Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/26/2005 AGENDA CITY OF MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD Tuesday, July 26, 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 28, 2005 Minutes 5. Unfinished Business: a. Maplewood Toyota Vehicle Parking and Sales Faciiity - Northwest corner of Beam Avenue and Highway 61, across the street from the existing saies lot. 6. Design Review: a. Woodiands of Maplewood - McMenemy Street, north of Kingston Avenue b. Walgreens - Northeast corner of Beam and White Bear Avenues 7. Visitor Presentations: 8. Board Presentations: a. July 11, 2005, City Council Meeting 9. Staff Presentations: a. Sign Code Revisions b. CDRB Representation at the August 8, 2005 City Council Meeting 10. Adjourn DRAFT MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD 1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, JUNE 28, 2005 I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Longrie called the meeting to order at 6:05 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 Present Present Present Present Staff Present: Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner Shann Finwall, Planner Andrew Gitzlaff, Planning Intern Staff Absent: Lisa Kroll, Recording Secretary III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Chairperson Longrie rnoved to approve the agenda. Board member Ledvina seconded. Ayes _ Hinzman, Ledvina, Longrie, Olson, Shankar The motion passed. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of the CDRB minutes for June 14, 2005. Board member Ledvina wanted the minutes clarified at the bottom of page 4. To reflect that the Maplewood Marketplace freestanding sign would only be 18 feet in height, not 20 feet as shown on the elevation submitted. Chairperson Longrie requested a correction to the minutes on page 14 in condition b. 1) in the second sentence it should read reconfiguring the westerlv not easterly and also in c. 2) a) it should state after in between the driveways, half way down the drive and strike out adjaGont to tho bloJilElings; in front of tho deors; Board member Ledvina moved approval of the minutes of June 14,2005, as amended. Board member Hinzman seconded. Ayes ---Hinzman, Ledvina, Longrie, Olson Abstentions - Shankar The motion passed. Cornrnunity Design Review Board Minutes 6-28-2005 2 V. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. VI. DESIGN REVIEW a. Maplewood Business Center Landscaping and Screening Plan - 1616 Gervais Avenue Ms. Finwall said Mr. Patrick Lensing with Steiner Development, leasing agent for the Maplewood Business Center, is requesting that the Community Design Review Board (CORB) review a landscape and screening plan for the west side of their property. The Maplewood Business Center is a multi-tenant office/warehouse building located at 1616 Gervais Avenue. 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. 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. The second plan consists of 150 linear feet of a 6-foot high, white PVC fence and Black Hills Spruce. Chairperson Longrie asked if there was currently an irrigation system? Ms. Finwall said yes. Chairperson Longrie was concerned about maintaining the plantings used for screening. Board member Hinzman asked what elevation the fence and/or plantings would be placed on the hill? Ms. Finwall said the fence and plantings are proposed at the top crest of the hill which is eight feet higher than the Maplewood Business Center and six feet higher than the residential homes. Board member Olson asked about the sound absorption of the PVC fence? It appears the fence is dense but she wondered if there would be air space in between the fence. Ms. Finwall said the applicant could address that issue. Chairperson Longrie asked the applicant to address the board. Mr. Patrick Lensing, Steiner Development, 3610 County Road 101, Wayzata, Minnesota, addressed the board. Regarding the construction of the fence, they plan on using the brookstone design for the fence in a tan color. Mr. Lensing presented a sample of the fencing material. Mr. Lensing said the PVC fence product is hollow and may create echoing between the fence and the building on the business center side of the property. Mr. Lensing said that is one of the reasons they wanted to put plantings on that side to dissipate the echoing as much as possible. Board member Shankar asked if they would be using lattice on the top of the fence. Community Design Review Board Minutes 6-28-2005 3 Mr. Lensing said this would be a six-foot high fence without lattice on the top. Board member Olson asked if there had been any sound studies done using this PVC fencing product? Mr. Lensing said he didn't have any material stating whether or not any sound studies had been done. Chairperson Longrie asked if he thought a hollow fence would actually accentuate the noise? Mr. Lensing said with any fence there will be some sound bounce back from the fence, so they are trying to mitigate the bounce back by having trees on that side of the fence. Chairperson Longrie asked if Steiner Development approved of staff's recommendation for a longer fence? Mr. Lensing said their preference is the 57 arborvitaes because they feel there wouldn't be any sound bounce off of the arborvitaes because they would be planted as tight as possible and in a double staggered row. In addition, the berm is four feet in height, and the trees would be five feet tall trees and both would provide a nine foot barrier which could grow as tall as fifteen feet tall. Board member Hinzman asked about the spacing of the proposed arborvitaes? Mr. Lensing said the arborvitaes would be packed in as tightly as possible. Chairperson Longrie said it appears the living fence wouid be 225 feet long and the PVC fence would be only 150 feet long. Mr. Lensing said the reason for that is they designed that option to be done in phases because there are two buildings on the site. The building to the north is called Building A and the building to the south is called Building B. The Pioneer Press building is located in Building B and because that is where the noise is coming from they only designed the fence to take care of Building B. Mr. Lensing said they don't have any tenants in Building A but any future tenants would not be operating at night so they didn't feel the cost for additional fencing at this point would benefit the property. It could be done in the future if need be. It's going to be a costly endeavor no matter what; they are trying to balance the issues. Chairperson Longrie asked if they were planting the living fence today, what length would the fence be? Mr. Lensing said the living fence would be 225 feet long and would accommodate both Building A and Building B. The PVC fence only accommodates Building B. Community Design Review Board Minutes 6-28-2005 4 Board member Olson said the first proposal with the double row of arborvitaes is estimated to cost $17,750 and the second proposal with the PVC fence is estimated to cost $14,700. She asked if she understood correctly that the applicant preferred the first proposal for the living fence even though it's more expensive? Mr. Lensing said correct. The owners of the building don't care for the fence and would much rather see live trees there. They realize there is an issue that needs to be taken care of and they agree to do whatever the CDRB recommends. They have had some difficulty getting bids on the irrigation system along the top of the berm where they would be planting the greenery. They may have to move the current irrigation system to add a line of irrigation for that area along the berm. So those issues are unsolved and cannot be solved until they begin digging. Chairperson Longrie asked if the living fence was planted would they make sure the living fence would be irrigated the entire length of the properties? Mr. Lensing said correct. Chairperson Longrie asked if anybody in the audience wanted to address the board regarding this proposal? Ms. Cindy Hall, 1596 Grandview Avenue, Maplewood, addressed the board. She's one of the people that's been complaining to the city regarding the noise problems at the Pioneer Press building. The problem with both option A and option B is this is a facility where people drive to pick newspapers up and then leave. Metal carts come out of the warehouse and go the entire length of the parking lot of Building A and Building B. Trucks drive in and honk their horns and slam their car doors. She hears hundreds of car and truck doors slamming every single night. Because of this noise she can't sleep with the windows open. She was recently diagnosed with a spine problem and if she doesn't get enough sleep it affects her job which is why she has been complaining to the city. They have been trying to deal with these noise problerns. They have learned how things are processed through the city and this has been a good experience to learn the steps that need to be taken to get something resolved. Ms. Hall said she hopes the CDRB can see the neighbor's side of how the noise affects them. When they came before the city council the council said they wanted a solid wood fence like Mounds Park Academy and this fence is nothing like that. Ms. Hall's fear is that they are going to spend all this money on this project and she is still going to hear the noise. She is up every night between 2:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. There is no quality of life for her because of the noise. She doesn't want businesses to go away but she wants this problem resolved and she wants the board to understand the problems here. Chairperson Longrie asked how Ms. Hall would propose changing option A or option B? Ms. Hall said she would recommend using option B with the PVC fence, but she would extend the fence to cover the entire parking lot. She was assessed over $4,000 for street improvements recently. She contacted Patrick Lensing to tell him people throw stuff into their pond and report other problems and vandalism in the area. Community Design Review Board Minutes 6-28-2005 5 Ms. Hall said when the street was redone there was sorne old plastic stuff left frorn the sprinkler system which kids threw into the pond. Even though she called to let them know what had been happening on the property nothing was done to resolve the issues. She asked if trash could be picked up after 6:00 a.m. because the trash hauler was coming before then, which was very irritating. Mr. Lensing guaranteed her the garbage would be picked up after 6:00 a.m. and then today the trash was picked up at 5:30 a.m. again. There is also carpeting, boxes, tires etc. dumped at the site. She doesn't have much faith from anything she has heard from the Pioneer Press representatives. Chairperson Longrie said whatever option the board decides should extend a minimum of 225 feet. Ms. Hall said the workers slam metal carts into the cement walls of the buildings. The noise bounces off the walls and into her house. She sleeps with earplugs and keeps her air conditioning on and she can still hear the noise. She has called the Maplewood Police Department over 8 times because of the noise problems here. Board member Ledvina said the staff report indicates the fence should be 285 feet long and he asked Ms. Hall if that length would be adequate? Ms. Hall said as long as it extends the length of the parking lot. Board member Ledvina asked if Ms. Hall preferred the use of the PVC fence verses the plantings. Ms. Hall said yes. Board member Hinzman said this has been an issue for this tenant for a long time now and asked what conversations have they had with the Pioneer Press over noise and what do they expect long term for the leasing situation for that tenant at this location? Mr. Lensing said they have installed different doors at the building to alleviate the issue of the metal carts banging into the walls. Every time he would hear complaints regarding the banging noise he would go and talk to the folks at the Pioneer Press, whether it was the district manager or the manager of the facility. Mr. Lensing said the issues have been brought to their attention but don't seem to go away. This could be due to the fact that there is a big turnover in personnel or some other reason; the problems don't seem to go away. Mr. Lensing said he personally called the garbage company four times and is disappointed to hear the problem is still occurring. Mr. Lensing said in the past the garbage hauler was not aware of the city ordinance but stated they wouldn't come until later in the morning. Board member Hinzman said here is a tenant who is causing a noise problem adjacent to a residential area. Looking at this business so close to residential he would assume an overnight operation wouldn't occur so close to residential, especially with the exterior noise factors that happens nightly. Community Design Review Board Minutes 6-28-2005 6 Board rnember Hinzman was wondering if this is the right kind of tenant to have in this type of building so close to residential homes. There were revisions made to the conditional use permit (CUP) because of the noise concerns and he hopes what ever conditions are recommended to the city council that this helps rnitigate the noise concerns for the neighborhood. Mr. Lensing said the partnership he works for didn't own the building when the Pioneer Press tenant signed their lease in this building. The building is 20 years old and there is not enough room for them to exist in any other part of the building this is why the Pioneer Press exists in this part of the building. Once the fence is installed they will require drivers to park along Building B extending south along to the front of the building facing Highway 36. Chairperson Longrie asked if the living fence shown on the plan was to scale? Mr. Lensing said yes. Ms. Hall said when she first moved in Maplewood SMP trucks were in this space and a year later Pioneer Press came in. If Pioneer Press can't train their people not to slam their doors, not to blast their car radios and leave their car doors open, not to slam the metal carts into the electric eye doors that were just put in, she doesn't know how they can train people not to park in certain areas. It's human nature and she doesn't think the people coming to pick up the newspapers or the employees that work there can change the way they have been operating. Chairperson Longrie said the CORB can't control whether or not the Pioneer Press people can train people not to do the things Ms. Hall mentioned, the only charge the CORB has is to review and recommend the trees and fence option for this property. Ms. Hall said the only reason she brings these issues up is even if they plant trees and or a fence, these other problems will still exist if they are not addressed and taken care of. Chairperson Longrie said Option A is for a living fence with a berm four feet tall and five foot tall trees, which equals nine feet in height with the potential to grow taller. Option B is for a four foot berm and a six foot high fence for a total of ten feet in height. She asked Ms. Hall if she saw any benefit to the living fence for Option A that would continue growing verses Option B for the six foot high fence that would always stay the same height? Ms. Hall said she prefers to have something solid as a noise barrier so she prefers the fence option. Board member Shankar said if noise is the primary issue then the fence is the best way to screen noise. Board member Hinzman agreed with those comments. If noise is the primary issue the more solid the barrier, the better off the neighbors would be. Cornmunity Design Review Board Minutes 6-28-2005 7 Board member Ledvina agreed. Board member Olson agreed and is very sympathetic to the residents. She lives next door to a school and even though there is a landscape barrier it is not significant enough. She would be interested to know the pros and cons of a hollow plastic fence verses a solid fence. She thinks if the hollow plastic fence butted up against landscaping it would be better than a solid plastic fence because noise would tend to bounce off. She thinks the plastic is not as good as wood as a sound barrier but the wood fence would be a higher maintenance issue to deal with. She remembers the noise issue coming from the Pioneer Press at the city council meeting and she remembers the Pioneer Press representative stating they would caution staff and would be installing rubber bumpers and other items to help with the complaints issued. She would like to put some language into the condition to send a message back to the Pioneer Press representatives that they need to hold another training session with their employees. Board member Shankar recommended the fence be staggered at a 5 degree angle every 15 feet to help with the sound barrier. Board members thought that was a good idea. Board member Ledvina stated those trees are strategically planted. He would like to strike number 4 in the staff recommendations regarding the removal of the Black Hills spruce. In his opinion the city has to do everything they can to help with the sound. Chairperson Longrie said she would like to include the provision of the irrigation repairs as necessary throughout the construction zone to ensure the irrigation is operational. Board member Shankar recommended approval of the PVC Fence landscape/screen plan date-stamped June 17, 2005, for the Maplewood Business Center at 1616 Gervais Avenue with the following revisions and conditions: (changes made by the CORB during the meeting are underlined if added and stricken if deleted) 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. Tho f-onoo color shol,Jld motOR tho oolors ond materials of the blJilding, either beige to matoh the color of tho bricke; on tho l3uildin!l or Brown to motch tho color of the uplJer foe;oia and doors. 2. ~ Six landscape areas should be planted in front of the fence, along Germain Street. Each landscape 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. 1. Removal of the fivo Black Hille; spruce trees from tho IJlan. Comrnunity Design Review Board Minutes 6-28-2005 8 ~. The fence should be constructed with a rninimum of a 5 dearee anale from the horizontal every 15 feet. 4. The irriaation svstem shall be modified with the installation of the fence. Board member Hinzman seconded. Ayes - Hinzman, Ledvina, Longrie, Olson, Shankar The motion passed. b. Maplewood Toyota: 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. Mr. Ekstrand said Mr. 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 corner 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 corner 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 corner 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. 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 there to temporarily store the cars. Staff recommends denial for the proposed parking ramp proposal to give the applicant the opportunity to revise the plans for a more attractive and compatible design. Board member Shankar had a conflict of interest for this proposal since he is an employee of BWBR Architects, the architect and consulting firm for this proposal. Chairperson Longrie asked the applicant to address the board. Mr. Steve McDaniels, owner of Maplewood Toyota, addressed the board. Mr. Tom Dornack, Architect with BWBR Architects, Lawson Commons, 380 St. Peter Street, Suite 600, St. Paul, addressed the board. Community Design Review Board Minutes 6-28-2005 9 Mr. Jake Boerboon, Project Manager, Kraus Anderson, addressed the board. Mr. McDaniels said in regards to the landscaping on the west side of the lot, Maplewood Toyota planted a lot of trees there as well as on the resident's property. With the holding pond in the front it makes it difficult to plant any more trees. As it is, it makes it difficult for the homeowner to get in and out of his property without falling into the pond. He asked how many, what size and what type of trees staff proposed Maplewood Toyota plant. Chairperson Longrie asked if the Maplewood Toyota plans were different or revised in any way from the packet the CDRB received? Mr. Dornack said other then embellishments and development on the design, there were no changes made to the design. There is more information regarding color and texture of the material, but no changes since the submittal. Mr. Ekstrand said Mr. McDaniels was asking where staff thought the additional landscaping should be added and then he displayed it on the screen. It's pretty well screened now he said, but not in the winter. There is one house that has an obscured view and that homeowner came to the planning commission meeting to voice her concern for additional landscaping to screen the vehicles. Mr. McDaniels said if staff advises them where to plant the landscaping, they would be happy to plant additional plantings. Regarding the lighting plan, they propose to move the current lights up on top of the parking ramp. The lights cast downward and would have screens on the back. The lights would maintain the same grade all the way up to Gulden's restaurant. Mr. Dornack said regarding the parking ramp design, the only difference they are proposing is the color. He showed photos of the 5t. John Hospital parking ramp with smooth concrete panels which have the same concrete spandrel section. It's embellished with an aggregate type finish in different locations. The primary difference is this is a painted or pigmented aggregate panel construction. For Maplewood Toyota's protocol their buildings are white with a red stripe and there isn't a lot of room to alter the corporate protocol. Mr. Dornack said that's the primary reason they are proposing the white color on the smooth portion of the concrete and the red band or stripe painted on the concrete. He said they are using similar building materials and color as they did on the existing Maplewood Toyota building. Mr. McDaniels said corporate protocol for Toyota has a certain nationwide image requirement. Toyota came out with a new image 1% years ago and this proposal has the new material proposed to comply with their new image. It should last 10 to 12 years. Mr. Dornack showed some building samples to the board. Comrnunity Design Review Board Minutes 6-28-2005 10 Chairperson Longrie asked about the life expectancy of the paint? Mr. Dornack said this is a special concrete paint and it should last 20 years. Board member Ledvina asked what the spandrel's vertical dimension is. Mr. Dornack said the vertical dimension is about 6 feet. He showed these dimensions on the screen. Chairperson Longrie said one of the residents made a comment regarding sidewalks and she asked staff to discuss the sidewalks in the area. Mr. Ekstrand said residents were concerned at the planning commission about the loss of a sidewalk or lack of sidewalks. The only sidewalk is along the north side of Beam Avenue and there are no sidewalks along Highway 61. Board member Olson asked if there was a possibility of reducing the lights on the top deck of the parking ramp to 18 feet in height? Mr. Ekstrand said 25 feet high is the maximum height allowed by city code but that height is usually measured from the ground up, he wasn't sure if that was an appropriate height for a light post on top of a parking ramp. He is concerned about the residents' view of lights. He understands Mr. McDaniel wants to keep the area illuminated and the higher the light, the better the light spread. Mr. Dornack said the lights they propose to use on the top of the parking ramp would not be any higher than the existing lights that are currently on the ground. Board member Olson said the applicant indicated they were going to take the existing light posts (20 feet high plus a 2 foot base) and relocate them on top of the parking ramp which means they are going to be 22 feet above the floor of the new parking ramp. She wondered if the light post height could be reduced down to 15 or 18 feet high and still have the lighting plan work. Mr. Dornack and Mr. McDaniels discussed the lighting and agreed to work with the architects and city staff to ensure appropriate lighting. Chairperson Longrie asked if anybody in the audience wanted to speak regarding this proposal. Nobody came forward to speak. Board member Ledvina said he was involved in the approval process for the parking ramp for St. John's Hospital and at that time the discussion was to match building materials between the hospital and the parking ramp. The board requested St. John's Hospital use the face brick on the parking ramp but that was cost prohibitive. Then the concept was to develop a complimentary building product so it would be compatible and cornplementary to the hospital. If the board uses the same logic here he would think the applicant would propose using the same products as corporate Toyota requires. Comrnunity Design Review Board Minutes 6-28-2005 11 Board member Ledvina believes the higher textured exposed aggregate would be a good choice for a better contrast. The plan the applicant has submitted is acceptable. The rest of the board members agreed the higher textured exposed aggregate would be a better choice along with the white color along the westerly side of the parking ramp. Board member Olson said she wished Board member Shankar could give the board some ideas for other building materials that could be used on this parking ramp to increase the architectural features. (Because Mr. Shankar abstained from the discussion due to a conflict of interest the board cannot ask for his input.) Board member Olson agreed with staff that this parking ramp design is boring, utilitarian and non-decorative. However, she understands the corporate protocol image for Toyota. It's just that this concrete parking ramp lacks architectural features. She is uncomfortable with the light post height and would like staff to take another look at the pole height to prevent anymore light pollution especially if the light is going to bounce off a white structure. Board member Olson asked staff if there would be a stop sign installed at the end of the driveway? Mr. Ekstrand said no stop sign is required. In fact said Mr. Ekstrand, staff was recommending denial of this proposal with some changes to the plan but it sounds like board members may be making a motion to approve this proposal. Board member Olson said she wanted to clarify that staffs recommendation for denial was based upon the design of the structure? Mr. Ekstrand said staff felt the lighting plan wasn't fully developed, there was the question of adding a few more trees, and a lot more could be done to the design of the parking ramp structure to enhance its looks. It still appears to be utilitarian, it may be compatible with their color scheme but in staffs opinion that isn't good enough. During previous meetings staff stressed over and over again that this parking ramp had to be a better than average attempt at a parking ramp and they haven't come close to what the city staff would like to see. Board member Ledvina asked if staff had some idea of what else could be done to improve the appearance of this parking ramp? Mr. Ekstrand said staff doesn't feel the parking ramp needs to match St. John's Hospital parking ramp in appearance, but it should match in quality. If he lived in this neighborhood next door to this proposal, he would feel cheated that the city didn't look after his views as a neighbor. In his opinion this looks like a scaled down Victory parking ramp currently located in downtown St. Paul. It's staffs opinion that this is just a white concrete parking ramp and is as plain as you can get. He respects the boards' opinion but he thinks this is only the first attempt to make it better and it could be improved quite a bit more. The view from the highway is okay but there is more to do with texturing, or relief with the spandrels and the columns. Cornmunity Design Review Board Minutes 6-28-2005 12 Chairperson Longrie asked if there had been any discussion regarding variations that Toyota has at other locations that are still within their corporate protocol? Mr. Ekstrand said the city staff requested this parking ramp look architecturally pleasing and nice but there haven't been other variations discussed. Board member Olson asked if the reason Maplewood Toyota is expanding this from a storage lot to a parking rarnp is so they can add more vehicles for sale and parking for employees and customers? Mr. Ekstrand said the addition of the parking ramp is primarily for inventory parking. At the planning commission meeting there was a lot of discussion regarding employees and customers parking along Beam Avenue. Staff finds with this parking ramp proposal there is no reason Maplewood Toyota has to use the street to park vehicles. There was a lot of discussion at the planning commission meeting regarding vehicle congestion at the intersection at Beam Avenue. There was also discussion regarding on-street parking and lack of internal customer parking at Maplewood Toyota. As a Maplewood Toyota customer it's very hard to find a parking spot, some times impossible. Staffs recommendation is that Maplewood Toyota needs to utilize some of this new space to provide adequate employee and customer parking and no parking shall occur on Beam Avenue. Board member Olson said this relates to something she saw a year ago when Maplewood Toyota initially expanded the storage lot. It was her understanding that the storage lot was also going to be used for overflow parking for employees and customers as well as storage. She asked if Maplewood Toyota was growing so fast that they are outgrowing this site? She understands the vehicle congestion situation at this intersection. She read that the planning commission recommended that the easterly curb cut on the Maplewood Toyota site south of Beam Avenue be clearly marked as an exit only. This brings her back to her initial question regarding the use of this parking ramp. Is this ramp for customers, employees, sales staff, inventory and when you go to the Maplewood Toyota dealership how will drivers know where they should go? Mr. Ekstrand said in discussing the issue of traffic congestion, the planning commission took a look at Maplewood Toyota's original site south of Beam Avenue and tried to look at ways to alleviate congestion out onto Beam Avenue and one way was to make the easterly curb cut closer to the highway and make that an exit only. The purpose of the parking ramp is to give more