' I -,.- --,>--=---- )/..'~&.~ ~~~/ff1_'-~~ ," GULD~N'S- -_II f i/......m .!--==-If-='=;'~--' -~,: /1"'" 0 .." ,...., . . '- '." ." """ ,--~ I':::' j", ... I ' I if I I -'Z/ cJ' r '", k PROPOSED -- I I ~ t. /1 1)--40",L.- OPEN _ARKlNO '" ) 1 ,I n'a.I",-('ii" ' I II . ',_ ~,; '1<'" +-l.~ i" ./ I) --I Ii '- . ~, ' . ' ' '.f ,,; ,...,__'.,~ \ ""/ cOM.TTRY' I I, . j...l ,ii..."'---' ,\y-..JDWSSI!'!'~ / II ~..~1~J l , I M~PLEWo6';--- ,- -----/ lr ... ,,..\11 -..L,t' tie' . "FTA I i / F.. lZ[. --- .'1-/ /..-~-- I PROPOSED I i J:C _I ~ 1 ! ---_ RAMP AND _ a;- __-L....:._J l.1!IIlii ". CAR SALES I i If 1Im1i~-.-. if \.if' I' I ,-... ."il'AVE I . _ Ill'" " ---- _ U____I MAPLEWOOD l TOYOTA i "f--'/ \p..~' ! ,I i i ! --.-_._-- i " " i ~ I i" LOCATION MAP 11 N 8 Attachment 2 I I II \ ..I~ r-'-' I -., ,. I J--I . -I .I-!-.! Jifi." IfJ len' " R1 i b \. ,,>_.,~ -,_. [f- .-' f 'QI 1-'----1' :J: 1IIIIIIr. I 1-'--' /T- I- .-- I l!!I I .,'-...... ::I I J.'--- t... .I.~...J" ! ~"'! I ::I' i I I r --- -.__,. , 0' !IlL I It ~-----j-- tlI .". f . /- . . ' ...-..1. I !~ -'. i 4'~L~!:"J~,I t_ I'. _ --, 1 '-" t-- ~.> I I ".i i I.-'-.t ___u_'\ "....--..... i' r /f IR~ "--r;" ,/i_-li- "- j,' ,.....1 I!- ...---.- .--- ",' i,'.IlO!Il!W, f ,'--" .. '." "..-------. -"----. --I l~. 1.... ,,,'-'-I" \' \ . -'r'.' i.' .......a... ,\\011\ \ \, ".. '. 1JrJ"''jiF'" fJr./' -i"'I' -"''1Ii!I(>--''\ \,,~. Wi.... '.' ~- ., \ "1ljt_- illlllW' , .. \ ,..,- ,. .i! " ..-,_-......1. '. ,,-- '''--''., "m. C~--"'-C I I," ,m'I'___" \"~----'-II""\.! ,i'.- b ~\ ';-'" ,""iI' \ i i "J1IIf . i ,- L-~--'-' .. ~, :1- :_,~-~---.f- "i/' -'- "" --R,en i 1-.-1 "p i i ./il.. . l'J 1:. ~ I -I-I'-! I ,:.- :=:~.: ':-'~ .. __ ._1....'-__.__...1 '...,. -.--- ~ ~ 1...-~-1.~1Ii1if---l-. I" \ I · l-i-____~_LLJ._ , ' III JPROPOSEO!:'(;f "IRAMP AND ~t I~A~~AI,Fst' <<",,;.':","'"."'ic..:;C',.::".:-,,'" ... PROPERTY LINE I ZONING MAP 11 N 9 Attachment 3 os , r f li!!!g , I I ..i i .\R~I,iIG ,. I I ~ I i I I , I I I 'I i , , J. __...J.._._._....._.. &.... LAND USE MAP 11 N 10 Attachment 4 " " ..-- ,/ .. ,-". \ ~. -'- ~ G ':f if '" ~ , , , , ....-- I~'''- ! i '"" BEAM A VENUE /- - -- -- --- - -- --- - - - - - ~ r---__________ SITE PLAN \r N SOUTH SITE 11 OICIOUOUJ nlu o o IXlSTIHGMA1\I1l1 TIllS 1X15T1NO XlaNTU' rLAHTlD lllP ~ NEW TIEU CDHIFUOUS 11.IU o o . u~a IM'NII TIIU IXIfTIHO IIClHn. Y rt>>mDTlIU HlWTIUIS DICiDUOU5 5H1UIJ . IX15TING JHIUlI TREE KEY: Attachment 5. MODIfY IXISllNC II..CATION TO COMPlfTlL Y COVII ANY GIIIN 5PACEs. ...... ..... NEW ....i . ......\,. ....... ----1 BEAM A W:NUE ANY TUU ISTUllm DIJIING CONST.IJCTION 11TH.. IILOCATE OIREPlACl WITH NEW PlANnNGS TO MATOI. ,---------------, I--~ LANDSCAPING PLAN SOUTH SITE \r N 12 Attachment 7 ,0::2 ;.' c:I~ ~~ c:I O~ coo '0 o :!:N .- N'if III "'0 C Q: ~ ~ Cl. )( W Cl c i ... ~ II. f}'. ~ (, ~~. ~t " cu ..... ~ 0 ~ "g 0 E 0 0 ~ ... ... ~ (1) Q) - .- a. :> 'i CU ';: :E Q) Cl: ,-~~ (\ ',0 ~,-p: > . '0 '-- , I- 14 e::" CQ~ ~~ CQ O~ C 00 o ~~ .- NO: UI "0 C Q ~ ~ ~ c. >< w CIl C :;: .. ~ II. ~ ... 0 ~ ~ .. " UI '"' ell I - ,. 0 " > \\ .c ... ~ :s 0 II) (1) E - 0 a. .. ... ~ ~ ell ~ .- 11II::; ::- r~~ (\ ...0 \,-1-:) > I 0 '- ~ 15 . Qf' ~ i:ll~ >~ ...< i:ll C C~ cc o ..;Q ._ ~N .. N., .. .,C C c ~ ca . a.. ~ l< W III C :i ... ca !!. - ... CO E ca 41 ID - .. ;n ca 41 .c .. :l Q en E " ;::: ... cu ..... o ~ ~ "CI o o ~ ~ - a. CU :E ;: 41 :> r~' < (\..5 I."L. > '- 0 I- 16 Attachment 8 r "- BWBR ~ITECTS --" MEMORANDUM Maplewood Toyota-Ramp and Service Maplewood, Minnesota BWBR Comm. #: 2004.214.00 To: Tom Ekstrand, City Planner, City of Maplewood From: Roger Larson, BWBR Architects Tom Domack, BWBRArchitects Date: June 6, 2005 Subject: Planning Commission Submittal cc: Steve McDaniels, Maplewood Toyota Jake Boerboon, KA-St. Paul RECEIVED JUN 0 6 2005 Steve McDaniels, the Owner of Maplewood Toyota, plans to do substantive construction on his properties north of Beam Avenue and west of Highway 61. A narrative of three phases is outlined below for clarification of what work is done and in what order. 1. Project Summary Narrative North Lot Phase, hereinafter to be referred to as NLP, (grade level car storage) develops the northernmost property to a level that will support inventory car storage while a South Lot Phase, SLP (one level storage ramp above the existing storage parking lot) is constructed. The automobile inventory from the south lot requires relocation to allow continuation of business during construction and beyond. The SLP will be completed when the one level storage ramp, the lower level sales office, and the landscape and site improvements are finished. The North Lot will remain inventory car storage after the South Lot is constructed. G:\0421400\Admin\CI1Y Submttal\CJty SUbmICQ5.11-05\Projeet Summary Narratlve.doc Lawson Commons 380 St. Peter Street, Suite 600 Saint Paul, MN 55102-1996 651.222.3701 fax 651.222.8961 www.bwbt.com 17 Mapkwood Toyota Ramp and Setvice Page 2 of2 A. North Lot Phase (NLP): The zoning requirements for the site requires 50% pervious land use. The Owner has an agreement with the City for this ratio to 30% pervious and 70% impervious through allowances granted for prior land agreements with the City of Maplewood. The west side of the site will have permanent pervious paving, which is 30% of the site area. The remaining 70% may be temporary/permanent and constructed with Class 5 gravel base. The pervious pavement will be a manufactured pavers system that allows water penetration. This phase requires: 1. A Conditional Use Permit for the (NLP 1) proposed storage of vehicles within 350 . feet of a residential district. 2. A variance (NLP 2) for storage of motor vehicles within 350 feet of a residential district. B. South Lot Phase (SLP): A one-level storage parking ramp will be constructed above the existing on-grade vehicle storage lot. This design does not add additional impervious land use to the site, as the site is currently paved to the allowable maximum. The upper parking deck level maintains the minimal setbacks that are currently in pLace for the current on-grade lot. The one level storage ramp is constructed of precast concrete and includes a one-story sales office area below the southeast comer. The ramp is 154 feet from the adjacent residential district and requires a variance and Conditional Use Permit, as it is closer than 350 feet to a residential district. Access to the one level parking deck is via two nearly constructed drive lanes/bridges from the Owner's property on the north adjacent lot. This phase requires: 1. A Conditional Use Permit for a automotive related business structure located closer than 350 feet from an adjacent residential zoning district (SLP 1). 2. A variance for a structure closer than 350 feet from an adjacent residential zoning district (SLP 2). 3. A variance to having a structure within 30 feet from right-of-way lines of Beam Avenue on the south side of the property (SLP 3). Ice Lawson Commons 380 St. Peter Street, Suite 600 Saint Paul, MN 55102.1996 651.222.3701 fax 651.222.8961 www.bwbr.com 18 r "- BWBR ~I7 Attachment 9 RECEIVED JUN 0 6 2005 Maplewood Toyota-Ramp and Service Maplewood, Minnesota BWBR Co=. #: 2004.214.00 May 11, 2005 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DESIGN SUBMITTAL SLP 1 City of Maplewood Zoning Ordinance Section 44-511 (4) (a) . Proposed structures axe to be located no closer than 350'-0" from the adjacent residential zoning district. A conditional use pennit to allow a vehicle storage structure within the 350' requirement listed above is requested. Land Use: A one story-parking ramp will be constructed above an existing on-grade vehicle storage lot. This structure is approximately 20 feet in height. Building elevations axe submitted to the City of Maplewood, which show exact size and location of the ramp. The ramp structure is a vehicle storage lot structure in floor plate and height. The natural slope of the site axea sloping down from north to south assists in hiding the ramp from views from the west and north. The placement of the ramp above existing non-pervious vehicle storage allows for no additional impervious grading to be added to the present watershed. Existing and new natural vegetation is in place, or designed to minimi~e the exposure to the adjacent residential zoning district. Reasons for Approval: 1. The structure is virtually the same as the existing on grade parking lot as the on grade lot's design was repeated for the structures design.. The height is only 20 feet tall and the horizontal plane is similax to grade. 2. The existing chaxacter of the surrounding paxcels that front Highway 61 axe similar in nature to the cax storage structure requested. 3. Current property values will be maintained. The perceived land use would most likely be co=ercial in nature. 4. Motor vehicle storage structures axe not a perceived hazaxd or innately unsightly. The structure will have design elements, which axe fundamentally similax to Maplewood Toyotas main building. G:\Q421400\Adrrin\Slfl1.doc Lawson Commons 380 St. Peter Street, Suite 600 Saint Paul, MN 55102-1996 651.222.3701 fax 651.222.8961 www.bwbr.com 19 Maplewood Toyota Ramp and Service Page 2 of2 5. Maplewood Toyota intends to store vehicles for their business use. The vehicles are parked and r=oved by =ployees. The storage area is not a sales lot. Access to the lot is primarily through Maplewood Toyota's adjacent property and not on City public access routes. 6. Site requirements are currently supported by public utilities and services. 7. The project will not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services. 8. This structure's design has a goal to not add more impervious grading to the current water shed. The "drip line" of the structure virtually the same as the existing impervious parking lot. 9. The design adds no impervious grading to the watershed and due to the vehicles being new, no petroleum leaks are likely to occur. Ice Lawson Commons 380 St. Peter Street, Suite 600 Saint Paul, MN 55102-1996 651.222.3701 fax 651.222.8961 www.bwbr.com 20 Attachment 10 r "' BWBR ~~17 Maplewood Toyota-Ramp and Service Maplewood, Minnesota BWBR Comm. #: 2004.214.00 May 11, 2005 ZONING CODE VARIANCE SUBMITTAL RECEIVED JUN 0 6 2005 SLP3 City of Maplewood Zoning Ordinance Section 44-20 (6) (a) . Proposed structures are to be located no closer than 30'-0" of street right-of-way lines. A variance to allow a structure within the 30'-0" requirement listed above is requested. Land Use: A one story-parking ramp will be constructed above an existing on-grade vehicle storage lot. This structure is approximately 20 feet in height. Building elevations are submitted to the City of Maplewood, which show exact size and location of the ramp. The ramp structure is a vehicle storage lot structure in floor plate and height. The natural slope of the site area sloping down from north to south assists in hiding the ramp from views from the west and north. The placement of the ramp above existing non-pervious vehicle storage allows for no additional impervious grading to be added to the present watershed. Existing and new natural vegetation is in place, or designed to minim.i.ze the exposure to the adjacent residential zoning district. Reasons for Granting a Variance: 1. Maplewood Toyota is requesting this vehicle storage structure be allowed for these reasons: a. The proposed use is consistent with existing and adjacent uses along Highway 61. The structure does not change the character or use of the site. b. Maplewood Toyota is presently utilizing this site for on-site storage which requires only 15'-0" from the street right-of-ways. This structure is designed to be placed directly above that grade level parking for reasons stated above. In the continued overall commercial development of the west side of the Highway 61 strip, we feel this variance is consistent in the long-term benefit. G:\042140OIAdmin\SLP 3,doc Lawson Commons 380 St. Peter Street, Suite 600 Saint Paul, MN 55102-1996 651.222.3701 fax 651.=.8961 www.bwbr.com ?1 Maplewood Toyota Ramp and Service Page 2 of2 2. We believe the intent of the ordinance is to protect adjacent land uses from detrimental views, hazards, and othe.r real and perceived problems. Maplewood Toyota has integrated itself into this area and is trying to keep the use intended as when purchased. Through the careful use of landscaping and lighting, we propose that the developed use will be a stronge.r element in the neighborhood. Protection from unwarranted and undisclosed uses is not requixed and we feel a variance will still allow the City, adjacent landowne.rs, and Maplewood Toyota to continue their current good neighbor relations. Ice Lawson Commons 380 St. Peter Street, Suite 600 Saint Paul, MN 55102-1996 651.222.3701 fax 651.222.8961 www.bwbr.com 22 Attachment 11 Tom Ekstrand From: Sent: To: Subject: Lynn Benson ~ynn@notamd.com] Monday, June 06, 2005 6:57 AM Tom Ekstrand Maplewood Toyota development proposals Dear Mr. Ekstrand, I'm writing in response to the propos~d development by our neighbors at Maplewood Toyota. I have several concerns. The first is in regard to the landscaping. We were very disappointed at the negative effect their original parking lot has had on the view from our home. I was very dissatisfied with the lack of a landscape berm from their original project on the site. From the perspective of our home, we see no evergreen trees in the line of sight to the west side of Toyota's parking lot. Throughout the year we have clear sight of the cars and trucks and light from the lot. It was my understanding that they were required by the city planners to provide a landscape berm at least six feet in height. It is my understanding that the definition of a berm is an earthen barrier. It appears they have neglected this requirement in their original development of the site. It appears that this new proposal will not have any new lanscaping or berm added on the south site. . We would greatly appreciate it if a berm taller than 10 feet with additional evergreen trees could be added to the west side of their parking lot to provide screening from the view of their cars. We would be very pleased if this current project included a roof on the top of the parking ramp to block the view of cars as our home is at a higher elevation than the top of their ramp would have. We would prefer to view a building rather than autos. A second concern I mentioned along with the first. The lighting on their lot is very bright at night and shines into our bedroom windows. Is there any way to reduce the light pollution further. Perhaps enclosing the top of their parking ramp would help with light pollution in the area so they wouldn't have lights up higher than they do currently. Another comment I have is regarding the pedestrian traffic in their crosswalk. Is there any way they could add a pedestrian bridge to cross Beam AVe. to their plans? With the short length of the stop light for eastbound traffic on Beam, it is difficult to have to wait for pedestrians when the light changes before you get to the intersection. A fourth concern I have is their lack of parking for their employees. Even before their current lot was in place employees had to park on Beam Ave. We were surprised when they still didn't make allowance for employee parking with their new parking lot. I know it affects our neighbors living on Beam Avenue. Will they ever have enough space for their employees to park? Please call me with questions about my remarks (651-481-0076). Thank you for soliciting our opinions regarding this development. We greatly appreciate the city planners' consideration of residential taxpayers and voters opinions and look forward to the public hearing on this matter. Sincerely, Lynn Benson 2898 Duluth St. Maplewood ___651--:481-0076 1 23 Attachment 12 June 5, 2005 Tom Ekstrand - Senior Planner Office of Co=unity Development City of Maplewood 1830 County Road B East Maplewood, MN 55109 Dear Mr. Ekstrand, This letter is in regards to the development proposal for Maplewood Toyota as described in your letter of May 26, 2005. First a little background. When most of the residents to the west purchased their homes, Maplewood Toyota was a small dealer located on the SW comer of Highway 61 and Beam Ave. Since then, they have expanded to the north into what was up to that time a parcel that had been used for pumpkin and Christmas tree sales and have also built a large service facility (along with LeMettry Collision) to the north. With their cmrent growth, there have been negative effects on the adjacent residents: 1. The current driveway entrance into the south lot is too close to the comer. When northbound cars are turning west onto Beam, there is usually a car that stops as soon as they get on Beam waiting to turn into the dealer forcing vehicles behind to stop and wait in the middle of the intersection. This driveway location is very dangerous and will cause an accident (if not already). Although this driveway entrance was there before their present expansion, the growth of the dealer and the increased number of homes have made it more dangerous. 2. The dealer was granted permission to have a marked crosswaIkjust past the driveway entrance. If you don't have to stop for a car turning into the south lot, quite often you have to stop for salespeople and customers in the crosswalk Many times dealer employees and customers will step out into the crosswalk without giving a vehicle proper time to stop. State law requires ail vehicles to stop for a pedestrian in a crosswalk but the pedestrians also need to use good judgment to give a vehicle proper time and distance to safely stop. This is not always the case. 3. Since expanding to the parcel north of Beam, the lot lighting is very visible and invasive to the surrounding homes. With construction of a parking ramp, the lights will be taller, and will affect more homes and to a much greater degree than the current lighting. 4. The dealer has also installed an outside loudspeaker paging system that is very audible for the adjacent residents. f",....o~ b-I--ef.,- 2:. l-or-rd ;).J€---;5:oh./o/'7 \l-...-... " I ) rz...?}])"kfi, C+. 24 Attachment 13 City Of Maple wood Attn: Tom Ekstrand - Senior Planner 1830 County Road B East Maplewood, MN 55109 RE: Development Proposal- Maplewood Toyota Dear Mr. Ekstrand, This letter is in response to the letter sent out dated May 26, 2005 on the Maplewood Toyota expansion. I have lived at 2890 Duluth Street for the last seven years and in Maplewood my entire life. Maplewood Toyota has been a good neighbor and I and others in my family have purchased all our vehicles from Maplewood Toyota. I do have one concern currently and several concerns on the future proposal. Currently, they have a loud speaker or paging system that goes out over the car lot directly behind our houses. In the wanner months, all my neighbors and myself can hear every page over the system when we have our windows open or when we are out in our back yards. Those speakers need to be re-directed towards highway 61 and away from our homes. The view out my back window keeps changing. I'm not sure I want to look out at a concrete structure with more car and people traffic. A few years ago, we agreed to an overflow parking lot with a house and pond as a buffer zone. The highway 61 and Beam Avenue intersection is already crazy with car and people traffic. It looks like the new sales center on the other side of Beam Avenue would just add to an already busy intersection. I have almost hit people darting out into traffic trying to cross Beam Avenue. Turn lanes into the new facility are also and issue. One solution to create a better buffer zone is to build an 8-10 foot concrete privacy fence on the back of our property line. Or, add many more 8-10 foot blue spruce trees along the property line to help in the winter months when the leaves fall off the trees. This does not fix the additional pedestrian traffic crossing Beam Avenue going to and from the proposed new sales office. I have worked hard and paid a lot of money for my home. I deserve the right to enjoy the peace and quiet of living in Maplewood. Plus, I don't want to worry abo\lt the declining value of my home with <;ommercial growing closer and closer. I thank you for the opportunity to voice my concerns and comments. Sincerely, James R. Anderson 2890 Duluth Street Maplewood, MN 55109 651-483-8954 RECEIVED JUN 0 1 2005 25 May 26, 2005 Christopher J Trembath Mary L Trembath 2908 Frank St N Maplewood MN 55109 DEVELOPMENTPROPOSALS-MApLBNOODTOYOTA Attachment 14 Together We Can This letter is to get your opinion on a proposal to develop property in your neighborhood. Maplewood Toyota is requesting city council approval to build a one-level parking ramp on their property at the northwest corper of Beam Avenue and Highway 61. This would be one elevated level of parking above the ground-level parking already in place. The applicant is also proposing to install a parking lot on their property between Gulden's and LaMettry Collision. They would park cars temporarily on this site during the ramp construction to the south. It is proposed to become a car-storage lot in the future, however, with the potential for the COnstruction of a multi- level ramp. Refer to the applicant's letter and the map attachments. I need your opinion to help me prepare a recommendation to the planning commission and city council. Please write yoiJr opinion and comments below and retum this letter, and any attachments on which you have written comments, by June 6, 2005. If you would like further information, please call me at 651-249-2302 between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. You can also email meattom.ekstrand@ci.maolewood.mn.us. I will send you notices of the public hearing on this request when it is scheduled. Thank you for your comments. I will give them careful consideration. . J0r-- ~ TOM EKSTRAND - SENIOR PLANNER Enclosures: 1. Applicant's Project Summary 2. Location Map 3. Site Plan-5outh Site 4. Site Plan-North Site 5. Landscaping Plan-5outh Site 6. Landscaping Plan-North Site 7. Ramp DeSign Elevations 8. Parking Ramp Perspective I have no comments: ~raM(:y vo.ri"',1(e.> rYld (Ol1dif,c>1IL!L\Se. per".,"".!, e.veryf<M€ S'O/>1eCY\e a...ppl.js W O/le. 'J, . AS, Th.... r:"'<.iSJ,loo/"hO;;d lave:, he.I(/"':'7 fk. door;, s/~.rY> Of'l--: O(l -Me '-<tl1fS+<t5 CI.+ 5~ '75' ~m I t) ~ (l1arl\') WheJ) flie 9o.'fha'lL -Iruu:. 'lZl'tIph($ the.. tm>A@tr/Ir,k1l.k<<i ToyofrJ., OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 651-249-2300 FAX: 651-249-2319 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD 1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST MAPLEWOOD, MN 55109 DUel<... 26 '. i!