Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/28/2006 AGENDA CITY OF MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD Tuesday, March 28, 2006 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: March 1, 2006 5. Unfinished Business: None Scheduled 6. Design Review: a. Second Harvest Heartland Freezer Addition - 1140 Gervais Avenue b. Carpet Court Concept Review - 1685 Arcade Street c. Gladstone Redevelopment Concept Plan (Joint Presentation for the Community Design Review Board and Housing and Redevelopment Authority at 7 p.m.) 7. Visitor Presentations: 8. Board Presentations: a. March 13, 2006, City Council Meeting - Items Discussed Include CDRB Annual Report b. March 27, 2006, City Council Meeting - Items Discussed Include Menards 9. Staff Presentations: a. Member Representation at the April 10, 2006, City Council Meetings - No Design Review Items Scheduled 10. Adjourn DRAFT MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD 1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA WEDNESDAY, MARCH 1,2006 I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Olson called the meeting to order at 6:01 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Board member John Hinzman Vice-Chairperson Matt Ledvina Chairperson Linda Olson Board member Ananth Shankar Board member Joel Schurke Absent Present Present Present Present Staff Present: Shann Finwall, Planner Lisa Kroll, Recording Secretary III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Board member Ledvina moved to approve the agenda. Board member Shankar seconded. Ayes - Ledvina, Olson, Shankar, Schurke The motion passed. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of the CDRB minutes for January 24, 2006 Board member Ledvina moved approval of the minutes of January 24, 2006. Board member Shankar seconded. Ayes ---Ledvina, Olson, Shankar Abstention - Schurke The motion passed. V. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. VI. DESIGN REVIEW a. Menards - 2280 Maplewood Drive Ms. Finwall said Mr. Robert Geske, of Menard's Inc., is proposing to build a 16,1 05-square-foot garden center addition on the south side of the Menards store. They are proposing an exterior of glass panels, emerald green accent panels and a wrought iron fence for the garden center. Community Design Review Board Minutes 3-1-2006 2 The proposed plans also show changes to the existing parking lot and changes to the exterior of the building. Specifically, Menards would eliminate 17 parking spaces and reconfigure the parking lot so that all of the spaces would be at gO-degrees to the drive aisles. In addition, they are proposing to update the front of the store. This would include changing the existing mansard and signage over the main entrance and adding four fieldstone and timber columns to support the new canopy. Menards wants to change the signage on the building. Ms. Finwall said the planning commission recommended the CUP and the parking reduction to the city council on February 6, 2006. Board member Ledvina clarified that the CDRB would not be discussing the parking lot reduction? Ms. Finwall said the planning commission made a recommendation on the parking reduction but the CDRB can comment on that as part of the site plan. Board member Ledvina said regarding the recommendation for additional architectural features on the north fac;:ade, the elevations provided really don't reflect the existing conditions with the extensive tiered landscaping that is on the north elevation. He asked if that recommendation accounts for the tiered landscaping? Ms. Finwall said initially Menards submitted a plan with the green stripe removed and that is where the concern came about and as the planning process went on, the city found out the green stripe would remain. That was taking into account the landscaping which was a condition of the CDRB in 2001. With that in mind staff thought it would be a nice element inclusive of the landscaping. Board member Ledvina said when you look at that elevation it would be easy to dress it up but the elevation does not represent the existing condition along the north fac;:ade. Ms. Finwall said she wished she would have taken a photo of the existing tiered landscaping conditions. Board member Schurke said he is personally not in favor of ornamenting the north elevation with these columns. This is a big box building and expresses itself that way. He would like to see if some element of landscaping occur at the entrance to the building since this is a landscaping/garden center and it has a hard scape entrance to the building. Board member Shankar had no comments at this time. Chairperson Olson asked the applicant to address the board. Mr. Mark Lee, representing Menards, 2280 Maplewood Drive, Maplewood, addressed the board. The other representative for Menards, Joel has fallen ill and could not be here this evening. As far as whether or not there will be landscaping in front of the garden center, what is shown on the garden center elevations is a low wall with the polycarbonate panels and glass and the accent panels above it. He said what Menards is proposing is an improvement over what is currently there. He would hate to make the assumption that there would be any other landscaping that is not already represented on the plan. Community Design Review Board Minutes 3-1-2006 3 Chairperson Olson asked if the entry to the landscaping area would only be accessible through the store or would it be accessible through the wrought iron fence? It is unclear on the plans. Mr. Lee said he has photos of another Menards garden center that was built to represent how this proposal would look. Mr. Lee gave