inventory parking. Mr. McDaniel's can elaborate on that but staff believed the ramp is for storage and employees to park. Board member Olson asked if the applicant could address these questions. Chairperson Longrie said she believes the board is looking at the design elements and the board may not have the right to say the land use there is inappropriate based upon use. Board member Olson said it relates in terms of staffs statement that this is a plain, utilitarian, concrete structure. Community Design Review Board Minutes 6-28-2005 13 Board member Olson said if the purpose is for storing inventory only and customers are not going to this site then maybe it's okay to look plain and utilitarian. If it's a sales office she would assume that customers would be directed to this ramp and the use would change. Therefore, she would agree with staffs recommendation to add more architectural features. Chairperson Longrie thanked Board member Olson for clarifying her question of the function of this ramp and asked the applicant to clarify. Mr. McDaniel's said staff is right; cars are parked very close together in the car lot to try to keep the overflow off the streets. Their employees park in the storage lot across the street except along the edge of the parking lot to keep cars off Beam Avenue. This is why they want to add another level above the storage lot making this a parking ramp. They understand the customers are frustrated and Maplewood Toyota wants to provide more parking spaces. Customers won't even know how to get to the top level of the parking ramp. Maplewood Toyota doesn't want customers to drive up there. The top level will be for inventory and employee parking and the bottom level will be for inventory. Chairperson Longrie asked Mr. McDaniel if he was to add more interest to the parking ramp exterior could he imagine what some of those changes would be? Mr. McDaniels regrets that he didn't talk directly to Mr. Ekstrand because he wasn't aware of the serious concerns. He is struggling with the cost of the parking ramp and the setback issue along Beam Avenue is going to make for fewer parking spots. He understands the variance may not be approved. He can't imagine what else he can do to the parking ramp structure and still comply. Chairperson Longrie asked if there was a difference in cost between the flat material and the textured material? Mr. Dornack said the textured concrete is more expensive simply because it includes another step of washing and removing the mixture to expose the aggregate. In terms of quality of construction, these materials are of the same cost for construction as the St. John's Hospital parking ramp. There is no difference other than this parking ramp is proposed to be painted white with some red on it. Board member Olson would prefer the smooth concrete surface simply because it is more polished. She likes the exposed aggregate for the red paint because the paint would adhere to the crevices and add more interest. The red stripe is only six inches high and six feet long. She is looking for some decorative elements that would give this parking ramp more visual interest. Mr. McDaniels had no other ideas of what they could do to enhance the parking ramp. Board member Olson used the Maplewood Community Center as an example of decorative elements added. Community Design Review Board Minutes 6-28-2005 14 Board member Olson said a variation in texture, different sized blocks or something to add interest would be nice. She doesn't want anything that appears busy; she wants to see something quiet and classy on this structure. Chairperson Longrie said she wondered if corporate Toyota would accept Maplewood Toyota using the white textured concrete product. Mr. McDaniels said they have to go through corporate Toyota's architect and he believes they would accept the white concrete product as long as they used white with the red stripe. Chairperson Longrie said St. John's Hospital parking ramp has small medallions on it, maybe Maplewood Toyota could have something similar but be white textured instead. That may give the architectural enhancements that the board is looking for but perhaps because it's a limited exposure and it's not increasing the cost that much, yet it adds something to the design. Board member Olson said she finds it very hard to accept that the corporate architect for Toyota or even Mr. McDaniel's architect couldn't come up with something that would be a little more interesting and she would like them to go back and rework this project. She would really like to see additional elements added to this project. Board member Hinzman said the question is does the board deny the proposal as staff has recommended, or table this proposal and ask that it come back before the CDRB for review again. He asked how the board members felt regarding this project? Chairperson Longrie said in the past if there have been other materials that could be used, the board has asked the applicant to come back with the new materials or colors and the board reviews the changes before it goes to the city council. Board member Olson said she would like to see this project tabled. This is the first parking ramp that she is aware of for all the dealerships that extend through Maplewood and through White Bear. This is the first parking ramp, but probably not the last to be requested. Board member Olson said for that reason, this parking ramp is an issue that needs to be considered very carefully. It's really the first example of what the city expects to see when a dealership requests to build a parking ramp in the City of Maplewood. Board member Ledvina said he would suggest Chairperson Longrie ask whether the applicant is willing to have this proposal tabled and rework the plan and come back before the CDRB, or whether he prefers the CDRB deny this proposal and have it go onto the city council for review without the recommendation from the board. Chairperson Longrie asked the applicant what they preferred? Cornmunity Design Review Board Minutes 6-28-2005 15 Mr. McDaniels said he doesn't know if staff would accept the textured product but he would prefer to work the details out with staff so they can continue to move forward on this proposal. He has been working with the city for 22 years and if he can't work things out with the staff, he will withdraw this proposal. Tabling this proposal would put this plan into 2006. Mr. Ekstrand said procedurally this would still need to go to the city council, if the board recommends approval or denial it would move ahead to the city council and they would consider the recommendation. If the board tables this proposal that would mean this needs to come back with revisions for the CDRB to review again. Staff was recommending this plan be denied. One thing that came out of the planning commission meeting was that the commission directed staff to do a traffic study and Chris Cavett, Assistant City Engineer, is working on that along with one of the city's traffic consultants. Mr. Ekstrand is not sure how long that takes to complete, but the ball is rolling. If this was delayed a few weeks longer that would allow the CDRB to review this again and then it could go to the city council after the board reviews it for the second time. Mr. McDaniels asked if the board tabled this request would the board table the next request that is still to be heard tonight? Chairperson Longrie said no, they are two separate proposals. Mr. McDaniels said at least he could get started on one of the projects. Board member Ledvina recommended to €iefIy table this proposal for the plans date-stamped May 26, 2005, for the proposed parking ramp proposal for Maplewood Toyota at the northwest corner of Beam Avenue and Highway 61. This is based on the strong concern that the board and city staff have regarding the quality of the design, architectural details and materials proposed. Board member Olson seconded. Ayes - Hinzman, Ledvina, Longrie, Olson Abstention - Shankar The motion to table passed. Board member Ledvina said it bothers him that during the CDRB's review of this application for Maplewood Toyota and on two previous applications for consideration by the board city staff, city council members, board and commission members have driven by this site and has seen vehicles parked on the grass. Maplewood Toyota knows what the ordinances are as far as vehicles parking on grass, they have been warned about it over and over again and yet tonight there are vehicles parked on the grass again. He would think that especially when Maplewood Toyota has a request into the city that they could at least adhere to the city ordinance requirement not to park vehicles on the grass during the review and approval time. Specifically, he is referring to the southwest corner of Beam Avenue and Highway 61 there is a truck parked on the grass and two more vehicles as you go further south on the main site. Community Design Review Board Minutes 6-28-2005 16 Mr. McDaniels said he doesn't want to wreck the grass so he will rnove the cars. He has 700 cars jammed on the site until this project is complete. Board member Ledvina thanked Mr. McDaniels in advance for taking care of the problem and adhering to the city ordinance that has been in place for years now. Maplewood Toyota Expansion (North Site) - Located on the west side of Highway 61, north of LaMettry's Collision. Mr. Ekstrand gave his report on the Maplewood Toyota Expansion for a parking lot proposal located on the west side of Highway 61, north of LaMettry's Collision. The applicant is requesting that the CDRB and city council approve the site and landscaping plans. 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. 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. Board member Olson said she would like to keep this lot as a parking lot and not have the service building built on it. She asked what the city can do if the applicant decides not to build the building? Mr. Ekstrand said the city ordinance states with parking lots by themselves as a primary use the lot must be set back at least 350 feet from residential districts. With a building on the lot the lot can be 20 feet from residential. If the applicant decides not to build the building they would be breaking the city ordinance because the lot would then be 20 feet from residential when it shouid be 350 feet from residential for a parking lot only. Chairperson Longrie said when she worked for Target Corporation and a plan came through for review like this the applicant had to show a building pad on the plans representing where the future building would be. If the applicant changed their mind and did not chose to build the building they had to come back for review and change the parcel back so it meets the city code. Board member Hinzman is concerned about how this lot will cut into the land. Mr. Ekstrand said a retaining wall will be required. Board member Olson asked what type of pervious pavement product they proposed to use? Mr. Ekstrand asked the applicant to address that comment. Mr. Steve McDaniels, owner of Maplewood Toyota, addressed the board. Community Design Review Board Minutes 6-28-2005 17 Mr. Tom Dornack, BWBR Architects, addressed the board. He said there are two or three pervious paving systems available. The soils are pretty good here. The first layer is 1 % feet of 3 inch rock; the second layer is six layers of :y. inch rock, a compaction gravel, then the system itself. Overall it is 2 feet deep which allows water to percolate through. This is the sarne system that was approved by the city for Schmelz Countryside Volkswagen. Mr. Jake Bourboon, Kraus Anderson, addressed the board. Mr. Bourboon said just to clarify; it is a crushed granite not compacted gravel as Mr. Dornack referred to. It comes out of St. Cloud and it allows water to pass through but not penetrate the surface. The board thanked him for his clarification. Mr. Dornack read a letter from the landscaping architect regarding the 80% opaque screening for the plantings and his reluctance to use an 80% screening because the plantings become too overcrowded which kills the landscaping. Board member Olson asked what the function of this lot is? McDaniels said this lot is primarily for storage. Once they build the service and light maintenance building there it will serve two purposes. Chairperson Longrie asked if the applicant had any problems with staff's recommendations listed in the staff report? Mr. McDaniels said no. Board member Hinzman asked about the height of the evergreens? Mr. McDaniels said 6 feet tall. Chairperson Longrie asked about the retaining wall. Mr. Dornack said they propose to use a keystone block for the retaining wall. He said it will match the existing retaining wall they have used in the past and will be a tan color. If necessary they will use a metal railing with the retaining wall. Board member Olson commended Maplewood Toyota for using the pervious paving system. She agreed with the report that it should be increased to 20 feet. Board member Olson asked if there was any need for fencing? Mr. McDaniels said no there is no need for any fencing here. Chairperson Longrie asked staff about the landscaping letter that was read and staff's opinion of the recommendation to use 80% screening. Cornmunity Design Review Board Minutes 6-28-2005 18 Mr. Ekstrand said he recommends packing the landscaping in. With the townhomes being built the city needs to heavily screen this area from the vehicles on the lot. It is important to have an 80% opaque screen right away so the residential homes won't have to look at the cars. Board member Olson said she just wants the plantings to compliment each other. Board member Ledvina discussed the 12 foot high retaining wall and lighting plan. He said if the lighting plan and landscaping plan has to come back to the CDRB then the retaining wall plan should come back as well for review. Board member Olson said in her opinion she feels staff can work those details out with the applicant. Chairperson Longrie asked if the CDRB requested this be brought back to be reviewed would this hold the construction plan up for the parking lot? Mr. Ekstrand said staff would recommend the parking lot plan be treated as it would a building. The typical requirement is to have an escrow account in case the landscaping or retaining wall is not completed. Board member Hinzman said he doesn't have any reservations regarding this proposal. This is all going to be newly constructed and will blend in with the landscaping that will be done for the new townhomes. Mr. Dornack recommended these things be worked out with staff. If these issues can be worked with staff he would recornmend that it be handled between the applicant and staff. Board members Olson and Hinzman were fine letting staff and the applicant work the details out. Chairperson Longrie moved to approve the plans date-stamped May 26, 2005, for the proposed parking lot proposal for Maplewood Toyota at the northwest corner of Beam Avenue and Highway 61. Approval is subject to the following conditions: (changes made by the CORB during the meeting are underlined if added and stricken if deleted) 1. The applicant shall work with staff and provide rosblbmit 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. TAis plan shoblld be sblsrnitted for community design review soard approval. The city shall not issue permits for this site development until the lighting plan has been approved. Comrnunity Design Review Board Minutes 6-28-2005 19 2. The landscaping plan submitted will be modified to have increased veaetation or trees. In workinq with staff the landscaoinq shall be consistent in character and nature with the adioininq property to the south alonq with their landscapinq, &RaIl be reslJl3mittod te tho oommunity design review board for apl3roval j3rovidin€l for a visual semon that is at loast six feet tall and gg porcent opaEjuQ lJl30n planting. This planted buffer shall be comprised of evergreen trees and thick-owned, over- story trees. The site shall also have an in-ground irrigation system installed when the plantings are planted. futlJre blJilding 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 landscapina plan has been worked out and approved bv staff ligRting plan has been approved. The landscape plan shall be complementary and compatible to the landscapina plan desian for the 4th Addition Heritaae Sauare town homes. 3. The design of the retaining wall shall be a tan keystone block to match the retainina wall found between the south parkina lot and the service buildina Gubrnitted to the comrnunity dosign reviO'.... Boan:J along with tho landscapin€l plan. Retaining walls that exceed four feet in height must be designed by a structural engineer and have a protective fence on top. The landscapina desian shall be consistent and cohesive in relation to the retainina wall. The applicant shall work with staff to ensure this direction. The review Board shall reviow the fonce desi€ln. TRe city sRall not issue permits for this site eovolopmont until tho retaining wall dotails have Beon apl3rovod. 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 determined 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 RamseyIWashington 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 replace with a permanent 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. Cornmunity Design Review Board Minutes 6-28-2005 20 8. The property owner shall obtain city approvals for a permanent 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. 9. Escrow shall be reauired to ensure that the landscapina. retainina wall and parkina lot are constructed as recommended. Board member Olson seconded. Ayes - Hinzman, Longrie, Olson Nay - Ledvina Abstention - Shankar The motion passed. Board member Shankar abstained from voting because he is an employee of BWBR Architects and there is a conflict of interest. Board member Ledvina voted against this proposal because there is a serious issue with this proposal related to the determination of pervious pavement being counted as impervious surface. This should have been addressed in the land use section and he did not want to discuss it then. It should be looked at with more detail. The engineering report on page 28 states that 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. He doesn't find sufficient evidence to back up that statement. The standard is 30% within the shoreland district of Kohlman Lake and this is going up to 50% and exceeding 50% by counting this pervious pavement. The shoreland ordinance is to protect the surface waters and these areas would be grassed or vegetated to reduce run off. The shoreland ordinance is to protect the surface waters and the report is trying to state that the pervious pavers are like a grassy area and he can't agree with that. You are putting cars on this pavement and surface water into this area and what is the capacity of the surface water for these impervious pavers to handle. Perhaps it's equivalent for a Y, inch rain storm but is it equivalent for a 2 inch or 5 inch rain storm? Chairperson Longrie said in her opinion because of the direction of the CDRB the board wouldn't be able to deny something based on a land use plan usage because the board would be putting the city in jeopardy with that decision. Board member Ledvina said the board is making a recommendation to the city council and the board is the last place to make the recommendation. He believes this needs to be brought to the attention of the city council because it's an important issue and is important to get it on the record. Community Design Review Board Minutes 6-28-2005 21 Board member Olson agreed with Board member Ledvina because pervious pavers are fairly new to the city. Board member Ledvina brought up that this area is in a shoreland ordinance area which she didn't even think of this area being in the shoreland ordinance area until he mentioned it because of the function of this proposal. She knows the board is reminded that the focus is supposed to be limited and restricted but she feels very strongly as citizens that they have the right and responsibility to bring these issues that may have been missed by other people. This is the last step before a proposal goes to the city council for approval or disapproval and it is the responsibility of the board to speak for the community if there is an issue they have concerns about. Chairperson Longrie said she doesn't disagree with those comments but on the other hand the board is responsible for looking at certain areas of review. That doesn't stop anyone of the board members as "citizens" outside their duty as board members to go to the city council meeting and speak out regarding other issues that are outside the board's parameters. Board member Ledvina said it is still important to get this on the record. Board member Olson said she doesn't necessarily agree with that because she thinks the board has the responsibility to bring up issues that may pertain to planning issues, traffic, land use issues etc. as community design review board members. She's comfortable saying this use may not be a good use for this area and she would like to see that information reviewed in the minutes or over the cable cast outside of her going to the city council meeting. This information should be included in the minutes if the board member believes this is relevant to the ultimate design of the project. Waiting until the city council meeting to speak up on an issue is often too late. Board member Hinzman believed the comments would be reflected in the minutes and the board should move ahead to the remainder of the meeting. VII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS No visitors present. VIII. BOARD PRESENTATIONS a. Chairperson Longrie was the CDRB representative at the June 27, 2005, City Council Meeting. The only CDRB item to discuss was the Pondview Townhomes - Northwest corner of Larpenteur Avenue and Adolphus Street, which was approved by the city council. IX. STAFF PRESENTATIONS Ms. Finwall said Andrew Gitlaff, planning intern is going to give an update on the sign code revisions but she wanted to let the CDRB members know that Andrew has accepted a position with the City of Hugo and his last day is Friday, July 1, 2005. She thanked Andrew for his time and efforts while working at the City of Maplewood. Comrnunity Design Review Board Minutes 6-28-2005 22 a. Sign Code Revisions Mr. Gitzlaff said over the past few months staff has been receiving comments and guidance from the CDRB regarding revisions to the sign code. Staff has reviewed and compiled all comments and has completed a draft of the new sign code. Staff is requesting that the CDRB review the new sign code draft and discuss the new sections of the ordinance as well as make a recommendation on political campaign signs. Items of discussion are Prohibited Signs, Special Purpose Signs, Political Campaign Signs, and the Sign Code Revision Timeline. A handout was given to the board members regarding political campaign signs. Mr. Gitzlaff said 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 sign code amendrnent 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. Board member Olson asked if a political sign could be mounted on the face of a garage? Mr. Gitzlaff said yes. Board member Hinzman asked why the city wants to regulate the number of political signs when the state doesn't regulate them? Ms. Finwall said the city receives many complaints from people about the location of political signs and the number of them in one location. Ms. Finwall said a lot of staff time has been spent enforcing the sign situation, moving signs and sending letters out to candidates. Chairperson Longrie said she thinks what Board member Hinzman was referring to was why is the city concerned about the number and size of signs for local candidates when the state isn't concerned about state or local signs and wondered why there is an inconsistency here. Comrnunity Design Review Board Minutes 6-28-2005 23 Mr. Gitzlaff said staff feels there should be some restriction and as an example there shouldn't be a 50 foot political sign in someone's yard and the city should protect residents against that. Chairperson Longrie asked if the state doesn't allow that what is the city's legal rational on the local municipal elections that the city should have a different standard then what the state does. Board member Shankar asked when you say the state doesn't allow it, you are saying the state doesn't allow any restrictions. Chairperson Longrie said correct, if the state doesn't allow any restrictions what is the city's legal basis for saying this? Board member Shankar said every two years there is an election, when would the city have a case where someone is running for city council and the state legislature is not running for office. Board member Hinzman said he has a hard time supporting any language that sets limits on how much signage can be on a property and doesn't think this is something the city should be involved in. It is definitely a nuisance and he personally finds it annoying to see a lot of signage on one property but it is something that only occurs once every two years and is something the city should be able to handle on a case by case basis. There are already restrictions on when the signs can be posted and when they have to be removed and also where the signs can be posted. Board member Shankar said personally he is more irritated by realtor signs that are posted and left out a long time. Ms. Finwall said the main content of the political campaign sign ordinance is based on 5t. Paul's ordinance which was suggested by the Maplewood City Clerk, Karen Guilfoile. Planning staff reviewed it and thought it was acceptable. Chairperson Longrie asked why Maplewood would want to be like 5t. Paul? Ms. Finwall said the ordinance is a guide and as city staff they look at these political signs as a real nuisance. As an example, certain candidates were stacking their signs which irritated candidates and other individuals. Allowing an overall number of signs doesn't seem like the best interest for the community at large. It may be the best interest for the candidates, but as an individuals driving by on a public street in clear site, it can be a real distraction. Chairperson Longrie said if it's a stacking issue because it's too high; maybe say no stacking of signs? Board member Hinzman said he sees this as creating a lot of work for city staff to enforce sign standards for the number of complaints and accusations from one side against the other and what is the benefit. There is a fixed time frarne when the signs can go up and down, it isn't very pretty but it's something the city has to deal with. Cornmunity Design Review Board Minutes 6-28-2005 24 Mr. Gitzlaff said the state statute states political signs can go up August 1 until 10 days after the election. White Bear Lake's ordinance states no political sign greater than 12 square feet in area, Oakdale's ordinance states no political sign greater than g square feet in area and 4 feet high, Roseville's ordinance states no political sign greater than 12 square feet in area, and Brooklyn Center's ordinance states no political sign greater than 6 square feet in area and 1 sign per candidate per frontage. Board member Shankar said that sounds like an enforcement nightmare. Board member Olson agreed. If the state doesn't restrict the size or number of signs she is uncomfortable with this as proposed by the city. Ms. Finwall said staff is proposing an overall square footage of signs per property. Board member Olson asked what if you have an extremely large lot. Board member Shankar asked what if there is an apartment building with 12 buildings, is the city saying they can only have one sign per property. Board member Hinzman moved to recommend to the city council to approve the political campaign section of the new sign code draft with the following changes: Remove the requirement for a maximum size and number of political campaign signs. Board member Shankar seconded. Ayes - Hinzman, Ledvina, Longrie, Olson, Shankar The motion passed. This item goes to the city council on July 11, 2005. Ms. Finwall said due to the late hour staff recommended bringing the remainder of the sign code draft back to be reviewed for further discussion and board members agreed. b. Reschedule September 13 and November 8, 2005, CDRB meetings due to elections. Proposed dates are Wednesday, September 14 and Wednesday, November 9, 2005. Staff will check to see if the CORB meeting could be cablecast or if it would need to be replayed. c. CORB Representation at the July 11, 2005, city council meeting. Board member Shankar volunteered to represent the CDRB and the only item to discuss includes the political sign draft. x. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:07 p.m. MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: DATE: City Manager Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner Maplewood Toyota Parking Ramp Proposal-Plan Revisions Northwest Corner of Beam Avenue and Highway 61 July 19, 2005 INTRODUCTION Project Description On June 28, 2005, the community design review board (CDRB) reviewed plans by steve McDaniels, of Maplewood Toyota, for a proposed one-level parking ramp. This would be one parking deck over the existing parking lot at the northwest comer of Beam Avenue and Highway 61. Essentially, the CDRB tabled this proposal so the applicant could improve the quality of materials and design. Since the meeting, Mr. McDaniels' architects, BWBR Architects, have met with staff and revised their plans to address the board's concerns and recommended changes. Refer to the plans and attachments. The proposed ramp was initially proposed with smooth white concrete spandrels (panels) on the upper deck. The board wanted to see a material with a softer look with the type of material and color. Request 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 neighboring 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 lot/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 if the applicant proposes a change. DISCUSSION Ramp Design Tom Dornack, of BWBR, has revised the plans to soften the exterior appearance of the proposed ramp. He has shown two variations, both using textured, exposed-aggregate precast panels. One version shows a grey/white color to match Maplewood Toyota's main building. The other displays a tan-colored panel for a more muted look. There would also be a six-inch-wide red stripe along the bottom edge of the upper deck. He has only provided west elevations, but plans to make the ramp exterior the same all the way around. Staff prefers the tan-color option since it is more muted and softer in appearance. The white option is better than the previous one and actually matched the main Toyota building better, however. Primarily, with the originally proposal, staff opposed the stark, white color of the ramp. Landscaping/Screening The site is already screened fairly well from the homes to the west by existing trees. The applicant, however, has added 17 additional evergreen trees to the landscaping plan. Staff finds the addition of these trees acceptable with the provision that they are at least six feet tall upon planting. Lights The revised lighting plan now shows that the light intensity, or light spillover, at the abutting residential property line is 0.0 footcandles. The code says that this light intensity must not exceed .4 footcandles. This complies with city code. Department Comments Po/ice: Lieutenant Kevin Rabbett stated that "I have reviewed the attached plans and have no public safety concerns. 