-ftR.S t+f<-~ AD'OIT70N'tL ISSUES Tl-t4/ N 1:::13"0 TD ,31:?' t<... G5 0 L V bO G0 /Y) Prp k c...J 0 ao{ /?J 7' a 1zt ~ I) 4JcI /1'1D~ 61- R-I'&ff'f fl,t./2.tJ LArJ~ 010 6. BOVVtJ B.e.f>-VY\ All 0- f rlwy to I. or re.s+r,~ So rIJA+ /1lY..-L MV.S-r tur/"l SOuf'" 0'" to I .tfD1"'I w.6, Be.t:.J..--A f'rv. 20 .:r:;C-feaS~;/"1 Le{-+ -/-u1't1 5'IJ'rlc,j dl.(,rc....ho....J froM -rraY/5I'liD',..,) -I--D [)J, 8Dv<-A'1d !3~o.Jyt {tile- fr O;'VI N. B ' IM'I 0 I'" (J11'(j (or 2.. ca.rs O-r- /'Y1 ft/U /h.:.. /,/1 t no";' NoTE: i f-e""t5 / (J....... d 2... (jJe... ieSL<.Jf oj- /-. ~dc 'tJ -/r-fh''- f,,"1 1+. M AfJk ",,,cf k Y d fa J sg.,..J. d 3 ' E I,;'" ,N<.fe.. . 'fu ," I'" to 1$, ,;V~ oJ";; Q ^ M trf)/.e t.,JO i) J. To1 ef,,- rrol'V] f.)J. f3. 6il~ /-hl '" C HF'nJL f/1 e-I'V\ u. 5.e..(ettW~ NOd. ~,. Je. wro-:') (htv.e-. (5'"1 dVi'J-epJ~ LAs-ed fo ( -e )(I~ 011 I;;- ~v.-r oj- 10~ o~ d~tL ref sJ../ f'. LoTS oJ- a.cc.ide",fJ ~ nellrMI'S)es he/"<- C&vtct 1'+ Lon,e5-f~ frw. r'.1fu<;:ec...-n.J a.5 is, ( tf) r; LI /III ;oltr& M,' d bloc-Ie. fed croJ, ///:; he.1we.e/1 (YIfrpl€vJ.OM/ 1010f,.. aAc( UfYleM;r coll,'Si,"" ThiS ..01,/.1 fJ X,~(~ Cl.b !r'(,ff 'Smrc coele. 'RestrJ'l'f<.. Q(OS$vJ/r/J::, ~ +- 7:J f2/).AN1. Q/IL cI J-hv Y b ( ( S, t1-trv L 7iJ Y c) fp... d.ell. ( e/Sh /;J bu ,I' /I 0 /j e- fA) ct (I (j r 13..e r /VI fo (2 I r '/Y) ,. 1/4:ffL fI 0 I 5 e fro (i1 9cu~ /:xJ. j e.. If I.( cf:s; ~ If, sy5l-el"\( ere- -Iv /l.ea.rbJ f(?s/clel1h;;.J f1~0/1bl"h"J. 27 Attachment 15 Karen Carlson Tracy Sellin 2882 Duluth St Maplewood MN 55109 Development Proposal Response - Maplewood Toyota . Do not believe the ramp is necessary given the amount of space Toyota owns and the fact that the parking lot has open space every night. . Believe that Toyota should have to meet ordinances and should not be granted further variances that impact residential areas or wildlife. Aesthetics . Personally think it would look bad and according to realtors opinions (whom we have discussed this project with) they believe a parking ramp would likely degrade residential property value. Has any assessment been completed to verify this? Why not put the ramp at the south comer of current property? . If approved, we are requesting Toyota to plant many more trees and/or scrubs so residential properties would not have to view the ramp. . Expect City of Maplewood to ensure, if granted, the ramp is visually appealing (end to end) and graffiti will be immediately removed. Environmental . Has an environmental impact study been completed? Highly concerned that continued pervious ratio variances would impact wildlife and residential sump systems. . Run off is also high concern, need to ensure that it flows away from residential property such that it does not create a water problem for residential property and flood wildlife that currently live between the residential property and commercial property. . Think rain gardens are a good start but, who ensures that these are maintained and functioning properly? . Who is liable if changes in pervious to impervious ratio negatively impact residential property? . Ask that if approved, City to enforce no Toyota employees to park on Beam and Duluth crossing or anywhere else on Beam/They currently parking there all day even though space is available in their lots. Safety . Will this increase car traffic on Beam for the long term? Beam & Hwy 61 already a bottleneck. High level of traffic turning onto Beam (at times) creates a bottleneck due to volume of cars in and out of current parking lot. Since the parking lot entrance is less that 1 block from a busy intersection, we are concerned that this will become an accident-prone area. Multiple incidences of vehicle- to-vehicle and pedestrian to vehicle close calls. More parking will logically increase incidents, please comment as to why this should not be of concern. And what measures are being taken to ensure this will not become a safety hazard. . Believe building of this size, given the limited set back, will create a blind spot for drivers at intersection of Beam & Hwy 61. Again seems like a potential safety hazard. . Traffic already an issue due to construction on Edgerton, and CNTY D. When will the project (if approved) start and end? June 1, 2005 28 Karen Carlson Tracy Sellin 2882 Duluth St Maplewood MN 55109 Proj ect . Expect that if approved, guidelines on time of day for construction would be reasonable. Overall Do not believe a parking ramp fits'aesthetically in this location and truly believe it will create a safety hazard. Additionally, it appears that it has a high probability of having a negative impact on wildlife & residential properties (run-off & safety). I hope the City of Maplewood will consider the input and concerns of the residential population and ensure that our concerns are fully addressed if the city decides to approve this request. June 1,2005 29 May 26, 2005 Attachment 16 > Michael Schenian Judi L Johnston Schenian 1221 Countryview Cir E Maplewood MN 55109 DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS - MAPLEWOOD TOYOTA Together We Can RECEIVED JUNO 6 2005 This letter is to get your opinion on a proposal to develop property in your neighborhood. Maplewood Toyota is requesting city council approval to build a one-level parking ramp on their property at the northwest comer of Beam Avenue and Highway 61. This would be one elevated level of parking above the ground-level parking already in place. The applicant is also proposing to install a parking lot on their property between Gulden's and LaMettry Collision. They would park cars temporarily on this site during the ramp construction to the south. It is proposed to become a car-storage lot in the future, however, with the potential for the construction of a multi- level ramp. Refer to the applicant's letter and the map attachments. I need your opinion to help me prepare a recommendation to the planning commission and city council. Please write your opinion and comments below and retum this letter, and any attachments on which you have written comments, by June 6, 2005. If you would like further information, please call me at 651-249-2302 between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. You can also email meattom.ekstrand@ci.maDlewood.mn.us. I will send you notices of the public hearing on this request when it is scheduled. Thank you for your comments. I will give them careful consideration. ;p~ ~ TOM EKSTRAND - SENIOR PLANNER Enclosures: 1. Applicant's Project Summary 2. Location Map 3. Site Plan-South Site 4. Site Plan-North Site 5. Landscaping Plan-South Site 6. Landscaping Plan-North Site 7. Ramp Design Elevations 8. Parking Ramp Perspective I have no comments: Comments: , . r .~ ~0Y1 ~ ~/ ~d4.. ~r ~ ~~ o/--U-y cvd- !Y1&YrtO ~ ~ ~.~ A.)J~ cbW.t.MJ CM,-:v. 6~..J- '#n'M-- rYltbrf ~ a.- d'(j , tu.fL ~ a...- /(.VAlL jYW~ tpJ...71> ~ OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 651-249-2300 FAX: 651-249-2319 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD 1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST MAPLEWOOD, MN 55109 30 ~J -4-6 ~ 1J/3 ~ (,/ vb ~ tf1tI<; ~ sip # ~~-/O~~ ~~0~O#' J4~ ~~ .A-D ~ vJ,.d ~ ~ ~y ~/ on.iy Z -3 &v1-::; ~ .-it ~. .(1Ju ~ /URcP- tt.. Jv<j'd. ~ ~~ ~ ~ S!3~fI(/, ~r3~.~ if'^- ~ ~ ~ c,!/vI.u- 2 P-P r r ~ /u-rr-. _ {,().L ""r;<d,R ~ *' fiRL ~A (YI~ 'lI4 ~ -h ~ ~ ~ ro/-uA WVd iJYI ~ ok~ ~ ~ r i'~ _ . ~~ ~-/6 ~81!uv _ U).L wwct ~ C/-.- /tAr ~!J biG fL~Y _ We- cf1J tiff ~ (w r4~' J& c/A& "A:; t:;;r (b ,/1..Vl-'~cJ- hV~~(ji ~~.~ ~~fYViL~ _ ~ ~ I we ~J ~ <l4i~r>" .d- ."1 .,u.. ~p ~ (.U~J'. iJ..- 9tM- ~s~~y~- ~ r. r~~ o/ie. ~ f'6 ~~,y . v~ 31 Attachment 17 Enaineerina Plan Review PROJECT: Maplewood Toyota PROJECT NO: 05-19 REVIEWED BY: Chuck Vermeersch DATE: June 7, 2005 Maplewood Toyota is proposing the construction of a one level parking ramp and other parking facilities on their two parcels located in the northwest comer of the intersection of Beam Avenue and highway 61. Under the proposal, the north lot would be developed as a parking facility for inventory while the ramp on the south lot is being constructed. The parking area proposed for the north lot is a combination of about 24,500 square feet of pervious pavement, and about 32,200 square feet of temporary, aggregate surface parking area. The parcels in question fall within the shoreland overlay district. The shoreland (overlay district) ordinance allows 30% impervious surface within the district, or up to 50% if approved by the city engineer. South Parcel Existing parking area would be removed for construction of the parking ramp. As such, there is no increase in the impervious area on this parcel. Included in the improvements for the south parcel is the installation of a storm water treatment structure for the removal of sediment from runoff prior to discharge into the onsite storm water pond. Given the fact that there is no increase in the impervious surface, and the storm water treatment system is being improved with the addition of the treatment structure, there are no apparent issues with the proposal for the south lot. Although the parcel exceeds the allowable impervious area set by the shoreland ordinance, this results from previously approved projects. North Parcel The pervious pavement proposed for the south parcel should have infiltration capacity equal to or better than the existing condition of the parcel. Consequently, it is not included in the impervious surface under the shoreland ordinance. The temporary aggregate surface parking proposed for this parcel comprises about 26% of the parcel area. As proposed, it meets the requirements of the shoreland ordinance. However, about three quarters of the aggregate surface drains over the pervious pavement. If aggregate material such as class 5 is used, runoff from this surface will carry fines which will tend to fill the voids in the pervious pavement, reducing or eliminating its infiltration capacity. This problem could be avoided if clean rock is used. The applicant has indicated that they may wish to use the temporary aggregate surface parking for up to five years. It is recommended that if'the temporary facility is to be useQ: that long, that it be constructed to city standards (concrete curb and gutter, and paved). If the applicant elects not to do this, the aggregate surface should be removed and restored with vegetation upon completion of the parking ramp on the south parcel. I, 32 The proposal for the north parcel includes a retaining wall that ranges in height from 2.5 to nearly 12 feet. This wall will require a certified, engineered plan and may require a special inspections schedule to be completed by the design engineer or his representative. The proximity of this retaining wall to parking on the parcel immediately to the north (Guldens) creates a safety issue that must be addressed. 33 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: DATE: City Manager Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner Maplewood Toyota Parking Lot Proposal Highway 61 between LaMettry Collision and Gulden's Roadhouse June 21, 2005 INTRODUCTION Project Description Steve McDaniels, of Maplewood Toyota, and his consultants, BWBR Architects, are proposing to build a parking lot on the vacant lot between LaMettry Collision and Gulden's Roadhouse. The applicants propose to build a 24,920-square-foot pervious-paver parking area toward the back of the site. This would be a permanent parking pad for vehicle-inventory storage. The front 270 feet, 39,000 square feet, of the site would be a temporary, gravel parking lot. This temporary parking area would be to store the cars that are currently being kept on the applicant's parking lot at the northwest comer of Beam Avenue and Highway 61 (the applicant's proposed parking-ramp site). This temporary parking is needed for the relocation of cars during the parking ramp construction. In the "Project Summary Narrative," the applicant refers to the proposed graveled parking area as "temporary/permanent." They intend to use this graveled parking lot until Mr. McDaniels is ready to proceed with his intended use of this site which he would propose later as an auto-repair facility for Maplewood Toyota. As a possible element of this future auto-repair building, Mr. McDaniels is also considering creating upper-level parking on top. "Temporary," therefore, may mean several years. Refer to the applicant's letters and plans. Request The applicant is requesting that the community design review board (CDRB) and city council approve the site and landscaping plans. BACKGROUND This site was created in 1997 by the lot division that also established the LaMettry Collision and the Maplewood Toyota development sites to the south. The City of Maplewood recently purchased the drainage pond on Mr. McDaniel's property for area-ponding purposes. DISCUSSION There are two main issues to consider with this proposal. First are the impacts on the residential neighbors from a visual standpoint (lights and screening) and the second is compliance with the Shoreland Ordinance impervious-surface area requirements. Impact on Neighbors An important issue is whether the proposed parking lot impacts the residential neighbors. Vehicle parking in an M1 (light manufacturing) district is a common use. The concerns, though, are how to buffer the proposed parking lot adequately from neighbors in order to make sure that the site lights do not cause any nuisance and to try to screen the parking lot from view. Landscaoina: City code requires that the applicant provide a six-foot-tall and 80 percent opaque screen as a buffer for the neighbors. The proposed plan does not do this. The plan must be revised to meet this requirement. It was evident upon visiting the site that screening will not be easily accomplished. The neighboring residential properties are considerably higher in grade than the proposed parking lot. Landscaping will be ineffective until it grows to gain an effective height. Staff recommends a very thick combination of evergreens and thick-crowned overstory trees along the west side and northwest comer of the proposed parking lot to accomplish this. Staff enclosed a Heritage Square 4th Addition site plan to show the location of future town homes and how they relate to this site. Site Uahts: There are six back-to-back pole lights proposed. The lighting plan shows the illumination intensities at points in the proposed parking lot, but there is little additional information. The applicant should be required to resubmit a fully-detailed lighting plan with fixture design, pole heights and light-spread intensities at residential lot lines. The applicant's goal in designing such a plan should be to ensure that neighbors cannot see any light bulbs or lenses directly and that light intensity and light spread meet the parameters of the lighting ordinance. This plan should be submitted for CDRB review and approval. Shore land Ordinance Compliance While negotiating with Mr. McDaniels for ownership of the holding pond, the city engineer and the city's engineering consultant calculated the amount of impervious surface area that would be allowed. The proposed temporary gravel parking lot is considered to be impervious due to the compaction of this material that occurs. The pervious-paver parking lot system is considered to be pervious because of this method's ability to soak up water and filter it before discharge to the pond. The city engineering staff has determined that the proposed parking lot meets the requirements of the shoreland ordinance with a slight modification. The engineering recommendation is that one tenth of an acre of parking that is shown as impervious material (gravel) be left grass or installed with pervious pavers. Refer to the Engineering Plan Review comments in the attachments. Revisions Pending The applicant has informed staff that they are working on plan revisions to present to the CDRB. They are not ready at this time, however, to include with this report. COMMITTEE ACTIONS June 20, 2005: The planning commission recommended approval of a CUP (conditional use permit) for a vehicle-storage parking lot with staff's recommendation. 2 RECOMMENDATION Approve the plans date-stamped May 26, 2005, for the proposed parking lot proposal for Maplewood Toyota at the northwest comer of Beam Avenue and Highway 61. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall resubmit a detailed site-lighting plan that includes fixture design, pole heights and light-spread intensities at residential lot lines. This plan shall ensure that neighbors cannot see any light bulbs or lenses directly and that light intensity and light spread meet the parameters of the city's lighting ordinance. This plan should be submitted for community design review board approval. The city shall not issue pennits for this site development until the lighting plan has been approved. 2. The landscaping plan shall be resubmitted to the community design review board for approval providing for a visual screen that is at least six-feet-tall and 80 percent opaque upon planting. This planted buffer shall be comprised of evergreen trees and thick-crowned, over- story trees. The site shall also have an in-ground irrigation system installed when the future building is built. The landscaping plan shall provide sod on the east, north and south sides of the parking lot. The pond area to the west can remain natural. The city shall not issue permits for this site development until the lighting plan has been approved. 3. The design of the retaining wall shall be submitted to the community design review board along with the landscaping plan. Retaining walls that exceed four feet in height must be designed by a structural engineer and have a protective fence on top. The review board shall review the fence design. The city shall not issue penn its for this site development until the retaining wall details have been approved. 4. The applicant shall assure that there will be no negative affect to the Gulden's parking lot or property due to their parking lot construction and retaining wall. 5. The applicant shall comply with the impervious-surface requirements of the Shoreland Ordinance and the impervious-surface area requirements detennined by the Maplewood Engineering Department in their report dated June 7, 2005. The applicant shall either decrease the aggregate surface parking or increase the pervious parking by 20 feet to meet the requirements of the shoreland ordinance. 6. The Class-5 gravel mix for the temporary parking lot is not allowed. A clean aggregate may be used subject to the approval of the city engineer and the RamseylWashington Watershed District. This gravel parking lot shall not be used longer than two construction seasons, but no later than September 30, 2007, after which time, it must be removed or replaced with a pennanent surface. At that time, if the parking lot remains in use, the parking lot must be upgraded with concrete curbing as required by ordinance. 7. The applicant shall either decrease the aggregate surface parking or increase the pervious parking by 20 feet to meet the requirements of the shoreland ordinance. 8. The property owner shall obtain city approvals for a penn anent building on this site by September 30,2007, to coincide with the deadline for gravel removal. This is because this parking lot is considered to be needed for the applicant's desired future building. Parking lots by themselves as a primary use must be set back at least 350 feet from residential districts. 3 CITIZEN COMMENTS Staff surveyed the 53 surrounding property owners for their opinions about the two Maplewood Toyota proposals. Please note that many of the replies below pertain specifically to the southerly lot at the comer of Beam Avenue and Highway 61. Of the 11 replies, none were in favor, nine were opposed and two expressed concems or raised questions. Opposed . Traffic is too unbearable at Beam and 61 already. This will make it worse. Make them stop parking on Beam Avenue. The site is already fully developed. (Leanne Hammer, 1227 Countryview Circle) . I have a number of questions and concems. Who in our community will benefit from these projects? How will noise be contained? Loudspeakers and car alarms are ever present! Why does the city consider this a valuable consideration/project? What will the owner/developer give back to the city and the neighbors? I presume those projects will benefit the auto dealers by providing larger inventory, additional sales and greater profits. Is this what the city wants to see? I say don't. (Donald and Marguerite Newpower, 2946 Duluth Street) . Absolutely No! Since this development (Kohlman Lake) has been built, Toyota has expanded, LaMettry has been built, Country View is gone-the feel of the neighborhood is fast diminishing. A parking ramp?! And then another (north lot)? No way! It is hard enough to feel safe on Duluth Street for my kids with biking and walks. The traffic light & three entrance/exits for Toyota (61/Beam) already create traffic backup and unsafe residential conditions. The traffic light needs to be green longer-the right tum lane should be right tum onlv. We need sidewalks from Duluth Street/Beam Avenue all the way to the library/mall area. No other dealership has a 2-story raised parking ram pilot. Let alone a dealership that neighbors a residential area. As you can tell, I'm very much opposed to this plan, as I'm sure much of my neighbors are. Please pass this along to any applicable parties. If I can be of further help, please let me know. (Karen and Rich Mahr, 1243 Duluth Court) . Please refer to the attached letters from: Lynn Benson, 2898 Duluth Street Greg and Lorraine Johnson, 1233 Duluth Court James Anderson, 2890 Duluth Street Christopher and Mary Trembath, 2908 Frank Street Karen Carlson and Tracy Sellin, 2882 Duluth Street Michael Schenian and Judi Johnston Schenian, 1221 Countryview Circle In summary, these letters express the following concems and comments: . There is a current lack of landscaping. More is needed to screen the parking lot. . The current lighting is very bright. Perhaps a roof on the ramp will be beneficial. . Pedestrian traffic in Toyota's crosswalk across Beam is a nuisance. . There's no allowance for employee or customer parking. Stop their on-street parking. . The easterly curb cut of their original site is too close to the comer. . Lot lighting is a nuisance now. 4 . Loudspeakers are a nuisance currently. . A concrete ramp to look at would be unsightly. . Traffic at this intersection is crazy and too congested. . Why do we have zoning laws if they are not followed? . Restripe the lanes and improve traffic flow on Beam so traffic isn't so jambed up. . Have Toyota build a noise wall to eliminate garbage-hauler and P.A. system noise. . The ramp would degrade the residential properties. . The parking on Beam should end. . Safety concems: Blind spot due to the ramp? Traffic bad already. Concems/CommentslQuestions . Keep lights & noise down! (Robert Anderson, 1242 Duluth et) . Would this project be possible in some other configuration without a variance? (Hubbard Broadcasting, 3415 University Avenue) 5 REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Existing Use: Vacant, except for an overlap of driveway paving from the LaMettry Collision site. Site size: 2.7 acres. SURROUNDING LAND USES North: Gulden's Roadhouse and the future Heritage Square 41h Addition town homes South: LaMettry Collision and Maplewood Toyota East: Highway 61 West: Single dwellings PLANNING Land Use Plan Designation: M1 (light manufacturing) Zoning: M1 APPLICATION DATE We received the complete application and plans for this proposal on May 26, 2005. State law requires that the city take action within 60 days of receiving complete applications for a proposal. City council action is required on this proposal by July 25, 2005. p:sec4\Maplewood Toyota Parking Lot Design 6'05 te Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Property LinelZoning Map 3. Land Use Map 4. Stte Plan 5. Landscaping Plan 6. Heritage Square 4th Addition Site Plan 7. Project Summary Narrative d_mped June 6, 2005 8. CUP Submittal Justification date-stamped June 6, 2005 9. Setback Variance Submittal Justification date-stamped June 6, 2005 10. Letter from Lynn Benson dated June 6, 2005 11. Letter from Greg and Lorraine Johnson dated June 5, 2005 12. Letter from James R. Anderson dated June 1,2005 13. Survey-reply from Christopher and Mary Trembath dated May 26, 2005 14. Letter from Karen Carlson and Tracy Sellin dated June 1, 2005 15. Survey-reply from Michael Schenian and Judi Johnston Schenian dated May 26, 2005 16. Engineering Review Comments from Chuck Vermeersch dated June 7, 2005 17. Plans date-stamped May 26,2005 (separate attachments) 6 Attachment 1 " \" \ I r /~' \~ I / / ii l~,~/ /. (/ l.i~~: 1~1j<-t~l \-t-1 f . I I · (.Jlt~. -~_ - - II-~ /.'