the photos to staff to put on the screen. Chairperson Olson asked if there were any building materials to present to the board for review? Mr. Lee presented the board with two building samples. He said the emerald green metal accent panels would be for canopy structures, and the clear glass sample would be for the glass panels for the garden center walls. They would also be using a black wrought iron fence. Access to the garden center can be obtained both through the Menards store as well as through the garden center entrance itself. The board was not clear how far the wrought iron fence and the roofline of the garden center would go because the plan and the building elevation do not correlate, therefore there was much discussion back and forth regarding this as well as other issues. Board member Schurke said it appears to be impossible to have four canopies into the entrance area because on the elevation plan the entrance shows only one canopy above it. Chairperson Olson said she wasn't sure these plans were to scale. Mr. Lee said he didn't have a scale with him but he has no reason not to believe this wasn't exactly what Menards is proposing. The board did not have a scale to measure the plan either. Chairperson Olson asked what Menards proposed to do with the existing fence. Mr. Lee said the wood fence would remain. He said there are wood pallets and shelves stacked against the fence. Chairperson Olson asked if they would be painting or staining the wood fence to make it look more attractive. Mr. Lee said they propose to leave the fence natural. When you use stain it becomes blotchy and paint peels so they would leave the fence in its natural condition. Some stores use a chain link fence which would be see through and you can see the lumber supply, but they prefer to use a wood fence to block the view for the residents. Again there was a lot of time spent discussing the inconsistencies that the board found on the plans. Chairperson Olson said personally she does not have a problem with the design, she has a problem with the presentation and how it translates. Community Design Review Board Minutes 3-1-2006 4 Ms. Finwall said the scale of the canopies does not correspond to the plan and she doesn't believe four canopies would fit there. Ms. Finwall said perhaps the CDRB could vote on this proposal and make it a condition to have the plans clarified in better detail. Board member Ledvina asked what Menards reaction was to the staff condition labeled C. 2. b. which states Revise building elevations to keep or add major design elements on the north elevation. This could include keeping the green stripe on the building or adding fieldstone and timber columns as proposed for the front entrance. Mr. Lee said frankly he didn't think this would be an issue and he thought the plan was essentially acceptable as it was. If it's the preference to deviate from this plan he would hate to delay this development. He said maybe he could call Mr. Geske and ask what the preference was if it is okay with the board. Board member Ledvina said the staff report has been written for 1 month now. Mr. Lee said Mr. Geske is home sick this evening and Mr. Geske knows this plan front to back. Board member Shankar said Menards is proposing four new columns on the west side so it is the same type of treatment on the north side as proposed by staff. There is terraced keystone landscaping there and these timber columns may fall right on top of the landscaping. He said the planters are five feet from the building. Board member Ledvina said just to update you Mr. Lee, Menards was required to have the terraced keystone landscaping because Menards built their building five feet taller than what was allowed. Chairperson Olson said one of the reasons the board is so strict tonight is because the city has had problems with Menards Inc. in the past. The CDRB approved a building and Menards built the building taller than what was approved. The landscaped tiers were added on the north side of the building as a condition to make the height of the building appear not so tall. The CDRB wanted to require more but were unable to. There were very strong feelings there because Menards did not accurately represent what was constructed. That is one of the reasons the board is paying such close attention to this garden center proposal this evening. She said she is not particularly interested in seeing the columns added to the north side but what she would like to see is that the landscaping is cared for and enhanced. She has noticed a lot of the bushes have died and it seems to her if the landscaping was fortified more the columns would not be necessary. Personally she would prefer the columns to be near the doorway to attract attention and get the customers in and out of the store. If columns are placed near a service door for example that would be distracting for customers. Board member Schurke said he would concur with those statements. He would also recommend to staff that the board should have a scale ruler for proposals like this. When there are issues that are unclear the board would have a scale ruler on hand to verify the scale of things. Personally he would rather see Menards invest the money that they would have put into the columns and invest it into additional landscaping on the site. Including doing some landscaping to soften the whole parking lot experience. Community Design Review Board Minutes 3-1-2006 5 Board member Schurke said he would also like to see something done in terms of the storm water management on the site with the reduction in the parking requirements and with the adjacency to Keller Lake. Chairperson