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 Marsha/: Butch Gervais, the fire marshal, has noted that there must be a standpipe for the fire department to connect to in case of fire. Buildino Official: Dave Fisher, the building official, has the following comments: . Proposed building must meet the 2000 Intemational Building Code (IBC), MSBC 1341 accessibility requirements and all related codes. . Separate permit is required for this corner site and the northerly site by Gulden's. . Separate permit and engineering is required for retaining walls over four feet in height. City Enoineer. Chuck Vermeersch, one of the Maplewood staff engineers, reviewed this proposal and has submitted the attached report. Mr. Verrneersch 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 2 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. . A requirement that the easterly curb cut on the Maplewood Toyota site south of Beam Avenue be clearly marked as an "exit only." June 28, 2005: The CDRB tabled this review for changes as noted above. RECOMMENDATION Approve the parking-ramp plan revisions, the lighting plan and the landscaping plan date- stamped July 15, 2005 for the proposed parking ramp proposal for Maplewood Toyota at the northwest corner of Beam Avenue and Highway 61. The applicant shall comply with the following conditions: 1. Submit complete revised ramp-design plans to staff for approval, with bridge details showing consistency in design, color and materials all around the structure. The plans referenced above depicted the west elevation only. The approved color shall be the tan option with textured aggregate spandrels. 2. Submit a detailed lighting plan to staff for approval showing the proposed fixture design and pole heights. There shall be no lights that shine toward the west. There shall be no lights mounted on the west of the proposed ramp that shine to the west. 3. Submit a revised landscaping plan to staff for approval that states that the proposed evergreen trees would be at least six feet tall and be balled and burlapped. 4. Submit an irrevocable letter of credit or cash escrow in the amount of 150 percent of the cost of completing the landscaping and site lighting. 5. These items must be provided before the city shall issue a building permit. 3 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. The applicant has agreed to a 60-day time extension, however. The review deadline for city council action is now September 23, 2005. p:sec4\Maplewood Toyota Ramp Design 6'05 te2 Attachmen1s: 1. Location Map 2. Property UnelZoning Map 3. Land Use Map 4. Stte Plan 5. Previous Landscaping Plan 6. Previous Parking Ramp Design Elevations 7. Previous Parking Ramp Design Perspectives 8. Project Summary Narrative date-stamped June 6, 2005 9. CUP Submittal Justification date-stamped June 6, 2005 10. Engineering Review Commen1s from Chuck Vermeersch dated June 7, 2005 11. Plans date-stamped May 26, 2005 (separate attachmen1s) 12. Revised plans date-stamped July 15, 2005 (separate _chmen1s) 4 , , I I ,- , '.." 'I /,/ I '"t~,/4// . p: '-. "---1 I., ~ w---.j ---,-1 L-':-~ U .~- .. r --_oj . '-1 ~-l '1'---11-\ t--j // f-----.-- '1]' Lt i\"I~" lbi1i.-1 l V~NBURG i 7~=-11'=-~-fr..=~--'--': , I II i_.f rl~-':I: -i I"" TIRE I ~ l.....= I / -- ~ tIj )~,' / ~..' GULD~N,~-'~'-j i /~//I l / ~~/ .. 0 11 I I ... ,I iff I I , /.;f__',,-,, # PROPOSED:E ,I " , ,.I ~,._~ :: 4{, I l,--. OPEN PARKING ? I // ~2~':> ""', /., ~! '>'l,-- 'I // I,.i /1" l~ ,;.. ",,/'" -\ \, /4- l.liMETTRY /i if .r(T ~ -'I~"\ \~.-/ ---j90UlSSI?~~~~~_~ ---1" ~'~/.l-.'~~ \~-l I W.PLEWO~D. / " -"'\~._._:..t\. J /~.- III ~,OYOTA I I /' " I- rill ...17' i'a;;... PROPOSED I / VJ ...-i I..w - I RAMPAND / ~ -.~ .. ~ '-'J !.Iiiii~ ~ . CAR SALES l_-i I. =1 ". .~f,. I'. / I I it- i ~ MAPLEWOOD , TOYOTA -../ " lIP " ,I / i /.. Attachment 1 / ( II g; I~ ,,/.---\1 i " I ,~__ ,I' -, / ~ .. " , I I / --.--- ~._. BEAlv'(A VE '1 ,11 N LOCATION MAP 5 Attachment 2 I ' ~ I \",41: jl , I ,!-!_uJ .\.1 IIR ru; Ii R 11' IDI I >--------- , I I!I f,-_ i' :I: II '-.-1. " -~I- - II I 11m 1 If! )"'r/ eJl~ .... I t-,.-. ,_I ..' '" ....J""'Ilb , t1"'" I ~ .. I ' ~ 11 r .."-- "u' Cl I II&, ~. -. --.-i-r / 11!11' '. I ,__I &II, I ~ii._---..if 4~~-~) )----- c.--T I:-jl~,r--, ) t ~ /." ' tR 1FlI ~--;" rI ,,i',/'l7'-- ,,""Ii!, i .:.1 I ~-'---. \. ,..,..__.::J,-,-_I 1\". 1" Jtii!#-" '~'I \ "'-(I' I'~ 'v / " i. -,'.r ..~. " >~ \,..,...., , I ' '''!iII( " "...l!II.'_' A- .. ' - ,:'11IWS}. i .JIlL \:'" .. ','~'I~j~:,\~- .___c-"'I.,~.~) ,:l!_ i~"1i ,,'. 'I- ' L.-_~--' ,. : :' I i /,\' "Il) (/) :--' -'--l ~, ,'" .. ."-rr\"'....i i \-.--1 y-./ ;" jl riJl ~I al-i qjr I ~-" __1-_-'< ~ u _L....L__._J I_.....-~ ____ " a: ~_u. r. u,,-u--'l"'~-'-I--- ., I~ \ Ill. IDI\f 0111 \ \' \ I ! ~ , I I I fA. _1'-1 I, I ;----1------1... I I BEAr-XAVE ... ... PROPERTY LINE I ZONING MAP 1f N 6 Attachment 3 os ---l .- T r-I" - ., II!%J 'im. IISl',~ lil\ ..I \ II I! Ii l 1-, _.J._.,_~_ .'d -.- 4lIl.... LAND USE MAP 1f N 7 Attachment 4 " -' ....- ",". " ", ~.. "' ....w__ 0' '" >- ~ J 50 ~ ;::, f': . BEAM AVENUE -- -------- -------- --, I r--------.... SITE PLAN SOUTH SITE \r N 8 DlClCUOUJ TIllIU o o IXlST1NGMAol\J1I1 TUU UISTlNClIIIClNn't 'LANTlD 1I1U ~lli ~\ NlWTIW CONIPlAOU! nus o EJlI51'1NDMI\'NII.ITlIU O IXISIlNQIllIONT1.Y PLANnDllW . NIWTlUIS DIODUOUS StttUIJ . IJU5TINGSHI.UIS TREE KEY: Attachment 5, MODln IXIJllNC IIIJGAT10NTO COM,LETILY COVU ANY GaliN S'ACES. ,-.-", ~- XlSTING TlEU . lie! . NO DITIONA NGS SID '\ ..' ' ..,'" \ I I , ...~. ...... '.. NEW -- ~ ~'..., ~. ----j BEAll A '<VlUE ANY TUU 1JT\JIIID DLJlING CDNlTlLJCTION IITHEI ULOCATI OIIEPLACI WITH NEW Pl>>mNGJ TO MATCH, ,---------------, I--~ PREVIOUS LANDSCAPING PLAN SOUTH SITE ;;; 11 N 9 I' I \ I , \ \ , I j jl I! I: ~ r II n \;.' II Ii 'Ii I 'I iil '[ 'I" I I I i ! I , , ! " .! I\i, 'j, I!' ',i .' ,'I.;., .:: 'l.' '!'.=-r.:.._"""......;-..;:- I If Ii, , .' =< , ,~-:<J > . - ""'.-=;..,,,.,.............. '" , I , I , I , I , I , I , , I , I , I , I , I , I , I , I , I I , I , I , I , I , I , I , I I, I ! II , I ~i) l'~.' 1;- I ': .~ .).- ~! .!- r.' l\ '" ?;~ '1 '.'.~ i L ',~ I::'" I I , II ) I Attachment 6 i I -t I I I I -' , == I , I - , I , I-I , lr:: I I , t )ill f., , I , 1= I , I '. ,- I - , I , I , I :':' , I , I , , I , '.:t.,-\~ 7r~:~ ,-, '''"='' I I , , i l! ~ il II !1. CI)- Z 0.0 :2- CI)<!< ::::>0:::> O(!)W -z-l >_w UJ~z 0::: 0::: , '" a..<~ o.CI) w c i ' ~? ... ~.". , ~\ Ul C\l Gl .= ... ::I Q !!l E Q .. ... := Gl :> 'i ';: Gl <I: Attachment 7 /:~ ' ::: Q:l o. C 00 Q ~::a .- N'lt -CI) 'ltO C 0 ~ ~ ~ l:I. X IIJ Cl c :i .. ~ c. &\'l ..... o ~ ~ "g o Q ~ a> - a. CU :E 0~.~6 ,,,1-, > I., '0 '-, ~ 11 0::: ~~ ~~ ::Q c g:g o :!~ ';) ~ g c = ~ ~ ~ a. x w Cl c :i ... ~ A. ca ..... 0 ~ 0 1= .. " III III ^ ". - :> 0 J: ... ::I ~ 0 Ul Q) E 0 - ... a. ... s: CU \ III ~ \ :> II!II:;;i r~~ (\ '0 ~~p~ ...... I- 12 - .... Cl:l E ell III 1D - . ~ ,~~ ceo ~~ ce ~ c. - cc o ..;Q ._ ...N !II N" "C C c ~ ell . Q, :I >< W Cl c :i ... ell g, ... !II ell III .c ... ::: CI III E ... ;:: ... co ..... o ~ ~ "a o o ~ GJ - a. CO :E ;: III :;; r~. < (If). b ~"L, > , 0 '-- ;.... 13 Attachment 8 r "- BWBR ~I7 MEMORANDUM Map1ewood 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 Map1ewood 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 northe=ost 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;\042140CMdmln1,Clty Submittal\Clty Submit_OS-11.05\Project Summary Narratfve.doc Lawson Commons 380 St. Peter Street, Suite 600 Saint Paul, MN 55102-1996 651.222.3701 fax 651.222.8961 www,bwbr,com 14 Maplewood Toyota Ramp 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 th.rough 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 I permanent and constructed with Class 5 gravel base. The pervious pavement will be a manufactUIed 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 strUctUIe located closer than 350 feet from an adjacent residential zoning district (SLP 1). 2. A variance for a structUIe 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 15 Lawson Commons 380 St. Petedtreet, Suite 600 Saint Paul, MN 55102-1996 651.222.3701 fax 651,222.8961 www.bwbr,com r ~ BWBR ~7 Attachment 9 ~ECEIVED JUN 0 6 2005 Map1ewood Toyota-Ramp and Service Maplewood, Minnesota BWBR Co=. #: 2004.214.00 May 11,2005 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DESIGN SUBMITTAL SLPl City of Maplewood Zoning Ordinance Section 44-511 (4) (a) . 'Proposed structures are to be located no closer than 350'-0" from the adjacent residential zoning district. A conditional use 'permit to allow a vehicle storage structure within the -350' requitement 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 Map1ewood, 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 minimize the exposUJ:e 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 similar to grade. 2. The existing character of the surrounding parcels that front Highway 61 are similar in nature to the car 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 are not a perceived hazard or innately unsightly. The structure will have design elements, which are fundamentally similar to Map1ewood Toyotas main building. G;\04214QO\Admin\SLP 1.doc Lawson Commons 380 St. Pet"" Sueet, Suite 600 Saint Paul, MN 55102-1996 651.222.3701 fax 651.222.8961 www.bwor.com 16 Maplewood Toyota RMnp and Service ""ge 2 of2 S. 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 requixements are cUttently 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 cUttent 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 oc=. Ice Lawson Commons 380 St. Peter Street, Suite 600 Saint Paul, MN 55102-1996 www.bwbr.com 17 651.222.3701 fax 651.222.8961 Attachment 10 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 wculd 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 haveinfillration 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 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. I, 18 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. 19 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: DATE: City Manager Ken Roberts, Planner The Woodlands of Maplewood 1740, 1750 and 1766 McMenemy Street (north of Kingston Avenue) July 20, 2005 INTRODUCTION Project Description Mr. Chris English, representing Integra Homes, is asking the city to approve plans for a 28 unit townhouse development. He has prepared a site plan that shows 28 townhouses (in 14 detached town homes and seven twinhomes) in a development called The Woodlands. It would be on a 8.2- acre site on the east side of McMenemy Street, north of Kingston Avenue and south of the Hmong Church. Refer to the applicant's statement on pages 23 and 24 and the maps on pages 25 - 32. A homeowners' association would own and maintain the common areas. The applicant's designer has told staff that each building would have horizontal-lap vinyl siding, aluminum soffits and fascia and brick veneer on the fronts. In addition, each unit would have a two- car garage. (See the building elevations on pages 33 - 37 and the enclosed plans.) Requests To build this project, Mr. English is requesting that the city approve: 1. A change to the comprehensive plan. This would be from R-1 (single dwelling residential) to R-2 (single and double dwellings) for the site. (See the land use map on page 26.) 2. A change to the zoning map. This would be from F (farm residential) to R-2 (single and double dwellings) for the site. 3. A conditional use permit (CUP) for a planned unit development (PUD). This PUD will allow the townhouses to be on smaller lots than code usually allows (in area and in width) and to have some of them on private driveways. 4. The partial vacation of the Edgemont Street right-of-way. north of Kingston Avenue. 5. A preliminary plat for 29 lots - 28 lots for the 28 housing units and one lot (Lot 29) for the ponding areas. (See the plan on page 28.) 6. The project design plans, including the landscaping and the building elevations. (See the plans on pages 28 - 38.) BACKGROUND The area between the proposed development and Larpenteur Avenue is a plat named Monn's Villa. This area, including Edgemont and Arkwright Streets and Kingston Avenue, was developed in the mid 1950s. This plat includes the unused Arkwright or Edgemont street right-of-way that is between the houses at 385 and 395 Kingston Avenue. The city did not include the subject property in the 1992 inventory of possible properties to buy for open space. As such, the city did not consider buyin9 this property for open space. DISCUSSION Land Use Plan and Zoning Map Changes To build the proposed townhouses, Mr. English wants the city to change the land use plan and zoning map for the site. The land use plan change would be from R-1 (single dwelling residential) to R-2 (single and double dwellings). (See the land use plan map on page 26.) The zoning map change would be from F (farm residence) to R-2 (single and double dwellings). The city intends R-2 areas for small-lot (7,500 square-foot) single dwellings and for double dwellings with a maximum density of six units per gross acre. For R-1 areas, the city plans for single dwellings on lots of at least 10,000 square feet of area with a maximum density of 4.6 units per acre. The land use plan is the city's long range guide as to how the city expects land to be used or developed. The zoning designation for a property defines how a property owner may use the property. Comoatibilitv Staff does not find a problem with this proposal in terms of compatibility and land use. The proposed townhouses would be near McMenemy Street and an existing church and next to single dwellings. In addition, developers will often build townhomes next to single dwellings. A recent example is with the New Century Addition in south Maplewood. The developer, Robert Engstrom, is developing this neighborhood with a mix of single dwellings and townhomes. There are many other examples in Maplewood, such as Afton Ridge, Southwinds, The Gardens, Olivia Gardens and the Carriage Homes of Maple Hills where this is the case. Densitv As proposed, the 28 units on the 8.2-acre site means there would be 3.41 units per acre. This is consistent with the density standards in the comprehensive plan for single family and for double dwelling residential development. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) Conditional Use Permit Section 44-1093(b) of the city code says that it is the intent of the PUD code "to provide a means to allow flexibility by substantial deviations from the provisions of this chapter, including uses, setbacks, height and other regulations. Deviations may be granted for planned unit developments provided that: 1. Certain regulations contained in this chapter should not apply to the proposed development because of its unique nature. 2. The PUD would be consistent with the purposes of this chapter. 3. The planned unit development would produce a development of equal or superior quality to that which would result from strict adherence to the provisions of this chapter. 2 4. The deviations would not constitute a significant threat to the property values, safety, health or general welfare of the owners or occupants of nearby land. 5. The deviations are required for reasonable and practicable physical development and are not required solely for financial reasons." The applicant has applied for a conditional use permit (CUP) for a planned unit development (PUD) for the 28-unit housing development. They are requesting the CUP for the PUD to allow code deviations and more flexibility with site design and development details than the standard city requirements. Such flexibility includes having a variety of building setbacks, having the townhouses on lots that would be smaller in width and in area than the code usually requires and to have a narrower public street right-of-way (50 feet instead of 60 feet) for Kingston Court. A homeowners' association would own and maintain the common areas of the development, including the private driveways, retaining walls and the ponding areas. Exchanging the common land for larger lot sizes would not change the location, design or number of units in this development. It is the contention of the applicant that the proposed site design details and code deviations meet the findings in the city code for approval of a PUD. City staff agrees with the applicant that the development as proposed (shown on page 28), with the proposed code deviations, would produce a development of equal or superior quality, that the proposals do not constitute a threat to the area and that the deviations are required for reasonable and practicable development of the site. Having private driveways with reduced townhouse setbacks will allow for more common area around each building. If the applicant followed all the city subdivision and zoning standards and used public streets, such a plan would require larger lots for each building with public right-of-ways and increased building setbacks. In addition, it is important to note that the proposed code deviations do not increase the number of lots or the density of the housing in the development over the density in other townhouse projects. In addition, the city has approved similar-styled developments in the past such as Holloway Ponds at Holloway Avenue and Beebe Road, the Dearborn Meadows development on Viking Drive, and more recently, Olivia Gardens on Stillwater Road. For this proposal, the developer intends to sell each of the town homes and expects that each unit will sell for at least $300,000. Right-at-Way Vacation The applicant is asking the city to vacate parts of the Edgemont Street right-of-way, north of Kingston A venue. The proposal is to vacate the west and east 15 feet (30 feet total) of the right-of- way and for the city to keep the center part of the right-of-way for public use. In this case, the 15 feet of the right-of-way on the two sides would go to the adjacent property owners and the developer would use the center part of the right-of-way for a watermain connection to Kingston Avenue, for a trail for pedestrian and emergency vehicle access - not for general vehicle access. This vacation, if approved by the city, should assure the neighbors in the area that the city does not expect to use the Edgemont right-of-way for a public street. 3 Preliminary Plat Density and Lot Size As proposed, the 28 units on the 8.2-acre site means there would be 3.41 units per acre (an average of 12,784 square feet per unit). This is consistent with the density standards in the comprehensive plan for double dwelling residential development and is well above the 6,000- square-foot minimum lot area that the city requires for each unit in a double dwelling. City Engineering Department Review Chuck Ahl and Erin Laberee of the Maplewood Engineering Department reviewed the proposed plans. Erin put their comments in the memo starting on page 39. The major change they are recommending for the proposal is that the city should require the developer to add more cul-de-sacs within the development for easier movement of larger vehicles. Specifically, they are suggesting that the developer add a cul-de-sac in the southeast corner of the site near Unit 4. This change will require the developer to adjust the grading and site plans accordingly and could cause the loss of units. Mr. Cavett, the assistant city engineer, also reminded me that the city, in the Capital Improvements Plan (CIP), has scheduled the reconstruction of Desoto Street from Larpenteur Avenue to County Road B for 2007. The CIP has not yet identified when the city is planning to reconstruct Edgemont Street, Kingston Avenue and Arkwright Street. In response to the comments of the city engineering department, Michael Villari of Metro Land Surveying (the project engineers), prepared several comments and a sketch plan showing how additional cul-de-sacs would affect the project design. I have included his thoughts on pages 48 and 49 and the sketch plan on page 50. Traffic and Access A major concern of many of the neighbors to the south of the site with the first proposal was with the increase in traffic that their area would experience if the city approved the earlier proposal. The developer was proposing to use an existing public street right-of-way (the area between 385 and 395 Kingston Avenue) for street access for 17 of the 24 units. (The other seven units would have had street access from McMenemy Street). In response to the neighbors concerns, the developer revised the project plans to now have the primary access into the site from McMenemy Street. The plans also show a 10-foot-wide trail on the Edgemont right-of-way between the existing Kingston Avenue and the proposed new street in the development. This trail would be for pedestrian access and for emergency vehicle use, not for general vehicle traffic. Unfortunately for the neighbors, the Mann's Villa plat, including the unused right-of-way, was approved and developed in the 1950s. It has always been the expectation of city staff that a developer or builder would use the existing street right-of-way that is north of Kingston Avenue for some type of access to the property to the north. While staff recognizes that having a new development and new streets in the area with new neighbors driving past their homes would create changes for the neighborhood, we do not anticipate a large enough traffic increase from the proposal to justify denying the request. For example, if each of the 28 townhouse units would generate an average of 6 vehicle trips per day (an average number I verified with the city's traffic consultant), there would be 168 more vehicles (in total) using 4 McMenemy Street. For a 12-hour day, the 168 vehicle trips would mean an average of 14 vehicle trips per hour, or an average of about one additional vehicle every 5.5 minutes. Even if one-half of the expected additional vehicle trips (84) occurred in one hour (either in the moming or in the evening), that would mean about one additional vehicle for every 43 seconds during that one hour. The traffic consultant also confirmed for me that, on average, detached single-family homes generate about 10 vehicle trips per day and that townhouses, whether attached or detached, usually generate about six vehicle trips per day. The difference in these numbers is because of the residents and the difference in the size of the families that live in the different units. Townhouses are usually occupied by young couples starting out in life or by empty-nesters - that is, families with no children and thus fewer people in each unit. They also have found that more traditional families with children still prefer to live in detached single dwellings with more living and yard space. As such, these types of homes will create more traffic (on average), than townhouses. I also had Dan Solar of Ramsey County review the proposal. He noted that "McMenemy Street is no longer a county road so the development does not have a direct impact to the county system. The intersection along Larpenteur Avenue should be able to handle the minimal traffic generated by this development." Public Utilities Sanitary sewer and water are in Kingston Avenue and in McMenemy Street to serve the proposed development. There is, however, no storm sewer in this part of Maplewood, so the applicant is proposing to enhance the low areas on the property to use them as storm water ponds. The watershed district commented that they will require the grading plan to show that there will be at least five feet of freeboard (bounce) in the ponds from the first 100 year high water level to the lowest floor elevation of the units. Tree Removal/Replacement The applicant had a tree inventory done for the property. This survey found 239 trees on the property, including maples, pines, elms, spruce, ash and oak. (See the plans on pages 29 and 30 and in the project plans.) Of the trees listed on the inventory, the city considers 198 of them as large trees (those eight inches in diameter or greater or pines that are at least eight feet tall). As proposed, the applicant's contractor would grade most of the property to prepare the site for construction and to build the storm water ponds. The proposed plans show the developer saving groups of existing trees in a few areas of the site - including along the east property line, along the south property line near McMenemy Street, near the front of Unit 16, to the north of Unit 11 and to the west of Unit 20. In addition, the grading plans show the developer saving scattered individual large trees throughout the site. The developer also has indicated that they want to transplant as many of the existing trees on the site as possible. This would involve having a forester or an arborist check the size and health of each of the affected trees and determining which trees could survive moving and which ones could not be transplanted. The code requires there be at least 10 trees per acre on the site after the contractor has finished construction. For this 8.2-acre site, the code requires there be at least 82 trees on the property after the construction is complete. While city staff is encouraged by the level of interest expressed by the developer in saving and transplanting trees on the site, the devil in this will be in the details. In other words, how many and how well the trees survive will be in how the contractor handles the details of 5 the project. The project engineer will need to prepare a detailed grading and tree plan for the entire site for city staff approval. This plan will need to show the proposed grading, the trees that will stay, those that the contractor will transplant and those that the contractor will remove. In addition, this plan should show the size and location of trees the developer would add to the site for screening purposes and where they would store the transplanted trees before the contractor puts them in their final locations. I expect that the final tree plans for this development can and will meet the requirements of the tree replacement code of the city. Landscaping/Screening As proposed, the developer would save, plant or transplant at least 200 trees on the site, plant numerous shrubs around the buildings and install two infiltration ponds/basins with landscaping on the site. The detailed plan on page 38 also shows the proposed plantings near the sidewalk and around each unit. These will include spirea, crimson pygmy, globe blue spruce, a mix of perennials and lilac. The mix of plantings around each building will vary from unit to unit depending on whether the unit faces north or south and whether it is a 1 % story or full basement walk-out unit. While the landscape and tree plans are a good start, the developer should add more trees in two primary areas. These additional trees would be for screening along the south side of the site and along the west side of the site. The purpose of these additional plantings is to screen the new townhouses from the existing houses to the south and to screen this site from houses to the west. The city code requires the developer or builder to install screening along a residential property line that is at least six feet tall and at least 80 percent opaque. This screening may be accomplished with fencing, berming, tree planting or a combination of these techniques. It would be prudent for and helpful to the residents of the existing houses and those in the new townhouses if the developer installed screening along the south and west sides of the project to help ensure that the new townhouses and driveways are separated from the existing single dwellings. Staff is recommending that the developer add several Black Hills spruce and Austrian pines along the south and west property lines to provide additional screening between this site and the adjacent properties. Finally, the applicant needs to provide the city engineering department with a detailed landscape plan for the ponds. The project engineer also should show this detail on the final project landscape plans. The plantings proposed around foundations of the units and in the proposed detail areas should remain on the plan. In addition to the above, all yard areas near the buildings should be sodded (except for mulched and edged planting beds). Design Review Building Design and Exterior Materials The proposed buildings should be attractive and should fit in with the design of the existing homes in the area. They would have an exterior of horizontal vinyl siding (earth tone, green or grey in color) with a stone or brick veneer on the fronts and the roofs would have asphalt shingles. In addition, there would be a mix of 1 %-story and walk-out units and each unit would have white soffits and accent boards and an attached two-car garage. (See the proposed elevations on pages 33 - 37 and the enclosed project drawings.) Staff does not have any major concerns about the proposed building elevations since this development will be on cul-de-sacs and would be somewhat isolated. In fact, only the buyers of the townhouses would be able to see the fronts of most of the new buildings. 