--=l \\1 1 ~ ',1 I '_ - .. ~-.- --- ~: I ~ r)f17 ! IIiitIl \\ - ,;--, ,.. 11___ ---1 \ . ---I ~~'... IJI"" ~ ~ 'j / ~I ~~, -=:::-.) 'L--1 '-::. ~ I / . I: III \ ".!'~ I 1-----1 T--------- ~., 'T"=~-~ L"/'- II' I ~I'-j f"'!K' '61 ~ IllIo.. I \ V~NBURG i -='i--~ /, -----!-=-=---..- ~JL, " ,"''-__-J -.11I" -- TIRE I' I ~-=-,' -..---.-- _. I___~ :I: . --' ,I '=------ ,) i 'II ~/~~~!;.. " " r; / """'=, .1 ./ -~====,= , '&~,/ . ~r- 5 IlL GULD~S .-~- ~ I-~~ ,/ 1/ /~ " Wi" I ~ /' - I ~,,": .' ". '0" . -,</" \ " I~ _ ~~"':'~NG '< I ',' I ~ It/' ..-(;li ./~~- l I' 1/ 'f' _It. ,.,/"~I"/ ","'111 -,. ,,I ), ii .. ! )' 'I I' /', ...1.... /' ,i' II '/~I __~_'{'~\"<:'~F'/~ -I~~~6N/"/' /1 ~. ~~ '--_~ \ _ " t--'h --- -----I :,,<'. ~I~.l fA I MAPLEWOOD. ,/ ,,'I. 'r.-- ""'I' \ i ..- ~,OYOTA I i I". :1~1-(lL't- i =-~o" ' / c:: L~~l 1Iird" . CAR SALES / ,. 'if 1I\u~ IlTIrfl.J~ III.! - - - BE~M--AVE-------- . Ill" ,/ it _ ____~ :~~~:obo I ,,,,..... --.-- ,. i / / /- LOCATION MAP '1[ N 7 I II '\ .*,~__ 'ii . -.1 ,e-.:-; ,.~I III!r" tn I .. R11' \ ,,>-',~ --- \-1 i---j'-._~--! ~2: . , I. I . / ~. j '111 I""" ::J I) ;--.-ii....'tII _~5 III. l.tIt_1 I al= Cl [ II. l/'-.~f . r------r--l-' ~ I ~- ,ral # 1:1 ., . [~ I NJ.' ". ,..1---_ ." ,L-._ ~. ---L,-I ~-' '1--- ~7f. I IRJ. ~\-\/;j~..".//~___ V-', IJll : i '- I 1-::----- . \ · 1-"'-"'---=-\--- I \1.... ".__..~ \', \ --;," I.' -'. ca,,\,... ',' ...... ffI,,>- -....--',."-II~." '\ .\-~ V/..lIII.. 1.1 "',' '.. -.--- \.""l--- .._1. I ~I '.-- i ! ..~, ' .' , -- ~--'--'~'..'''--'- .I-----~ I i' '~.---' \~.---.--~*." r,.- ~ :tl ,.., ""'V,.' i 'WIll . r-' ...._-/ I_ . ~ ' ' . , " ,'P"'-' ._...., ,'; ~'. -IR--~ i T_; rfIJ I . " - .J~~l ~~I_~_~J I'_~ '" ----I.a:: 14 fl ~~-ri~~ _1..--1 \lJ I l------L ___1..__ I I Attachment 2 BEAr,;(iwE .... PROPERTY LINE I ZONING MAP 11 N 8 Attachment 3 , i- f Ii!!; I '"I I os .~ LAND USE MAP \I N Q Attachment 4 tf7 ~~~ l4.0;,"'~ ~,,~! ~Y1J;; ,9~~ S'J;~ o ~... ~~tS' ~~:t:'" J;;~ GULDEN'S SITE PLAN NORTH SITE \r N 10 Attachment 5 DIClDUOUS TlEU o o IX1STIHGMAlUI.Tll:W IXISTlNClllONTI.Y rL.ANTlDTIIU - :g: N1WTIW CCHlnlCUlI Tala o UlIS1'1f'olOl'MlUIUTUU o .. DISTlHCi IICIHT\ V p\.ANnD lAID NiWTWS DIODUOU5 5HIlUI:S . IJIISTINOJHIUI!I TREE KEY: .' "..... -- , I I I I I . , I , I I I' i ;;; . cj z '- ~ 13' ;: " j , ' 11CISlINC TlII5. :' IICrnY~TlD\ ANY'TlID DI5TU.IID DUIINe CONSTRUCTION IITHUl IlLOCATI 01 JULACI WITH NIW PIANTINCi! TO MATOL Jj LANDSCAPING PLAN NORTH SITE \I N 11 n . ~ J ~O ~!"; 2 ~ ~ ; ~ ! ...... le- . ; 9 = Attachment 6 .N' ",~.~~,>. (, /' / ......(, I ..J ::1 r-;----l I .-( I /,cf===J </ . ''. -.'~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ,------- I I I ..J...______. , '- .. " ) .. ';- , y , , '/ ~ ~ =i CD =- ~ f: f Q! Q! --,--- I I I , - Ij .1' f ~ e - --------~~~~---- ~ ~ -..'--- ~ ~ I ! ! :. ! j ] :j; -- s- l! ii Ii ....aa"''''._1 _. j' 1'1 I" '. IIII I'" I' n'I' IlI'l j "11"11 . 'j'I'li' ': 1'," illl 1I1'.l 'I I iJ ~ I '" I 'I. I 'llI ',rl"lll .f "'. ~ 11111 ill ii Iii ,'!lll:! dlillll!f ~ I~liil ~ I.lllli/I'm 'ii, Ii', Ii/.illmlii liijlg/fijiliijilj ~!i 111:iilllilli iiii ~ II ill 1!11 i l~i jiji Iii"' 1 :; 10 I !i ,ill I ,,!I ::/' 11!,lil oil. 1"IlI:!;,'!II. 11/1 !i I ",111 J(. ',... - -- -... ..... - ..- I fl-opos&J I rar "'~ III Lo\- L..._______ Ii ilUi1~~~r. 1~~~jl~~ll!.11 ~J!Ula !/j l'lfiliC~~ ~5:!:;! i~ H~ ~,j , /II r:;1~ Ili!!ld~ ,,-i~S U II. d ;1 ! - ~ ~~ I! IlhI ~ ~ ! Cl ~ ~ H I, . SITE & LANDSCAPING PLAN 1 ? Attachment 7 r "- BWBR ~ ARCHITECTS "'--_/ MEMORANDUM Maplewood Toyota-Ramp and Service Maplewood, Minnesota BWBR Comm. #: 2004.214.00 To: Tom Ekstrand, City Planner, City of Maplewood From: Roger Larson, BWBR Architects Tom Domack, BWBR Architects Date: June 6, 2005 Subject: Planning Commission Submittal cc: Steve McDaniels, Maplewood Toyota Jake Boerboon, KA-St. Paul RECEIVED JUN 0 6 2005 Steve McDaniels, the Owner of Maplewood Toyota, plans to do substantive construction on his properties north of Beam Avenue and west of Highway 61. A narrative of three phases is outlined below for clarification of what work is done and in what order. 1. Project Summary Nar.rative North Lot Phase, hereinafter to be referred to as NLP, (grade level car storage) develops the northernmost property to a level that will support inventory car storage while a South Lot Phase, SLP (one level storage ramp above the existing storage parking lot) is constructed. The automobile inventory from the south lot requi1:es relocation to allow continuation of business during construction and beyond. The SLP will be completed when the one level storage ramp, the lower level sales office, and the landscape and site improvements are finished. The North Lot will remain inventory Car storage after the South Lot is constructed. 13 G;\04214QOlAdmin\Clty SubmittaJ\Clty SubmiCOS-l '-05\Projecl Summary Narratlvll.doc Lawson Commons 380 St. Peter Street, Suite 600 Saint Paul,lVlN 55102-1996 651.222.3701 fax 651.222.8961 www.bwbr.com Maplewood Toyota lUmp and Service Page 2 of2 A. North Lot Phase (NLP): The zoning requirements for the site requires 50% pervious land use. The Owner has an agreement with the City for this ratio to 30% pervious and 70% impervious through allowances granted for prior land agreements with the City of Maplewood. The west side of the site will have permanent pervious paving, which is 30% of the site area. The remaining 70% may be temporary/permanent and constructed with Class 5 gravel base. The pervious pavement will be a manufactured pavers system that allows water penetration. This phase requires: 1. A Conditional Use Permit for the (NLP 1) proposed storage of vehicles within 350 feet of a residential district. 2. A variance (NLP 2) for storage of motor vehicles within 350 feet of a residential district. B. South Lot Phase (SLP): A one-level storage parking ramp will be constructed above the existing on-grade vehicle storage lot. This design does not add additional impervious land use to the site, as the site is currently paved to the allowable maximum. The upper parking deck level maintains the minimal setbacks that are currently in place for the current on-grade lot. The one level storage ramp is constructed of precast concrete and includes a one-story sales office area below the southeast comer. The ramp is 154 feet from the adjacent residential district and requires a variance and Conditional Use Permit, as it is closer than 350 feet to a residential district. Access to the one level parking deck is via two nearly constructed drive lanes/bridges from the Owner's property on the north adjacent lot. This phase requires: 1. A Conditional Use Permit for a automotive related business structure located closer than 350 feet from an adjacent residential zoning district (SLP 1). 2. A variance for a structure closer than 350 feet from an adjacent residential zoning district (SLP 2). 3. A variance to having a structure within 30 feet from right-of-way lines of Beam Avenue on the south side of the property (SLP 3). Ice 14 Lawson Commons 380 St. Peter Street, Suite 600 Saint Paul, MN 55102-1996 651.222.3701 fax 651.222.8961 www.bwbr.com r "' BWBR ~7 RECEIVED JUN 0 6 2005 Attachment 8 Maplewood Toyota-Ramp and Service ~aplewood,~fnnesota BWBR Comm. #: 2004214.00 May 11, 2005 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DESIGN SUBMITTAL NLPl City of ~aplewood Zoning Ordinance Section 44-512 (5) (b) . Storage of motor vehicles are to be located no closer than 350'-0" from the adjacent residential zoning district. A Conditional Use Permit is requested for allowing storage within the 350' requirement listed above. Land Use: The intended use for the land parcel is for storage of Maplewood Toyota's automobile inventory. The site will have 30% permeable pavers on the west side and 70% Class 5 general aggregate on the remaining eastern two-thirds of the site area. Reasons For Approval: 1. The Owner has worked with the City of Maplewood through sale and transfer of adjacent '!and. It was understood at the time of sale that Maplewood Toyota planned to use this parcel for the business of car sales. Maplewood Toyota continues, and expects, to use this parcel as previously agreed. 2. The existing character of the surrounding parcels that front Highway 61 are similar in nature to the car storage use requested. 3. Current property values will be maintained. Regardless of specific use, perceived land use would most likely be commercial in nature. 4. Motor vehicle storage is not a perceived hazard or innately unsightly. The vehicles are generally new. 5. Maplewood Toyota intends to store vehicles for their business use. The vehicles are parked and removed by employees. The storage area is not a sales lot. Access to the lot is primarily through Maplewood Toyota's adjacent property and not on City public access routes. 6. Site requirements are currently supported by public utilities and services. . 7. The project allows for 30% pervious pavement as agreed to 'by existing land agreements. 8. The existing parcel is an undeveloped weedy field. The proposed use is seen to be a general improvement. Stormwater management has been considered when designing this site. Pervious pavement is utilized to encourage best stormwater management techniques. Ice 15 G:\0421400\AdIrin\NLP l.doc Lawson Commons 380 St. Peter Street, Suite 600 Saint Paul, MN 55102-1996 651.=.3701 fax 651.=.8961 www.bwbr.com Attachment 9 I/"" "' BWBR ~7 Maplewood Toyota-Ramp and Service Maplewood, Minnesota EWBR Co=. #: 2004214.00 May 11, 2005 ZONING CODE VARIANCE SUBMITTAL RECEIVED JUN 0 6 2005 NLP2 City of Maplewood Zoning Ordinance Section 44-512 (5) (b) . Storage of motor vehicles are to be located no closer than 350'-0" from the adjacent residential zoning district. A variance to allow motor vehicle storage within the 350' requirement listed above is requested. Land Use: The intended use for the land parcel is for storage of Maplewood Toyota's inventory. The site will have 30% permeable pavers on the west side and 70% Class 5 aggregate on the remaining two-thirds of the site area. Maplewood Toyota has retained the land parcel in question with the sole puxpose of developing it for use of its car sales business. Maplewood Toyota has partnered with the City ofMaplewood by developing this parcel to acco=oclate present and future needs in a planned manner. Integrity to the existing water shed is planned by directing stormwater to the existing stormwater retention pond on the west adjacent lot Reasons For Granting A Variance: 1. Maplewood Toyota is requesting this vehicle storage parking area be allowed for these reasons: a. The proposed use is consistent with existing and adjacent uses along Highway 61. If existing setback requirements are enforced, the alignment and location of the adjacent west property (town homes) line creates an odd relationship with the NLP property line, potentially creating large unusable area of this site. The planned town home development will border similar use, adjacent businesses. In the continued overall co=ercial development of the west side of the Highway 61 strip, we feel this variance is consistent in the long-t= planning for this area. 2. We believe the intent of the ordinance is to protect adjacent land uses from detrimental views, hazards, and other real and perceived problems. 16 G:\0421400\Admin\NLP 2.doc Lawson Commons 380 St. Peter Street, Suite 600 Saint Paul, MN 55102-1996 651.222.3701 fax 651.222.8961 www.bwbr.com Maplewood Toyota Ramp and Semce Page2of2 Maplewood Toyota has integrated itself into this axea and is trying to keep the use intended as when purchased. Through the careful use of landscaping and lighting, we propose that the developed use will be a stronger element in the neighborhood. Protection from unwarranted and undisclosed uses is not required and we feel a variance will still allow the City, adjacent landowners, and Maplewood Toyota to continue their current good neighbor relations. Ice n Lawson Commons 380 St. Peter Street, Suite 600 Saint Paul, MN 55102-1996 651.222.3701 fax 651.222.8961 www.bwbI.Com Attachment 10 Tom Ekstrand From: Sent: To: Subject: Lynn Benson Dynn@notamd.com] Monday, June 06, 2005 8:57 AM Tom Ekstrand Maplewood Toyota development proposals Dear Mr. Ekstrand, I'm writing in response to the propos~d development by our neighbors at Maplewood Toyota. I have several concerns. The first is in regard to the landscaping. We were very disappointed at the negative effect their original parking lot has had on the view from our home. I was very dissatisfied with the lack of a landscape berm from their original project on the site. From the perspective of our home, we see no evergreen trees in the line of sight to the west side of Toyotals parking lot. Throughout the year we have clear sight of the cars and trucks and light from the lot. It was my understanding that they were required by the city planners to provide a landscape ber.m at least six feet in height. It is my understanding that the definition of a berm is an earthen barrier. It appears they have neglected this requirement in their original development of the site. It appears that this new proposal will not have any new lanscaping or ber.m added on the south site. We would greatly appreciate it if a berm taller than 10 feet with additional evergreen trees could be added to the west side of their parking lot to provide screening from the view of their cars. We would be very pleased if this current project included a roof on the top of the parking ramp to block the view of cars as our home is at a higher elevation than the top of their ramp would have. We would prefer to view a building rather than autos. A second concern I mentioned along with the first. The lighting on their lot is very bright at night and shines into our bedroom windows. Is there any way to reduce the light pollution further. Perhaps enclosing the top of their parking ramp would help with light pollution in the area so they wouldn't have lights up higher than they do currently. Another comment I have is regarding the pedestrian traffic in their crosswalk. Is there any way they could add a pedestrian bridge to cross Beam Ave. to their plans? With the short length of the stop light for eastbound traffic on Beam, it is difficult to have to wait for pedestrians when the light changes before you get to the intersection. A fourth concern I have is their lack of parking for their employees. Even before their current lot was in place employees had to park on Beam Ave. We were surprised when they still didn't make allowance for employee parking with their new parking lot. I know it affects our neighbors living on ~eam Avenue. Will they ever have enough space for their employees to park? Please call me with questions about my remarks (651-481-0076). Thank you for soliciting our opinions regarding this development. We greatly appreciate the city planners' consideration of residential taxpayers and voters opinions and look forward to the public hearing on this matter. Sincerely, Lynn Benson 2898 Duluth st. Maplewood ___6_~1:::481-0076 18 Attachment 11 June 5, 2005 Tom Ekstrand - Senior Planner .' Office of Co=unity Development City of Maplewood 1830 County Road B East 11aplewood,1iN 55109 Dear 11r. Ekstrand, Ibis letter is in regards to the development proposal for Maplewood Toyota as described in your letter of May 26,2005. First a little background. When most of the residents to the west purchased their homes, Maplewood Toyota was a small dealer located on the SW corner of Highway 61 and Beam Ave. Since then, they have expanded to the north into what was up to that time a parcel that had been used for pumpkin and Christmas tree sales and have also built a large service facility (along with LeMettry Collision) to the north. With their current growth, there have been negative effects on the adjacent residents: 1. The current driveway entrance into the south lot is too close to the corner. When northbound cars are turning west onto Beam, there is usually a car that stops as soon as they get on Beam waiting to turn into the dealer forcing vehicles behind to stop and wait in the middle of the intersection. Ibis driveway location is very dangerous and will cause an accident (if not already). Although this driveway entrance was there before their present expansion, the growth of the dealer and the increased number of homes have made it more dangerous. 2. The dealer was granted permission to have a marked crosswalk just past the driveway entrance. If you don't have to stop for a car turning into the south lot, quite often you have to stop for salespeople and customers in the crosswaIJc. Many times dealer employees and customers will step out into the crosswalk without giving a vehicle proper time to stop. State law requires all vehicles to stop for a pedestrian in a crosswalk but the pedestrians also need to use good judgment to give a vehicle proper time and distance to safely stop. Ibis is not always the case. 3. Since expanding to the parcel north of Beam, the lot lighting is very visible and invasive to the surrounding homes. With construction of a parking ramp, the lights will be taller, and will affect more homes and to a much greater degree than the current lighting. 4. The dealer has also installed an outside loudspeaker paging system that is very audible for the adjacent residents. rrOl1-\. &.- r e.l.- ~ L.- 0 l- Y" d ;}J E!.- .-;S: 0 h.. /o/s, \M--. " I ) rV~7]).......k}l, C-J... 19 Attachment 12 City Of Maple wood Attn: Tom Ekstrand - Senior Planner 1830 County Road B East Maplewood, MN 55109 RE: Development Proposal- Maplewood Toyota Dear Mr. Ekstrand, This letter is in response to the letter sent out dated May 26, 2005 on the Maplewood Toyota expansion. I have lived at 2890 Duluth Street for the last seven years and in Maplewood my entire life. Maplewood Toyota has been a good neighbor and I and others in my family have purchased all our vehicles from Maplewood Toyota. I do have one concern currently and several concerns on the future proposal. Currently, they have a loud speaker or paging system that goes out over the car lot directly behind our houses. In the warmer months, all my neighbors and myself can hear every page over the system when we have our windows open or when we are out in our back yards. Those speakers need to be re-directed towards highway 61 and away from our homes. The view out my back window keeps changing. I'm not sure I want to look out at a concrete structure with more car and people traffic. A few years ago, we agreed to an overflow parking lot with a house and pond as a buffer zone. The highway 61 and Beam Avenue intersection is already crazy with car and people traffic. It looks like the new sales center on the other side of Beam Avenue would just add to an already busy intersection. I have almost hit people dllrting out into traffic trying to cross Beam A venue. Turn lanes into the new facility are also llnd issue. One solution to create a better buffer zone is to build an 8-10 foot concrete privacy fence on the back of our property line. Or, add many more 8-10 foot blue spruce trees along the property line to help in the winter months when the leaves fall off the trees. This does not fix the additional pedestrian traffic crossing Beam Avenue going to and from the proposed new sales office. I have worked hard and paid a lot of money for my home. I deserve the right to enjoy the peace and quiet of living in Maplewood. Plus, I don't want to worry about the declining value of my home with co=ercial growing closer and closer. I thank you for the opportunity to voice my concerns and co=ents. Sincerely, James R Anderson 2890 Duluth Street Maplewood, MN 55109 6~1-483-8954 RECEIVED JUN 0 1 2005 20 May 26, 2005 Christopher J Trembath Mary L Trembath 2908 Frank St N Maplewood MN 55109 DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS - M~LEWOOD TOYOTA Attachment '13 Together We Can This letter is to get your opinion on a proposal to develop property in your neighborhood. Maplewood Toyota is requesting city council approval to build a one-level parking ramp on their property at the northwest cOrTler of Beam Avenue and Highway 61. This would be one elevated' level of parking above the ground-level parking already in place. The applicant is afso proposing to install a parking lot on their property between Gulden's and LaMettry Collision. They would park cars temporarily on this site during the ramp construction to the south. It is proposed to become a car-storage lot in the future, however, with the potential for the construction of a multi- level ramp. Refer to the applicant's letter and the map attachmenis. I need your opinion to help me prepare a recommendation to the planning commission and city council. Please write your opinion and comments below and retum this letter, and any attachments on which you have written comments, by June 6, 2005. If you would like further information, please call me at 651-249-2302 between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. You can also email meattom.ekstrand@ci.maolewood.mn.us. I will send you notices of the public hearing on this request when it is scheduled. Thank you for your comments. I will give them careful consideration. . h{ ~_ _ _ tJf' - - ~ TOM EKSTRAND - SENIOR PLANNER Enclosures: 1. Applicant's Project Summary 2. Location Map 3. Site Plan-South Site 4. Site Plan-North Site 5. Landscaping Plan-South Site 6. Landscaping Plan-North Site 7. Ramp Design Elevations 8. Parking Ramp Perspective I have no comments: or' 11 4. 