6 Before the city issues a building permit, the builder should submit to city staff for approval revised building plans and elevations. These should show or include (but are not limited to) the colors of all materials, any shutters, window grids, the style and materials of balcony railings, and provide more detail about the brick or stone accents. The community design review board noted in 2001 concerns about "snout-designed" homes. These are dwellings that have garages as the dominating street-side feature. The proposed town homes have this design. The community design review board may want to have the developer change the proposed designs or add features to the buildings to lessen the impact of the garages. This could include additional landscaping in front of the dwelling parts of the buildings, adding covered front porches, enhancing the design of the garage doors or adding decorative light fixtures next to the garages and entrance doors. Site Lighting The applicant will need to prepare a site lighting plan for the development that shows the installation of at least seven light posts within the site to provide lighting along the new streets and driveways. The city code requires the light fixtures to have a design that hides the bulb and lens from view (to avoid nuisances). The plan also will have to show details about the height or style of these poles and about the proposed lighting on the buildings. Parking It should be noted that the city allows no parking on 24-foot-wide streets, parking on one side of 28- foot-wide streets and along both sides of streets that are 32 feet wide. In this case, the developer is proposing to construct the new public street (Kingston Court) and the private driveways 24 feet wide and then the city would not allow parking on the street or driveways. The project engineer has not shown any areas for proof-of-parking spaces within the development. This is something that the final project plans should show. Locations for such parking could be north of Kingston Court near Unit 20, north of Kingston Lane near Units 7 and 8 and along Edgemont Lane near Units 10 and 11. These are locations that the city could require the developer or the homeowners' association to add more parking if it becomes necessary. other Comments Police Department Lieutenant Kevin Rabbet! of the Maplewood Police Department noted that the proposed street and driveway names could cause some confusion. He suggested that the developer work with city staff to pick names for the streets and driveways that fit the city's system and that make sense with the surrounding streets. Fire Marshal Butch Gervais, the Maplewood Fire Marshal, noted the following about the proposal: 1. Need to verify that the cul-de-sacs and the turn-arounds are large enough for proper snow removal and for emergency vehicle access. 2. All roads and driveways shall be at least 20 feet wide. 3. There shall be addresses on each unit facing the street. 4. The developer shall provide the city with an address plan (street and driveway names and a numbering scheme) for staff approval. 7 RECOMMENDATIONS A. Approve the resolution on page 51. This resolution changes the land use plan for the Woodlands of Maplewood plat on the east side of McMenemy Street, north of Kingston Avenue. This change is from R-1 (single dwellings) to R-2 (single and double dwellings). The city is making this change because: 1. It would be consistent with the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan. 2. This site is proper for and consistent with the city's policies for medium-density residential use. This includes: a. It is near a minor arterial street (Larpenteur Avenue) and is on a collector street (McMenemy Street). b. Minimizing any adverse effects on surrounding properties because there would be minimal traffic from this development on existing residential streets. 3.lt would be consistent with the proposed zoning and land uses. B. Approve the resolution on pages 52 and 53. This resolution changes the zoning map for the Woodlands of Maplewood plat on the east side of McMenemy Street, north of Kingston Avenue. This change is from F (farm residence) to R-2 (single and double dwellings). The reasons for this change are those required by the city code and because the owner plans to develop this property with a mix of single and double dwellings. C. Approve the resolution on page 54. This resolution is for the vacation of parts of the Edgemont Street right-of-way, north of Kingston Avenue. The city is vacating this right-of-way because: 1. It is in the public interest. 2. The applicant and the abutting property owners have no plans to build a public street at this location. 3. The adjacent properties have street access. 4. The vacation of the right-of-way will allow the adjacent residents to expand and improve their homes. This vacation is subject to the city retaining the center of the Edgemont Street right-of-way located north of the north right-of-way line of Kingston Avenue for public purposes. D. Approve the resolution starting on page 55. This resolution approves a conditional use permit for a planned unit development for the Woodlands of Maplewood development on the east side of McMenemy Street, north of Kingston Avenue. The city bases this approval on the findings required by code. (Refer to the resolution for the specific findings.) Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. All construction shall follow the plans date-stamped June 14, 2005 except where the city requires changes. Such changes shall include: a. Revising the grading and site plans to show: 8 (1) Revised storm water pond locations and designs as suggested or required by the watershed district or city engineer. The ponds shall meet the city's standards and the engineering department requirements. (2) The developer minimizing the loss or removal of the vegetation and large trees. (3) All the changes required by the city engineer and by the watershed district. The city council may approve major changes to the plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 2. The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the permit shall end. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 3. Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall meet all the conditions and changes noted in Erin Laberee's memo dated July 11, 2005, and the plans shall include: a. The grading, utility, drainage, erosion control, streets, driveway, trails, tree preservation/replacement, and parking plans. The cul-de-sac bulb shall have the minimum radius necessary to ensure that emergency vehicles can turn around. b. The following changes for the storm sewer plans: (1) The developer shall enclose the new ponds with a four-foot-high, black, vinyl- coated chain-link fence. The contractor also shall install a gate in the fences as may be required by the city engineer. (2) Provide for staff approval a detailed storm water management plan. c. The following for the streets and driveways: (1) Curb and gutter along the street, if the city engineer decides that it is necessary. (2) Clearly labeled public streets and private driveways on the plans. 4. The design of the ponds shall meet Maplewood's ordinance standards and shall be subject to the approval of the city engineer. The developer shall be responsible for getting any needed off-site pond and drainage easements, if applicable. 5. The developer or contractor shall: a. Complete all grading for the site drainage and the ponds, complete all public improvements and meet all city requirements. b. Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits. c. Remove any debris, junk, fencing or fill from the site. 6. The approved setbacks for the principal structures in the Woodlands of Maplewood PUD shall be: a. Front-yard setback (from a public street or a private driveway): minimum - 20 feet, maximum - 35 feet 9 b. Front-yard setback (public side street): minimum - 20 feet, maximum - none c. Rear-yard setback: 20 feet from any adjacent residential property line d. Side-yard setback (townhouses): minimum - 20 feet minimum between buildings. 7. The developer or builder will pay the city Park Access Charges (PAC fees) for each housing unit at the time of the building permit for each housing unit. 8. The city council shall review this permit in one year. E. Approve the Woodlands of Maplewood preliminary plat (received by the city on June 14, 2005). The developer shall complete the following before the city council approves the final plat: 1. Sign an agreement with the city that guarantees that the developer or contractor will: a. Complete all grading for overall site drainage, complete all public improvements and meet all city requirements. b. Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits. c. Provide all required and necessary easements (including ten-foot drainage and utility easements along the front and rear lot lines of each lot and five-foot drainage and utility easements along the side lot lines of each lot). d. Have Xcel Energy install Group V rate street lights in at least seven locations. These shall be as follows: (1) At the intersection of Edgemont Lane and Kingston Court (by Lot 8). (2) Near Lot 4 in the middle of the block. (3) At the northeast comer of the site near Lot 1. (4) At the north end of Edgemont Lane near Lot 11. (5) At the intersection of McMenemy Street and Kingston Court (Sophia Avenue). (6) At the intersection of McMenemy Street and the northerly driveway (near Lot 23). (7) Near Lot 28 at the east end of the driveway. The exact style and location of the lights shall be subject to the city engineer's approval. e. Pay the city for the cost of traffic-control, street identification and no parking si~ns. f. Cap, seal and abandon any wells that may be on the site, subject to Minnesota rules and guidelines. g. Replace any trees that die within one year of planting or final transplanting. The size and species of the replacement trees shall be subject to city staff approval. 2. Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall include grading, utility, drainage, erosion control, driveway, trail, tree, and street plans. The plans shall meet all the conditions and changes listed in the memo from Erin Laberee dated July 11, 2005, and shall meet the following conditions: a. The erosion control plans shall be consistent with the city code. 10 b. The grading plan shall show: (1) The proposed building pad elevation and contour information for each building site. The lot lines on this plan shall follow the approved preliminary plat. (2) Contour information for all the land that the construction will disturb. (3) Building pads that reduce the grading on site where the developer can save large trees. (4) The street and driveway grades as allowed by the city engineer. (5) All proposed slopes on the construction plans. The city engineer shall approve the plans, specifications and management practices for any slopes steeper than 3: 1. On slopes steeper than 3: 1, the developer shall prepare and implement a stabilization and planting plan. These slopes shall be protected with wood-fiber blanket, be seeded with a no-maintenance vegetation and be stabilized before the city approves the final plat. (6) All retaining walls on the plans. Any retaining walls taller than four feet require a building permit from the city. The developer shall install a protective rail or fence on top of any retaining wall that is taller than four feet. (7) Sedimentation basins or ponds as required by the watershed board or by the city engineer. (8) No grading beyond the plat boundary without temporary grading easements from the affected property owner(s). (9) A minimum of a 10-foot-wide, 10: 1 bench below the normal water level (NWL) of any pond designed to be a wet pond. The depth of the pond below the NWL shall not exceed four feet. (10) Emergency overflow swales as required by the city engineer or by the watershed district. The overflow swales shall be 10 feet wide, one foot deep and protected with approved permanent soil-stabilization blankets. (11) The drainage areas and the developer's engineer shall provide the city engineer with the drainage calculations. The drainage design shall accommodate the run-off from the entire project site and shall not increase the run-off from the site. c. The tree plan shall: (1) Be approved by the city engineer before site grading or final plat approval. (2) Show where the developer will remove, transplant, save or replace large trees. This plan shall include an inventory of all existing large trees on the site. (3) Show the size, species and location of the transplanted, replacement and screening trees. The new deciduous trees shall be at least two and one-half (2 11..) inches in diameter and shall be a mix of red and white oaks, ash, lindens, sugar maples or other native species. The new coniferous trees shall be at least eight (8) feet tall and shall be a mix of Austrian pine, Black Hills spruce and other species. 11 (4) Show no tree removal beyond the approved grading and tree limits. (5) Include for city staff a detailed tree planting plan and material list. (6) Group the new trees together. These planting areas shall be: (a) near the ponding areas (b) along the west and south sides of the site to help screen the development from the existing houses to the west and south. (7) Show the planting or transplanting of at least 200 trees after the site grading is done. (8) Require the developer to replace any trees that die within one year of planting or final transplanting. The size and species of the replacement trees shall be subject to city staff approval. d. The street, driveway and utility plans shall show: (1) The streets and driveways shall be a nine-ton design with a maximum street grade of eight percent and the maximum street grade within 75 feet of all intersections at two percent. (2) Water service to each lot and unit. (3) Repair of McMenemy Street and Kingston Avenue (street and boulevard) after the developer connects to the public utilities and builds the new streets, trails and private driveways. (4) The developer enclosing the ponds with a four-foot-high, black, vinyl-coated chain- link fence. The contractor also shall install gates in the fences as may be required by the city engineer. (5) The private driveways with continuous concrete curb and gutter except where the city engineer decides that it is not needed for drainage purposes. (6) The coordination of the water main locations, alignments and sizing with the standards and requirements of the Saint Paul Regional Water Services (SPRWS). Fire-flow requirements and hydrant locations shall be verified with the Maplewood Fire Department. (7) All utility excavations located within the proposed right-of-ways or within easements. The developer shall acquire easements for all utilities that would be outside the project area. (8) The plan and profiles of the proposed utilities. (9) Details of the ponds and the pond outlets. The outlets shall be protected to prevent erosion. e. The drainage plan shall ensure that there is no increase in the rate of storm-water run-off leaving the site above the current (predevelopment) levels. The developer's engineer shall: 12 (1) Verify pond, inlet and pipe capacities. (2) Have the city engineer verify the drainage design calculations. 3. Pay the costs related to the engineering department's review of the construction plans. 4. Change the plat as follows: a. Show drainage and utility easements along all property lines on the final plat. These easements shall be ten feet wide along the front and rear property lines and five feet wide along the side property lines. b. Show Kingston Court as a public street in a 50-foot-wide public right-of-way and incorporate Outlot A into the street right-of-way. c. Label the common areas as outlots. d. Add drainage and utility easements as required by the city engineer. e. Label all the names of all the streets and driveways on all plans and distinguish which are public and which are private. f. Change the street and driveway names as follows: (1) Kingston Court and Kingston Lane as Sophia Avenue. (2) The north/south driveway as Edgemont Lane. (3) The north private driveway (for Units 23 - 28) shall have McMenemy Street addresses. 5. Secure and provide all required easements for the development. These shall include any off-site drainage and utility easements. 6. Sign a developer's agreement with the city that guarantees that the developer or contractor will: a. Complete all grading for overall site drainage, complete all public improvements and meet all city requirements. b. Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits. c. Provide for the repair of McMenemy Street and Kingston Avenue (street, curb and gutter and boulevard) after the developer connects to the public utilities and builds the new streets and private driveways. 7. Submit the homeowners' association bylaws and rules to the city for approval by the director of community development. These are to assure that there will be one responsible party for the care and maintenance of the common areas, private utilities, landscaping and retaining walls. 8. Record the following with the final plat: a. All homeowners' association documents. 13 b. A covenant or deed restriction that prohibits any further subdivision or splitting of the lots or parcels in the plat that would create additional building sites unless approved by the city council. c. A covenant or association documents that addresses the proper installation, maintenance and replacement of any retaining walls. The applicant shall submit the language for these dedications and restrictions to the city for approval before recording. 9. The developer shall complete all grading for public improvements and overall site drainage. The city engineer shall include in the developer's agreement any grading that the developer or contractor has not completed before final plat approval. 10. Obtain a permit from the Watershed District for grading. 11. Obtain a NPDES construction permit from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). 12. If the developer decides to final plat part of the preliminary plat, the director of community development may waive any conditions that do not apply to the final plat. F. Approve the project plans (site plan, landscape plan, grading and drainage plans and building elevations) for the Woodlands of Maplewood townhouses on the east side of McMenemy Street, north of Kingston Avenue. The city bases this approval on the findings required by the code. The developer or contractor shall do the following: 1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. 2. Complete the following before the city issues a building permit: a. Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall include: streets, grading, utility, drainage, erosion control, tree, sidewalk and driveway plans. The plans shall meet the following conditions and shall also meet all the conditions and changes noted in Erin Laberee's memo dated July 11, 2005. (1) The erosion control plan shall be consistent with city code. (2) The grading plan shall: (a) Include building, floor elevation and contour information for each home site. The lot lines on this plan shall follow the approved preliminary plat. (b) Include contour information for the land that the construction will disturb. (c) Show sedimentation basins or ponds as may be required by the watershed board or by the city engineer. (d) Show all proposed slopes steeper than 3:1 on the proposed construction plans. The city engineer shall approve the plans, specifications and management practices for any slopes steeper than 3: 1. This shall include covering these slopes with wood-fiber blankets and seeding them with a "no mow" vegetation rather than using sod or grass. 14 (e) Show all retaining walls on the plans. Any retaining walls more than four feet tall require a building permit from the city. (f) Show the proposed street and driveway grades as allowed by the city engineer. (g) Show the drainage areas, and the developer's engineer shall provide the city engineer with the drainage calculations. The drainage design shall accommodate the run-off from the surrounding areas. (h) Show details about the proposed pond fencing including the materials, gate, height and color. (3) The tree plan shall: (a) Be approved by the city engineer. (b) Include an inventory of all existing large trees on the site and shall show where the developer will remove, transplant, save or replace large trees. (c) Show the size, species and location of the transplanted and replacement trees. The new coniferous trees shall be at least eight feet tall and shall be a mix of Black Hills spruce and Austrian pine. (d) Be consistent with the approved grading and landscape plans and shall show no tree removal beyond the approved grading and tree limits. (e) Show additional tree planting for screening along the south and west property lines of the site. (4) The street, driveway and utility plans shall show: (a) A water service to each lot and unit. (b) The repair and restoration of McMenemy Street and Kingston Avenue (including curbing, street, and boulevard) after the contractor removes the existing driveways, connects to the public utilities and builds the new streets, trails and driveways. (c) All driveways at least 20 feet wide. If the developer wants to have parking on one side of the street or driveway, then it must be at least 28 feet wide. (d) The street and the driveways shall have continuous concrete curb and gutter except where the city engineer decides that it is not needed. (e) The developer or contractor shall post the streets and driveways with "no parking" signs to meet city standards. (f) The public streets and private driveways labeled on all plans. (g) The common area labeled as Outlot B on all plans. 15 (h) Areas for proof of parking off of the streets wherever possible. (5) The design of the ponding areas and the rainwater garden(s) shall be subject to the approval of the city engineer. The developer shall be responsible for getting any needed off-site utility, grading or drainage easements and for recording all necessary easements. b. Submit a certificate of survey for all new construction and have each building staked by a registered land surveyor. c. Submit a revised landscape plan to staff for approval which incorporates the fOllowing details: (1) All lawn areas shall be sodded. The city engineer shall determine the vegetation within the ponding area. (2) The addition of eight-foot-tall trees and/or fencing for screening along the west and south sides of the site. (3) The developer shall install landscaping in the ponding areas to break the appearance of the deep hole and to promote infiltration. Such landscaping shall be approved by the city engineer and shall be shown on the project landscape plans. (4) Having in-ground irrigation for all landscape areas (code requirement). (5) The plantings proposed around the front of the units shown on the landscape plan date-stamped February 1, 2005, shall remain on the plan. (6) A concrete walk from the driveway to the door of each unit. (7) The manicured or mowed areas from the natural areas. This shall include planting (instead of sodding) the disturbed areas around the ponding area with native grasses and native flowering plants. The native grasses and flowering plants shall be those needing little or no maintenance and shall extend at least four feet from the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) of the pond. This is to reduce maintenance costs and to reduce the temptation of mowers to encroach into the gardens. Specifically, the developer shall have the natural areas seeded with an upland mixture and lowland mixtures as appropriate. (8) In addition to the above, the contractor shall sod all front, side and rear yard areas (except for mulched and edged planting beds and the area within the ponding area). (9) The contractor shall restore the McMenemy Street and Kingston Avenue boulevards with sod. (10) Adding more evergreen trees (Black Hills spruce or Austrian pines) along the west and south property lines of the site. These trees are to be at least eight feet tall, and the contractor shall plant these trees in staggered rows to provide screening for the houses to the south and west. 16 (11) Shows the in-ground lawn-irrigation system, including the location of the sprinkler heads. (12) Shall be approved by the city engineer before site grading and shall be consistent with the approved grading and landscape plans. (13) Show the landscape or ground treatment for the areas between the driveways of the double dwellings. d. Show that Ramsey County has recorded the final plat for this development. e. Get the necessary approvals and permits from the watershed district. f. Submit a site lighting plan for city approval. This plan shall show the installation of at least seven street lights and how the lighting on the buildings would add to the site lighting. This plan also shall show details about the proposed light fixtures to ensure they are a design that hides the bulb and lens from view to avoid nuisances. The light fixtures must have concealed lenses and bulbs to property shield glare from the adjacent street right-of-ways and from adjacent residential properties. g. Have the Saint Paul Regional Water Services (SPRWS) approve the proposed utility plans. h. Present to staff for approval color building elevations or building material samples of all elevations of the townhouses. These elevations should show that the townhouses will have earth tones, green or grey-colored vinyl Siding and a wainscot of brick or stone. These elevations also should show or include (but are not limited to) the colors of all materials, any shutters, window grids, the style and materials of balcony railings, and provide more detail about the brick or stone accents and the wainscots. i. The developer or builder will pay the city Park Access Charges (PAC fees) at the time of the building permit for each housing unit. j. Submit the homeowners' association bylaws and rules to the city for approval by the city staff. These are to assure that there will be one responsible party for the care and maintenance of the common areas, outlots, the private utilities, signs, landscaping and retaining walls. k. Provide the city with a letter of credit or cash escrow for all required exterior improvements. The amount shall be 150 percent of the cost of the work. 3. Complete the following before occupying each building: a. Replace property irons that are removed because of this construction. b. Restore and sod damaged boulevards and sod all turf areas. c. Complete all landscaping and turf irrigation for that building and its rainwater garden(s). d. Install the required concrete curb and gutter. 17 e. Install a reflectorized stop sign at the exits onto McMenemy Street and addresses on each building for each unit. In addition, the applicant shall install "no parking" signs within the site, as required by staff. f. Install and maintain all required trees and landscaping (including the plantings around each unit and around the pond) and an in-ground sprinkler system for all landscaped areas (code requirement). g. Install on-site lighting for security and visibility that follows the approved site lighting plan. All exterior lighting shall follow the approved lighting plan that shows the light spread and fixture design. The light fixtures must have concealed lenses and bulbs to properly shield glare from the adjacent street right-of-ways and the nearby homes and residential properties. h. Install a six-foot-high solid screening fence or additional trees along the west and south property lines of the site where the vegetation does not adequately screen the townhouses from the existing dwellings. These additional materials are to ensure there is at least a six-foot-tall, 80 percent opaque screen on these sides of the site. The location, design and materials of the fence or the additional landscaping shall be subject to city staff approval. i. The developer or contractor shall: (1) Complete all grading for the site drainage, complete all public improvements and meet all city requirements. (2) Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits. (3) Remove any debris or junk 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 for all required exterior improvements. The owner or contractor shall complete any unfinished landscaping by June 1 of the next year if the building is occupied in the fall or winter, or within six weeks of occupancy if the building is occupied in the spring or summer. 5. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 6. Provide city staff with a sign and landscape plan for the entrance and island at McMenmey Street. The monument sign shall be no more than six feet tall and shall have materials that are consistent with and architecturally compatible with the buildings within the development. 18 CITIZENS' COMMENTS I surveyed the owners of the 81 properties within 500 feet of this site. Of the five replies, two had comments and questions about the proposal and three were against the proposal. For None Comments/Questions 1. Absolutely do not open the Kingston connecting road to residential vehicular traffic. (Schuldt- 1706 Arkwright) 2. See the e-mail from Margaret Jodeit (1714 Edgemont) on page 42. Against 1. Even revised -I am still opposed. Over populated, too much traffic for the area. Too much development, shouldn't there be any wildemess? (Schneider - 433 Larpenteur Avenue) 2. See the letter from the Herthers on pages 43 - 45. 3. See the letter from Kai Huot-Link on pages 46 and 47. 19 REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Site size: 8.2 acres Existing land use: Three single dwellings and accessory buildings SURROUNDING LAND USES North: South: West: East: A single dwelling and the Hmong Church Houses on Kingston Avenue Houses on McMenemy Street Houses on Desoto Street PLANNING Existing Land Use Plan designation: R-1 (single dwellings) Existing Zoning: R-1 (single dwellings) Proposed Land Use and Zoning: R-2 (single and double dwellings) Findings for Rezoning Section 44-1165 of the zoning code requires that the city council make the following findings to rezone property: 1. The proposed change is consistent with the spirit, purpose and intent of the zoning code. 2. The proposed change will not substantially injure or detract from the use of neighboring property or from the character of the neighborhood, and that the use of the property adjacent to the area included in the proposed change or plan is adequately safeguarded. 