0 ~ralTh~ vc,rilJ.l\(e.> ~ci (o"d,fo,oIlJ (,( se. per1'l1.'1::. e"'€fyt-rA. e S' O,'T)eCV\e o...pptis ~~, do . AS, The.. t1.e.,'sJ,horhoad /t)~ he"",,'..,- fk. door::. sl...rY> "Pl.:. 00'1 ft-,e '-<(I'f'5+<6 0..+ 5: '75'. A-m ;" +t.... /l1"rl\;) w,,~ fl)e 9tiClh"'fL fr,-c.K. .ernph'($ f1,e. tmsA@m*perwxl Tcyofv. ~ OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVEL.OPMENT 651-249-2300 FAX: 651-249-2319 CITY OF MAPL.EWOOD 1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST MAPL.EWOOD, MN 55109 I' " n()~;:< 21 THtR.E. f+f<..~ Ao'() (71 0;0 ft LIS S LA e-S T7-t4T NI::::7i"Q TD 6~ t<G50L-VbO Q.. /Y) PrpkuJ oCJo{ /ZJLj oR... /) A-dJ /11'0,,) of- R."(fftrt 11<.l2-rJ LArJ~ 010 6" Bo~J 8..e.().-yY\ Av 0- f tfwy 0 {. 0; re.s+r,~ So rlJAf !CL-tJiL. Mv.sf turf\ SDuft-. 011 0 ( ffD'" u.),8, Bet:.J....,M. !+-v. 20 .:r:;C.feCtS~ {I\ Lef+ -/-ul'"t'l 5'1J~oj dC-t....c..nQ0 frol'Y\ -rr4Y1S,'nv'...J -I-v w, eD~d !3t2o...rYL ftv'e.. fr O;'VI N. 8 ' 1M 'I (; I... rJr1'fj lor 2.. ca,rs 0." fY1 ft/U -rn.:.. Iii! t n D ".; , ND~ : I :J-et1A.5 / a..-",d L (]Je.. iesu..lf cJr /,~a.'tJ iraJ/-,'L fro.., /+0 MIifJ'-WD,d Ioyd"- J 58-'-',.) , 3, EI'frl'rVa...fe-'=fur'r"l I"+V IS! dr"/I/Qw(J Q Mtrr/I-et,JouJ. To1e/ttJ. rl'Ot'YJ U), f3. 6.e~ 4.;... C HIhJL f11 LnI\ fA )~CenW~ NO d. ~ l J~ w(t ,) (ftrv.e.- (sf d Vi'JflrY~ V{ s.e d fo r -e. y I ~ 0 IJ I;; ~ t..- r oj- 10~ ora.- d~ti.. fer SJ.../f\ LoTS oJ- acc.ideV/t5 7- ne.&.rfV"lI's)es hef-L ~ d I'+- c...o n YZYt5 p,... 1,1f-e/5er..fI.-J a.) is, t./) (;L,IVI;oIl-rr;; f'\(dbIOc.K:- ~d CroSS/":! he:fW€-U1. :nPrpIf!W,ODd Tz;lott^ CA.AC( Ur-fY}e.-fIr;; Co/f,'SiOtlJ, 1n/.5 Altldb/ock peJX/~/5 C1.8Irt'mlf 'Smw Coc/e. 1?estrJ'f~ Q[05$/A/1-/K- 0,,1- 7:JQ~ CiA-d J.h,v~ b ( ( 5, HAVe.- TDyc)la.. d.ea.(ushj;J bu..)J /JO/je- Wc...(/6r l3..er/lt1 +0 Q I"(Y) "/)c.-f~ ()o/se {rD/Y] gCl.rbaje.. !rl-(cKs; ~ /I, Sy5l-e.H\! efe- -/t; l1ea.,b0 i<?slclel11J;;') t1€;nld/i)I'/Jo~J, v u 22 Karen Carlson Tracy Sellin Attachment 14 2882 Duluth St Maplewood MN 55109 Development Proposal Response - Maplewood Toyota . Do not believe the ramp is necessary given the amount of space Toyota owns and the fact that the parking lot has open space every night. . Believe that Toyota should have to meet ordinances and should not be granted further variances that impact residential areas or wildlife. Aesthetics . Personally think it would look bad and according to realtors opinions (whom we have discussed this proj ect with) they believe a parking ramp would likely degrade residential property value. Has any assessment been completed to verify this? Why not put the ramp at the south corner of current property? . If approved, we are requesting Toyota to plant many more trees and/or scrubs so residential properties would not have to view the ramp. . Expect City of Maplewood to ensure, if granted, the ramp is visually appealing (end to end) and graffiti will be immediately removed. Environmental . Has an environmental impact study been completed? Highly concerned that continued pervious ratio variances would impact wildlife and residential sump systems. . Run off is also high concern, need to ensure that it flows away from residential property such that it does not create a water problem for residential pmperty and flood wildlife that currently live between the residential property and commercial property. . Think rain gardens are a good start but, who ensures that these are maintained and functioning properly? . Who is liable if changes in pervious to impervious ratio negatively impact residential property? . Ask that if approved, City to enforce no Toyota employees to park on Beam and Duluth crossing or anywhere else on Beam/They currently parking there all day even though space is available in their lots. Safety . Will this increase car traffic on Beam for the long term? Beam & Hwy 61 already a bottleneck. High level of traffic turning onto Beam (at times) creates a bottleneck due to volume of cars in and out of current parking lot. Since the parking lot entrance is less that 1 block from a busy intersection, we are concerned that this will become an accident-prone area. Multiple incidences of vehicle- to-vehicle and pedestrian to vehicle close calls. More parking will logically increase incidents, please comment as to why this should not be of conc=. And what measures are being taken to ensure this will not become a safety hazard. . Believe building of this size, given the limited set back, will create a blind spot for drivers at intersection of Beam & Hwy 61. Again se=s like a potential safety hazard. . Traffic already an issue due to construction on Edgerton, and CNTY D. When will the project (if approved) start and end? June 1,2005 23 Karen Carlson Tracy Sellin 2882 Duluth St Maplewood:MN 55109 Proj ect . Expect that if approved, guidelines on time of day for construction would be reasonable. Overall Do not believe a parking ramp fits'aesthetically in this location and truly believe it will create a safety hazard. Additionally, it appears that it has a high probability of having a negative impact on wildlife & residential properties (run-off & safety). I hope the City of Maplewood will consider the input and concerns of the residential population and ensure that our concerns are fully addressed if the city decides to approve this request. June 1,2005 24 > May 26, 2005 Attachment 15 Michael Schenian Judi L Johnston Schenian 1221 Countryview eir E MaplewoodMN 55109 DEVELOPMENTPROPOSALS-MAPLEWOODTOYOTA Togethe.r We Can RECEIVED JUN 0 6 2005 This letter is to get your opinion on a proposal to develop property in your neighborhood. Maplewood Toyota is requesting city council approval to build a one-level parking ramp on their property at the northwest comer of Beam Avenue and Highway 61. This would be one elevated level of parking above the ground-level parking already in place. The applicant is also proposing to install a parking lot on their property between Gulden's and LaMettry Collision. They would park cars temporarily on this site during the ramp construction to 'the south. It is proposed to become a car-storage lot in the future, however, with the potential for the construction of a multi- level ramp. Refer to the applicant's ietter and the map attachments. I need your opinion to help me prepare a recommendation to the planning commission and city council. Please write your opinion and comments below and retum this letter, and any attachments on which you have written comments, by June 6, 2005. If you would like further information, please call me at 651-249-2302 between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. You can also emaH me at tom.ekstrand@ci.maplewood.mn.us. I will send you notices of the public hearing on this request when it is scheduled. Thank you for yo'ur comments. I will give them careful consideration. )0~ ~ -~- TOM EKSTRAND - SENIOR PLANNER Enclosures: 1. Applicant's Project Summary 2. Location Map 3. Site Plan-South Site 4. Site Plan-North Site 5. Landscaping Plan-South Site 6. Landscaping Plan-North Site 7. Ramp Design Elevations 8. Parking Ramp Perspective I have no comments: Comments: , .~ ~ 0Y1 ~ ~/ ~d,,- ~ps ~~.1.M.vI.- o/-U.,! ..u.J~ rnJcVr..O ~ ~ ~,~ A.)J~ d.ruAW,d CM~. 6~.J- ~"-~ {Y1~~ a-d~, tuJL ~ d-- ~ fYU"~ ~ ~ OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 651-249-2300 FAX: 651-249-2319 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD 1830 COUNTY ROAD 8 EAST MAPLEWOOD, MN 55109 25 . t ~~ -4-6 ~ NB ~ {,/ vb ~ ~ ~ sip # ~~ -/0 ~ ~ ~rrf0' ~O ~. .-.ffi- ~ ~.lj; .>>0 ~ V-/,.d ~ ~ ~A-f ~/ ~ Z - 3 &v1~ rrw-h- .-i:t ~. . {/Ju dtw 11ft cf2- tL .:/Uj'vt ~ ~~ ~ ~ Sf3~~/. ~~~.~ :r- ~ ~ ~ ~ 2- .L<j.:/s 7" r I!h- hI'-. _ iA)L wouM. ~ *' .A.e-<- ~~ (11M'-"- o/.lL ~ ft, ~~~ r~ w~on~<>0~ ~ ~ ~ 1.~ . _ _l._~ > 4, Ad ~ ~ ~ ~81!wJ _ WL wwci M.v 0....- /Ur fU/Vf- ~>V'-' !/ bIG . ~~7 _ WRJdv~ ~u..~~' ~~JV6W Ct-> .,/1-UV~J hV~~l!l ~0/-)<.w.~ ~ CiMf ('(tElL ~ . '1'>W<vt ~ I M- VJ8-V-fl ~ ~ ..iC .-"1 VU~? ~ tu~g Pk-- W<- ~s~~Y.~-M ~ r. r~ ApJ W-e. ~ f76 ~ ~/J/ . V 6l-UL 26 Attachment 16 Enoineerino Plan Review PROJECT: Maplewood Toyota PROJECT NO: 05-19 REVIEWED BY: Chuck Vermeersch DATE: June 7, 2005 Introduction Maplewood Toyota is proposing the construction of a one level parking ramp and other parking facilities on their two parcels located in the northwest comer of the intersection of Beam Avenue and highway 61. Under the proposal, the north lot would be developed as a parking facility for inventory while the ramp on the south lot is being constructed. The parking area proposed for the north lot is a combination of about 24,500 square feet of pervious pavement, and about 32,200 square feet of temporary, aggregate surface parking area. The parcels in question, and the three parcels between them (five total parcels), fall within the shoreland overlay district. The shoreland (overlay district) ordinance allows 30% impervious surface within the district, or up to 50% if approved by the city engineer. The city purchased a drainage and ponding easement along the west side of both lots in 2004. While this acquisition reduced the area of the two parcels, it was agreed that this would not decrease the developable area on the parcels that existed prior to the acquisition. In other words, the impervious area of both the north and south parcels cannot exceed 50% of the area of the parcels prior to the city's acquisition of the drainage and ponding easement. In addition, when the city council approved the automotive uses for the five parcels, staff recommended that the northerly four parcels be evaluated under the shoreland ordinance together. Stated another way, the total impervious area allowed for the four parcels together could not exceed 50% of the total area of the four parcels together. Between that time and the present the north parcel was split, and the north portion sold to become part of the Troutland development Approximately 0.5 acres of the new Troutland parcel lies within the shoreland district. Since the four parcels were to be considered in aggregate under the shoreland ordinance, and since it was agreed that the city's acquisition of the drainage and ponding easement would not reduce the developable area of the two parcels in question, an assumption must be made on the area to consider for compliance with the shoreland ordinance. For purposes of this review, the area of the north parcel is assumed to be 8.63 acres for compliance with the shoreland ordinance. This is the combination of the present area of the four parcels (8.13 acres) and the portion of the Troutland parcel within the shoreland district (0.5 acres). Under this criteria, the total allowable impervious surface for the four parcels is 4.3 acres. There is approximately 3.5 acres of existing impervious surfaces OIl these parcels. This leaves about 0.80 acres of additional impervious surface that would be allowed on the north parcel. 27 South Parcel Existing parking area would be removed for construction of the parking ramp. As such, there is no increase in the impervious area on this parcel. Included in the improvements for the south parcel is the installation of a storm water treatment structure for the removal of sediment from runoff prior to discharge into the onsite storm water pond. Given the fact that there is no increase in the impervious surface, and the storm water treatment system is being improved with the addition of the treatment structure, there are no apparent issues with the proposal for the south lot. It should be noted that this parcel is at the limit for impervious surface under the shore land ordinance. North Parcel As noted in the introduction, the maximum additional impervious surface allowed on the north parcel is 0.80 acres. The area of the existing bituminous surface and the proposed temporary aggregate surfaced parking amounts to about 0.90 acres, or 0.10 acres more than is allowed under the shoreland ordinance. Since the pervious pavement proposed for the north parcel should have infiltration capacity equal to or better than the existing condition of the parcel, it is not counted as impervious surface. In order to meet the requirements of the shoreland ordinance, the total parking area would need to be reduced, or approximately 20 feet of the aggregate surface would need to be replaced with pervious pavement. About three quarters of the aggregate surface drains over the pervious pavement. If aggregate material such as class 5 is used, runoff from this surface will carry fines which will tend to fill the voids in the pervious pavement, reducing or eliminating its infiltration capacity. This problem could be avoided if clean rock is used. The applicant has indicated that they may wish to use the temporary aggregate surface parking for up to five years. It is recommended that if the temporary facility is to be used that long, that it be constructed to city standards (concrete curb and gutter, and paved). If the applicant elects not to do this, the aggregate surface should be removed and restored with vegetation upon completion of the parking ramp on the south parcel. The proposal for the north parcel includes a retaining wall that ranges in height from 2.5 to nearly 12 feet. This wall will require a certified, engineered plan and may require a special inspections schedule to be completed by the design engineer or his representative. The proximity of this retaining wall to parking on the parcel immediately to the north (Guldens) creates a safety issue that must be addressed. Finally, in initial discussions with the applicant regarding development of the north parcel as pervious parking for inventory storage, staff indicated that this was a reasonable use for this property within the Shoreland Zoning area, with a provision that they also provide some low impact development improvements to the Maplewood Toyota property on the south side of Beam. These improvements do not appear as part of this proposal. 28 Recommendations Staff recommends approval of the development of the parking ramp on the south parcel as proposed as it results in no net increase in impervious surface. Staff recommends approval of the development of the north parcel with the following conditions: 1. Clean rock must be used for the temporary aggregate surface parking area. 2. The temporary aggregate surface parking area must be removed and restored with vegetation within 6 months of completion of the parking ramp on the south parcel, but no later than September 30, 2007. 3. Either decrease the aggregate surface parking, or increase the pervious parking by 20 feet to meet the requirements of the shoreland ordinance, and 4. Incorporate low impact development improvements on the parcel south of Beam Avenue by September 30,2007. The applicant and/or his engineer should meet on site with engineering staff to discuss what options would be appropriate and effective. 5. Address the safety issues related to the retaining wall proposed along the north property line. 29 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: DATE: Community Design Review Board Andrew Gitzlaff, Planning Intern Sign Code Draft City of Maplewood June 23, 2005 INTRODUCTION Project Description Over the last few months staff has been receiving comments and guidance from the community design review board (CDRB) regarding revisions to the sign code. Staff has reviewed and compiled all comments and has completed a draft of the new sign code (Attachment 1). For comparison, the current sign code is also attached (Attachment 2). Request 1. Staff is requesting that the CORB review the new sign code draft and prepare suggestions and comments for discussion at the June 28, 2005, CORB meeting. 2. Staff also requests that the CORB review, comment, and make a recommendation to the city council on the new section of the ordinance pertaining to political campaign signs. DISCUSSION The suggestions form CDRB on proposed changes to major areas of the sign code including temporary signs, billboards, off-site real estate signs, and permanent signage by zoning district have been incorporated into the new sign code draft. In addition, the new sign code draft addresses the following areas of the code that have previously not been discussed with the CORBo Prohibited Signs Staff suggests that the city prohibit signs from being erected on the roof of a building or painted directly on the exterior fa<;:ade of a building. Currently, roof signs are permitted by conditional use permit and painted signs are considered permanent wall signage. Special Purpose Signs Staff has made suggested changes to the size, number, location, and duration of signs classified in the current code as special purpose signs. These signs include garage sale signs, on-site real estate signs, construction signs, and drive through restaurant menu boards. Political Campaign Signs City planning staff has been working with Karen Guilfoile, city clerk, on rewriting the portion of the new sign code pertaining to political campaign signs. The city has experienced problems in previous elections regulating political sign usage. Currently the sign code requires political signs to be placed on private property, and not within the right-of-way. This has caused confusion by political candidates and the public as right-of-ways vary in width. Also, the current code does not regulate the size or number of political signs. The new sign code draft is proposing to allow political signs up to 16 square feet in area, with an overall square footage allowance of 64 square feet per property. These regulations would apply to local elections only. State elections would be restricted by state statute, which currently does not prohibit the size or number of signs allowed per property. In addition, the new sign code draft is proposing that the signs be placed at least five feet from the street edge and at least one foot from a sidewalk, and would specify the sign must be placed in front of the property to whom the views are expressed. There will be local elections in Maplewood this year. As such it is staff's intent to have this portion of the sign code adopted by the city council as soon as possible to ensure there are clear, consistent, and well defined political sign regulations for all candidates. Sign Code Revision Timeline Staff anticipates the CDRB reviewing the new sign code draft during the next one to three meetings in order to finalize the draft. City staff will publicize the draft sign code through the city's website, newsletter, mailings, and local paper. Public comment and testimony will be gathered and presented to the CDRB. After review and adjustments to the draft as warranted, the CDRB will make a recommendation on the new draft ordinance to the city council. Due to staff workload and availability of internship assistance, it is difficult to determine a specific timeline for this process. However, it is currently staff's intent to have this process complete by the end of the year. RECOMMENDATION 1. Staff recommends that the CDRB review and comment on the new sign code draft (Attachment 1). 2. Staff recommends that the CDRB review, comment, and make a recommendation to the city council on the political campaign section of the new sign code draft. P:lcom_dvptlordI6-28.2005 CDRB Sign Code Draft Attachments: 1. Sign Code Draft 2. City of Maplewood Sign Code 2 Attachment 1 SIGN REGULATIONS Purpose and Intent The purpose of this article is to establish a comprehensive and impartial system of sign regulations that balances the needs for effective visual communication including business identification and the needs for a safe, well-maintained, and attractive community. It is intended through the provisions contained herein to: (a) Promote signs which by their design and dimensions are integrated and harmonized with the surrounding environment and the buildings and sites they occupy. (b) Protect the public from damage or injury caused by signs that are poorly designed or maintained and from signs that cause distractions or hazards to motorists and pedestrians using the public streets, sidewalks, and right-of-way. (c) Avoid excessive signage in order to give each business or use optimum visibility to passer- by traffic and prevent cluttering of the streetscape. Comprehensive Sian Plan and Appeals A comprehensive sign plan shall be provided for business premises which occupy the entire frontage in one or more block fronts or for the whole of a shopping center or similar development having five or more tenants in the project. Such a plan, which shall include the location, size, height, color, lighting and orientation of all signs, shall be submitted for preliminary plan approval by the city; provided that, if such comprehensive plan is presented, exceptions to the sign schedule regulations of this article may be permitted if the sign areas and densities for the plan as a whole are in conformity with the intent of this article and if such exception results in an improved relationship between the various parts of the plan. Comprehensive sign plans shall be reviewed by the community design review board. The applicant, staff and city council may appeal the community design review board's decision. An appeal shall be presented within 15 days of the community design review board's decision to be considered. Definitions Administrator. The director of community development or other person charged with the administration and enforcement of this article. Advertisina Balloon. Any inflatable temporary sign. Alteration. Any major alteration to a sign, but shall not include routine maintenance, painting or change of the sign face of an existing sign. 1 Awnina. A covering attached on the facade of a building which projects typically over a door, window or sidewalk. Awnina Sian. A sign affixed flat to the surface of an awning which does not extend vertically or horizontally beyond the limits of such awning. Banner Sian. A temporary sign that is made of flexible material, contains a message, and is not inflatable. Billboard. A sign adjacent to a designated highway which advertises a product, event, person, institution, activity, business, service or subject not located on the premises on which said sign is located. This definition shall not include an off-site real estate sign Chanaeable CODV Messaae Board. A sign or portion of a sign which is characterized by interchangeable letters and figures. This definition shall not include electronic message boards. Construction Sian. A temporary sign erected on the premises prior to or during construction, indicating the names of the architects, engineers, landscape architects, contractors or similar artisans, and/or the owners, financial supporters, sponsors, and similar individuals or firms having a role or interest with respect to the structure or project. Directional Information Sian. A sign, generally informational, that has a purpose secondary to the use of the property upon which it is located intended to 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. District. The zoning districts as designated on an official map of the city and described in the district regulations. Dwellina Unit. Any structure or portion of a structure that is designated as short-term or long- term living quarters, including motel units, hotel units, or cabins. Electronic Messaae Board. A sign with a fixed or changing display message composed of a series of electronic illuminated segments. Flaas. Any device generally made of flexible materials, such as cloth, and displayed on strings containing distinctive colors, patterns, or symbols used as a symbol of government, political subdivision, or other entity. Flashina Sian. An illuminated sign which contains flashing lights or exhibits with noticeable changes in light intensity. Freestandina Sian. A sign that is attached to, erected on, or supported by an architecturally- planned structure (such as a pole, mast, frame, or other structure) that is not itself an integral part of or attached to a building or other structure whose principle function is something other than the support of a sign. This definition includes pylon signs and monument signs. Garaae-sale Sian. A sign that advertises the sale of personal property from a person's home. This definition includes, but is not limited to, yard-sale, craft, boutique and estate-sale signs. 