3. The proposed change will serve the best interests and conveniences of the community, where applicable, and the public welfare. 4. The proposed change would have no negative effect upon the logical, efficient, and economical extension of public services and facilities, such as public water, sewers, police and fire protection and schools. Criteria for Conditional Use Permit Approval Section 44-1097(a) states that the city council may approve a CUP, based on nine standards. (See findings 1-9 in the resolution on pages 55 through 57.) Ordinance Requirements Section 2-290(b) of the city code requires that the community design review board make the following findings to approve plans: 1. That the design and location of the proposed development and its relationship to neighboring, existing or proposed developments, and traffic is such that it will not impair the desirability of investment or occupation in the neighborhood; that it will not unreasonably interfere with the use 20 and enjoyment of neighboring, existing or proposed developments; and that it will not create traffic hazards or congestion. 2. That the design and location of the proposed development is in keeping with the character of the surrounding neighborhood and is not detrimental to the harmonious, orderly and attractive development contemplated by this article and the city's comprehensive municipal plan. 3. That the design and location of the proposed development would provide a desirable environment for its occupants, as well as for its neighbors, and that it is aesthetically of good composition, materials, textures and colors. HOUSING POLICIES The land use plan has eleven general land use goals. Of these, three apply to this proposal. They are: minimize land planned for streets, minimize conflicts between land uses and provide many housing types. The land use plan also has several general development and residential development policies that relate to this project. They are: _ Transitions between distinctly differing types of land uses should not create a negative economic, social or physical impact on adjoining developments. _ Include a variety of housing types for all types of residents, regardless of age, ethnic, racial, cultural or socioeconomic background. A diversity of housing types should include apartments, townhouses, manufactured homes, single-family housing, public-assisted housing and low-to- moderate-income housing, and rental and owner-occupied housing. _ Protect neighborhoods from encroachment or intrusion of incompatible land uses by adequate buffering and separation. The housing plan also has policies about housing diversity and quality that the city should consider with this development. They are: _ Promote a variety of housing types, costs and ownership options throughout the city. These are to meet the life-cycle needs of all income levels, those with special needs and nontraditional households. _ The city will continue to provide dispersed locations for a diversity of housing styles, types and price range~ through its land use plan. The city's long-term stability of its tax base depends upon its ability to attract and keep residents of all ages. To do so, the city must insure that a diverse mix of housing styles is available in each stage of the life cycle of housing needs. Application Date The city received the complete applications and plans for this development on June 14, 2005. State law requires that the city take action within 60 days of receiving complete applications for a proposal. As such, city action would normally be required on this proposal by August 12, 2005, unless the applicant agrees to another time extension. 21 p:sec 17\The Woodlands (2) - 2005.mem Attachments: 1. Letter from Chris English dated June 16, 2005 2. Location Map 3. Land Use Plan Map 4. Address Map 5. Preliminary Plat 6. Removal Plan 7. Tree Plan 8. Proposed Grading Plan 9. Proposed Utility Plan 10. The Boardwalk Elevation 11. The Boardwalk Elevation 12. Rear and Street Side Elevations 13. Twin Home Elevations 14. Twin Home Side Elevations 15. Unit Landscape Plan 16. July 11, 2005 memo from Erin Laberee 17. E-mail from Margaret Jodeit dated June 30, 2005 18. Letter date-stamped July 5, 2005 from the Herthers 19. Letter date-stamped June 30, 2005 from Kai Huot-Link 20. Response letter and sketch plan from Michael Villari dated July 8, 2005 21. Land Use Plan Change Resolution (R-1 to R-2) 22. Rezoning Resolution (F to R-2) 23. Edgemont Right-of-Way Vacation Resolution 24. Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development (PUD) Resolution 25. Project Plans date-stamped June 14, 2005 (separate attachments) 22 Attachment 1 METRO LAND SURVEYING & ENGINEERING June 16, 2005 Mr. Ken Roberts, Planner City of Maplewood 1830 County Road BEast Map1ewood, MN 55109 Subject: The Woodlands Development Preliminary Plat City of Maplewood, Minnesota Dear Mr. Roberts: Tbe purpose of this letter is to provide a brief narrative of the changes included in the latest Preliminary Plat Submittal for the Woodlands Development Project. I) Additional land to the northwest was purchased. Therefore, the proposed development will provide 28 attached and detached single-family homes (4 more than originally planned). 2) The main entrance of the project was moved to McMenemy Street in an effort to address the concerns ofloca1 residents with regard to increasing local traffic if the entrance was located on Edgemont Place (Kingston). 3) A public street (to be paid for and constructed by the developer) meeting city design requirements is proposed for accessing the site from McMenemy. The public street terminates at a cul-de-sac located in the south-central part of the plat. Private drives spur off of the cul-de-sac to provide access to homes north and east of there. 4) A paved trail along the Edgemont Place easement serves a dual purpose by providing a second emergency vehicle access point to the development. 5) We are requesting that portions of the easement for Edgemont Place be abandoned to allow the existing residents along that easement more flexibility in the use of their property (i.e., area to construct a detached garage). RECEIV:' JUN 2 0 2005 23 .................. 6) Easements were acquired, as necessary, along the southern portion of the proposed public road to allow sufficient area for building setbacks. 7) As requested by the watershed districts, the stormwater ponds/infiltration basins are designed to handle a 100-year event and will discharge to the storm sewer in McMenemy Street only after a back-to-back 1 OO-year event occurs. 8) Several other minor design changes occurred to comply with setback requirements, drainage, realignment of the road, etc. If you have any questions or comments regarding the above information, please contact me at (651) 766-0112. Sincerely, Christopher D. English, Director of Engineering Operations RECEIVED JUN 2 0 2005 .................. Little Canada Office: 412 East County Road D Little Canada. MN 55117 Phone (651) 766-0112 Fax (651) 766-0612 Burnsville Office: 3200 Corporate Center Drive - Suite 117 Burnsville. MN 55306 Phone (952) 707-9299 Fax (952) 707-0036 Pine City Office: 1639 Main Street North - Suite 7 Pine City, MN 55063 Phone (320) 629-3267 Fax (320) 629-0176 Rogers Office: 12510 Fletcher Lane North - Unit B Rogers, MN 55374 Phone (763) 428-5130 Fax (763) 428-5172 E-mail survey@metrols.com Website: www.metrols.com 24 u lJ " <1>_ '-i , i I o I, '" ,Id I ~ 1",'1 I j ,I', '1.t:II j'" rr: 'I' 'r, I: I" I, i ~. '! 'I -!-. .-'... '.,,' -i-..,~ ~- ',; - I' il I j! Ii \:J ~ ,;\ ii I ! i U ., 'I I I 1'1 ','. I I U 1'- l i Iii' " 1M CIl , ).., i ~'~"'~~ -:..: -:.:-~ w Z uJ ::ii, CJ ~ 'I I, I' ',\ Ii " ',\i "'I OVERVIEW tern Hills Park I I i 1,1 , I I MNDOT d ;, , , 1"<' _,.II , , 'j ','. ,i , CIl i""'" " 0 )> " , ~ I' I' " Ul .'l .:::TTl-- J>1~JLJ;MAN-~A\l.E;c .---8:--n---------I-l} ,.-' -" ,- -: i , m q) " , ,', 5 ~ Ii; IZ. cD .. oj", ' , ~ - ~ I I I, O:::! <0 I '(1)>, ~ ' , ,~) ~ ..' (j , ' Qd,'j' I .' i jC~"\'EB.N6 M"il. VE""ti, 0' h o Iifl' ~I " I' ~ W ..J ~ -0 - <Ij ~ co " \ ~ , cj Edgerton Park Cl .~ Ra~p~ ~J , " _-_-_-_--_-_-_-_-----BQS.a.-A,"YI'iIWE-:::"::'."":.-="":. ::: , I' ;, ,i " I i I' ", o I" I, , I, t -_- _B.I;i.1.-We.0Q-~VE it..., If rob ".... \ ct' Q:1 .1),. - Q:j ;,111 !I,i} ,- , ..RIPLEY-AVE- - -. - JI_ - ~.:' \ ,..' .....,' ~...,.... .-. ._,....,-,,""" :--, ~ f.......~._-o' " I , " I, I :,1 :,1, " " II Ir; tJ , , I , I 0,1 , I . I , " , , , I , " " /:) V . /j t"/ '-' I, ,: CHURCH I' , "I " " ': - _~"I II Ii SITE ii Ii I': , , ~\6S'f.e&~v. ~\\~ ~ 'I Ii , :1 " -.11, " i I ! I " I, I " Ii " , LARPENTEtJR1IVE' - - _ - - -' J '- , , . , SAINT PAUL LOCATION MAP 25 Attachment 2 " Ii :1 'I Ii , , I, I, --II " , " "-.-- ~- I- t(l z. =b I- ~ W <;:) CJ W ':( , "~I I, I' ,I ji " , , 'I, 'fr N ROSI::LAWNAVE 1901 3Oa~4@2G1~ ~ ~' U _L n o 0 w ~ n ; , U 18~ CI 1'eirn U ~.~~,~1Ja SELLWOOD-AVE 1861] 1855 ,'fl LJ = L....; 1@c 01835 c'J -3833&1 3'91 178QJ 379 '~LLJ eJtfS~ f9 ~ ~ RIPLEY AVE m 4911 '4fiSJ ~lli ~ '<I3i 446 il5s [ 'J ---,~ ;-1774 ~: c" ,- 39'_8 -3.82 0' 38&: :jltQ '-- i:l DC 180l! 1756 ~ c -'1-, 1767 r , ~ C'." w 1741 CJ '" '" 17~ ~ c ~' " c 0 1737 Q C " 1733 ~:=c 1750 , 17~] 1748 SITE 1740 17.1.7 aD CO I_......~ ;' 385 3T,. 395 .407 o 1721 TI:36 c ~l:' 415 1723 . :1724 \~GSTO^,,qV *'1714 [400 E: )>:1"(14 " , ;0 ,-- ^ 17d5-: ::2: ;0 169fr Gl J: -l 1685 en! t686 L-;.J -l LARPENTEUR AVE ~'liJ '1716 1713- ~ t- ~ CI) C308 1706\ t- l~700 Z 16~; 0 f~94 ::; ,....: W 81188 1689 ~ 0 w V'06 ,- 'C~6 : J ; [-r L1696LJ 433 1760 1688 LAND USE MAP 26 462 t- CI) o fooo t- ~ o CI) w o C1J56 1IDi4~ c_ ~8 fij~8 ,~ ~8;J0 ;-:::J 1J'22 1799 (1717 ~ c:~ 1699 Attachment 3 IID~:? :: 474 498 5 49\ 1860 49f 1858 1'-' ~ 1~ _, t- t859 CI) :::--- 0:: 1i849 0:: 1~~ ~ 1t2~ 1~3 ~(lg , 1 I. <-"',-- ~ / CIZila-~ j'7W -179€ co (11f4 ,.-", ~' ,-J ;:U80 17~t :51 ,- 17'73 m8 c-- L_-' "'1171 Si164 ~ ~~ L~, G1760 4 f 1~ iJ o 1} N OVERVIEW 1779 MNOOT rn " D o 1767 1741 D 1737 D 1733 I , '~i ClJi >-1 ;:E' lU' iZ UJ' o ~: aD ~ CJ , o 1731l-". t:.J i I , c:\ CJ' CJ o r-. [000'1 0" ~ ~ ~ 1780[] (J774 o 17~ U 1748 ~36 0 024 [116 BJ08 /]700 ~94 E\!8aa .-~ t::r N~f!5P~ Q~ ,~ .. ;- -_-_-_- RIPLEY""AVc -- - -- - - - - - - - ~~--~~ -~~~~ eJ~~ ~ o a B 377 0 385 395 407 172~./' [DO [J a ['I Z?:y ... .> "..:'-'GSTON ;lire -, V " 'i-"'" - -- - - ~_ (tYb4 ~ \~ '8 0 [] ~ 1miJ 41 1711J 1=otJ Q D 169E) .". 1&1 CHURCH 1770 o 1750 SITE 1740 , , If-I (I), 1-' ~' 0, ';:E, . UJI 'c), , ' D, IWI~ []17JJ i~ i~ 'el[ !Q::I a:, ;.::' ~[ :<(, ~ ~Olr~ v \~ <'Q o 16~ 16~ 1855 {] [J ~4h o 01835 aD [J o ~~tj~~ -0- D-_ ,0, o 0 180Q D1r& D 17~ 1747 DO Q o 1721 415 /", '" ., ,,> (f~14 \-"~ ~ ~D G(96U 433 0, EJ [J686 d SAINT PAUL LARPENTEUR AVE ADDRESS MAP 27 Attachment 4 tJ ~D ~ ~8 eo o [P22 II~ C!lJ!O 0 (J) '0 -i '0 ,~ [14 " ~80 I I , I' I i' I I ~C'c. : 1,864 [] o[J , ' ; , I, I I I I' " \ ~O \'. ~\ .(p 0." (1'm ~(i;- ~ c:J 1699 'iJ N I I I ~m I i~ I I I I I I I I I I." '0 I i~ I I I I I I I I I -.r~ 1768 'I , " I NIfa~9'-i4't ~1.!a / "'~..' IIJ_VJMla/ -- l]i /./ 1/", \\ I I Il...._ ""'-J {l,! '" -,--......-..... .....~."-....._... '~;'..":. ";"'''; =...~i.::::~,~~1:.'=.:,7.'5:':'<"!::~.:::::.:--::-_"":':; =--:.'-~""::":. ~ '=~ "='. ': ......"..-..... -,_.......... ....~':.lfl"r'e~-:;;";'=-!:::::":O::::.'.":':::i::....,,-..TI;~~~.::..T...~.- DDlIJloID: " , .~, "'n.. ,..... ,....~...:: ~'::.':'.:":.: ~..~..~ r.:-.::;:.:,:; ,_......". ......-.. "-...-. --."-.-r --."""l-' '''-''''"''J-'' ........~........ lh' , I \ \ \._---) .......... -. '''::,.:',\'',=.'',~''.,:::: ~,":..::::::.~,',.:.::.:::'.'" _.. '"' - -,..... --_. ..... ....- ''':,:,";;',:,;''',::::'',?,''..:::,:. ;,.....;:;~~:~._":.'.... ".'..... ....-......... ---- .' I l\':'!' ~~ :i ''''.....:::-.:.'.:.':.'O:.":..'':'::,':,.:':','',.:=..::<l::;:ir::...::,o'.:.-:..::.'-...........,...._-,. CHURCH "U:~J:J~'[ " 1746 ~ ~ " i r - _ _....;. " " .. ~2.~~~"\::-~.:-_~-~---~---~ - i'" \',\ 29 I \1 ! \ 'r:~Jl.:r"~' ! ........ i i -T- ,...J , , , '---" lano' "t -I:! Sl!.ll~'J5.W -..... "'. \ , \ 2~ \ .....-.::.....",,,\.........,\ ".. "'III'LO' "; -.-./. It;; .~t~ ~ ,~ ~ -l~ I" " '8 "" ~ NlIe~'35'E z .2~.ClO"'\~'" 1748 Nea'5~'~.5"E 1~.5_00 -.... Ii (Pi.llUC~ . I KINGSTON COURT SU'5~"~~.w l I 1736 I I 1 I- --- -I I I 1 1724 I-.... I -.J ~ --- I 1716 I LOT AREAS ~ 'v 412,74 S&8':1~'3.5.w su ;J.5~~~',~.::';' , :,1 / :'''1 .., I ,'-' :1 395 I ,..: r , 407 I':,: , 385 iH ~ I' i .,.' :;'Z.;&:,;.--,:}.~ ~ , 377 : ',,,,,, .,om. ,.,' y' -....""'!~ ~_L_I ~ . 415 -$- ./ , - ! J..: \- -- 1723 --I- I ---- " \ ~ ./ / I ; Il_, 0", TOrALPlATAREA RIGHT-')F-WAY AREA i=>F'lIVATE,rREETAREA' 'NEST PI)N(l AFlEA EAST pmlD AREA TrjTAlP'JNDAREA rOTALNlll.I!3ER'Jfl,)TS. AII(RA(.f: Lor-;llE (l_l'3) '~Fl03-.; DEI-I:;;ry NETOEl-I';lfr .,j.;, ;; , ,. ;:; :; ,:,..-,. H9' ..Of, " PRELIMINARY PLAT 28 Attachment 5 ."'.......-"".., .."""..,.." """'--,"'. .:roo.,,".......... ...~... U" .. ..". ..""',.... ""''''_. ,............ ","","'-""..,..0 "",to...........", 1771 1765 1747 , , \\ \\ LOT AREAS "....",,,,,,, .~'" ....,.. ", ~.o>>.. M" ", .'........", .,..."",.." ,,". ,'~.!1:,~ ....~ ..". ....- .."........ ....... "..,. ".,,, )j7,9~S SF" (,~1:: AC 415,;:J~, S, (, .OF; o>.r;\ .li.6J3 'SF" ((I ~ 3 AC, 6,I,;4;;F(014 .0.(1 ';.584 SF ((]15 AC) 11.748SF"('-'29AC) " 3..,I~ 'SF (0 '')8 AC) 1:.)4J,r "!,:1')';; \r N =~_._.._'+ -"...- ~=:t[_. L ~ ,~ 1768 t::J . " , - --- .~::':"-- ~-"- CHURCH I, l i, ~ I! Ii ~Jj! I, II Ii ~Ii O I' , \__,,,",,,~ ........0<It_... ~ \ ..""',...._'" .r----l I :- . . . '. ' '.. . ..~.=:..---= _"0''''' -, I I j ~ - :'~'" _"'_'LOCH ::r =- / LJ I ~l II ::-~~ ~ "" ~~7'= n\ li~: H '.... / // ~ ' ~ I n(36 I :~ "IL ~ \ 385 dl::' ;;:ir-:::: If"" 407 / I I i II-U- _ ---j,/'-. "L 377 \ Dn I"; 111,395 I 0 / I iLl I G I / '-. "" .;\- +iJ ' -!~ /'. I I . i I 1724 k,",,,1723 y'/ ~'-'-'-,',i.,:'::"-"=~-'-"." '< /'" 4~5 ,/ j 1 I' I I ~ ~ / ~-'...-'-"~7'r-'~~" v. '-. ,/ I I I - - - - - ~ ~ I ;/ \ \ I LJ ~,,~ ';"./'" '" I : I [1716 I 1713 Il I // :: I "~~'.... \\ '" :. "~........""'. ..u.o =:.: II: .._. ,. --. . - ~= \:'=-...... .-- "- _11:.... ....nNQ:..- -.-.-'-.--'------7-[=-=.. _ _.L.--i \............. \ "'- '\ , \ \ i .-.--.---.----.---'----.-.-.-.-- ~ ,...-.""" '- REMOVAL PLAN 29 Attachment 6 - -' I 1771 1765 C 1747 [ 1721 11 N Attachment 7 "LE:"::,,,_u ~ _OIl.......... ,......-.......... _TlCf...-.........,_1 . :,~, l: ,~ 1768 l::J . . - ---- , I , I !! " ~l Ii I' II Ii ..' S"91 Ii d Ii ! II -.J i\ I. II Ii ~Ii o Ii ..] r-I I. ~. LJ I i l I Wi I I 0 1736 I ,!.. ":'1 I I I i 11----1- --.J 11lil n I Ii .il L! k~ I I-i 1_ _ 172~ -.J I ': I n 1716 I 1723 CHURCH 1746 ',-, .. .;, =- I I I I I I I J /" /1 I I .-' . I " ,'., 'I~ "" 0\ "." ii; d ",.' i 407 " ]I-; \ 0365 dI1j:; ;;:11 39~ I (~''-....) . " I \ I, I .'-J . ,-3n rlJ 1/" " _.\_:""'! '~' -1__ //' 415 " /'" _. . .--.;.:~,r#-"'._... '-... ........... '<" ' , y ",.:!;::"'f ~ ''y'' /' ;;f~"~""'~U=" . '~.-::::" '..//"/" I ,-",," '" '~ /" ;'/; I ~. ....'\,( /; '. \ "" \ I ~ ~~ / 1713 n, / TREE PLAN 30 ~, ~ ! 1771 1765 C ~ I 1747 [, ! I 1721 1) N 1768.Q " : Attachment 8 " !'j';'i 'l" I I -J ...._-.__............................,,'""'._ __u."""'........'"'"PlC.........,...Tl.....US/.COL _....... _ ......._ loll............ ...,... ~1"""1."1O;'" .lU.)..__.....,""...........<1F.,LBJ"""l.............. <:GlI"\..........."...""'.._..........1. fIC.................__... """""""""......,..,'......... U"'~", -..",K -....". ".. ..._........_..........___.....-.<>.-.mo'" ....,-- ......................_~-,......,...- _,.........__....._....-.01.........""..... -....,...-...-""".............-..- ., //4 /1___ '" EROSION CONTROL NOTES . ....._ _....~......,.....AWO_ ",...-..-,., _<ll'W__It__...~.......M..........fIC.Tl ""I: IaII 110_ 1I_____1"..1I'US"'_~T)"'...._ _._.......,.........,~C<_I......'..,".u ................_.........._.T__..........-"'O. _....,...._._..........fV......_.._ ..._._.....,_._................."M_.... .........._............"..............._.T .ouSLOOn~'......_..o!..._ __.",,_orm.. _T. _...... __-.,..""'__. ..\ Ii I' [\ Ii I j ~\! I'] II! , I Ii i rl!l -l ~j 1 Ii i Ii! ~ _:!i: 1 o . SJ L:'/ , 1 I I I 1lJ1 {j' I . ""'. ,J., .~ I"" 1736 GRADll'olG NOTES 1" ,'\.. ''''''''"'''......-..--...........--...-- ----.....-..,...... ""'''''''-'"'--''''''''''. ..LJ(ll............,..OOWUTl__.........__..'fIC _IlLl1OJl""-...ES"~T........_lO......._,.. ......."...., "IUI......._ 01' ~'''.J1In. TH( C"M'..,,,,,,, ....-.:.... ..."""_.....'_"1O.J1IU...,.."""""._...._~ _'"'ncOl.Md i:'t':c":':'....~,:::.'J:~~~........-"..). ..-- _1II""""'.._"'......TH(lIIttI"'...._"""""'___ .......__IOODCI__'O.....'_.._....... _III""...... "'-T. ~....... \10'...... -......._ __'O_TH(TIIln.......TH(........,........_._ =.~,;,~.."'~":=...":"=......~~:.~ ,,-..:.....................--..."""''"'''...,.,.....-...=.. >010_-..........._...........,.......__11I""'. \ \ ( \ \ ,---j \ i \ \ \ ~771 \ \ 1765 0 ~ Il 1747 [ ,1'"7'1::7~.~..,~ " l I 1 I / '11': '.' / " ~ / o ,.. .;~5 / j....... 407 / I': :C~ / "-~) / _._.~:..~~. .-.. .::" v /t5 k ~-'..~""~I'~~-;; " "-4- U . "'''-;\'.. '\ I .; I ~<,,\.. I " .~ ,,-.... " n~.:::::::..:. < ", ~771, LJ \ 385 __....0Uh........s:Mr.arn:....1lN._,ll..l...1l,...~ ...-_CUIII....."''''~............ .-J ....,~....,- 1721 LEGEND ''"'''''''~ ''"'''''''''''''''''' '-, ..-....-..........,,---, ''''-''- ~._...."'(.....ACIE\II......._.....III.._."" ............__........m.......... "",WIt"!.._.... u,.... .-. '"'0.:1\1"'. _, TH( _.cn._, .",."..._.... .....-"'l tU..._........""'_........_...."....... "'",...., ........... __,.." no.._, ...:.. '00lCll.. _.......... OIl..... TO .._uo",..nc.._r.rw..IlN,""'-"'_,....II1H<II_..nc "''''''.''''_''''''''.''_'0,""", l_.............. nco... ...."""""".................,..... K................ ""_.... ...."- --......, -..- ...,."..,-"'-_....... (-.:I) "_', ""'...._................... '0" . _.......,..., '"'" "" "-" ....~........,-.rT!.............,_._."..!1I_ ....-.'........11"""'""'...._................. __...,....'0..'_11I.........._-'- ......"'.-.........................-....""...."'''"''''',,- ..-.........---...... 31 11 N I PROPOSED GRADING PLAN Attachment 9 CJ UT1LITY NOTES . "I Ii I' I li- ~i I S :il Ii! ,I :J J! I ~ -11 I ~ Ii I' I Ii ! ~ljl D I' I. _.~. I! ' l 1!j1i1D I ,l..tt:il I I ill ~---~ lilil D I 11Lil k~ I Ii I____-.J ~~ I ,:1 n I [ ~ ~ ...................."""_0.0<:.__"'.......'7...,,,...""""" ___..._.._,~...._.,.or~,..._.... =;:::-~_....'NO....._or_..............._ ......-.,"-'''''''''''.....-...-........'''''.-'''... 1M ,...... 1"'-'''-''''1''"' U"''''l.OCA_ ..__,....,._,*- """.....................-"'...."--."...-".,,-- __""'.........._...\OOllOlt""..........._....,....._ :"..:,..~_...f.....__ .................... 0"'____ ..""._..--..u....""'...................mr............. """"""'",........~'.....,.....,.....I1.t......._........oo ..'OM.lC,.......N'H-..... .......1tII_ ""IIU<TI.[~'" _I......l"""..""'-D'I............ ...',..................."""....'..'__.........uu .-..... _........._,.""......,............u."'......._. ..' ......... D<1IH-.....- Ill" ~ ._or'.~.,<OIO.._"'""......._,.......o""'_ ""flO-.""'.W1\<...................,...._.................._ ......,.......--..... '_ or 't" "'.........__ _ ,....__,... ....._~ ..............ulUlU.........-...... ""-....''''''..............--..__...01.....-.... .............. ~............T...__'......._T_"""'...._ --..................-""""'-'-.,- --c!J D ~: ~ f': . -: " / / / / / LEGEND :~ 'loT """....-.. .-. ~~, -~- -~= " " " I I :Ji1 .' 4- / J PROPOSED UTILITY PLAN 11 N 32 ('~ .- CA'!or",,"k '''"'>LoLe.~-, / "" 'I. '.'-" lm- JP' ' .--- .. .. --.-.... . . - - .~-_..::_:~-. ' . . " '. ~ ." -- "- ~EEBf': ".', 1."-' .. '", Fj ;.' , ,-. ., " !,' L t, ''':.:':~:~';,. ~1i;'~~;:-'--.-.::._ m. '-'~~~~:":~~" ~ -, _. ::- -.,--. ~~~':::"~ ' '--.::'~ "'" ~ ==== -r, ",,,,~,.,,,, 'ct~ ~I :r. 1;1 ~ ,..... -""....-.../ ,........-....-.... "'- /.,,<' "'-" "'-" !L,j. Attachment 10 '" " ..;.<. ,-<. i!i / ",1oo<Io<ol>>l. '~'" """"t-lr .-- _. SIDE ELEVATION I iHI<E &ah;W)wLu:::"" J<\OD..n- i 7-r!~ THE BOARDWALK (SINGLE UNIT) 33 ~ N (_'li!::r04:l,","v~,..r(_ /' 'I~/ 5j,z. I~ '1 Y;2- o O ~l )- ~VIN.<1.h $ol'O\lJy___.... I j : I I Attachment 11 ~ ,,,, ~ 15 ~ , I i<.1G+t-r """"" 6L4i:vt_-r:o,," Ve/ = \\--;-" - ~ ~'~ ..~{ THE BOARDWALK (SINGLE UNIT) SIDE ELEVATION 34 - \r N Attachment 12 / '~i ; : :-J-~j" I , , I' ' ~ ' 1,- "H~"'r-""'- .. 'i 1; r '..c_ '" ,r-: /: '/1:1. ,,,, ::I' YI... :ti ~l!\.,l, Ut.''"] , ,,"') DDD (,1I11oJ"'\- l"_ ~'D~] $'fl~UT/F""'''''' ~'/A"'cJ lIb I' '$ \ \~O,. ~i;CA:lt.. "'t..~I/,.,.\ IOJ_ Ytt".. I'~O' 35 \r N REAR AND STREET SIDE ELEVATIONS OJ,,,,, , .' -< . i (. 1-. 133 ---j-'-:-- IT T"--j" '1 r,t. L, H_" " ,,-----,---- -- ;F I ' -I-~~~-' -::+--------- ! '.'. ' .. -, - ,-. --I ,. Attachment 13 lJ"-I,lI ,z.t jll<~r~'~-~~ , Q1'l:JT"7 z: , ~n~~'- ~L0VA""~_ TWIN HOME ELEVATIONS 36 'i! N Attachment 14 -0 '8 m _.UU _=="""_ =1_...,,,,,,, ".."j" ___.___~..___,_~J.;oE:r...........{~_.. . - -1'__ r---e m r.- -- -- .- -.- ___ ~ ..LbVA.,.",.J:::::-.~:~.~:::-:--.. 37 11 N TWIN HOME SIDE ELEVATIONS Attachment 15 'S~~~~ ..5 A_'5I'0C4'" 4 ............ -- '$~~~ ... 3;~~tW...r 'r -.... I',,~~ Rc.,~ '-- J c.e,...,....'-r". """'.0 .........:l~""40 :J~ir"'~ '--.,. --- ....~C)~ ~ DR"""""" --"'""- .5~'5A"C'.. iII_~ ...._......._ .__. 4 _....__.._.. ..~.. "'___"___ 38 o N UNIT LANDSCAPE PLAN Attachment 16 Enl!ineerinl! Plan Review PROJECT: The Woodlands ofMaplewood PROJECT NO: 05-04 REVIEWED BY: Erin Laberee, Maplewood Engineering Department DATE: July 11, 2005 Integra Homes is proposing to develop the properties at 1740, 1750 and 1766 McMenemy Street into 28 townhomes. They are proposing two on-site ponds to treat runoff from the site. Access for the development is proposed off of McMenemy Street. The plans also show an emergency vehicle access with a trail off of Kingston Avenue. The developer is proposing significant grading on site. As proposed, very little area will remain undisturbed and few existing trees will remain standing. The proposed grades are very steep around the new structures and the developer would have to build several retaining walls to tie into the adjacent properties. There may be too many units proposed to effectively fit the site and the surrounding topography. If the developer eliminated several units it would allow better grades, reduce the number of retaining walls needed and would be a benefit to the overall development. The existing site includes 2 low areas with no outlets that currently store and infiltrate runoff from most of the site. As proposed, the developer would enhance the low areas to treat runoff from the new development. The new ponds would function as no outlet ponds and store the 100 year rain event. An emergency overflow pipe would direct additional runoff into the existing storm sewer on McMenemy Street. The developer and the project engineer shall address the following issues. Streets and Driveways 1. The developer is proposing Kingston Court as a public street. Typically public streets and public utilities are constructed as a public improvement project, administered and constructed by the city. If the developer wishes to administer the construction ofthe public street and utilities in conjunction with the private construction, then Maplewood's Engineering Standards must be strictly followed. These standards include a construction inspection schedule that outlines erosion control, grading, utility and street construction, and testing requirements. The developer and/or engineer shall submit a letter outlining how Map1ewood's standards will be followed. The developer shall ensure that all construction activities conform to Maplewood's standards by entering into a Development Agreement with the city. City staffwill keep a close watch on the site during all construction activities - especially those relating to the construction ofthe public street and utilities. 2. The developer or project engineer shall provide the city with plan and profile plans for the public street and public utilities. 3. Traffic flow needs to be improved in the development. Larger vehicles such as garbage trucks and moving trucks will be driving through the development on a regular basis. The current layout will be difficult to navigate. The developer shall consider implementing 39 additional cul-de-sacs. Ideally 3 additional cul-de-sacs would be constructed at the end of the private streets. Due to grading issues and space constraints this may not be feasible. At a minimum, the developer shall add a cul-de-sac near unit 4 at the southeast corner of the site. If the additional, private cul-de-sac does not meet the city's minimum radius requirements, the project engineer shall provide to city staff turning movements for larger vehicles such as garbage trucks or moving trucks that would be turning around in the cul-de-sac. 4. The contractor shall extend the curb through the private drive entrances off of the cul-de-sac to distinguish the public street from the private streets. Grading & Erosion Control 1. There are several locations where the proposed grades are greater than 3: 1 slopes and are not allowable. The maximum allowable grade is a 3:1 slope although a 4:1 slope is preferable. The project engineer shall revise the grading plan to provide more gradual slopes on site. 2. The city requires a building permit for retaining walls greater than four feet high. A plan and a specific soil stabilization detail for the wall design will be required as part of the building permit. The top and bottom wall elevations shall be shown on the plan. There are several retaining walls proposed that would be very close to the adjacent properties. The project engineer shall ensure that these retaining walls are setback far enough from the property lines to ensure that construction activities do not encroach onto the adjacent properties. 3. The project plans shall show inlet protection devices at all inlets. 4. The city, Ramsey/Washington Metro Watershed District, and the MPCA (new NPDES Construction Permit) all require grading permits. 5. The proposed development is located in the Ramsey Metro Watershed District, but drainage from the site enters Capitol Region Watershed District downstream. The applicant shall submit plans to Capitol Region Watershed District for their review. 6. The applicant shall note on plans the exact seed mixtures the contractor is to use in the different areas. Drainage 1. There is an inconsistency between the drainage calculations and the plan. The invert elevation for the outlet of the westerly pond is shown on the plans as 899.50 while the drainage calculations use an 899.00 elevation. The project engineer shall revise the drainage calculations to reflect the plan. 2. The project engineer shall provide pipe sizing calculations for the storm sewer pipe and revise the plan to reflect adequate pipe sizes. The proposed storm sewer pipe appears oversized as most of the pipes are proposed to be 18 inches or greater in diameter. 3. The project engineer shall verify the grade of the existing 15 inch pipe on McMenemy Street. The engineer is proposing to connect an 18 inch pipe into the existing 15 inch pipe. 40 This is not acceptable. The project engineer shall verify that there is adequate capacity in the existing pipe to handle emergency flow from the ponds. 4. The engineer shall include in the plans and specifications 3 foot sumps at storm structures 11, 18,24 and 29. 5. The east and west directions for the inverts at CBMH 18 are backwards and should be revised. 6. The project engineer has designed the ponds with infiltration areas. The project plans shall show a detail of how the contractor is to construct the infiltration areas. 7. The engineer shall include a minimum 10 foot bench with a dense vegetative barrier at the anticipated NWL of the infiltration basins as a safety feature to restrict access into the basins. A dense vegetative barrier in such an application may be accomplished with a mix of the following shrubs: Red Twig Dogwood, Nanny Berry, High Bush Cranberry, and Button Bush. If the developer chooses to not use a dense vegetative barrier around the basins, the developer may use a 4-foot-tal1, black vinyl-coated fence installed at the HWL of the basin. Utilities 1. The project engineer shall note the material for the sanitary sewer main SDR 35 and the services as Schedule 40. 2. The applicant shall obtain St. Paul Regional Water Services approval. Misc. 1. The contractor shall use a native seed mixture around the proposed basins. The project engineer shall call this out on the project plans. 2. Outlot A shall be dedicated to the city and maintained by the homeowner's association. It is recommended that the developer screen the south side of Kingston Court and Kingston Lane with screening fencing and/or landscaping. The homeowner's association shall maintain all landscaping within the public right of way, within the ponding or drainage basins, the common areas and in Outlot A. 3. The applicant shall enter into a maintenance agreement with the city for the maintenance of the ponds, sump structures and any landscaping proposed within the city's right of way. The city will require a homeowner's association to be the responsible party for all landscaping maintenance, including right-of-ways, the common areas and the ponding areas. 4. The developer shall enter into a developer's agreement with the city for the construction of the public street and for the utilities. 41 Attachment 17 Ken Roberts From: Sent: To: CC: Subject: Jodeit, Margaret [Margaret.Jodeit@rels.info] Thursday, June 30, 2005 12:13 PM Ken Roberts jodeit@att.net Proposed development: Revised Woodlands of Maplewood, 1740, 1750 and 1766 McMenemy Street Hi Ken, We have reviewed the revised proposal for the Woodlands project. 1. The proposed paved trail along Edgemont place for a 2nd emergency vehicle access: how wide will this trail be? How will normal traffic be discouraged from using this trail? Will it ever be .possible for this trail to be expanded into a public or private road? My concern is that future development will determine that this trail should become a road, and I would like it to be specified that this cannot happen. We still have children who play and ride bicycles on the street, and I do not want the amount of traffic on our streets to increase. 2. Maplewood currently has Edgemont Street, Kingston Avenue and Arkwright Street. I am extremely uneasy about naming additional streets: Edgemont Place, Kingston Court and Kingston Lane, particularly as Edgemont Place is designated as a trail for emergency access vehicles. I believe that these streets and trail should be otherwise named for clarity. Assuming that these concerns can be resolved and that all other conditions will be handled as per code requirements, that utilities will have minimal disruption during the construction process, and will resume as normal when construction is complete, I do not have any additional objections to the development of Woodlands of Maplewood: 1740, 1750 and 1766 McMenemy Road. William and Margaret Jodeit 1714 Edgemont Street Maplewood, MN 55117 651-772-1738 jodeit@att.net 42 Attachment 18 Kenneth Roberts Planner, Office of Community Development City of Maplewood 1830 County Road BEast Maplewood, MN 55105 JUl 0 5 2005 RECEIVED Dear Mr. Roberts: We are writing in response to the open letter we received dated June 21, 2005, concerning the revised, proposed "Woodlands of Maplewood Town House Development - 1740 and 1750 McMenemy Street, Maplewood." Most of the serious problems that existed with the previous proposal still exist. We believe that it should be rejected as proposed. Here are just some of our concerns: Land use - Is this the best use for the land? Has the city studied the neighborhood in recent years? Given the enormous growth in housing in the area bordered by Larpenteur, 35E, Roselawn and DeSoto, we are not aware of any study that has been done on the neighborhood, the loss of wildlife, trees, etc., as well as the needs of this growing population for community services. In the past ten years, the population size has doubled, yet there has been no developments made to support the current size of the population (roads, parks, sidewalks, etc.) to support this or any further growth. One legitimate use of the land might instead be for the development of a park or recreation area for current residents (and the high numbers of children in the area). Our children too often play on the streets for lack of a local park. The proposed development would create a marked disparity in population density compared to surrounding neighborhood areas. Well systems - Many people in the Monn's Villa area are still using the water system under this property with wells. There is no consideration or mention of this in the proposal. Would the development change the access, quality or availability of this water? Would the developers or city be responsible for the quality of the water? How will quality be checked and monitored? The further contamination of our water table by the projects' chemical run offs is major concern for some of us who still use ground wells. Airborne pollution - Many of the neighbors of this project sit on land slanted downward from the project. Carbon monoxide pooling on lower lands, both during construction and after, would be an extreme health hazard to many residents. Has an environmental impact study been done with this in mind? Has any study been initiated concerning any further developments in our area? 43 The character of the neighborhood - The original proposal states it "will not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area." This is impossible to believe since the revised plan still provides an access route to Kingston, which would easily double traffic on those streets. Noise, traffic, etc., will at least double with the doubling of residents using these streets. Kingston/ArkwrighUEdgemont streets in this area currently don't even have curbing, sidewalks, and few if any storm drains along the street, etc. Any repairs or changes to these would be born by the current residents of these streets, not by the developer. Again, the original report states that "traffic volume generated from the project is not significant," which is impossible to believe since the number of housing units would double. Without alleys, sidewalks, etc. - and having a connection to Larpenteur at the base - children often play in the quiet streets now. Where would this leave them? How many accidents would result from this plan? Forestation - About eight years ago, a major storm blew over many of the mature trees in Monn's Villa. It took days for the city and utilities to clean up the streets and restore utilities. This is proof of the difficulty posed by narrow streets, some portions of our circle were inaccessible to emergency vehicles and utilities were out for about a week. The project's "tree plan" would, in fact, remove most of the trees already on the proposed site. Developments in recent years - the Ripley street development, the townhouse development north of the Hmong church, the Hmong church development and current development on the west side of McMenemy - the forestation in the area has already declined dramatically in the past 10 years. This impact deserves consideration. Street service - Plowing, etc. is already minimal, since these are secondary streets - yet the incline of the hill can make access to existing houses in Monn's Villa difficult in inclement weather. Calling this a 'secondary access point' doesn't change the fact that for at least 16 of the properties, the Kingston egress would be a close exit and would undoubtedly be used often. Doubling traffic will only exacerbate the problems already facing the neighborhood. Perhaps instead of adding more housing units, the developer should look at the added property that he has acquired since the first proposal to develop roads or other services for the homes he would be constructing. We would like to see better study of the actual financial burden this project would impose on the neighborhood (street upgrades, etc.) done before any more development is made to the area. More traffic along Kingston/ArkwrighUEdgemont streets would obviously result in more wear-and- tear on these streets. 44 In summary: The development plan is unacceptable and nonsensical. Development in this area has already been dramatic and without any long-range planning by the city, at least nothing that has been shared with the residents of the area. The developer would be better served, if he intends to continue his hopes for high density housing, by negotiating with the owners of the homes on McMenemy next to his project which is for sale. This would give him a much larger land area on McMenemy for egress from his site. We would ask the city to (1) examine the high growth of new housing and the capacity of the area to handle such dramatic growth along with significant decline in trees/wildlife in the area; (2) use this study to determine realistic guidelines for development in the future; (3) scale back the size of any future development plans to more rational levels, (4) require any future development's access via McMenemy only, which is far better suited to handle a higher density of traffic (it has a better road bed, street lighting, curbs and storm sewers, bus routes,etc. Maplewood is an attractive city because of the character of the neighborhoods, the beauty of the settings and the reasonableness of the services. This proposal ignores all of these aspects and only adds problems that will erode the value of this area to its citizens - now and in the future. Thank you for your attention to our concerns. We look forward to hearing more about these issues as you continue your study of this proposal. Sincerely, ~~ n(J1lf1'\~/'" Nancy He'l-lher 407 Kingston Av. Maplewood, MN 55117 651/771-8436 Cc: Robert Cardinal, Mayor Kathleen Juenemann, Council Member Will Rossbach, Council Member Jackie Monahan-Junek, Council Member Mavin Koppen, Council Member Lorraine B. Fischer, Chair, Planning Commission Tushar Desai, Vice Chair, Planning Commission 45 Attachment 19 RECEIVED JUN 3 0 2005 To the City of Maplewood: Regarding the proposed Woodlands of Maplewood Town House DevelopmenR ~"t!~y ED like to voice some of my concerns. JUN 3 0 2005 I live on McMenemy Street across the street from the site. I am very unhappy with the proposal for several reasons. 1. The development as proposed, would severely impact the landscape by cutting down many mature trees. These trees, if preserved, would help to obscure the new development from view, fit in better with the surrounding properties, and make the new development much more attractive. How can it be called "Woodlands of Maplewood" when the plan calls for clear cutting the entire site and piling 'units' Ofrtop0foneaoothe!>'FThis-marketing tactic is especially offensive. 2. I do not believe that town houses are appropriate for this neighborhood. I feel that this neighborhood is characterized by single family homes with yards. Many of the people who live here enjoy gardening and landscaping their yards. There are also many families with children who benefit from the outdoor spaces that these properties provide. Tbis new development does not provide families with outdoor spaces for gardening or children. I strongly believe that any new houses built should emulate the surrounding neighborhoods by keeping structures further apart from each other as well as have a reasonable amount of yard space. With this type of development, it may be possible to preserve more of the mature trees on the property. 3. It would be wonderful if some of this land could be used for a picnic area, park or play ground. It could serve as a unifying element between the new development and the neighborhoods on McMenemy, Desoto, and Kingston Ave. It would attract families with children and encourage neighbors to meet and interact. Instead, the proposed plan creates a completely different type of neighborhood that would isolate itself while further dividing the existing neighborhood on McMenemy street. 4. Many of the houses on McMenemy street are over 100 years old. It bothers me that two of these historic homes are being tom down to make way for this proposed development. As an owner of an older horne, I would prefer that this quality of my neighborhood be preserved rather than destroyed. 5. The development surrounds two remaining homes on McMenemy street. These houses fit perfectly into the existing neighborhood but would be completely isolated by the proposed development. I don't think this is fair to those homes. 6. While McMenemy street can handle more traffic, it does require more enforcement to deter speeders. Most cars do not observe the 30mph speed limit. I 46 am also concerned about crime. Is Maplewood going to hire more police officers or patrol the neighborhood more frequently? My garage was broken into last year and I do not want this to happen again. 7. When is enough enough? McMenemy street has seen quite a bit of development in the last five years. I am feeling very unsettled about the changes taking place around me. I moved here six years ago to a neighborhood that being so close to the city, I thought was fully developed. I was attracted to the area because of the older homes, large yards, untouched forested spaces and proximity to the cities. I may have been naive in the assumption that there wouldn't be any more development, but who would have thought that all of the pristine spaces would disappear in such a short amount of time? I may be old fashioned, but I don't think I'm the only one who is uncomfortable with the rapid pace of development in this area My fear and frustration is that my neighborhood is transforming into exactly the type of area I was trying to avoid when I moved here. This is causing me a great deal of unwanted anxiety. The overall impression I get from the proposal is that it is an attempt at wholesale profiteering. I strongly question whether it would be in the interest of Maple wood to allow this practice of self serving development to continue. I think that in the interest of neighborhood continuity and quality oflife, Maplewood should reject this proposal. Sincerely, F~ i~~~ Kai Huot-Link 1741 McMenemy Street Maplewood, MN 55117 47 Attachment 20 N July 08, 2005 Erin Laberee Engineering Department City ofMaplewood 1830 Comly Road B East Maplewood, Mn 55109 JUl 0 8 2005 RECEIVED Re: Response to review letter dated June 29,2005 Project 05-04 Woodlands ofMaplewood Dear Ms. Laberee: This letter is in response to the issues generated from the review letter for the proposed construction plans dated June 27, 20OS. Metro Land Surveying & Engineering is in CODCUIreIlce with the majority of the engineering comments from the city and has begun to incorporate the information into the next design iteration. In addition, the developer is willing to work with the city to set up a developer agreement for the construction of the public streets, including pond and sump structure maintenance. Also, the developer will work with the city to set up a homeowners association to address maintenance of the site landscaping, monumentation, fences and other shared infrastructure. Finally, vegetative buffers around the ponds will be incorporated into the design. The request of the additional cul-de-sacs to the private streets will need additional review and discussion with the city engineering department. The addition of three cul-de-sacs causes the lost of six (6) proposed units. If the need for public right-of way is also included for the roads, then setback requirements would cause the loss of an additional four (4) to six (6) lots. The site poses significaut grading issues affecting the number of tree removals and relocations. These changes have resulted from redesign of the project in response to City and public comments. You may recall that our first design did protect many of the existing trees. In closing, we will work with the city to develop a plan to address landscape planting, tree preservation and screening for the site. Color renderings and other exlubits are currently being prepared to provide a visual characterization of the final site plan including the addition offences as suggested and landscaping. 48 We look forward to working with the city to resolve any further outstanding issues. Please feel free to call me at (952) 707-9299 if you should have further questions. Sincerely, Metro Land Surveying & Engineering, Inc. cJl1I) a.u$.. . Michael Villari, PE Project Engineer 49 .__ ;::~ ~U_____ :',-~-=- ~'~~~ QU3W. , ... - ~= _ ::=:s:.~_ ': .LZt~ Nn 'NO.u.. \fO OYO~ )lOO1H3AO 12LZL 'ONI 'S311l0H \nl!:)3.1NI USIHX3 :lVS 301m II ~I ~. l'l.ODMIIIt'(IIQMJloMI 11l1~ i..... aOOM31clVn jQ . - I::: 6 S S(]NVlaOOM 3H.l :I . h~ IM;~I I nIl:; =:i!;ii I S! h"~.f ;e ~:l.l"_ ..1 I,~:,~C ~ ftl 1~1;~;1 ; II <Shl'. I~! ~IJilil i, :!Mil! ql~ lfilll;- ;. II! ;1'ln. no. I R II 11I11 .! ; II .1~1.' I'.i Ii i ,":'n i ". ill'; ~ ~!llldlll ~!; ! II ii I, el II !! ~11t:i ~ idn! iii "llid.II!ll 9 II 1111. 1"1 ~ 11111511 I, ",diDl:lI ICJ I I . I I ___I o LJ I I __ ,__ -~-- =r " ~Il i Iltr.t \p!..1 ,_,_u_ ~li!II)';'I..J -I'" I ----- 'II - ~ " : I " 1IIIl!!I!!!!III!,a I, ::J ,lhlli!.iim!! AI _ ,_V, : 7~'if-O~\ 1\' . -" .., I ' '-..'-.....~ ~ ,,~-"'f .. .> . " SJ '~ '-.. /?'- :;." ,,/'/ " . i "II 'j / / "i\h ZJ / 1/// I -,- - -.J (I.(f i ~::" ,r J ' .' .1 ' , c,'",-,.; ,j- "" ~ .-:,..,-'- - _'l.:__, ~j ~ ill _...........,.'...._ '''j- if! ~-- ~ :,dd':;',.~... '1tl.. 'I: ~'~ ~~~ / n , 1 Iii ;:~ t- L _ - Ii ~ l! =I '":I! I :~: I _ I "" ll!!;! -:'i I [] K I! !!!ll! !!!I! I ! ~! Ii II!I;. :1-11 ! i I L i! h ;I;!!i Ilill i I! , i ! Idl";'. llo5' ; "f / l i" l I,al !lllj ~ II ;b ,J / Ii ~i 1;;~ll. Illlj : ~ plJ / I rjll!~11 , J / '.' III~ Il~I~1 il;lf i Ii I , '1Itl"11l ~i'., I i,l IIi ,~ii. I i! "I 'lI''t-- . , \ - - -lt~l;f~1 ; ! bU~1 ';'1 I '-~dll ~ :1 !!;ii1 ! iiiii!i: ~ ~ ~ ,I c=J i1il:; t :j':III; o I I ". I !l "ll II i,II';1 ,~. '--( . r5~cl Xl 'I pI , I O. - - '" ;'1'. I. I !i"l - ']1"1' """",. '-'. '~.ll S 'i"il~ ;. Il:i.i , _,_,__,_,_,_I--'_'__'-'-r-'-'-ii"-" I ~I!I D~ ".illll ~._._._._.-.-.-.~.--=-~= _ _ _ .. "-:I" ~ s~ 111011 ,. - - - - T - - - - -p- - ---.- ~ ~Ii!~;l " =j II!, ,Sl Il (J 0 Q ~ lIillli U i;llih! I, --_/ 50 Attachment 21 LAND USE PLAN CHANGE RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Chris English, representing Integra Homes, proposed a change to the city's land use plan from R-1 (single dwellings) to R-2 (single and double dwellings), WHEREAS, this change applies to the properties at 1740, 1750 and 1766 McMenemy Street in Section 17, Township 29, Range 22, Ramsey County, Minnesota. (The property to be known as Lots 1-28 of the proposed Woodlands of Maplewood) WHEREAS, the history of this change is as follows: 1. On July 18, 2005, the planning commission held a public hearing. The city staff published a hearing notice in the MapJewood Review and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The planning commission gave persons at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The planning commission recommended that the city council the proposed change. 2. On August _' 2005, the city council discussed the proposed land use plan change. They considered reports and recommendations from the planning commission and city staff. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above-described change for the following reasons: 1. It would be consistent with the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan. 2. This site is proper for and consistent with the city's policies for medium-density residential use. This includes: a. It is near a minor arterial street (Larpenteur Avenue) and is on a collector street. b. Minimizing any adverse effects on surrounding properties because there would be minimal traffic from this development on existing residential streets. 3. It would be consistent with the proposed zoning and land uses. The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on ,2005. 51 Attachment 22 RESOLUTION: ZONING MAP CHANGE WHEREAS, Chris English, representing Integra Homes, proposed a change to the zoning map from F (farm residence) to R-2 (single and double dwellings). WHEREAS, this change applies to the properties at 1740, 1750 and 1766 McMenemy Street (for the proposed Woodlands of Maplewood). WHEREAS, the legal description of these properties are: OVERALL DESCRIPTION The South 91.99 feet of the West 407.00 feet of the North 166.99 feet of the South 325.39 feet of the West 984.8 feet of the North half of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 17, Township 29, Range 22, Ramsey County, Minnesota. Parcel A The South 91.99 feet of the West 158.00 feet of the North 166.99 feet of the South 325.39 feet of the West 984.8 feet of the North half of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 17, Township 29, Range 22, Ramsey County, Minnesota. Parcel B The South 91.99 feet of the East 249.00 feet of the West 407.00 feet of the North 166.99 feet of the South 325.00 feet of the West 984.8 feet of the North half of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 17, Township 29, Range 22, Ramsey County, Minnesota. All in Section 17, Township 29, Range 22, Ramsey County, Minnesota. (The property to be known as The Woodlands of Maplewood) WHEREAS, the history of this change is as follows: 1. On July 18, 2005, the planning commission held a public hearing. The city staff published a hearing notice in the Maplewood Review and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The planning commission gave persons at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The planning commission recommended that the city council the zoning map change. 2. On August _' 2005, the city council discussed the proposed zoning map change. They considered reports and recommendations from the planning commission and city staff. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above-described change in the zoning map for the following reasons: 1. The proposed change is consistent with the spirit, purpose and intent of the zoning code. 2. The proposed change will not substantially injure or detract from the use of neighboring property or from the character of the neighborhood, and that the use of the property adjacent to the area included in the proposed change or plan is adequately safeguarded. 52 3. The proposed change will serve the best interests and conveniences of the community, where applicable, and the public welfare. 4. The proposed change would have no negative effect upon the logical, efficient, and economical extension of public services and facilities, such as public water, sewers, police and fire protection and schools. 5. The owner plans to develop this property for single and double dwellings. The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on ,2005. 53 Attachment 23 STREET VACATION RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Integra Homes applied to the city for the vacation of the following-described parts of a right-of-way: The easterly 15 feet and the westerly 15 feet of the unused Edgemont Street right-of-way located north of the north right-of-way line of Kingston Avenue. (in Section 17, Township 29, Range 22) WHEREAS, the history of this vacation is as follows: 1. On July 18, 2005, the planning commission held a public hearing about this proposed vacation. The city staff published a notice in the Maplewood Review and sent a notice to the abutting property owners. The planning commission gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The planning commission also considered reports and recommendations of the city staff. The planning commission recommended that the city council approve the proposed vacation. 2. On August _' 2005, the city council reviewed this proposal. The city council also considered reports and recommendations of the city staff and planning commission. WHEREAS, after the city approves this vacation, public interest in the property will go to the following abutting properties: 1. Lot 1, Block 3, Monn's Villa 385 Kingston Avenue, Maplewood, Minnesota PIN: 17-29-22-33-0021 2. Lot 10, Block 1, Monn's Villa 395 Kingston Avenue, Maplewood, Minnesota PIN: 17-29-22-33-0030 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above-described right-of- way vacation for the following reasons: 1. It is in the public interest. 2. The applicant and the abutting property owners have no plans to build a public street at this location. 3. The adjacent properties have street access. 4. The vacation of the parts of the right-of-way will allow the adjacent residents to expand and improve their homes. This vacation is subject to the city retaining the center part of the Edgemont Street right-of-way located north of the north right-of-way line of Kingston Avenue for public purposes. The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on ,2005. 54 Attachment 24 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Mr. Chris English, representing Integra Homes, applied for a conditional use permit (CUP) for the Woodlands of Maplewood residential planned unit development (PUD). WHEREAS, this permit applies to properties at 1740, 1750 and 1766 McMenemy Street. WHEREAS, the legal descriptions of the properties are: OVERALL DESCRIPTION The South 91.99 feet of the West 407.00 feet of the North 166.99 feet of the South 325.39 feet of the West 984.8 feet of the North half of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 17, Township 29, Range 22, Ramsey County, Minnesota. Parcel A The South 91.99 feet of the West 158.00 feet of the North 166.99 feet of the South 325.39 feet of the West 984.8 feet of the North half of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 17, Township 29, Range 22, Ramsey County, Minnesota. Parcel B The South 91.99 feet of the East 249.00 feet of the West 407.00 feet of the North 166.99 feet of the South 325.00 feet of the West 984.8 feet of the North half of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 17, Township 29, Range 22, Ramsey County, Minnesota. All in Section 17, Township 29, Range 22, Ramsey County, Minnesota. (The property to be known as The Woodlands of Maplewood) WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: 1. On July 18, 2005, the planning commission held a public hearing. The city staff published a notice in the paper and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The planning commission gave persons at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The commission also considered reports and recommendations of the city staff. The planning commission recommended that the city council the plan amendment. 2. On August _' 2005, the city council discussed the proposed conditional use pennit. They considered reports and recommendations from the planning commission and city staff. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above-described conditional use permit, because: 1. The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be in confonnity 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. 55 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. Approval is subject to the fOllowing conditions: 1. All construction shall follow the plans date-stamped June 14,2005 except where the city requires changes. Such changes shall include: a. Revising the grading and site plans to show: (1) Revised storm water pond locations and designs as suggested or required by the watershed district or city engineer. The ponds shall meet the city's standards and the engineering department requirements. (2) The developer minimizing the loss or removal of the vegetation and large trees. (3) All the changes required by the city engineer and by the watershed district. The city council may approve major changes to the plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 2. The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the permit shall end. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 3. Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall meet all the conditions and changes noted in Erin Laberee's memo dated July 11, 2005, and the plans shall include: a. The grading, utility, drainage, erosion control, streets, driveway, trails, tree preservation/replacement, and parking plans. The cul-de-sac bulb shall have the minimum radius necessary to ensure that emergency vehicles can turn around. b. The fOllowing changes for the storm sewer plans: 56 (1) The developer shall enclose the new ponds with a four-foot-high, black, vinyl- coated chain-link fence. The contractor also shall install a gate in the fences as may be required by the city engineer. (2) Provide for staff approval a detailed storm water management plan. c. The following for the streets and driveways: (1) Curb and gutter along the street, if the city engineer decides that it is necessary. (2) Clearly labeled public streets and private driveways on the plans. 4. The design of the ponds shall meet Maplewood's ordinance standards and shall be subject to the approval of the city engineer. The developer shall be responsible for getting any needed off-site pond and drainage easements, if applicable. 5. The developer or contractor shall: a. Complete all grading for the site drainage and the ponds, complete all public improvements and meet all city requirements. b. Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits. c. Remove any debris, junk, fencing or fill from the site. 6. The approved setbacks for the principal structures in the Woodlands of Maplewood PUD shall be: a. Front-yard setback (from a public street or a private driveway): minimum - 20 feet, maximum - 35 feet b. Front-yard setback (public side street): minimum - 20 feet, maximum - none c. Rear-yard setback: 20 feet from any adjacent residential property line. d. Side-yard setback (townhouses): minimum - 20 feet minimum between buildings. 7. The developer or builder will pay the city Park Access Charges (PAC fees) for each housing unit at the time of the building permit for each housing unit. 8. The city council shall review this permit in one year. The Maplewood City Council approved this resolution on 2005. 57 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: DATE: Richard Fursman, City Manager Shann Finwall, AICP, Planner Walgreens Pharmacy - Design Review Northeast Corner of Beam and White Bear Avenues July 20, 2005 INTRODUCTION Project Description Meer Construction and the Maplewood Financial Center, representing Walgreens, are proposing to construct a 14,480-square-foot Walgreens Pharmacy on a vacant lot located on the northeast corner of Beam and White Bear Avenues. The plan also shows a future three-story office building to be located on the east side of the lot, toward the Maplewood Heights city park. Requests To build this development, the applicants are requesting that the city approve the following: 1. Comprehensive plan change from Limited Business Commercial (LBC) to Business Commercial (BC). 2. Zoning map change from Limited Business Commercial (LBC) to Business Commercial (BC). 