2 Gas Station Canopv Sian. A sign affixed to the canopy of a gas station pump island which may or may not be attached to the principle building. Ground Grade. The elevation of the ground closest to the sign to which reference is made. Illuminated sian. A sign that is illuminated internally by a light source inside the sign or externally by means of external light fixtures directed at the sign. Menu Board. An outdoor sign which lists available menu offerings for drive-thru customers at a retail establishment which includes a permitted drive-thru component, for the purpose of enabling customers to order from the menu and where the advertising or promotional component of the sign is secondary. Monument Sian. A sign not supported by exposed posts or poles located directly at the grade where the width dimension of the architecturally designed base is (50) percent or more of the greatest width of the sign face. Multiple Tenant Buildina. A commercial building containing two (2) or more tenants. Noncommercial Opinion Sians. A sign that expresses an opinion or point of view that does not advertise any product, service, or business, or display a commercial message, excluding political campaign signs. Nonconformina Sian. A sign lawfully erected and maintained prior to the adoption of this ordinance that does not conform to the requirements of this ordinance. On-site Real Estate Sian. A sign advertising the sale, lease or rental of real estate upon which the sign is located Off-Site Real Estate Sian. A sign advertising the sale, lease, or rental of real estate located off the premises where the sign is located. Painted Wall Sian. A sign painted directly on the exterior wall of a building or structure. Principle Use. The main purpose for which land buildings, or structures are ordinarily used. Professional Occupation Sian. A sign which contains no advertising but is limited to the name, address and occupation of the person carrying on a permitted home occupation in a residential district. Propertv Frontaae. The property lines or lease lines at the front of a building in which the business is located or the location of the main public entrance of the building. Political Campaian Sian. A political campaign sign is an outdoor display of information concerning an upcoming political election or referendum and of a manufacture that is susceptible to rapid deterioration due to the elements and vandalism or not intended for long- term use by the information conveyed thereon. Portable Sian. A sign constructed to be movable from one location to another and not permanently attached to the ground or to any immobile structure or any device whose primary function during a specific time is to serve as a sign. 3 Public Service Siqn. Any sign primarily intended to promote items of general interest to the community. Time and temperature signs are considered a public service sign. Proiect Siqn. A temporary sign which identifies a proposed or new development. Proiectinq Siqn. A sign, other than a wall sign, which is supported and projects from more than (18) inches at a right angle from the wall of a building. Pvlon Siqn. A sign that is mounted on a narrow freestanding pole or other support structure so that the bottom edge of the sign face is (6) feet above the architecturally designed base. Residential Use Buildinq. Any dwelling, boarding, lodging or rooming house, dormitory unit, fraternity or sorority house. Roof Line. The uppermost line of the roof of a building or, in the case of an extended facade, the uppermost height of said facade. Roof Siqn. A sign erected upon the roof of a building or extending above the roof line of the building to which it is attached, and which is wholly or partially supported by said building. Siqn. Any structure, device, advertisement, advertising device or visual representation intended to advertise, identify or communicate information and to attract the attention of the public for any purpose. A sign includes any symbol, letter, figure, illustration or form painted or otherwise affixed to a building or structure. A sign also includes any beacon or searchlight intended to attract the attention of the public for any purpose. For the purpose of removal, signs shall also include all sign structures. Architectural lighting, such as neon that has no sign copy, shall not be considered to be a sign. Siqn Area. The entire area within a continuous perimeter enclosing the extreme limits of the sign message and background. In the case of a sign designed with more than one exterior surface, the area shall be computed as including only the maximum single display surface which is visible from any ground position at one time. The supports, uprights, or structures in which any sign is supported shall not be included in determining the sign area. Siqn Coveraqe Area. The sign coverage area includes the area of the message display face and the frame, background, and supports for a sign. Siqn Face. The surface of the sign including letters and background upon, against, or through which the message is displayed or illustrated. Siqn Structure. The supports, braces, and framework of a sign. Street Frontaqe. The linear frontage of a parcel of property abutting a street. Special Event Siqn. A temporary sign or display erected by a civic organization, religious organization, or other non-profit organizations or groups for the purpose of identifying a non- commercial one-time or annual special event. Temporarv Displavs. Temporary displays or features that do not clearly fall into the definition of a sign, but which direct attention to a product, place, activity, business, person, institution, or 4 organization Temporary Displays include three-dimensional shapes, inflatable objects, search lights and other similar devices. Temoorary or Seasonal Sian. A sign for a specific advertisement purpose that is of limited duration and is not permanently attached to the ground or wall. Time and Temoerature Sian. A sign that contains an electronic message board portion that only displays the time and temperature. Wall Sian. A flat sign which does not project more than eighteen (18) inches from the face or wall of the building upon which it is attached, running parallel for its whole length to the face or wall of the building, and which does not extend beyond the horizontal width of such building. Window Sian. A sign painted on a window or placed inside the building to be viewed through the glass by public. This does not include merchandise on display in a window. Wall Surface of Buildina. The total horizontal surface area of the building face to which the sign is attached, including windows and door areas, measured to the extreme outer limits of such wall surface. Sian Area and Heiaht Comoutation (a) Where the sign is a separate panel, structure, or other material forming a single display, the area of the message display face shall constitute the area of the sign. The supports, uprights, bases, or structures on which any sign is supported shall not count towards the sign area unless the supports, uprights, bases, or structures are an integral part of the sign display. (b) Where the sign is designed with more than (1) exterior sign face, the sign area shall be computed as including only the maximum single display surface which is visible from any ground position at one time. (c) Where the sign consists of any combination of individual letters, panels, numbers, figures, illustrations, or of a line or lines, to form a display or sign, the area of the sign shall be computed using the outside dimensions of the various words, figures, and illustrations composing the entire sign. (d) The sign coverage area includes the area of the message display face and the frame background and supports for a sign. (e) The height of a sign shall measure the vertical distance from the ground grade to the top of a sign. Nonconformina Sians (a) Nonconformina Permanent Sians. Nonconforming permanent signs lawfully existing on the effective date of this chapter shall be allowed to continue in use, but shall not be rebuilt, relocated or altered, other than minor alterations including routine maintenance, painting, or refacing the copy of sign, without being brought into compliance with this chapter. After a non- conforming sign has been removed, it shall not be replaced by another nonconforming sign. 5 (b) Nonconformina Temoorarv Sians. Nonconforming temporary signs existing on the effective date of this chapter shall be brought into compliance or removed within (60) days from the effective date of the chapter. Enforcement Procedures (a) Permanent Sians. The city shall send notice to the owner of any permanent sign in violation of the provisions of this chapter. The notice shall require that the owner correct all code violations. If the sign is not a safety hazard, the city shall allow (30) days for the owner to correct the violation. If the sign is a safety hazard the city shall take immediate action to end the hazard. (b) Temoorarv Sians. The city shall send notice to the owner of all other illegal temporary signs and allow (7) days for the owner to correct all code violations or remove the sign. (c) Removal of Sians. If the sign owner does not obey the city's orders, the city may remove or alter the sign at the owner's expense under the procedures of section 18-37. The city may remove illegal signs on a street right-of-way without notice. If the city removes a sign the city may sell or dispose of it if the owner does not reclaim the sign and pay any removal costs within (30) days of the sign's removal. Prohibited Sians (a) Signs or sign structures attached or supported on balconies, fences, or other non- permanent structures. (b) Signs attached or supported on a permanently parked vehicle or semi-trailers intended to advertise a business, product, or service. (c) Signs on rocks, trees, or other natural features or public utility poles. (d) Signs that have blinking, flashing, fluttering lights, make noise, or change in brightness or color except for electronic message centers that display only time and temperature or similar public service messages according to the requirements specifically outlined in this chapter. (e) Signs or sign structures that obstruct any part of a fire escape, doorway, standpipe, or opening intended to provide ingress or egress for any building structures. (f) Signs that, by reason of location, color or intensity, create a hazard to the safe, efficient movement of vehicles or pedestrian traffic. No private sign shall contain words which might be construed as traffic controls such as "stop," "caution," "warning," etc., unless such sign is intended to direct traffic on the premises. (g) Painted Wall Signs. (h) Roof Signs. (i) Signs that advertise a product or service not sold on the property, except for billboards or other off-site signs where specifically permitted in this chapter. OJ Signs having features or incorporating parts of any sign prohibited in this section. 6 Sians Exempt from Reaulations in this Chapter (a) Any public notice or warning sign required to be maintained or posted by law or governmental order, rule, or regulation. (b) Flags and emblems of a political, civic, religious, or other non-commercial nature. Flags that do not meet these requirements will be considered banners and be regulated as such. (c) Any sign inside a building, not attached to an exterior window, that is not legible from a distance of more than (10) feet. (d) Traffic control signs, as defined by state law. (e) Memorial plaques, cornerstones, historical tablets, and the like. (f) Seasonal displays of holiday lights and decorations that do not contain a commercial message. SIGN PERMITS If a sign requires a permit the property owner shall secure the sign permit prior to the construction or major alteration of such a sign. No sign permit of any kind shall be issued for an existing or proposed sign unless such sign is in compliance with the requirements of this chapter. Application The application for permission to erect or alter any such sign shall be in writing, using a current Sign Permit Application, and signed by the owner or occupant of the building. The application shall specify the location, height, dimensions of the sign and, where applicable, the dimensions of the wall surface of the building to which it is to be attached and total square footage of the building. Applications shall be accompanied by a sketch of the sign and any other facts the City requires for full information of the nature and safety of the proposal. An electrical permit is also required for all signs containing electrical wiring. Appeals When a permit under this chapter is denied, the administrator shall give notice to the applicant within (30) days of denial, together with reasons for denial. Appeals from the decisions of the administrator under the provisions of this division shall be made to the board of appeals and adjustments. Denial shall be based on noncompliance with this article. Fees The city council shall set all sign permit fees annually Time Limits (a) A sign permit shall become null and void if the work for which the permit was issued has not been completed within one year of the issuance or renewal. 7 (b) All permits for the erection or alteration of signs shall be issued for the useful life of the sign. Minor alterations to an existing sign including routine maintenance, painting, or refacing the copy do not require a new sign permit. (c) All permits for temporary signage are valid for a period of (30) day per year at anyone location. The time period may be extended to (60) days during the first year of operation of a new business and (90) days for a temporary seasonal business. The city shall consider a sign displayed for part of a day as having been up for an entire day. GENERAL REGULATIONS AND STANDARDS All signs shall be constructed in a manner and of such materials that they shall be safe and substantial and in compliance with the building code. In addition, all signs containing electrical wiring shall be subject to the provisions of the current state electrical code. Maintenance All signs in the city, together with all of their supports, braces, and anchors, shall be kept in repair and in proper state of preservation. The display surfaces of all signs shall be kept neatly painted or posted at all times. Every sign and the immediate surrounding premises shall be maintained by the owner or person in charge thereof in a clean, sanitary and inoffensive condition, and free and clear of all obnoxious substances, rubbish and weeds. Attachment to Buildinas All signs attached to a building shall not obstruct any fire escape, exit, standpipe, or any window required for light or ventilation. The signs shall be placed flat against the building and project no further than (18) inches from the building except where specifically allowed in this chapter. Freestandina Sian Placement All signs not attached to any building or structure shall maintain at least a (10) foot setback from any lot line and shall not be placed in a street right-of-way unless specifically stated otherwise in this chapter. No such sign shall project over a property line or a public right-of-way, except where allowed in this chapter, and all required clearances from overhead power and service lines must be maintained. Signs placed near the corner of two intersecting streets shall comply with clear sight triangle requirements in section 32-246 Illumination All illuminated signs must be in compliance with the city's outdoor lighting requirements in section 44-20. In addition, illumination for all signs shall be constant and steady. SPECIAL PURPOSE AND TEMPORARY SIGNS PERMITTED IN ALL ZONING DISTRICTS All signs listed below do not require a sign permit and shall not count towards the buildings or properties maximum allowable signage unless otherwise noted: 8 Construction Sians One construction sign is permitted just prior to or during development. Each construction sign shall not exceed a ratio of ((1) square foot of sign area for each (1,000) square feet) of lot area. In no case shall the area of the sign exceed (64) square feet and (10) feet in height. The sign shall be removed after major construction has finished. Directional Information Sians On-site directional Informational signs less than (6) square feet are permitted for all types of property except single and double dwelling lots. Garaae Sale Sians Garage sale signs not exceeding (3) square feet or (4) in number are permitted on private property or in the public right-of-way. No part of such sign shall be closer than (5) feet to the street pavement or (1) foot to a sidewalk or trail. All signs shall display the actual dates of the sale and may be erected (1) day prior to the sale and must be removed within (1) day after the sale. General Information Sians General information signs less than (6) square feet in area intended primarily for the convenience of the public are permitted. Menu Boards Menu boards are permitted for drive-thru restaurants only. The area of each sign shall not exceed sixty-four (64) square feet and the sign shall not be located as to impair the vision of the driver of a vehicle traveling into, out of, or through the drive through isle. No Tresoassina Sians Signs not exceeding (9) square feet in area, located upon private property and directed towards the preventio'n of trespassing. On-Site Real Estate Sians (a) For single and double dwelling lots, (1) on-site real estate sign not exceed (9) square feet in area is permitted for each street upon which the property has frontage. (b) For all other types of property, (1) on-site real estate sign is permitted for each street upon which the property has frontage. Each sign shall not exceed a ratio of (1) square foot of sign area for each (1,000) square feet of lot area. In no case shall the area of anyone sign exceed (64) square feet or (10) feet in height. (c) All real estate signs shall pertain to the sale, lease, or rent of the property only and must be removed within (7) calendar days of the close of the property or when (90) percent or more of the dwelling units on the property have been rented or leased. 