3. Design review. The planning commission reviewed and recommended approval of the comprehensive plan and zoning map change at the July 18, 2005, planning commission meeting. The community design review board (CDRB) should review and make a recommendation on the design issues at the July 26, 2005, CDRB meeting. Final action by the city council is currently scheduled for August 8, 2005. BACKGROUND May 28, 2004: The City of Maplewood received complete land use applications from the applicants for a comprehensive land use plan change, zone change, and design review for the proposed Walgreens Pharmacy and future office building. City staff sent a neighborhood survey notifying all property owners within 500 feet of the property of the proposal. City staff received notice from the underlying property owner (Mogren Landscaping) that the applicants' lease on the land did not allow the development of a pharmacy and that they were disputing the applicants' request to rezone the property. City staff notified the applicants of this issue and discontinued processing the permit until the applicants were able to obtain the underlying property owners' permission to rezone or a court order which directed the city to proceed. November 3, 2004: The RamseylWashington Metro Watershed District approved the applicants' watershed district permit for the proposed development. May 10, 2005: A court order was given that denied Mogren Landscaping's request to stop the rezoning process, which then forced the city to continue with the land use requests as proposed by the applicants. July 18, 2005: A court order was given that denied Mogren Landscaping's request for a temporary injunction and temporary restraining order to require the city to stop processing and/or granting the applicants' rezoning request, which then forced the city to continue with the land use requests as proposed by the applicants. DISCUSSION Site Plan Buildinos The development will consist of a Walgreens store with a drive-through pharmacy to be located on the west side of the lot, and a future-three story office building to be located on the east side of the lot. Rioht of Wav In conjunction with the Interstate 694 improvements scheduled for 2008, White Bear Avenue is proposed as a six-lane roadway. To ensure these improvements are possible and ensure better traffic flow and access to and from this property, the city is requiring that the applicants grant to the city a 10-foot right-of-way easement along White Bear and Beam Avenue. The site plan must be revised to show the right-of-way easement and also show that the parking lot is shifted 15 feet to the north and east to maintain the required 15-foot setback from the right-of-way easement. The applicants could achieve this by reducing the length of the parking stalls, reducing the width of the drive aisle, and shifting the building. If the site plan changes cannot be made, the applicants must apply for a parking lot setback variance and supply proof of turning radius around the north side of the building. The applicants are drafting a new site plan and will be prepared to discuss this issue during the CDRB meeting. Curb Cuts/Drivewavs The site plan submitted reflects three existing curb cuts into the property, one on White "Beaf Avenue and two on Beam Avenue. Since the original submittal, the applicants had expressed an interest in eliminating the existing White Bear Avenue curb cut and using the existing entrance just to the north within the Maplewood East shopping center as a shared driveway. The applicants' attorneys have verified that the lease agreement 2 would allow the applicants to use the approximately southerly 40 feet of the north property (Maplewood East shopping center) for ingress and egress to and from the site. However, the applicants' attorneys have just notified the city that it is their opinion that a shared access is not in the best interest of the applicant because of the relationship between the lessor (land use permit applicant) and tenant due to the current litigation as described above in the background section of this report (Maplewood East shopping center owners are also the applicants' tenants on this property). Staff supports the White Bear Avenue shared driveway scenario as it would reduce curb cuts onto White Bear Avenue, eliminate the need for the proposed 5-foot-strip of grass in between the properties which will allow for better turning radius and movement around the building, and allow the applicants to shift the building to the north to accommodate for the required 10-foot right-of-way easement and parking lot setbacks. Because the applicants' attorneys have verified the legal right of the applicant to use this driveway, city staff is recommending a condition of approval be that the existing entrance from White Bear Avenue to the site is eliminated and a shared driveway to the north are used for ingress and egress to the site. The western curb cut on Beam Avenue will serve as access to Walgreens as well as allow for access to the back of the Maplewood East shopping center to the north, per the lease agreement. The eastern curb cut will access the future office building. Sidewalks There is an existing sidewalk located along White Bear Avenue. The site plan also shows a 6-foot-wide concrete sidewalk to be located on Beam Avenue, extending the entire length of the property. The CDRB should include the construction of the "entire length" of the Beam Avenue sidewalk as a condition of design review approval. Parking City code requires retail stores to have one parking space per 200 square feet of retail space and one parking space per 1,000 square feet of storage space. Office buildings are required to have one parking space per 200 square feet of office space. The overall development requires 144 parking spaces, 63 for Walgreens and 81 for the office building. The applicants are proposing 127 surface parking spaces and 17 parking spaces located within the main level of the future office building, for a total of 144 parking spaces. City code requires parking spaces to be 10 feet wide by 18 feet deep for a retail use and 9.5 feet wide by 18 feet deep for an office use. The code allows for a reduction in the length by 2.5 feet if the parking space is adjacent to a curb or landscaped area, and a reduction in the width if the parking space is signed for employee parking only. The site plan submitted shows the parking spaces located on the Walgreen's portion of the development to be 9.5 feet wide by 19 feet deep and the parking spaces located on the future office building's portion of the development as 9 feet wide by 19 feet deep. The applicants must either revise their site plan to ensure the parking spaces meet city. code, or apply for a parking space width variance. 3 Landscaping Staff finds the landscape plan submitted to be grossly inadequate. The plan shows 11 trees including two deciduous, five evergreens, and four ornamentals. Also proposed are 62 shrubs and 15 perennials. In addition, the plan does not specify the size of the proposed species. Staff recommends the following revisions to the landscape plan: 1. The addition of six deciduous trees planted approximately 30 feet on center to be located on the west side of the lot, along White Bear Avenue. 2. The addition of eleven deciduous trees planted approximately 30 feet on center to be located on the south side of the lot, along Beam Avenue. 3. The addition of foundation plantings around the Walgreen's building. 4. Additional shrubs and perennials along White Bear and Beam Avenues. 5. All landscaping shown within the future office building portion of the development to be approved by the CDRB during the future and required design review of that portion of the development. Areas which need addressing during this future review include, but are not limited to, substantial screening with evergreen trees along the east side of the property, adjacent the park, additional foundation plantings, and trees to be located within the parking lot median between the Walgreen's building and the future office building. 6. The future office building portion of the development must be planted and maintained with sod or native prairie grasses until the development of this portion of the property in the future. Lighting City code requires the submittal of a lighting and photometrics plan which ensures all freestanding lights maintain a height of 25 feet or less and that the maximum foot candles of illumination at all property iines do not exceed A-foot-candles. Again staff finds the lighting and photometries plan to be grossly inadequate. It appears the plan submitted is based on a standardized Walgreen's plan, and does not reflect this specific property. Based on a comparison of the lighting pian to the site plan it appears that the applicants are proposing four freestanding lights with no specification on height and six building- mounted lights. The photometrics reflect the highest light illumination reading of 11.7 foot-candles along what appears to be White Bear Avenue. A revised lighting and photometries plan is required prior to issuance of a building permit which ensures that the development meets city code requirements. 4 Dumpster Enclosure The proposed location of the dumpster enclosure is on the north side of the building. The applicants may need to relocate this enclosure if the building is shifted to the north as described above. The enclosure will be eight feet in height, constructed of face brick to match the building, and will have cedar enclosure gates. Signage The city's sign code specifies that all multi-tenant buildings (buildings with five or more tenants) must be reviewed by the CORB for approval of a comprehensive sign plan. All other signs are approved administratively and must comply with the sign requirements of each specified zoning district. If this site is rezoned to BC, the sign code would allow up to five signs on this property. The size of the wall signs would be limited to 20 percent of the gross wall area on which the sign is attached. Freestanding signs are limited to 25 feet in height (height can be increased with increased setbacks), must maintain a 10-foot setback to all property lines, and can be up to 300 square feet in area. No signs which contain blinking or flashing lights are allowed, unless associated with public service messages such as a bank's time and temperature sign. In addition, a freestanding sign located on an intersection must meet the city's visibility requirements and maintain a 25-foot triangular clearance from the intersecting rights-of-way. Walgreens proposes a 25-foot-high freestanding sign to be located on the corner of Beam and White Bear Avenues. The proposed sign will be 89 square feet in area, with a 36 square foot electronic readerboard. It is not clear if the proposed location of the freestanding sign meets the setback and visibility requirements. During the CDRB's review of the CVS Pharmacy located on the corner of County Road B and White Bear Avenue a few months ago, the CDRB expressed concern over the size of CVS's proposed sign in relation to the size of the proposed building and the surrounding properties. CVS had proposed a freestanding sign which was similar in size and height to Walgreen's. While the city's sign code does not require approval of single- tenant building signs by the CORB, the city's CORB ordinance does state that the CDRB is charged with reviewing the general architectural considerations of a commercial site including the colors and materials to be used in the site, the physical and architectural relationship of the proposed structures with existing and proposed structures in the area, and the appropriateness of "graphics" to be used on the site. The ordinance further states that the CDRB may recommend any actions that it deems reasonable to its action of approval. Because of the prominent location of this site as the entryway into the Maplewood Mall area, site location on two major intersections, and adjacent residential property, c~y staff finds it reasonable for the CDRB to make recommendations on the size of the and architectural design of all signs as part of its action of approval. For this reason, staff recommends a condition of approval include all proposed signs for the Walgreen's development be reviewed and approved by the CDRB prior to issuance of sign permits. The signs must be architecturally compatible to the building and compliment the site and surrounding properties. 5 Building Elevations The exterior of the building will be constructed of face brick, what appears to be decorative masonry units (not called out on the elevations), glass windows and front door, and flush seam metal panels on the awnings and over the drive-through. The proposed elevations are almost identical to the Walgreens recently constructed within the Hillcrest neighborhood, on the southwest corner of Larpenteur and White Bear Avenues. While the building is proposed with quality materials, staff finds that Walgreens has designed and constructed more creative buildings throughout the Midwest over the past few years and recommends that the CDRB strive for more creativity in this design. Suggested design changes include removal of the awning over the front door and replacement with a columned and covered entryway; additional design elements above the new covered entryway to include gabled roofing and windows above the doors to be located on both sides of the entryway. The CDRB should closely review the elevations and make recommendations on additional design elements which will create a quality and attractive Walgreen's store within this very prominent location in Maplewood. OTHER COMMENTS Engineering Review: Erin Laberee, civil engineer with the city, and Dan Solar, traffic engineer with the county, reviewed the applicants' request and outline their comments in the attached memorandums dated July 14 and June 29, 2005, respectively (Attachments 10 and 11). Building Department: Dave Fisher, Building Official, reviewed the applicants' request and outlines his comments in the attached memorandum dated July 1, 2005 (Attachment 12). Fire Department: Butch Gervais, Fire Marshal, reviewed the applicants' request and outlines his comments in the attached memorandum dated June 2, 2004 (Attachment 13). Police Department: Lt. Kevin Rabbett reviewed the applicants' request and outlines his comments in the attached memorandum dated June 1, 2005 (Attachment 14). RECOMMENDATION Approve the plans date-stamped May 17, 2005, for the Walgreens Pharmacy to be located on the northeast corner of Beam and White Bear Avenues. Approval is subject to the applicant doing the following: 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: . 6 a. Proof that the applicants possess all requisite property ownership interest required by Maplewood Code Section 44-1161 to initiate an amendment to the zoning map, which said zoning map amendment is required for this design review approval. b. Revised grading/drainage/utility plans which comply with all city engineering department requirements as specified in Erin laberee's July 14, 2005, memorandum, including, but not limited to granting a 10- . foot right-of-way easement along White Bear and Beam Avenues and revised site plan showing the removai of the existing driveway on White Bear Avenue and a shared driveway with the property to the north for ingress and egress to the site. c. Revised site plan showing the following: 1) A 10-foot right-of-way easement along White Bear and Beam Avenues. 2) The parking lot maintaining a 15-foot setback from the right-of-way easement as described above. 3) The removal of the existing driveway on White Bear Avenue and a shared driveway with the property to the north for ingress and egress to the site. 4) All parking space length and width to meet city code requirements. d. Revised landscape plan showing the following: 1) The addition of six deciduous trees (2-1/2 inches in diameter) planted approximately 30 feet on center to be located on the west side of the lot, along White Bear Avenue. 2) The addition of eleven deciduous trees (2-1/2 inches in diameter) planted approximately 30 feet on center to be located on the south side of the lot, along Beam Avenue. 3) The addition of foundation plantings around the Walgreen's building. 5) Additional shrubs and perennials along White Bear and Beam Avenues. 6) Sod or native prairie plants to be located within the future office building portion of the development (east side of the site). 6) The size, number, and species of all proposed plants. 7) Underground irrigation plan to ensure all landscaping is sprinklered. 7 e. Revised elevations showing a more creative building design. Suggested design changes include removal of the awning over the front door and replacement with a columned and covered entryway; additional design elements above the new covered entryway to include gabled roofing and windows on both sides of the entryway. f. A revised lighting and photometrics plan which shows the style, height, and number of exterior lights. The plan must ensure all freestanding lights maintain a height of 25 feet or less and that the overall illumination from outdoor lights does not exceed .4-foot-candles at all property lines. g. Obtain a permit from Ramsey County for construction on county right-of- way for the driveway access, utility work, and sidewalk. h. Watershed district approval if revisions warrant a new review. 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 underground irrigation system for all of Walgreen's landscaped areas. The future office building portion of the development must be planted and maintained with sod or native prairie grasses until the development of this portion of the property in the future. In addition, all required trees along Beam Avenue (in front of the Waigreen's building and the future office building) must be planted. d. Screen or paint the rooftop mechanical equipment to match the building color. e. Install all required outdoor lighting. f. Install the six-foot-wide concrete sidewalk along the entire length of the south property line, along Beam Avenue. 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. 8 5. The future office buiiding including architecturai, landscaping, lighting, etc., is not included in this review and must obtain all required city approvals separately. 6. Signs are not included in this design review of the Walgreens Pharmacy. All proposed signs must be brought back before the Community Design Review Board for approval. 7. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 9 CITIZEN COMMENTS Staff surveyed the 43 surrounding property owners within 500 feet of this site for their comments. Following are the 8 replies received: Approve 1. Dan Snyder, Owner of Batteries Plus at 2832 White Bear Avenue: "I am the owner of the Batteries Plus located on White Bear Avenue and Radatz. I believe having a Walgreens in the proposed spot would be a great boost for the shopping center just north of the corner. I am in favor of the proposed Walgreens store." 2. Elmer and Margaret Birkeland, 2015 Radatz Avenue East: 'We have no objection to this project." 3. Bruce and Marilyn Fisher, 2836 White Bear Avenue: "Go for it! (Looks like a good investigation of the deal.) 4. Vernabelle Mikiska, 2003 Radatz Avenue: "The plan to put a Walgreens Drugstore on White Bear Avenue and Beam is okay with me. Also other future office building." 5. Jodi Jefferson, Manager at Concordia Arms Apartments located at 2030 Lydia Avenue: Refer to attached e-mail dated June 22, 2005 (Attachment 15). Opposed 1. Thomas Schutte, Azure Properties, Inc., Property Owner of Maplewood East Shopping Center located at 2950 White Bear Avenue: Refer to attached letter dated July 7,2005 (Attachment 16). 2. Jerry and Mary Pults, 2965 Frederick Parkway: Refer to attached letter dated June 29, 2005 (Attachment 17). 3. Madonna Hawthorne, 2030 Beam Avenue: Refer to attached petition signed by 16 residents on Beam Avenue requesting that the city "not" rezone the property (Attachment 18). 10 REFERENCE SITE DESCRIPTION Site size: Existing Use: 2.75 Acres Vacant Land SURROUNDING LAND USES North: South: East: West: Maplewood East Shopping Center (Zoned BC) Beam Avenue and Premier Bank across the street (Zoned LBC) Maplewood Heights Park White Bear Avenue and Red Lobster across the street (Zoned BC) PLANNING Existing Land Use Designation: Existing Zoning: Proposed Land Use Designation: Proposed Zoning: Limited Business Commercial (LBC) Limited Business Commercial (LBC) Business Commercial (BC) Business Commercial (BC) Criteria for CUP Approval Land Use Plan Land Use Plan Change: There are no specific criteria for land use plan changes. Any change, however, should be consistent with the goals and policies in the comprehensive plan. Rezoning Section 44-1165 of the city code requires that the city council make the following findings to rezone property: 1. The proposed change is consistent with the spirit, purpose and intent of the zoning code. 2. The proposed change will not substantially injure or detract from the use of neighboring property or from the character of the neighborhood and the use of the property adjacent to the area included in the proposed change or plan is adequately safeguarded. 3. The proposed change will serve the best interests and conveniences of the community, where applicable, and the public welfare. 4. The proposed change would have no negative effect upon the logical, efficient, and economical extension of public services and facilities, such as public water, sewers, police and fire protection and schools. 11 Design Review Section 2-290 of the city code requires that the community design review board make the following findings to approve plans: 1. That the design and iocation of the proposed development and its relationship to neighboring, existing or proposed developments, and traffic is such that it will not impair the desirability of investment or occupation in the neighborhood; that it will not unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring, existing or proposed developments; and that it will not create traffic hazards or congestion. 2. That the design and location of the proposed development is in keeping with the character of the surrounding neighborhood and is not detrimental to the harmonious, orderly and attractive development contemplated by this article and the city's comprehensive municipal plan. 3. That the design and location of the proposed development would provide a desirabie environment for its occupants, as well as for its neighbors, and that it is aesthetically of good composition, materials, textures and colors. Application Date We received the complete application and plans for this proposal on June 14, 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 August 13, 2005, unless the applicant agrees to a time extension. P:ICom-DevISec2NIWalgreensI7-26-05 PC Report Attachments: 1. Applicant's Zoning Map Change Statement 2. Location Map 3. Property UnelZoning Map 4. Site Survey 5. Site Plan 6. Site Plan (Enlarged) 7. Drainage Area 8. Landscape Plan 9. Building Elevations 10. Engineering Report 11. Ramsey County Public Works Memorandum 12. Building Official Memorandum 13. Fire Marshal Memorandum 14. Poi ice Department Memorandum 15. Jodi Jefferson June 22, 2005, E-Mail 16. Azure Properties, Inc., July 7, 2005, Letter 17. Jerry and Mary Pults June 29, 2005, Letter 18. Madonna Hawthorne June 11, 2004, Petition 12 M (MEER,\ CONSTRUCTION, INC ~ I Attachment 1 Rezoning Application Supplement April 16, 2004 11800 95th Avenue North. Maple Grove, MN 55369 Office (763) 425-2542 . Fax (763) 425-5728 . www.MeerCompanies.com MEER Construction, Inc. is proposing to develop a 2.75-acre lot located at the Northeast corner of White Bear Avenue and Beam Avenue in Maplewood. The proposed development will be a Walgreen's on the western portion ofthe lot, and a future three- story office building on the eastern portion of the lot. The proposed zoning, Business Commercial, is compatible with the properties adj acent to the site, and in the vicinity of White Bear and Beam Avenues. A. This zoning change will promote the public welfare by: 1. Reducing traffic congestion? Access to the Walgreen's Store will be from the northwest corner of the property off of White Bear Avenue, and from the south off of Beam Avenue. The Walgreen's Store will be designed with two drive-through lanes and adequate parking for the expected customer use. The development of the Walgreen's Store in this location may reduce traffic congestion at the Walgreen's Store located less than a mile south on White Bear Avenue, as it will allow customers a second and potentially closer store option. White Bear Avenue is a north-south arterial and Beam Avenue is . an east-west arterial. As such, traffic congestion should not increase at this location given the historic customer usage for Walgreen's Stores. 11. Improving safety from fire and other dangers? It is not anticipated that the development of the Walgreen's Store or the future two-story office building at this location will have any positive or negative impacts on the safety from fire or other dangers. The building will be fully sprinkled in accordance with the local requirements as established by the local Fire Marshall and the City of Maplewood Fire Chief. ZONING MAP CHANGE STATEMENT r~") (MEER'l CONSTRUCTION, INC ~ Rezoning Application Supplement Apri116, 2004 11800 95th Avenue North. Maple Grove, MN 55369 Office (763) 425-2542 . Fax (763) 425-5728 . www.MeerCompanies.com iii. Providing adequate light and open space? Lighting at the Walgreen's Store and future office building will be in conformance with the City of Maple wood's Zoning Code, Section 44-20. The source oflighting will be from the Walgreen's parking lot lights and the security lighting around the building. In addition, the Walgreen's sign and storefront lights will provide an additional source oflighting. The lighting system will provide safety and security. The shielding of the light fixtures will prevent light from going beyond the boundary of the property. The entire site to be developed is relatively small. Landscaping, by use of planters or median strips located throughout the parking areas will enhance the open spaces provided. IV. Avoiding overcrowding? The proposed use of the property is Business Commercial. The proposed use is compatible and consistent with the adjacent properties. As such, overcrowding is not an issue in regards to the proposed use of the property. Walgreen's is a neighborhood store there to service the local residents. v. Conserving property values? The current use of the property is a vacant lot with the remnants of a parking lot which once served a commercial business. The structure has been removed from the site as evidenced by the depression where the building foundation once stood. Construction ofa Walgreen's Store and a future three-story office building will add significantly to the value of the property and will result in a positive impact on the City of Maple wood's tax base. As well as serving the community. M (MEER,\ CONSTRUCTION, INC ~ Rezoning Application Supplement April 16,2004 11800 95th Avenue North. Maple Grove, MN 55369 Office (763) 425-2542 . Fax (763) 425-5728 . www.MeerCompanies.com b. Why would this zoning change not injure or detract from the use of neighboring property or from the character of the neighborhood? The zoning change from Limited Business Commercial to Business Commercial is consistent and compatible with the zoning for the neighboring properties. The properties to the north and west are zoned Business Commercial. The property to the south is zoned Limited Business Commercial, and the property to the east- northeast is a community park. c. Are there adequate public facilities, such as streets, sewers, water lines, schools and parks? Yes. White Bear Avenue and Beam Avenue are both major arterials that run north-south and east-west, respectively. A City storm sewer main and a sanitary sewer main run along White Bear Avenue and along Beam Avenue. In addition, a water main runs along Beam Avenue. And the project will be done in a way that utilizes the existing utilities, street configuration so that no changes are needed. Attachment 2 :-~~~-;-~ ~~~~~;f~~~ ~~ ~ ~- ~ :=:~~--~- ~-!-?~~::f;c~~~~:~~~~-~~ ~ ;:-=---~:~_~~~~_~ ~_-=- ~ _ _ ~~~i~ .:::~~:~:..-::-=-~_:; '_--_.._1 - ,r-~- =- t-L~1-"-~11"r-'r- :': ~'I,~,;~~~g~ ~ i.' '= : - ~-'_JLJJI ~ ~! ~fE~:="'~~~~~;: !I ' - '11.----, 'I II' ,.,1" --, " "."'5 . 'I ,t:j'"'----~,-" ".' 1 " ' I I! " I-j I: '--';-~ I _J. I ---=-=-.=-~~____:'_ ;1, _______ ____~,_ _ l,f---.J "'-~ L III~" ,I' _"cj I I,,-,--,-_-~ ,. l" ~' _~I ,,,' ~) ~ 1__..1~~ \1 I II! I II ~ I I '=::! ' -;It-::\l ------ ~-~ If \ II 1- --:111 S1!lli.1 _-i.w....~ili.lliJJ~L.JJjil..ll (t I ~-- ....-.- j " '- I ' . '-~-----=.. -.- --,-~----------=-----=-. \.-..-...., ~ -...... ,i~-~',! ""~~. nj j' ~:::; --'\;--~"J.;;;;;:'=--I =,if-=--'9--, =-~,~2..-;~-=-\,.,I~lk~Jt:-~~~~:J' :1("---1'. .-,' ( . /'1 I 1- --' Ilr- 1--'-"" -, ~ I--~" 1-----'- -- _ 'I I I" -_~,:-o- , _~~ ~_L'_, -,., , I ,A II"" " - c~<~~,. ---- !lli ], : i \. ---1 -: Q 1:1 _ ==Jw.'-fTTl?lIIDlD~U_-L-LCJ',-1cb~J~~~~- .,II!------T-----'--~-~-,.11' ! 8~~-o;;-='--'_i,~-f-W'DmJl'J:D~n'-I'I-~~-" - ~ -,; : I Ilk L-._-' ~ ,-----------\1 ....il \~ ; r-.,,~I~rj---!(.~:t::_tF+~rr_~.~ ~;''';'~ :I~ -:-_L~ ! i\Hd\--!H~- ;i'l"'~-,--i 'bL.,--'::I..::.fl'&.r:;{'::;;:Ji-:::r8=;iL~__.-,-----!l.L-'-'~,~ :I:-~':' "r .-=---:,T! ,,117\\ Q. .iC _YI11~~~"-t--~~ . ,'~ '::11\ .c-i:<'_'",:,_~,,~', ': j-'"" :l.LL.Ll,' ':, ~t~2t II: . 'F,--jr-T--lllrL___.___~I'----r--l ~ \ !f /(~IIII: Ii PA~~ !cI,---!f\'.:~<;((., '~,B~ ~:-_'~_, -,,~-- ,>,.c" m'....'1. ~... ; i 1i,~___Ji '-'-~II\ \',;: //. : i :. i ; ,ltnl.Dr.,-'~-(::I':'P-:J.,'\l,~,'.'I';::'-,-,,~./r:_,:' :1\. i, L~.));' ,--: \ j _"'_'< (' 'j----11\i' SITE " i ~g~1!fi;TT;TTJI-Y"~1-ri'0~J-r'._ ,-:i1____=-___~~,'11.~ BEAMAVENUE":::'~~-~ t.-....L~..J..i~ : ~\ i ~ i; j: !" itjI'H i: Ii: JII .uY ,::' ,,~'t J~ Y-C~i~~ -~ ~~~~;',h~Jf~p :1!tt~~~~~f~~~ _b- -," , ~~,.L..;,,; ''-_iilr----=-"~ =-=--,-=~~JLd Iii , __J~ -I 'I'_;::<'-':'-',,:J,;~ ,'i ~'--=.1 .... ~ - '''':'... . -; -~ - 'jI4-.:l......L,_,-L --<I t, '<""~'O\ ""'In 4j ... 1i ,:tl'J]'.~'I,,",:' . --I' ,; :-_{c:Br~i!t c--=-iJ4~b~= ~-~~X 'f, I --,-----,--"I h",-"r""" 1 ,-, f::k., ,UJ ::::I~-;-~(, i ii~-c~:~:U1~~Li:Fj i:-T-~J _ I-~-,t-t-,II==---, I_"'-'--+-h,--,_lll -='-:li~i~~-1i, ,i"':-n~-~lhT+i ! i'~.~\;-~':': i !' IE ;;"":"lF~~~~'~~;.-",Tr-=;~~~~,,~:,~,:,,-::;;; ,',:.':==Z~"--~~--'-'- - -) I ,I!, ,! I il , LJII'" '-l)-~I'~ " ;;-" "i' -5: . ~ I !Irt ;i Lc c: ; ;: ,- ; : ~It--+--i'i-':""-, ~t::' " ---- --_____'------'1 :-,-,-,---..~\!.----'-,l..o : (): '--T'--'I''-i...:__: :----i,~,~-~!,,'il .. ~ il~=:~__~I~ t==_~H=--~.:~ ~~_lJIf3[ f;-'/' j i"i =~i~,' ~ -;-~ Ir-,---1 '. .~ _ _jf= =1t--kJl~ '/ '. ~-=.:~~rl~~-?Et~ll ----, ~ r --'J---"'--"'r I I I --~ -= 1___.::1;::::, ,"::'::,:-:::I\--- '=Jc-II \ ,'"'-___" ~_ _II:.-_=--r::--''r-' 'I ~---.-JI==-()f_-:::,--,: 'I ''.:b':~ ~~; , Il-----.;--l...---I - --~:jl I --.~~_~-III- itt~,Y'l"" ! " . 7~j -I~---'--~~=------=-.J ~~~- f~-L_,-_ _ ;:~bi'~j(rr;03 ~1J~~1'7 ;::-"--""'-r~~ c----;I\~.....;.~~)Wl..~...:-...::.....; (-i~:...:,11 !l~" )<) ~ '1Il.__---'--..J,. i i'l ;, ''--r--,E~' .,-,-~dp ----1.: 8q,,=r~~ - 1~1'-""1~-'7R-'?::--:;~~--:::' ~ -=-=:::~:~:'-':-.'-_.~ ~=7I':--'-'l'T~.!,.,: ~181 IlJ!" II--:-~'/ !!r!! !'~I ~"'-1i~"";"'-n--c~~~~"'r-9,t : !~~l--:7'-::-!~ /~' " ,I, :r,J;: --",' i '-'-U ". '--W-il "I=;- ',; I / , ' C ---I ~I~--ffi~~,~, .1. :1 ,--: J_-=-r ..A'/:-~: ~-=;;:':"c,' J(-;:_~.- -'--~___-.j _~~II'S,~~~~ !j l i I!::.': : _c' ,:,1 :::J1.:: i'~L il-----.:: .. /'-'/ ""... - -- -- -- - - ,-=-=--=-=.~-=-:::--=-,-~-=--;.......-,,,,- NORTH SAINT PAUL -- -=--~ =-"'=--.;..=--=---..,. ~~~~~-= = = = = =. -- II ,I LOCATION MAP 11 N ~-~_-_-_-.BEAM..A\LE_- - - "-. - - - - -- - - I Attachment 3 " \ i I I \ I \ I I I I I I I I I I \ , I I I I , I I \ I I '. , i . I' I,' I' If " .1 ~: :I: _.' I -fI ' m ifj 1> ;0 l, '" FI1 " ,. " ,i " " ., ,. 2030R2 2032 " " " ,i ,I , \ \ I I ,I " ,I .", . 2003 R 12015 m 2035 20 1995 1/1I _Ill II. - PROPERTY LINE I ZONING MAP \[ N Attachment 4 I I I I I I I I I I I . t:: rfJO~ !