9 Off-Site Real Estate Sians Off-site real estate signs not exceeding (3) square feet in area may be placed on the public right-of-way. No part of such sign shall be closer than (5) feet to the street pavement or one foot to a sidewalk or trail. Real estate signs are limited to (1) per intersection for each separate real estate listing and are only allowed from 2:00 p.m. on Friday until 8:00 p.m. on the last day of a weekend. Noncommercial Ooinion Sians (a) For residential uses, one sign that expresses an opinion or a viewpoint of a non-commercial nature is allowed per property. The noncommercial opinion sign shall not be illuminated or exceed (32) square feet in area and (6) feet in height. For multi-unit developments, the sign must be attached to the dwelling unit or placed in another location which clearly does not represent the opinions of other residents in the area who have not agreed to the sign. (b) For all other types of property, the signs allowed by this chapter may contain opinion messages but shall not exceed 64 square feet in total area. Political Sians (a) For local elections and referendums, political signs may be displayed after filings for office open or for (60) days prior to the election or referendum; provided that, such signs are removed within (7) days following said election or referendum. Political campaign signs shall not exceed (16) square feet in area and (6) feet in height. The total area of all political campaign signs shall not exceed (64) square feet per property. (b) In a state general election year, the size, number, and duration of political campaign sign display shall comply with the provisions of Minnesota Statute 211. B. and nothing in this chapter shall be construed as applicable except setback restrictions. (c) Political campaign signs must maintain a (5) foot setback from the street pavement and a (1) foot setback to a sidewalk or a trail and must not obstruct driver visibility. Said sign shall be placed in a location which clearly does not represent views of other property owners. Proiect Sians One project sign is permitted per property just prior to or during construction. Each project sign shall not exceed a ratio of ((1) square foot of sign area for each (1,000) square feet) of lot area. In no case shall the area of the sign exceed (64) square feet and (10) feet in height. The sign shall be removed after major construction has finished. Project signs may be utilized to advertise property for lease or sale just prior to construction, but must be used in lieu of a separate real estate sign. Temoorarv Sians and Disolavs under (12) Sauare Feet One non-illuminated temporary sign or display under (12) square feet in area is allowed per property (except for single and double dwelling properties) for a period not to exceed (30) days total per year. For commercial buildings with multiple occupants, each separate tenant is permitted (1) such sign. No more than (3) temporary signs under (12) square feet shall be allowed at a property at anyone time 10 SIGNS IN RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS (DISTRICTS R-1. R-S. R-E. R-2. AND R-3) All signs require a sign permit unless otherwise noted. Wall Sians One wall sign up to (24) square feet shall be allowed for residential subdivisions and multi-unit developments and for all legal non-residential uses excluding home occupation businesses. The sign may be affixed to the wall of the main building or an overhanging canopy or awning. Professional Occuoation Sians One professional occupation sign of not more than (2) square feet in area for a residence with a permitted home occupation shall be allowed without a sign permit. Monument Sians One monument sign up to (32) square feet shall be allowed by sign permit for residential subdivisions and multi-unit developments and for all legal non-residential uses excluding home occupation businesses. Said sign shall be a maximum of (6) feet in height. The sign shall be designed to be architecturally compatible with the building or project with the base of the sign consisting of colors and materials compatible to the building or project. The area around the base of the sign shall also be landscaped. Chanaeable Coov Messaae Boards Changeable copy message boards are permitted as part of a permanent freestanding monument sign or wall sign for all legal non-residential uses excluding home occupation businesses. The message board shall not comprise more than (50) percent of the total square footage of said sign. Temoorarv Banners Temporary banners may be displayed without a permit for residential subdivisions and multi-unit developments and for all legal non-residential uses excluding home occupation businesses for a period not to exceed (30) days total per year per banner. No more than (1) banner may be displayed per property at anyone time. Each banner shall not exceed (32) square feet in area and must be attached to a building or other permanent structure. Banners shall be designed to be professional looking and prevented from becoming torn or weathered. Temoorarv Sians and Disolavs over (12) sauare feet One temporary sign or display over (12) square feet is permitted by sign permit per property per year for a period not to exceed (30) days. However, the permit fee shall not be charged for temporary signs and displays erected by civic organizations, religious organizations, or other non-profit organizations or groups for the purpose of identifying a non-commercial one-time or annual special event. In no case shall the area of the sign exceed (32) square feet in area or the height of the sign exceed (8) square feet. 11 SIGNS IN THE LBC (LIMITED BUSINESS COMMERCIAL). CO (COMMERCIAL OFFICEl. AND NC (NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIALl ZONING DISTRICTS All signs require a sign permit unless otherwise noted Wall Sians (a) For each occupant of a building, one wall sign is allowed for each street upon which the property has frontage. The total number of wall signs may be increased by one for each clearly differentiated department of a business or enterprise. (b) The total area of anyone wall sign shall not cover more than twenty (20) percent of the wall surface to which the sign is attached or (32) square feet, whichever is greater. As an alternative, a wall sign may be placed on an overhanging awning or canopy as long as the wall sign does not exceed (50) percent of the face of the awning or canopy, or (32) square feet in area, whichever is less. (c) For multiple tenant buildings, the wall surface for each tenant or user shall include only the surface area of the exterior facade of the premises occupied by such tenant or user. Freestandina Sians One freestanding sign up to (60) square feet in area and (10) feet in height is permitted for each street upon which the building has frontage. For buildings with multiple street frontages, each additional freestanding sign must be located on a different street and each said sign must be separated by more than (100) feet measured in a straight line between the signs. The sign shall be designed to be architecturally compatible with the building or project with the base of the sign consisting of colors and materials compatible to the building or project. The area around the base of the sign shall also be landscaped including the bottom of a pylon sign. Chanaeable Coov Messaae Boards Changeable copy message boards are permitted as part of a permanent freestanding sign or wall sign but are limited to comprising no more than (70) percent of the total square footage of said sign. Temoorarv Banners (a) For single tenant buildings, temporary banners may be displayed without a permit for a period not to exceed (30) days total per year per banner. No more than (1) banner may be displayed per property at anyone time. (b) For multiple tenant buildings, each separate tenant may display temporary banners without a sign permit for a period not to exceed (30) days total per year per banner. No more than (1) banner may be displayed per separate tenant at anyone time. (c) Each banner shall not exceed (32) square feet in area and must be attached to a building or other permanent structure. Banners shall be designed to be professional looking and prevented from becoming torn or weathered. 12 Temoorarv Window Sians Temporary window signs are allowed without a permit for a period not to exceed (60) days total per year per property or separate occupant of a multiple tenant building for all said signs. Temporary window signs shall be neatly painted or attached to the surface of a window, but shall cover no more than (25) percent of the total area of the window. Temoorarv Sians and Disolavs over (12) sauare feet One temporary sign or display over (12) square feet is permitted each calendar year by sign permit. However, the permit fee shall not be charged for temporary signs and displays erected by civic organizations, religious organizations, or other non-profit organizations or groups for the purpose of identifying a non-commercial one-time or annual special event. The permit is valid for a period not to exceed (30) days per year, per business, and in no case shall more than one temporary sign or display be displayed per property at anyone time. The sign or display shall not exceed (32) square feet or (8) feet in height. SIGNS IN THE BC (BUSINESS COMMERCIAL). BC-M (BUSINESS COMMERCIAL MODIFIED\. M-1 (LIGHT MANUFACTURING). AND M-2 (HEAVEY MANUFACTURING) ZONING DISTRICTS Wall Sians (a) For each occupant of a building, one wall sign is allowed for each street upon which the property has frontage. The total number of wall signs may be increased by one for each clearly differentiated department of a business or enterprise. (b) The total size of all wall signage is determined by the gross square footage of the principle structure on the property. The total coverage area of wall signs shall be based on the wall surface to which the signs are attached. For buildings with multiple occupants, the wall surface for each tenant or user shall include only the surface area of the exterior facade of the premises occupied by such tenant or user. (c) The following table indicates maximum signage permitted: Principle Structure Gross Maximum size and coverage Square Feet area of each sign Less than 10,000 sq. ft 80 sq. ft. or 20% of wall face, whichever is less 10,000 to 20,000 sq. ft. 100 sq. ft. or 20% of wall face, whichever is less 20,000 to 100,000 sq. ft. 150 sq. ft. or 15% of wall face, whichever is less Greater than 100,000 sq. ft. 200 sq. ft. or 10% of wall face, whichever is less (d) A wall sign may be attached to an overhanging awning or canopy, instead of the fa9ade of the building, as long as the wall sign does not exceed (50) percent of the face of the awning or canopy, or the maximum size specified above, whichever is less. 13 Gas Station Canooies Gas Stations are allowed (1) additional wall sign that may be attached to the fa~ade of the building or the overhanging canopy above the pump island. The wall sign on the canopy shall not exceed (50) percent of the face of the canopy, or the maximum size specified above, whichever is less. Freestandina Sians (a) One freestanding sign is permitted for each street upon which the property has frontage. For properties with multiple street frontages, each additional freestanding sign must be located on a different street and each sign must be separated by more than (100) feet measured in a straight line between signs, excluding auto dealerships. (b) The total size and maximum height of each freestanding sign is determined by the street classification of the closest street to which each freestanding sign is located. Businesses that are located on a frontage road designed to provide safe access to minor arterials and principle arterials shall be permitted to erect a freestanding sign up to the determined maximum height and size allowable for a freestanding sign on said minor arterial or principle arterial road to which it is adjacent. (c) The following table lists the maximum size and heights permitted for freestanding signs: Classification of Street Maximum Sign Maximum Height Maximum Height Abutting Property Size (sq. ft.) (Pylon Sign) (Monument Sign) Princiole Arterial 180 25' 12' Minor Arterial 140 20' 12' Collector Street 100 15' 10' Local Street 80 12' 10' (d) The freestanding sign shall be designed to be architecturally compatible with the building or project, with the base of the sign, including pylon sign poles, consisting of materials and colors compatible to the building or project. The area around the base of the sign shall also be landscaped. Chanaeable Coov Messaae Boards Changeable copy message boards are permitted as part of a permanent freestanding sign or wall sign but are limited to comprising no more than (70) percent of the total square footage of said sign. Electronic Messaae Boards Electronic message boards as defined are permitted as part of a permanent freestanding sign or wall sign, provided that, the sign comprises no more than (50) percent of the total square footage of said sign. No such sign containing an electronic message board shall be erected closer than (75) feet from any residential land use district on which there exists structures used for residential purposes. 14 Auto Dealerships Auto dealerships may have one freestanding sign identifying the dealership, plus one freestanding sign advertising each car franchise. The maximum sign area and height for the freestanding signs shall be determined by the classification of the abutting roads, as specified above. More than one freestanding sign may be allowed per street frontage provided said signs are separated by more than (150) feet measured in a straight line between the signs. Billboards (a) Off-premise billboards shall only be permitted with a Conditional Use Permit and may only be located adjacent to a principle arterial street in the SC shopping center district, BC business commercial district, M-1 light manufacturing district, and M-2 heavy manufacturing district. (b) Soacina No billboard sign shall be located within (2,300) feet to another billboard on the same side of the street, within (100) feet to a commercial, industrial, institutional building, or an on-premises sign, and within 250 feet to a residential district or (800) feet to a residence. Billboards shall maintain a setback of (50) feet from any property line, (500) feet to a local park, and (300) feet from the nearest intersecting street corner of two public roads. (c) Size. The maximum area of the sign face of a billboard shall not exceed (450) square feet, including border and trim, but excluding base, apron supports and other structural members. The said maximum size limitation shall apply to each side of a sign structure. Signs may be placed back-to-back or in a V-type arrangement if there are no more than (2) sign faces, provided that the open end separation shall not exceed (15) feet. A billboard may only display one message at a time on any sign face. The maximum height for billboards shall be (35) feet. Temoorarv Banners (a) For single tenant buildings, temporary banners may be displayed without a permit for a period not to exceed (30) days total per year per banner. No more than (1) banner may be displayed per property at anyone time. (b) For multiple tenant buildings, each separate tenant may display temporary banners without a sign permit for a period not to exceed (30) days total per year per banner. No more than (1) banner may be displayed per separate tenant at anyone time. (c) Each banner shall not exceed (64) square feet in area and must be attached to a building or other permanent structure. Banners shall be designed to be professional looking and prevented from becoming torn or weathered. Temoorarv Window Sians Temporary window signs are allowed without a permit for a period not to exceed (60) days total per year per property or separate occupant of a multiple tenant building for all said signs. Temporary window signs shall be neatly painted or attached to the surface of a window, but shall cover no more than (25) percent of the total area of the window. 15 Temoorary Sians and Disolavs over (12) sauare feet One temporary sign or display over (12) square feet is permitted each calendar year by sign permit. However, the permit fee shall not be charged for temporary signs and displays erected by civic organizations, religious organizations, or other non-profit organizations or groups for the purpose of identifying a non-commercial one-time or annual special event. The permit is valid for a period not to exceed (30) days per year, per business, and in no case shall more than one temporary sign or display be displayed per property at anyone time. The sign or display shall not exceed (64) square feet or (8) feet in height. SIGNS IN THE MIXED-USE (M-U) ZONING DISTRICT Sian Review The community design review board shall review all signage on new buildings or developments to ensure that the signs meet mixed-use sign requirements and are architecturally compatible with the new building or development. In addition, the community design review board shall review all comprehensive sign plans as required in Section 44-736 (comprehensive sign plan). All signage on mixed-use buildings or developments (buildings or developments previously approved and built with mixed-use design standards) shall be reviewed by the director of community development and shall be done in a manner that is compatible with the original scale, massing, detailing and materials of the original building. All signage on non-mixed-use buildings or developments (buildings or developments not built with mixed-use design standards) shall be reviewed by the director of community development and shall comply with the mixed-use sign requirements, unless classified as a pre-existing nonconforming sign in which case it shall comply with Section 44-12 (nonconforming buildings or uses). Proiectina Sians Projecting signs are allowed as part of the overall signage. Projecting signs may not extend more than four (4) feet over a public right-of-way and a private road or sidewalk, and must not project out further than the sign's height. Overall Wall Sians Allowable area of overall wall and projecting signage for each establishment is one and one-half (1 Y:.) square feet of signage per lineal foot of building or frontage on a road, public open space or private parking area, or thirty (32) square feet, whichever is greater. Each wall shall be calculated individually and sign area may not be transferred to another side of the building. Minor motor vehicle stations with canopies are allowed to place signage on the canopy and the building as long as they do not exceed the requirements above. Wall and projecting signs shall not cover windows or architectural trim and detail. Freestandina Sians One (1) freestanding sign for each establishment is allowed if the building is set back at least twenty (20) feet or more from the front property line. Freestanding signs must meet the following requirements: 16 1. Limited to six (6) feet in height and forty (40) square feet in area. 2. Maintain a five-foot (5') setback from any side or rear property line, but can be constructed up to the front property line. 3. Must consist of a base constructed of materials and design features similar to those of the front fa~ade of the building or development. 4. Must be landscaped with flowers or shrubbery. Prohibited sians In addition to prohibited signs specified for all zoning districts, electronic message boards and changeable copy message boards, except for changeable copy message boards that display gas prices at minor motor vehicle fuel stations are prohibited in the M-U zoning district. P:\com-dev\ord\sign code draft 17 A i+a�..hment Z § 44-677 MAPLEW000 D CODE e. Rubber or gutta percha. f. Sulfurous, sulfuric, nitric, pictic, hydrochloric or other offensive or corrosive acids. (6) Wood pulp and fiber reduction and processing. (7) Used car lot. (8) Heliport. (Code 1982, § 36-202) Sec. 44-678. Minimum distances for building and use from residential district. In the M-2 heavy manufacturing district, no building or exterior use, except parking, may be erected, altered or conducted within 350 feet of a residential district without a conditional use permit. (Code 1982, § 36-203) Secs. 44-679-44-730. Reserved. ARTICLE M. SIGN REGULATIONS* DIVISION 1. GENERALLY Sec. 44-731. Purpose and intent. The purpose of this article is to establish standards to control the erection, use and removal of signs in the city. (Code 1982, § 36-226) Sec. 44-732. Applicability; requirements not exclusive. (a) No sign shall be erected, placed, altered or moved unless in conformity with this article. (b) Nothing in this article shall be taken to relieve any person from complying with any other section of this Code or city ordinance. (Code 1982, § 36-227) Sec. 44-733. Compliance required. (a) It shall be unlawful for any person to install or rebuild any sign contrary to: (1) The requirements of this article. (2) The conditions of any permit issued under the terms of this article. *Cross references—Buildings and building regulations, ch. 12; streets, sidewalks and other public places, ch. 32. State law reference—Advertising devices, Minn. Stats. ch. 173. CD44:76 0 ZONING § 44735 (3) The terms of any article, regulation or specification adopted or referenced by this article. (4) Any notice or order lawfully given or referenced by this article. (b) Any person who violates any of the sections of this article or who causes or permits any unlawful act to be done in violation of this article shall be liable to the penalties imposed in section 44-743. (Code 1982, § 36-228) Sec. 44-734. Administration. This article shall be administered by the director of community development. (Code 1982, § 36-229) Sec. 44735. Definitions. The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this article, shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this section, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning: Administrator means the director of community development or other person charged with the administration and enforcement of this article. Alteration means any major alteration to a sign, but does not include routine maintenance, painting or change of copy of an existing sign. Architectural projection means any projection which is not intended for occupancy and which extends the face of an exterior wall of a building, but does not include signs. Awning means a covering attached on the facade of a building which projects typically over a door, window or sidewalk. Billboard means a sign that advertises a product, event, person, institution, activity, business, service or subject not located on the premises on which the sign is located. This definition shall not include an off-site real estate sign of 64 square feet or less. Building facade means that portion of any exterior elevation of a building extending from grade to the top of the parapet wall or eaves and the entire width of the building elevation. Building height means a distance to be measured from the average established curb level or from the average finished ground grade at the building line, whichever is higher, to the top of the cornice of a flat roof, to the deck line of a mansard roof or to the mean distance of the highest gable on a pitched or hipped roof. Building line means a line established by ordinance beyond which no building may extend. A building line may coincide with a property line. A building line may be referred to as a "required setback." See Curbline. Business frontage means the property lines or lease lines at the front of the building in which the business is located or the location of the main public entrance of the building. CD44:77 § 44-735 MAPLEWOOD CODE Canopy or marquee means a permanent roof structure attached to and supported by the building and projecting over public property, but does not include a projecting roof. Color means any hue or combination of values of these. Black and white shall not be considered as colors. Copy area means the actual area of the sign copy applied to any background. Copy area should not be confused with coverage, which includes frame background or support for a sign. Curbline means the line at the face of the curb nearest the street or roadway. In the absence of a curb, the curbline shall be established by the city engineer. See Building line. District means the zoning districts as designated on the official zoning map of the city and described in the district regulations. Garage sale sign means a sign that advertises the sale of personal property from a person's home. This definition includes but is not limited to yard sale, craft, boutique and estate sale signs. Grade means the elevation or level of the street closest to the sign to which reference is made, measured at the street's centerline. Ground sign means a sign attached to or placed on the ground, rather than a building. Noncombustible material means as defined and required by the Uniform Building Code. Nonstructural trim means as defined and required by the