/l~~~G ~II .,A of ~r;JII> C~~I'>~ Existing Building ~ ~ ~ , , 1/~ SrcnOH UN i"=r" -,' =1'.-t -.-t------"A======~=====",,{======= I S;-==.~== $$='==':..-=-==--'==-='=___:S___ dG .to ::0 d.l== = = == ==""'''0'''' = = = = = = = = = -::P I PRO./ECT BENcH MARK TOP NllT OF RRE HYDRANT ELEY..ti2&J. I =___= U__-+U___ SITE SURVEY 11 N Attachment 5 Existing BuildIng CITY OF MAPLEWOOD PARK & PONDING AREA .,:" ~ ~ ~--- , .~. \ I I I I " Site Parking Data: WIII.-storo, ",!ltI1L!_IJnlnS__~~50ptlrldng~ 2,QI-r.a..... Slor.III.B,,",_. 1ol_1Il0lj-11lA'id1111_ (1!3)~.rki"i_~_ FllllftotllcoUdlnll 7,IOOLf./IIoor_oCeO.lll,DtllI.f.T,*,1 (Il)~_,...u_. (l+l)Tal'1ttlOnglp_NCI_ (,41jTGllU?wIcinglpl_p.- ",' , -- , 1--_____ I I I . . ~ " c ~ > <: New1-Story WalgreensStore '.,!IOI.'._ I I I I I I I I I NIIS"l5'42"E ----8"5.;;----, m ~ '" .!l ~ --- T_~(8111 -I IIIIIIIIIII~~! " D BEAM AVENUE 9~.._ cu,."- 0< ~'MSECTIO"LINE 1"-- " " ""'" ,.. o Proposed Site Plan SCllIe:l"'SO'O" ~ SITE PLAN 11 N Attachment I " , , "- , , Existing Building 6~~""'Q:-. or"" 0>' fI ~ ___--L--____ - - - ~).. - I.N I ' I I \ --rf---- ---- \ \ / I \------ I I I I I I 44'.1 1 ~ 81'-0. " ~. 85 1. ' \ I '",,' I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I 73 I Situ I I I I I \ 72 \ \ ,1" 5890" ..,. 7' '.o' r",. G.l ~ c: G.l > 4:: .... C1l G.l CD G.l :== ~ S ~ Bituminous ParklngjArea Total Spaces (Sf) , ..,I \ \ '.(f'10'..o"H Typ. .,0" ,......IL-IL Typ?'!-1 45 - - -- "'" D N_ 6'0 wide Cone. Sidewalk BEAM AVENUE t\l 11 N SITE PLAN (ENLARGED) Attachment: C,l,TCHlWlIN'" ~ t'il'o"if,~ ell ~~p"''' c~~~ ~ I ~ V ~"I- ""'"'" :!'irn"! "'" "'".... / ~~ ~ ~:~VJ::: I L r.,-C,l,TCHlIol.5INl RA.l 9,Je.~Q '''''',&J2.4<I ......., M~ 'A' 'AO OA , 'A' 'A' ,^' 'A' ,^' M~ (ACRES) WTI.ET 0..507 ItlF1LTRATIOHSW"'-E H~FlD'IISTOC,l,rCHao.sINl 0,0111 INFlLTRATlONSWAU: H!GHFlaWSTOC.l..TCH811SItll O.J4J CATCH IIASlN 4 0.332 UNllDCROUHGOI~TOCATCH!L'.SIN3 0,759 Cl.TCHlIol.Sltl3 0.170 CATCH IlASIN 2 0.989 CATCHIlASINJ O.l'ni UNllV!GROUtlll QI"!CT TO IN_UN( S[P~AAllON UNIT TREAnlENTS'l'STE1O iNF1LT1lA.lION INFlUAATION 'N-UNESEP"""noNUNT IH-UNESEPARAlIONUNlT IN-UNESEPARAlIONUNIT IN_UNE SEJ>ARATlON UNIT IN_UNESEPARAlIONUNIT 'N-UNE StI'ARAl1ON UNIT OAAINAGE,o,REATO CJoTCN8ASIHS ,.,,,,, c.a o.~a8 C.B. 0.170 C.B o.9B1l C.B. 1I.J43 C.B.5 1.101 NOTE: TOTAL AREA lIRAlNED TO IN-UNE SEl'E/lAl'ION UNIT ~ 2.78.2 ACRES l'OT"'-AREA ORAlNEDTOI~TllAnON SWAl.E ~ O.MllACRES DRAINAGE PLAN 1f N W ::::l Z W ~ II:: ~ !Xl W ~ i l il , j ~~ /:;;~ '~ ._~ -"- ~"' ~-- D . . . . G """"."00_ PARK II i /..,..~ / ...........,.,. """......0_1.>< ~ i !, II i III i 1I1I i. 1111111\ ~ =_..,-- .~ y _'I BEAM AVENUE "'Of...,....... w ;:) Z W ~ a:: c( w [D W I- ~ ...RUIJ ~C~ ! TECl-I""All.BOllVn",r ~ ""~ 0 R NN"" S 0C"''''''''''''' PI...., ""c..~~'::::'~"""""" \...; ~""-C' ...MeN. BEAM AVENUE Attachment 8 , , , , , , , , , I I ! I , , I I i , , I , I I ! I I ,Jsw'JIlC / jG,t,TE . , I , I , :\ " -" , LANDSCAPE PLAN 5-/7-01 \[ N Attachment 9 o Proposed West Elevation-White Bear Ave. Scale:l''a,ZO" o Prop.osed South Elevation-Beam Ave. Scale-1"=12'O" BUILDING ELEVATIONS 'i! N SIgn-'*-lJfW--, I'TMWhedMalllCopma s.am_......"" --~~~~-~---------- lHBrlckS_C... o Proposed East Elevation ScalI!: 1"= 12'0" Sign_'*-byWe/gNorl. o ~----------------- -~- c o prOp.OSed North Elevation Scale' 1'': 12'0" BUILDING ELEVATIONS 11 N Attachment 10 Eneineerine Plan Review PROJECT: Walgreens PROJECT NO: REVIEWED BY: Erin Laberee, Maplewood Engineering Department DATE: July 21, 2005 Meer Construction is proposing to develop the lot at the northwest corner of White Bear Avenue and Beam Avenue. The development would include a Walgreen's store and a future office building. The lot is currently vacant. Drainage from the site would be directed into the existing storm sewer on Beam Avenue. Runoff would be treated with a treatment structure and an infiltration trench. The following issues shall be address. Aereements 1. The applicant is proposing to encroach into the northern property for a shared driveway, connection to the existing storm sewer, cross drainage flow, and truck traffic. The applicant has indicated the lease agreement between the two properties includes an easement that would allow for these activities. The applicant shall provide a written statement from his attorney interpreting the intent of the lease agreement that would or would not allow for these activities along with a copy of the agreement. 2. A maintenance agreement outlining annual maintenance procedures will be required for the proposed treatment structure and infiltration trench. Drainage 1. A portion of the parking lot is shown to drain to the existing lot north of the site. The proposed storm sewer is shown connecting into the existing storm sewer within the adjacent property. The applicant must verify that the lease agreement allows encroachment for cross drainage flow, permanent storm sewer and the construction activities associated with the storm sewer connection. 2. The applicant shall submit plans to Ramsey Washington Metro Watershed for their review. Grading & Erosion Control 1. The applicant shall provide a permanent soil stabilization blanket such as Enkamat, NAG C350 or equal at the curb cut to prevent erosion into the infiltration trench. 2. The applicant shall install silt fence at the northeast corner of the property, downstream of the 3:1 slopes. 3. Any future retaining walls that are over four feet in height will require a building permit. A plan and specific soil stabilization detail for the wall design will be required as part of the permit. Utilities 1. The applicant shall submit plans to SPR WS for their review. 2. The applicant shall submit plans to Ramsey County for their review. Any construction proposed within the White Bear A venue right of way requires a permit from Ramsey County. Parkinll: 1. The applicant is proposing a 5 foot median to comply with parking lot set back requirements. The proposed median does not allow enough room for truck turning movements. The applicant has provided an alternative layout that does not include the median and shows truck turning movements that encroach into the adjacent lot. The applicant must verify that the lease agreement allows traffic to encroach onto the adjacent property. 2. The language in the lease agreement seems to allow for a shared access with the site to the north. It is recommended that existing entrance to the site be eliminated and a shared driveway used. When White Bear Avenue is upgraded in 2008, the city will be trying to reduce the number of access points onto White Bear Avenue. This is a good opportunity to eliminate one additional access. The applicant shall verify that the lease agreement allows for a shared driveway to the site and all construction activities associated with modifying the entrance. Traffic 1. In conjunction with the 694 improvements scheduled for 2008, White Bear A venue is also scheduled for reconstruction to a six lane roadway along with improvements to a portion of Beam Avenue. Additional right of way will be required to allow for these improvements. 10 additional feet of right of way along White Bear Avenue and carried through the radius to Beam A venue is needed for these improvements. The developer shall dedicate this right of way for improvements to White Bear Avenue. Attachment 11 - ~ RAMSEY COUNTY Department of Public Works Kenneth G. Haider, P.E., Director and County Engineer 1425 Paul Kirkwold Drive Arden Hills, MN 55112-3933' (651) 266-7100' Fax (651) 266-7110 E-mail: Public.Works@co.ramsey.mn.us MEMORANDUM FROM: Shann Finwall City of Maple wood Dan Sol~ A^ Ramsey ~~blrc Works TO: SUBJECT: Walgreens White Bear Avenue at Beam Avenue DATE: June 29, 2005 The Ramsey County Public Works Department has reviewed the proposed development plan for the vacant site on the northeast quadrant of White Bear Avenue at Beam Avenue. This property is proposed for a new Walgreens drugstore on the site. Ramsey County has the following comments regarding this proposal. 1. The use of the site will be commercial/retail on the west portion and office on the east portion of the site. This development will not have a significant impact on traffic operations in the area. The development is consistent with the existing uses along White Bear Avenue. 2. The County and City are proposing to reconstruct White Bear Avenue to a six-lane section in 2008. This will include widening through the Beam Avenue intersection. Additional right of way will need to be reserved along White Bear A venue to accommodate this widening. A draft right of way needs drawing was done by Kimley-Hom as part of the scoping work done for the White Bear A venue corridor. This document should be reviewed to help determine future right of way needs. 3. The existing access on White Bear Avenue that serves this site is proposed to remain. This is a right in/right out driveway. This access point is acceptable and should operate adequately with the new site development. 4. Two existing access points off of Beam Avenue will also serve the site. Beam Avenue is a city street at this location. The City may want to investigate whether the eastbound left turn lane into the first driveway should be lengthened. RECEIVED JUL 0 1 2005 Minnesota's First Home Rule County printed Qn recycled paperwitll a minimum of 10% post.consumercont ent ~ 5. The developer will be required to obtain a permit from Ramsey County for construction on County right of way. The developer will also need pennits for any utility work within County right-of-way. Thanks for the opportunity to make comments regarding this issue. If you have any questions or need any additional information please give me a call at 266-7114. Attachment 12 Memo July 1, 2005 ~ From: David Fisher, Building Official ~L To: Shann Finwall, Planner Re: New Walgreens Pharmacy Building Provide a complete building code analysis when plans are submitted for permit. All new office buildings over 2000 square feet are required to be fire sprinklered and NFPA 13. The new building must be built to meet Minnesota State Building Code and 2000 IBC. I would recommend a pre-construction meeting with the building department. Attachment 13 Project Review Comments Date: From: Project: Building: Planner: June 2, 2004 Butch Gervais, Fire Marshal Walgreens Retail Shann Finwall Comments: 1. Monitoring all parts of the fire protection system and fire alarm system will be required 2. Maintain 20 foot emergency access clearance to the building for emergency vehicles 3. Fire protection systems will be required per-code 4. Location of fire protection system needs to be clearly marked Any questions or concerns please contact me. Butch Gervais, Fire Marshal City of Maple wood (651 )-249-2804 Attachment 14 Maplewood Police Department Memo From: Shann Finwall / Lt. Kevin Rabbet! jC/L 6-1-05 To: Date: Re: Project Review: Walgreen's, Beam and White Bear Ave. I have reviewed the attached pians and have no public safety concems. I would suggest the standard surveillance lighting system for commercial buildings. In addition there should be a high quality video recording system installed, especially covering the pharmacy area because of the potential for prescription forgery and robbery incidents. If you have any questions or comments, please call me at x2604. Attachment 15 Shann Finwall From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Jodi Jefferson [jlj2@wilder.org] Wednesday, June 22, 2005 12:29 PM Shann Finwall Randall Fowler Walgreens Development Hello - I ~ writing on the behalf of the residents at Concordia Arms Apartments which is located on White Bear Avenue and Lydia. If you are not aware, Concordia Arms is a senior building accommodating residents 62 years and older or mobility handicapped. Having a Walgreens built so close to their home will be such a huge benefit to them for a variety of reasons *They would be able to access their prescription medications easier then to figure out how they are going to get to the Walgreens down by Rainbow. 'They could possibly transfer their prescriptions to the new, closer to home pharmacy and *It would allow residents with limited transportation to get out on their own and do "light" shopping for misc. daily needs When this came up last year the residents were looking forward to it and when the news came around that they were not able to go through with the plans it was pretty disappointing to many here. Your letter encourages us that this may still be possible, it's something that I can only imagine would be good for the entire neighborhood if it will make such an great impact for 1 building! Thank you - Jodi Jefferson Housing Manager Attachment 16 AZURE PROPERTIES, INC. P.O. Box 17830 Saint Paul, MN 55117-7830 (651) 484-0070 Thomas M. Schuette Direct Line (651) 486-3452 Facsimile (651) 486-3444 July 7, 2005 ----------- ----------- Shann Finwall Office of Community Development City of Maplewood 1830 County Road BEast Maplewood, MN 55109 Facsimile 651-249-2319 ----------- ----------- RE: Proposed Walgreens White Bear Avenue at Beam Avenue Maplewood, MN Dear Ms. Finwall, I represent the property owners adjoining the proposed site on the north, the Maplewood East Shopping Center located at 2950 White Bear Avenue. The owners of Maplewood East are opposed to the site plan of the Walgreens for several reasons. The trash area of the Walgreens is adjacent to the Maplewood East Shopping Center. This trash area facing White Bear Avenue wili be unsightly with potential for debris and trash outside the containers. The trash area of the Walgreens store should be located behind the Walgreens store on the east side of the building. Also, the green space and setback should not be eliminated. Maplewood East does have a 5' green space setback along the south property line. We contest any setback variance to the north. The drive lanes will connect the properties at the front and rear of the property. Maplewood East has not incurred traffic difficuities as stated in the letter. Contrary to the information presented by the Walgreens proposal, there is not a problem with the layout of Maplewood East Shopping Center. Our customers have access from Beam Avenue via an Easement Agreement through the subject property such that customers can egress east or west on to Beam Avenue to go north or south on White Bear Avenue. Maplewood East also has northbound White Bear Avenue entrance and exiting. Please call if I can answer any questions regarding this matter. ~~g Thomas M. Schuette On behalf of Azure Properties TMS/kl RECEIVED JUL 0 8 Z005 "....-.-.~........ Attachment 17 June 29, 2005 2965 Frederick Parkway Maplewood MN 55109 Shanri Finwall,AICP, Planner Community Development Department City of Maplewood 1830 E County Road B Maplewood MN 55109-2797 Thank you for the information regarding the application for a new Walgreens Phannacy and office building for the northeast comer of Beam and White Bear Avenues. We have lived at our present location in a cul-de-sac adjoining Maplewood Heights Park to the north for about 20 years, and like many of the neighbors (including the many walkers from the senior assisted living facility - Concordia Arms - also abutting the Park) we use the Park continuously for walking and bicycling its paths, or a variety of other rather quiet uses. As the neighborhood has grown dramatically, so have the number of Park users, and consequently, the importance of this Park to all of us. As part of Maplewood's published park plan, this Park was deliberately left relatively undeveloped to bring balance into the Maplewood park system, as other more developed parks are very close by. We feel this Park is a special treasure and care needs to be expended so as to not hann or destroy its unique nature. I share the concerns of all in the neighborhood about the incredible amount of development in close proximity to this proposed building - the historic Bruenlhrup fann buildings were less than a block away (as you know they were moved so that several retail buildings could be constructed next to the Park) several large town home complexes have been recently built nearby to the north, the Legacy Village is close by, as are the new buildings being constructed on County D, west of White Bear Avenue, etc. With this context of the neighborhood in mind, and because all of us in the area care so deeply about this Park, the majority of my comments and concerns, enumerated below, relate to the effects of the proposed development upon the Park. Firstly, the proposed office building is three stories high. It should be noted that the other commercial buildings abutting the Park, on the west, and northwest are all single story. These consist of the strip mall adjoining this property and an Edina Realty office building (recently reconstructed). The majority of the Park is surrounded by single family houses. Thus, the height of this building would be most intrusive upon the character of the Park, visible from throughout the Park. Not only in daytime, but even at night, with shielded lighting, this building would dominate the skyline. I would respectively suggest that it is important that this proposed building conform to all others, and be no higher than one story. (Continued) Page -2- Secondly, all the other commercial properties cited above have a significant berm, with large evergreens atop, separating and shielding the Park from the most intrusive characteristics of the buildings. This includes the strip mall (with an MGM Liquor store at the end) which is would be separated by a driveway from the proposed development. Under the proposal, this development would be the only unshielded buildings, and they would be inconsistent with their neighboring buildings. The proposed plans make no mention of any berm, and the planting proposed are so minimal as to be of no consequence. We should insist on nothing less than a continuation of the existing berm and plantings of mature evergreens for this proposed development so as not to despoil the nature and character of this Park any more than is absolutely necessary. The requested set-back variances also seem to be inconsistent with the nature and character of the Park, which is the dominant neighbor to the proposed development. Thus, I would request that Maplewood review these carefully in this context. It should also be noted that the proposed office building will directly abut a small existing Park basketball court area, on Beam Avenue. As you may know, many neighborhoods in the metro area have documented their experiences with a variety of policing problems resulting from large numbers of individuals hanging about in such a confined space. It would seem that the office building parking lot would be an attraction that some might find irresistible in the evening hours. A reasonable solution might include a provision that the parking be restricted to office tenants, with posted notice that violators would be subject to tagging and towing; with appropriate enforcement of these provisions. Perhaps consideration of fencing of this property may be appropriate as well. Finally, on a general basis, I think the request for the rezoning that would allow a retail facility should be denied. Traffic at this current White Bear Avenue intersection with the current retail stores already in existence is currently very busy, and dangerous. No matter how carefully designed for increased traffic, rezoning this property to retail is inappropriate and should be denied. The original zoning continues to be appropriate and there is no compelling reason that benefits the neighborhood from such a proposed change. Although development is perhaps inevitable, I believe that we have a responsibility to the neighborhood and to the Park to do so in a careful manner that respects and preserves the best of both. I would respectfully suggest that my suggestions and comments are an attempt bring some issues forward that will accomplish this objective. You should feel free to contact us should you have any questions or wish us to elaborate on any of our comments regarding the foregoing; thank you in advance for your consideration, :i:-Y,,&z;- ~and Mary Pults ,_ :/ Attach'Jl1!nt 18 \ ,J i B . A , \, /1 :i-:~ 1-, c " ~ ., VV~i~ref'f1S 0/1 ectJ1i/~"-J<ol vvnO,- iJ C;,I /-IY-c \A/2 -t-'he- J..Vlde.rSU]!1M SfI1ClYJ~I'I Uf'Je. /11ec'+, COL\V!C) fo fl"lnl d(j"v,~ f/12. rroposeJ g;f2... 0;1 gecL/vl 4ve.J1ue ,f 'vv[,;fc i3ea.J- Ave. +ur c,- WC/}fj(-eeMS 0,./ u c:r5 !c) ,~ e . a.. yt e-l O-Prlc k? 13 L'l..J J ;''''3', . -rJte..r e j-::;, So i1.tL<..0h t ra...tf/o YJ avJ 0 j( t3 Gt2..-n/ ~-eN-?L< -rha7 We wircJ I; V-c.. 0 M t'J/i s {;fr ee-t have. CL ha- v-cl -hm-E:- J-'2-1-+' n'J ou+ o-r O{).,-' d rtV e wo..ys, 1/1 e f I a W', 'c jha. -r 11, <eS e bc~_", (J /f//J.J \IV; /1 J ef1 erC'J.- te 'w;/l }/}/(a./C2 ;f v1ef.f +0 1M po::;:S/b/e, Th/.s -r~c..l.-Pf/c.. a_Y1d noise: \tV;;/ L t: All hoo...rs cJ...cJa.'l (j(\,/ tJt=t:Jfqj!YT/es IN:!! Jc::J Jaw/I ;'11 f)sL/lle TelO_ So F / e.o..-S- e. \..v e. Q J~q e -hJ P / ectS' e n /1) l' --0 oj . Vd/Y(j ^e20/1e. --r1r /.s A rea_ Oi~ q i i/ -4 \ I J -e 11.'1 Va..., fQ..J1 C eJ', Tha. f1 k VOL{ /' ~ JUNll1111J1 ~1 ~ L:l ,:71..=:. U U L:l C!J I~~ 1l/~~d~ ------------------------ - ;;.030 )()cf)- 26t7~ r10tJ(J 6~ ;Ld al WJ0 W~ cU!J~ ;Ii'~~~ rf~ f<.rt ~ ~ Yr-&A-- i/ MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: DATE: Community Design Review Board Shann Finwall, AICP, Planning Sign Code Revision City of Maplewood July 20, 2005 After several months of sign code revision input from the Community Design Review Board (CDRB), city staff presented the board with a revised draft sign code during the June 28, 2005, CDRB meeting. During this meeting the board discussed and made a recommendation on the political sign code revision to ensure this portion of the code was adopted prior to this year's local elections. In addition, city staff requested that the board review the revised draft sign code and give comment and feedback during the next scheduled meeting. Attached find a copy of the revised draft sign code for review. City staff recommends that the board discuss the code during the next one to three meetings to ensure all pertinent areas of sign regulations are addressed. Upon completion of these discussions, city staff will begin the next phase of the code revision which will include a public relations campaign to inform, educate, and gain feedback from the publiC on the proposed changes. Attachment: Revised Draft Sign Code Revision Dated June 28, 2005 SIGN REGULATIONS Dated June 28, 2005 Puroose 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. Comorehensive Sian Plan and Aooeals A comprehensive sign pian 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 pian, 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 Awninq. A covering attached on the facade of a building which projects typically over a door, window or sidewalk. Awninq Siqn. A sign affixed flat to the surface of an awning which does not extend vertically or horizontally beyond the limits of such awning. Banner Siqn. 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 Chanqeable CODV Messaqe 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 Siqn. 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 Siqn. A sign, generally informational, that has a purpose secondary to the use of the property upon which it is located intended to faciiitate 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. Dwellinq 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 Messaqe Board. A sign with a fixed or changing display message composed of a series of electronic illuminated segments. Flaqs. 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. Flashinq Siqn. An illuminated sign which contains flashing lights or exhibits with noticeable changes in light intensity. Freestandinq Siqn. 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. Garaqe-sale Siqn. 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. Nonconfomnina 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 Camoaian 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. Still under consideration by the city council. 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 Pubiic Service Sian. Any sign primarily intended to promote items of general interest to the community. Time and temperature signs are considered a public service sign. Proiect Sian. A temporary sign which identifies a proposed or new development. Proiectina Sion. 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 Sion. 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 Buildino. 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 Sion. 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. Sian. 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. Sian 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. Sion Coveraoe Area. The sign coverage area includes the area of the message display face and the frame, background, and supports for a sign. Sian Face. The surface of the sign including letters and background upon, against, or through which the message is displayed or illustrated. Sian Structure. The supports, braces, and framework of a sign. Street Frontaae. The linear frontage of a parcel of property abutting a street. -.Special Event Sian. 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. Temporary 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 Sion. 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 Sion. A sign that contains an electronic message board portion that only displays the time and temperature. Wall Sion. 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 Sion. 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 Buildino. 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. Sion Area and Heioht Computation (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. Nonconformino Sions (a) Nonconformino Permanent Sions. Nonconforming permanent signs lawfully existing on the effective Elate 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) Nonconformino Temporarv Sions. 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 Sions. 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) Temporarv Sions. 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 Sions. 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 Sions (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 incorporahng parts of any sign prohibited in this section. 6 Siqns Exempt from Requlations 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 Buildinos 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. Freestandino Sion 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 Sions 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 Sions On-site directional Informational signs less than (6) square feet are permitted for all types of property except single and double dwelling lots. Garaoe Sale Sions 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. 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 Trespassino Sions Signs not exceeding (9) square feet in area, located upon private property and directed towards the prevention of trespassing. On-Site Real Estate Sions (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 SiQns 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 Opinion Sions (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 211.8. 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. Still under consideration by the city council Proiect SiQns 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. Temporary SiQns and Displavs under (12) Square 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 10 permitted (1) such sign. No more than (3) temporary signs under (12) square feet shall be allowed at a property at anyone time 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 Sions 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 Occupation Sions 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 Sions 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 iandscaped. Chanoeable Copv Messaoe Boards Changeable copy message boards are permitted as part of a permanent freestanding monument sign or wall sign for alllegai 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. Temporary 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. Temporary Sions and Displavs over (12) souare 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 COMMERCIALl, CO (COMMERCIAL OFFICE I. AND NC (NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIALl ZONING DISTRICTS All signs require a sign permit unless otherwise noted Wall Siqns (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. Freestandinq Siqns 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. Chanqeable COpy Messaqe 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. Temporary 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 Temporary Window Sions 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. Temporary Sions and Displavs over (12) souare 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 MODIFIEDl, M-1 (LIGHT MANUFACTURINGl. AND M-2 (HEAVEY MANUFACTURINGl ZONING DISTRICTS Wall Sions (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 cleariy 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 fagade 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 Canopies Gas Stations are allowed (1) additional wall sign that may be attached to the fa9ade 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. Freestandino Sions (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) Principle 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. Chanoeable COpy Messaoe 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) Spacina 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. Temporary 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. Temporary 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 Sions and Disolavs over (12) s~uare 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-Ul ZONING DISTRICT Sion 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). Proiectino Sions 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 Sions Allowabie area of overall wall and projecting signage for each establishment is one and one-half (1 Y:i) 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. Freestandino Sions 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 fayade of the building or development. 4. Must be landscaped with flowers or shrubbery. Prohibited sions 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