Uniform Building Code. . i Off-site real estate sign means a real estate sign that advertises a lot, group of lots or premises upon which the sign is not located. On-site real estate sign means a real estate sign that advertises the lot, group of lots or premises upon which the sign is located. Principal use means the main purpose for which land, buildings or structures are ordinarily used. Real estate sign means a sign advertising the sale, lease or rental of real estate. Residential use building means any dwelling, boardinghouse, roominghouse, dormitory unit, fraternity or sorority house. Roofline means the uppermost line of the roof of a building or, for an extended facade, the uppermost height of the facade. Sign means any structure, device, advertisement, advertising device or visual representa- tion intended to advertise, identify or communicate information and to attract the attention of the public for any purpose. A sign includes any symbol, letter, figure, illustration or form painted or otherwise affixed to a building or structure. A sign also includes any beacon or searchlight intended to attract the attention of the public for any purpose. For the purpose of removal, signs shall also include all sign structures. Architectural lighting, such as neon that has no sign copy, shall not be considered to be a sign. 1� CD44:78 0 ZONING § 44-735 Sign area means the area in square feet of the smallest geometric figure which describes the area enclosed by the actual copy of a sign, including border and trim of the sign; provided that, for a sign designed with more than one exterior surface, the area shall be computed as including only the maximum single display surface which is visible from any ground position at one time. The supports, uprights or structures in which any sign is supported shall not be included in determining the sign area. Sign, maximum height of, means the vertical distance measured from the grade to the top of a sign. For a roof sign, the maximum height shall be measured from the roofline or the parapet level, if applicable, at the location of such sign. Sign, minimum height of, means the vertical distance measured from the nearest finished grade to the bottom of the sign. Sign structure means any structure which supports or is capable of supporting any sign. This definition shall not include a building to which the sign is attached. Sign types are defined as follows: (1) By function. a. Business sign (on premises) means a sign used for identification purposes, which directs attention to a business or profession conducted upon the premises at which the sign is located, and which may also refer to goods or services produced, offered for sale or obtained at such premises. b. Directional sign means an on -premises sign designed to guide or direct pedes- trian or vehicular traffic. C. Identification sign means a sign which contains no advertising but is limited to the name, address and number of a building, institution or person and to the activity carried on in the building or institution or the occupation of the person. d. Incidental sign means a small sign, less than two square feet in area of a noncommercial nature, intended primarily for the convenience of the public. e. Political sign means any sign which states the name or portrays the picture of an individual seeking election or appointment to a public office or pertaining to a forthcoming public election or referendum or pertaining to or advocating political views or policies. f. Portable sign means a sign constructed to be movable from one location to another and not permanently attached to the ground or to any immobile structure. Such sign may consist of a mobile structure such as a semitrailer, carriage, van, sled or other device whose primary function during a specific time is to serve as a sign. g. Public service sign means any sign primarily intended to promote items of general interest to the community. h. Real estate sign means a sign pertaining to the sale, lease or rental of the property upon which it is located. Is CD44:79 M § 44-735 MAPLEWOOD CODE i. Special purpose sign means any sign other than a business or identification sign. This may include but is not limited to traffic signs; government signs; historical or memorial plaques; real estate, garage sale and temporary signs. j. Temporary sign means any banner, portable sign, advertising balloon, searchlight or other sign allowed for a limited time. k. Time and temperature sign means a changing sign giving the time and temper- ature. (2) By methods of illumination. a. Electric sign means any sign containing electrical wiring, but not including signs illuminated by an exterior light source. b. Illuminated sign means a sign designed to be seen by light illumination from within the sign itself or by an external source. (3) By methods of movement. CJI a. Animated sign means any sign which depicts action or motion. For purposes of this article, this term does not refer to flashing, changing or indexing, all of which are separately defined. b. Changing sign means a sign, such as an electronically or electrically controlled public service, time, temperature and date sign, message center or readerboard, where different copy changes are shown on the same lamp bank. • C. Flashing sign means an illuminated sign which contains flashing lights or exhibits noticeable changes in light intensity. d. Indexing sign means turning and stopping action of the triangular vertical sections of a multiprism sign designed to show three messages in the same area. e. Revolving sign means any sign, any part of which revolves. (4) By structure. a. Advertising balloon means an inflatable temporary sign. b. Awning sign means a sign affixed flat to the surface of an awning and which does not extend vertically or horizontally beyond the limits of such awning. C. Banner means a temporary sign that is made of flexible material, contains a message and is not inflatable. d. Billboard means an off -premises sign erected for the purposes of advertising a product, event, person, institution, activity, business, service, or subject not located on the premises on which the sign is located. e. Canopy or marquee sign means a sign affixed flat to the surface of a canopy or marquee which does not extend vertically or horizontally beyond the limits of such canopy or marquee. f. Changeable copy sign (readerboard) means any sign which is characterized by changeable copy, letters or symbols, regardless of method of attachment. 0 CD44:80 0 ZONING § 44-736 g. Fascia sign means a flat sign which does not project more than 18 inches from the face or wall of the building upon which it is affixed, painted or attached, running parallel for its whole length to the face or wall of the building, and which does not extend beyond the horizontal width of such building. h. Flags mean devices generally made of flexible materials, such as cloth, paper or plastic, and displayed on strings. They may or may not include copy. This definition does not include the flag of any country or state. i. Freestanding sign means a sign attached to the ground within an architecturally planned wall or structure. This type of sign may also be referred to as a "pylon sign," "ground sign" or "monument sign." j. Projecting sign means a sign, other than a wall, canopy or marquee sign, which is affixed to a building and projects outward more than 18 inches from the building wall or structure. k. Roof sign means a sign erected upon the roof or parapet of a building, the entire face of which is situated above the roof level of the building to which it is attached, and which is wholly or partially supported by the building. 1. Window sign means a sign painted on a window or placed inside the building to be viewed through the glass by the public. This does not include merchandise on display. Such signs shall not cover more than 75 percent of the window area. Street means any public highway, road or thoroughfare which affords the principal means of access to adjacent lots. Street frontage refers to the linear frontage of a parcel of property abutting a public street. Uniform Building Code (UBC) means the current edition of the Uniform Building Code. Wall sign. See Fascia sign. Wall surface of a building means the total horizontal surface area of the building face to which the sign is attached, including windows and door areas, measured to the extreme outer limits of such wall surface. Zoning or land use means the land use district or zone established by the authorized legislative body. (Code 1982, § 36-230) Cross reference—Definitions generally, § 1-2. Sec. 44-736. Comprehensive sign plans and appeals A comprehensive sign plan shall be provided for business premises which occupy the entire frontage in one or more block fronts or for the whole of a shopping center or similar development having five or more tenants in the project. Such a plan, which shall include the location, size, height, color, lighting and orientation of all signs, shall be submitted for preliminary plan approval by the city; provided that, if such comprehensive plan is presented, exceptions to the sign schedule regulations of this article may be permitted if the sign areas CD44:81 § 44-736 MAPLEWOOD CODE and densities for the plan as a whole are in conformity with the intent of this article and if such exception results in an improved relationship between the various parts of the plan. Comprehensive sign plans shall be reviewed by the community design review board. The applicant, staff and city council may appeal the community design review board's decision. An appeal shall be presented within 15 days of the review board's decision to be considered. (Code 1982, § 36-231) Sec. 44-737. Prohibited signs generally. Signs that are not specifically permitted in this article are hereby prohibited. The following signs are specifically prohibited: (1) Balcony signs and signs mounted or supported on a balcony. (2) Any sign that obstructs any part of a doorway or fire escape. (3) Signs that have blinking, flashing or fluttering lights or that change in brightness or color. Signs that give public service information, such as time and temperature are exempt. (4) Signs on rocks, trees or utility poles on a public right-of-way. (Code 1982, § 36-232) Sec. 44-738. Hazards to vehicular or pedestrian traffic. No sign permitted by this article shall, by reason of its location, color or intensity, create a hazard to the safe, 'efficient movement of vehicles or pedestrian traffic. No private sign shall contain words which might be construed as traffic controls such as "stop," "caution," "warning," etc., unless such sign is intended to direct traffic on the premises. (Code 1982, § 36-233) Sec. 44-739. Electrical wiring and components. All signs containing electrical wiring shall be subject to the provisions of the current state electrical code, and the electrical components used shall bear the label of an approved testing agency. (Code 1982, § 36-237) a Sec. 44-740. Maintenance. All signs in the city, together with all of their supports, braces, guys and anchors, shall be kept in repair and in proper state of preservation. The display surfaces of all signs shall be kept neatly painted or posted at all times. Every sign and the immediate surrounding premises shall be maintained by the owner or person in charge thereof in a clean, sanitary and inoffensive condition and free and clear of all obnoxious substances, rubbish and weeds. (Code 1982, § 36-239) CD44:82 F-1 L ---J • • ZONING § 44-771 Sec. 44-741. Permit records. The city shall maintain a record of sign permits as required by the city's records retention schedule. (Code 1982, § 36-240) Sec. 44-742. Enforcement procedures. (a) Permanent signs. The city shall send a written notice to the owner of any illegal, Permanent sign. This notice shall require that the owner correct all code violations. If the sign is not a safety hazard, the city shall allow at least ten days for the owner to correct the violations. If the sign is a safety hazard, the city shall take immediate action to end the hazard. If the sign owner does not obey the city's orders, the city may remove the sign or have whatever work is needed done to correct the code violations. (b) Temporary signs. The city may remove illegal temporary signs on a street right-of-way without notice. The city shall give the owners of any other illegal temporary signs reasonable notice to correct the violation. (c) Removal of signs. Following any required notice, the city may remove permanent and temporary signs and recover its costs under the procedures of section 18-37. If the city removes a sign, the city may sell or dispose of it if the owner does not reclaim the sign and pay any removal costs within 30 days of the sign's removal. • (Code 1982, § 36-241) Sec. 44-743. Violations of article. • (a) Criminal penalty. Any person violating any section of this article is guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction, shall be punished in accordance with section 1-15. (b) Civil penalty. In addition to subsection (a) of this section, any person violating any section of this article or other section of this Code or city ordinance pertaining to signs may be required to remove, restore or repair an approved sign without regard to any amortization of the sign cost where the sign had an original value of more than $5,000.00. Matters related to the enforcement of the civil penalties may be appealed to the administrative hearing provisions in section 1-17. However, the amortization period, if any, is not subject to modification under section 1-17. (Code 1982, § 36-243) U Secs. 44-744-44-770. Reserved. DIVISION 2. PERMITS Sec. 44-771. Required; exceptions. Every person must get a sign permit before erecting, placing, reconstructing, altering or moving a sign, except the following (1) Incidental, construction, political, garage sale, or real estate signs. CD44:83 § 44-771 MAPLEWOOD CODE (2) Maintenance, repair or the change of sign copy. (3) Temporary signs that are 16 square feet or less. (4) Flags. (5) Wmdow signs. Window signs shall not cover more than 25 percent of the window area. (6) Menu/price signs for drive -up service windows. (7) Fuel station price signs. (Code 1982, § 36-256) Sec. 44-772. Application; time limits. (a) Every application for a sign permit shall include the following information: (1) The dimensions of the sign and, where applicable, the dimensions of the wall surface of the building to which it is to be attached. (2) The height of the sign. (3) The proposed location of the sign on the building. (4) The proposed location of the sign on the site. (5) If the sign is to be illuminated or animated, the technical means by which this is to be accomplished. . (6) Where the sign is to be attached to any existing building, a diagram or photograph of the face of the building to which the sign is to be attached. (7) The name and address of the user of the sign and the location of the sign. (b) Copies of applications required by this section shall be available to the public on request. (c) A sign permit shall become null and void if the work for which the permit was issued has not been completed within one year of this issuance or renewal. (Code 1982, § 36-257) Sec. 44-773. Fees. The city council shall set all sign permit fees annually. (Code 1982, § 36-258; Ord. No. 787, § 2, 12-8-1997; Ord. No. 807B, § 2, 11-27-2000; Ord. No. 833, § 2, 11-13-2002) Sec. 44-774. Appeals. When a permit under this division is denied, the administrator shall give notice in writing to the applicant within 30 days of denial, together with reasons for denial. Appeals from the decisions of the administrator under this division shall be made to the city council. Denial shall be based on noncompliance with this article. (Code 1982, § 36-260) CD44:84 0 i ZONING Secs. 44-775-44-800. Reserved. DIVISION 3. STANDARDS AND REQUIREMENTS Sec. 44-801. Compliance with sign code and state electrical code required. § 44-805 No sign shall be erected, reerected, constructed, altered or moved, except as provided for by the Uniform Sign Code of the International Conference of Building Officials. In addition, all electrical signs shall comply with the provisions of the state electrical code. (Code 1982, § 36-271) Sec. 44-802. Freestanding signs. (a) A freestanding sign shall be at least ten feet from any lot line. (b) A freestanding sign shall comply with the sight triangle requirements in section 32-246. (c) A freestanding sign shall not project over public property or right-of-way, except where specifically allowed in this chapter. (Code 1982, § 36-272) Sec. 44-803. Roof signs. • (a) Roof signs shall be erected in accordance with the Uniform Building Code. (b) No portion of a 'roof sign shall extend beyond the periphery of the roof on which it is erected. (c) Roof signs shall only be permitted upon review and approval by the city council (d) All roof signs shall be reviewed by the community design review board who shall forward a recommendation to the city council. In order to recommend to the council approval of a roof sign request, the board must find that, because of terrain, location, configuration of adjacent development and similar considerations, such a sign best serves the property and public and secures the intent of this article as compared with any other permitted method of signing. (Code 1982, § 36-273) Sec. 44-804. Fascia, canopy or marquee signs. Fascia, canopy or marquee signs shall be designed in accordance with the requirements of each specific zoning district as noted in this article. (Code 1982, § 36-274) Sec. 44-805. Projecting signs. (a) Projecting signs shall not project over public property or a property line. CD44:85 § 44-805 MAPLEWOOD CODE (b) No projecting sign shall interfere with any fire escape, exit or standpipe. No projecting sign shall obstruct any window required for light or ventilation. Projecting signs shall maintain all required clearances from overhead power and service lines. (c) The minimum height of a projecting sign above grade shall be nine feet. (d) The maximum height of a projecting sign above the roofline shall be five feet. (e) The maximum projections of a projecting sign shall not exceed the height of the sign. (Code 1982, § 36-275) Sec. 44-806. Electric and moving signs. (a) Electrical equipment used in connection with display signs shall be installed in accordance with the state electrical code. (b) Animated signs shall comply with the following conditions: (1) No animated signs shall be erected or maintained closer than 75 feet from any residential land use district on which there exists structures used for residential purposes. (2) No animated sign may be erected in any location which would obstruct the vision of or be confused with a traffic signal or stop sign. . (Code 1982, § 36-277) Sec. 44-807. Temporary signs. (a) The total time of all permits for temporary signs at any one business location shall not exceed 30 days each year. Each tenant space at a shopping center shall count as a separate business location. A new business may be allowed 60 days for the first year of operation. (b) There shall be no more than one temporary sign at a business location at any one time. There shall be no more than one temporary portable sign at a business location or shopping center at any one time. (c) The city shall consider a sign displayed for part of a day as having been up for an entire day. (d) No person shall place a temporary sign on or over public property or obstruct the visibility of drivers at intersections or when entering or leaving public streets. (e) Off-site temporary signs are prohibited with the exception of real estate and garage sale signs. M Temporary seasonal businesses may use temporary signs for 90 days or the duration of the business, whichever is less. The administrator may extend this time period on a case-by-case basis. The number of signs allowed shall be as stipulated in each zoning district. CD44:86 • ZONING § 44-837 (g) The city council may approve exceptions to this section if the applicant can show there are unusual circumstances with the request. The council may attach conditions to its approval to ensure that the sign will be compatible with surrounding properties. (h) Banners may be used as temporary signage and are not required to have a permit unless used for more than 30 days. Banners shall not exceed 150 square feet or 20 percent of the street frontage wall area, whichever is greater. (Code 1982, § 36-278) Secs. 44808-44-835. Reserved. DIVISION 4. BILLBOARDS (OFF -PREMISES SIGNS) Sec. 44836. Locations and distances. (a) Billboards may only be located in the following zoning districts: SC shopping center, BC business commercial, M-1 light manufacturing, and M-2 heavy manufacturing. (b) Billboards shall not be permitted on a building. (c) Billboards shall not be located closer than the following distances, unless the council approves a conditional use permit: . (1) Two thousand three hundred feet to another billboard on the same side of the same street. (2) One hundred feet to a commercial, industrial or institutional building or an on - premises sign. (3) Two hundred feet to a residential district or 500 feet to a residence. (4) Three hundred feet to any part of an interchange or intersection of two public roads. (5) Five hundred feet of local parks. (6) Ten feet from any lot line. (d) A billboard shall not be erected or maintained in such a place or manner as to obscure or otherwise physically interfere with an official traffic control device or a railroad safety signal or sign or to obstruct or physically interfere with the driver's view of approaching, merging, or intersecting traffic for a distance of 500 feet. (Code 1982, § 36-292) Sec. 44-837. Size. The maximum area of the sign face of a billboard shall not exceed 450 square feet, including border and trim, but excluding base, apron supports and other structural members. The maximum size limitation shall apply to each side of a.sign structure. Signs may be placed back CD44:87 I § 44-837 MAPLEWOOD CODE to back or in a V type arrangement if there are no more than two sign faces, except that the open end separation shall not exceed 15 feet. A billboard may only display one message at a time on any sign face. (Code 1982, § 36-293) Sec. 44-838. Height. The maximum height for billboards shall be 35 feet, unless the council approves a conditional use permit. (Code 1982, § 36-294) Sec. 44-839. Illumination and lighting. (a) Billboards shall not be illuminated with flashing lights, except those giving public service information, such as but not limited to time, date, temperature, weather or news. (b) Billboard lighting shall be effectively shielded so as not to impair the vision of any operator of a motor vehicle. (Code 1982, § 36-295) Sec. 44-840. Ground restoration. Any ground area disturbed, due to the construction, repair, or removal of a billboard, shall be restored to its original condition as part of the construction, removal or repair work. (Code 1982, § 36-297) Sec. 44841. Conflicts. Any previously adopted requirements that conflict with this division shall be null and void. (Code 1982, § 36-298) Secs. 44-842--44-870. Reserved. DIVISION 5. SCHEDULES OF PERMITTED SIGNS IN ZONING DISTRICTS Subdivision L In General Sec. 44-871. Applicability. Signs shall be permitted within the zoning districts of the city as set forth in this division. (Code 1982, § 36-306) Secs. 44-872-44-890. Reserved. CD44:88 • a ZONING § 44-891 Subdivision II. Schedule No. I Sec. 44-891. Special purpose and temporary signs in all districts. The city permits the following special purpose and temporary signs in all zoning districts. Such signs shall be exempt from section 44-807, which pertains to temporary signs, and schedule II in subdivision III of this division, which pertains to permitted signs by zoning district. Such signs shall be subject to the following limitations: (1) Traffic control signs, as defined by state law. (2) Signs required to be maintained or posted by law or governmental order, rule or regulation. (3) Memorial plaques, cornerstones, historical tablets and the like. (4) On-site directional signs, not exceeding four square feet in area, intended to facilitate the movement of pedestrians and vehicles within the site upon which such signs are located. No more than two directional signs may be allowed per curb cut. (5) Not more than two on-site directional signs, identifying the location and nature of a building, structure or use which is not readily visible from the street. Each sign shall not exceed ten square feet in area. (6) Signs, not exceeding nine square feet in area, located upon private property and • directed toward the prevention of trespassing. (7) Window signs, not exceeding 75 percent of the window area. (8) Temporary political signs promoting any candidate, party or cause may be displayed for 30 days prior to an election or referendum, provided that such signs are removed within seven days following the election or referendum. Political signs are prohibited on public property and utility poles. (9) Signs pertaining to campaigns, drives or events of political, civic, philanthropic, educational or religious organizations. However, permission of the council must be obtained to erect such signs upon or over public property, and such signs shall not be erected or posted for a period of more than 14 days prior to the date of the event and shall be removed within three days thereafter. (10) Flags and emblems of political, civic, philanthropic, educational or religious organiza- tions. (11) On-site real estate signs, subject to the following: a. For single or double dwelling lots, there shall be no more than one such sign along each street that the lot fronts on. The maximum sign area shall be nine square feet. Such signs may be on the right-of-way, but shall be no closer than eight feet to the edge of a street or two feet to a sidewalk or trail. b. For all other types of property, the combined area of all such signs fronting upon each street which bounds such lot or group of lots shall not exceed a ratio of one CD44:89 ■ § 44-891 MAPLEWOOD CODE square foot of sign area for each 1,000 square feet of lot area. No one sign, however, shall exceed 64 square feet. No person shall place such a sign on a public right-of-way. C. The sign owner shall remove the sign within seven calendar days after the lease, rental or closing date of the real estate that the sign is advertising. d. A sold sign, used in conjunction with the for sale sign, may only be displayed for a total period of 30 days during each listing contract. (12) Off-site real estate signs, subject to the following: a. Off-site real estate signs of three square feet or less may be placed on the public right-of-way. No part of such signs shall be closer than eight feet to a street pavement or two feet to a sidewalk or trail. The city shall only allow such signs from 12:00 noon until 8:00 p.m. on weekdays and from 6:00 a.m. on Saturday until 8:00 p.m. on the last day of a weekend. The city may dispose of any such signs that violate the requirements in this subsection. b. The city shall only allow off-site real estate signs of more than three square feet that advertise housing developments. Each housing development shall have no more than one such sign. The maximum area of any such sign shall be 64 square feet. If the sign is for a for sale development, the sign owner shall remove the sign when at least 90 percent of the dwelling units approved by the city have been built. If the sign is for rental units, the sign owner shall remove the sign when 90 . percent or more of the units have been rented. Such signs shall not be on the public right-of-way. (13) Temporary on-site signs indicating the name and nature of a construction or demoli- tion project, the names of the contractors, subcontractors and professional advisors, provided that the combined area of such signs fronting upon each street which bounds such project shall not exceed a ratio of two square feet of sign area for each 1,000 square feet of lot area. In no case shall the combined area of such signs fronting upon each street exceed 64 feet with no single dimension in excess of 16 feet. The display of such signs shall be limited to a period not to exceed the duration of the construction or demolition project, at which time such signs shall be removed. (14) Garage sale signs on private property or boulevards, subject to the following: a. A person may place garage sale signs of three square feet or less on a boulevard. No part of these signs shall be closer than eight feet to a street pavement or two feet to a sidewalk or trail. All signs shall contain the actual dates of the sale. b. The city shall only allow such signs from one day before the sale until one day after the sale. C. The city may remove a garage sale sign that does not state the dates of the sale. (Code 1982, § 36-307) Secs. 44-892-44-910. Reserved. CD44:90 . ZONING § 44-936 Subdivision M. Schedule No. II Seca 44-911. Scope. This schedule R applies to signs in the F farm residence district, R-1 residence district (single dwelling), R -1S residence district (small -lot single dwelling), R -E residence district (residential estate), R-2 residence district (double dwelling), R-3 residence district (multiple dwelling). Sec. 44-912. Permitted signs. (a) The following signs shall be permitted pursuant to schedule no. II in this subdivision: (1) Signs permitted in schedule I, subdivision II of this division, as regulated therein. (2) One fascia sign of not more than two square feet in area giving the name and occupation of the occupant of a building carrying on a permitted home occupation as defined in this chapter. (3) Wall signs up to 24 square feet and freestanding signs up to 32 square feet may be allowed by sign permit for apartment or townhouse complexes, churches, schools, libraries, community centers or other institutions. • (b) The total square footage of any freestanding sign shall measure the overall dimensions of the sign message board. One fascia and one freestanding sign shall be permitted for each street frontage. (Code 1982, § 36-316) Sec. 44-913. Requirements. Sign requirements for schedule no. II are as follows: (1) The maximum height of a freestanding sign shall be eight feet. (2) An illuminated sign shall be shielded in such a way as to protect all rights of adjacent property owners from nuisance. (3) Animated signs are not allowed. (Code 1982, § 36-317) Secs. 44-914-44-935. Reserved. Subdivision IV. Schedule No. III Sec. 44-936. Scope. This schedule no. III applies to signs in the LBC limited business commercial district, CO commercial office district and NC neighborhood commercial district. 0 CD44:91 0 § 44-937 MAPLEWOOD CODE is Sec. 44-937. Permitted signs. The following signs are permitted in schedule no. III: (1) Signs permitted in schedule I, subdivision II of this division. (2) For each occupant of a building, two signs are allowed for each street upon which the building has frontage. (Code 1982, § 36-329) Sec. 44-938. Requirements. (a) The total area of a building -mounted sign for schedule no. III shall not exceed 20 percent of the business's surface area to which the sign is attached. For multiple occupancy, the wall surface for each tenant or user shall include only the surface area on the exterior facade of the premises occupied by such tenant. (b) The total area of a freestanding sign shall not exceed 80 square feet. (c) In no case shall the height of a freestanding sign exceed 25 feet to the top of the sign as measured from the base of the sign. (d) Animated signs are not allowed. (Code 1982, § 36-330) • Sec. 44-939. Maximum number of signs. In no case shall more than one freestanding sign per building per frontage be permitted in schedule no. III. If two freestanding signs are used, they shall comprise no more than 150 of the total area allowed. They must also be at least 100 feet apart. (Code 1982, § 36-331) Secs. 44-940-44-960. Reserved. Subdivision V. Schedule No. TV Seca 44-961. Scope. This schedule no. IV applies to signs in the M-1 light manufacturing district and M-2 heavy manufacturing district. Sec. 44-962. Permitted signs. Signs permitted in schedule no. IV are signs permitted in schedule I in subdivision II of this division. (Code 1982, § 36-340) CD44:92 i s • ZONING § 44-964 • • Sec. 44-963. Requirements. (a) The total copy area of building -mounted signs in schedule no. IV shall not exceed 20 percent of a business's wall surface area to which the signs are attached. For multiple occupancy, the wall surface for each tenant or user shall include only the surface area from the exterior facade of the premises occupied by such tenant or user. (b) The maximum area of a freestanding sign in schedule no. IV shall be as follows: Lot Area 5,999 sq. ft. or less 6,000 sq. ft. to 1 acre More than 1 acre Total Sign Copy Area (square feet) 150 250 300 (c) In no case shall the height of a freestanding sign in schedule no. IV exceed a height of 25 feet at the property line. The height may be increased by one foot for each additional three feet the sign is set back from the front property line. Measurements shall be to the leading edge of the sign nearest the street front. The height shall be measured vertically from the average street or lot grade nearest the supporting columns to the highest point of the sign, but in no case will this height exceed 50 feet to the top of the sign. (Code 1982, § 36-341) Sec. 44-964. Maximum number of signs. (a) The permissible number of signs in schedule no. IV is dependent upon the surface area of the largest face of the building. The permitted number of signs is as follows: Surface Area of Largest Facade (square feet) Less than 499 500 to 1,499 1,500 to 2,999 Over 3,000 Maximum Number of Signs 2 3 4 5 Buildings or enterprises with more than 3,000 square feet on any face are permitted one sign for each clearly differentiated department or tenant with a separate exterior entrance, in addition to the five allotted in this subsection, and such signs shall be coordinated as to size and location. (b) For schedule no. IV, one freestanding sign is permitted for each street upon which the business has frontage. Two freestanding signs are permitted if they are located on two different streets and are separated more than 100 feet measured in a straight line between signs. If two such signs are used, they shall together comprise no more than 150 percent of the total area allowed. CD44:93 § 44964 MAPLEWOOD CODE (c) The maximum number of signs stipulated in this section may be increased by one if a building is located at an intersection. (Code 1982, § 36-342) Secs. 44-965-44-985. Reserved. Subdivision W. Schedule No. V Sec. 44-986. Scope. This schedule no. V applies to signs in the BC business commercial district, BC(M) business commercial district (modified) and SC shopping center district. Sec. 44-987. Permitted signs. The following signs are permitted in schedule no. V- (1) Signs permitted in schedule I, subdivision II of this division. (2) For each occupant of a building, two signs are allowed for each street upon which the building has frontage. (Code 1982, § 36-351) Sec. 44-988. Requirements. • (a) The total copy area of fascia signs in schedule no. V shall not exceed 20 percent of the wall surface to which the signs are attached. For multiple occupancy, the wall surface for each tenant or user shall include only the surface area of the exterior facade of the premises occupied by such tenant or user. (b) The maximum area of a freestanding business sign in schedule no. V shall be as follows: 7btal Sign Copy Area Lot Area (square feet) 5,999 sq. ft. or less 150 6,000 sq. ft. to 1 acre 250 More than 1 acre 300 (c) In no case shall the height of a freestanding sign for schedule no. V exceed a height of 25 feet at the property line. The height may be increased by one foot for each additional three feet the sign is set back from the front property line. Measurements shall be to the leading edge of the sign nearest the street front. The height shall be measured vertically from the average street or lot grade nearest the supporting columns to the highest point of the sign, but in no case will this height exceed 50 feet to the top of the sign. (Code 1982, § 36-352) CD44:94 • ZONING § 44-1017 Sec. 44-989. Maximum number of signs. (a) The maximum permissible number of signs in schedule no. V shall be as stipulated in section 44-987(2). (b) In schedule no. V, one freestanding sign shall be allowed for each street frontage. Two freestanding signs are permitted if they are located on two different streets and are separated by more than 100 feet measured in a straight line between signs. If two such signs are used, they shall together comprise no more than 150 percent of the total area allowed. (c) The maximum number of signs may be increased by one if a building is located at an intersection. (d) Auto dealerships may be allowed two freestanding signs: one for the new car dealership and one for used vehicles. (Code 1982, § 36-353) Secs. 44-990-44-1015. Reserved. DIVISION 6. NONCONFORMING SIGNS Sec. 44-1016. Scope. • (a) Nonconforming signs shall be regulated as stipulated in section 44-12. (b) To ease the economic impact of this article on those using nonconforming signs on the date of the original adoption of this article (July 14, 1977), this article provides for up to ten years of continued use of nonconforming signs in existing states, or unlimited use if the nonconformance was due to an action of the city council other than an action amending an ordinance. (c) Any conditions or controls on signs in the city established prior to July 14, 1977, by city council action through the community design review process relative to building site plan review and pertaining to signs are hereby voided, and any sign in the city which was nonconforming only as to any such conditions or controls as of July 14, 1977, shall no longer be a nonconforming sign. (Code 1982, § 36-376) Sec. 44-1017. Survey of city; notice of nonconformity. (a) The administrator of this article shall survey the city for signs which do not conform to the requirements of this article. Upon determination that a sign is nonconforming, the administrator shall use reasonable efforts to so notify, either personally or in writing, the user or owner of the sign or the owner of the property on which the sign is located of the following: (1) The sign's nonconformity; (2) Whether the sign is eligible for characterization as legal nonconforming, CD44:95 a § 44-1017 MAPLEWOOD CODE 0 (3) The administrator's estimate of whether the sign's replacement cost is less than or greater than $250.00; and (4) If the sign's replacement cost is greater than $250.00, the administrator's estimate of whether the expenditure required to bring the sign into conformity is less than or greater than $250.00. (b) Failing determination of the sign owner or user or owner of the property on which the sign is located, the notice may be affixed in a conspicuous place to the sign or to the business premises with which the sign is associated. (Code 1982, § 36-377) Sec. 44-1018. Eligibility for legal nonconforming signs. Any permanent sign located within the city on the date of adoption of this article (July 14, 1977) or located in areas annexed to the city thereafter, which does not conform with this chapter, is eligible for characterization as a "legal nonconforming" sign, provided it also meets the following requirements: (1) The sign has a replacement value of more than $250.00, as estimated by the procedure set out in section 441017; (2) The sign cannot be brought into compliance with this article for an expenditure of $250.00 or less, as estimated by the procedures set out in section 441017; (3) The sign was covered by a sign permit on the date of adoption of this article (July 14, • 1977), if one was required under applicable law; or (4) If no sign permit was required under applicable law for the sign in question, the sign was in all respects in compliance with applicable law on the date of adoption of this article (July 14, 1977); provided, however, no temporary or incidental signs, as defined by section 44-735 shall be eligible. (Code 1982, § 36-378) Sec. 441019. Number of legal nonconforming signs designated for each business premises. Each sign user within the city having nonconforming signs meeting the requirements of section 44-1018 shall be permitted to designate one such sign for characterization as "legal nonconforming" for each street upon which the business premises front. Such designation shall be made in the application for a legal nonconforming sign permit. (Code 1982, § 36-379) Sec. 44-1020. Legal nonconforming sign permit. (a) A legal nonconforming sign permit is required for each legal nonconforming sign designated under section 441019. The permit shall be obtained by the sign user or the sign owner or the owner of the property on which the sign is located within 60 days of notification CD44:96 0 fl • ZONING § 44-1023 by the city as specified in section 44-1017 that the sign is nonconforming. The permit shall be issued without fee and shall expire at the end of the amortization period prescribed in section 44-1024. (b) The application for a nonconforming sign permit shall contain the name and address of the sign user, the sign owner, the owner of the property on which the sign is located, if available, and such other pertinent information as the administrator may require to ensure compliance with this article, including proof of the date of installation of the sign. (Code 1982, § 36-380) Sec. 44-1021. Legal nonconforming signs brought into compliance for failing to secure permit. A legal nonconforming sign in the city for which no permit has been applied for and issued under this division within the 60 -day period following notification of nonconformity under section 44-1017 shall be immediately brought into compliance with this article or removed. Failure to comply shall subject the sign user or owner or owner of the property on which the sign is located to the remedies and penalties of section 44-743. (Code 1982, § 36-381) Sec. 44-1022. Loss of status of legal nonconforming signs. (a) A legal nonconforming sign for which a legal nonconforming sign permit has been issued under this division shall immediately lose its legal nonconforming designation if: (1) The sign is altered in any way in structure, except normal maintenance, which tends to or makes the sign less in compliance with the requirements of this article than it was before the alteration; (2) The sign is relocated to a position making it less in compliance with the requirements of this article; (3) The sign is replaced; or (4) Any new primary sign is erected or placed in connection with the enterprise using the legal nonconforming sign. (b) Should any of the actions described in subsection (a) of this section be undertaken, the permit for legal nonconforming sign status shall be automatically cancelled, and the sign shall be immediately brought into compliance with this article with a new permit secured therefor or shall be removed. (Code 1982, § 36-382) Sec. 44-1023. Illegal nonconforming signs. (a) An illegal nonconforming sign is any sign in the city which does not comply with the requirements of this article and: (1) Which has a replacement value of $250.00 or less, but which may be brought into conformity with an expenditure of $250.00 or less; or CD44:97 I] § 44-1023 MAPLEWOOD CODE 0 (2) Which has a replacement value of more than $250.00, but is not eligible for characterization as legal nonconforming under section 44-1018. (b) As provided in section 44-1024, such signs must be brought into compliance or removed within three months of the date of notification of their nonconformity under section 44-1018. (Code 1982, § 36-383) Sec. 44-1024. Use periods for nonconforming signs. (a) Illegal nonconforming signs, as defined in section 44-1023, may remain in a noncon- forming state for three months after the date of notification of nonconformity by the city under section 44-1017. Therefore, such signs shall be brought into conformity with this article with a permit issued therefor or be removed. (b) Legal nonconforming signs, as defined in section 44-1018, for which a legal nonconform- ing sign permit has been issued, may remain in a nonconforming state for ten years after the date of installation of the sign or four years after notification by the city of the sign's nonconformity, whichever is longer. Thereafter, the sign shall be brought into conformity with this article with a permit issued therefor or be removed. However, the use period established in this subsection may be used only so long as the sign retains its legal nonconforming status under this division. (Code 1982, § 36-384) Secs. 44-1025-44-1050. Reserved. • ARTICLE IV. MIlITING Sec. 44-1051. Purpose and intent. In furthermore of the public health, safety and general welfare, the purpose and intent of this article is to: (1) Provide for the availability of minerals. (2) Establish reasonable and uniform limitations and safeguards for the production of the minerals. (3) Control the effect of any operations upon adjacent property and other areas of the city. (4) Provide for the restoration of any area used for mining. (5) Control and minimize pollution. (Code 1982, § 36-401) Sec. 44-1052. Applicability. This article shall apply to all mining operations. (Code 1982, § 36-402) • CD44:98