Olson thought those were very good observations to bring forward. Mr. Lee asked if Menards would have to bring these changes back to the cDRB for approval? Ms. Finwall said that's up to the cDRB if they want to see the revisions to the plans or not. Otherwise the board could recommend that staff review the changes for approval and then this could proceed to the city council. Board member Schurke said if it's appropriate he would recommend in order to not delay the process any longer than necessary if the conditions and changes are clear enough, staff could review the changes on behalf of the CDRB so it can be moved on to the city council. Board member Ledvina said this would go onto the city council next. Chairperson Olson said Menards can appeal the board's decision if they are not happy with the board's recommendation. Board member Shankar asked staff when this would be heard by the city council? Ms. Finwall said March 13, 2006. Board member Schurke said he would like to have the light post removed from the wrought iron fence. He thinks it would look nicer without it and he also has concerns about light pollution. Mr. Lee said personally he likes the decorative light post on the wrought iron fence. It would only use a 75 watt bulb and would not cast a lot of light, it's only meant to add some ornamentation to the fence. Chairperson Olson asked how many light posts there would be on the fences? Mr. Lee said he doesn't see them shown on the plan. Board member Schurke said they are shown on the site plan on page 13 of the staff report. Board member Schurke said he would be happy without them on the fence at all. Board member Ledvina said he would agree the light posts should not be there. Chairperson Olson said she would also agree they should not be there. Board member Schurke said he would recommend that some type of storm water management be looked at for this site. It struck him that this site is 95% impervious. Board member Ledvina said this site is grandfathered in and that is why there is so much impervious surface. Community Design Review Board Minutes 3-1-2006 6 Chairperson Olson said that could be added to condition C. 2. a. Board member Ledvina moved to approve the site plan date-stamped January 17, 2006, and the building elevations date-stamped February 6, 2006, for the 16,1 05-square-foot garden center addition to Menards at 2280 Maplewood Drive. Approval is subject to the following conditions: (changes to the conditions are underlined if added and stricken if deleted.) 1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. 2. Before getting a building permit, the applicant shall: a. Submit grading, drainage, utility and erosion control plans to the city engineer for approval. The citv enqineerinq department should review the plans for the possibility of Menards implementinq some or additional types of best manaqement practices to help treat storm water on the site. b. Roviso the b(,Jildin€l elevations to keep or add major dosi€lA elements on tho north ele'/stien. This could include keeping the gr-een e;trifle eA the building or adding fieldstone and timber columns as proposed fer tt-!o front entrance. b Revise the site plans for staff approval to provide enough handicap-accessible parking spaces to comply with ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) requirements. c. Submit for staff approval. consistent elevations and site plans which correlate to each other. The plans date-stamped Januarv 17. 2006. and elevations date- stamped February 6. 2006. are inconsistent and difficult to read. d. Submit a revised wrouqht-iron fence elevation showinq that the proposed decorative Iiqhts have been removed from the fence. e. Submit a landscapinq plan showinq the followinq: (1) All existinq landscapinq on the north side of the buildinq. This plan should reflect alllandscapinq materials which are healthy. in poor health, or dead. The purpose of this plan is to ensure that all landscapinq required previously by the city in this location has been planted and is healthy and thrivinq. (2) Work with staff to implement landscapinq in front of or near the new qarden center. If landscapinq in this area is not feasible. work with staff to implement additionallandscapinq throuqhout the site. f. A cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit for all required exterior improvements. The amount shall be 150 percent of the cost of the work. 3. The applicant shall complete the following before occupying the building addition: Community Design Review Board Minutes 3-1-2006 7 a. Menards shall provide a gate and clear access to the sanitary sewer manhole on the site as part of this request. b. Paint any new rooftop mechanical equipment to match the building color if the units are visible. (code requirement) c. The city waives the trash-dumpster screening requirement unless the dumpsters would be visible to the public. If Menards wants to keep their dumpsters outside, then they shall provide an enclosure for them using the same materials and color as the building. d. Provide site-security lighting as required by the code. The light source, including the lens covering the bulb, shall be concealed so not to cause any nuisance to drivers or neighbors. e. Meet all the requirements of the fire marshal including: (1) Keeping the perimeter of the building accessible for fire emergencies. The applicant should arrange with the fire marshal for access through the gate behind the building in the case of emergencies. (2) Installing a monitored fire protection system. (3) Providing a floor plan of the store and a fire department lock box at the main entrance. f. Verify that all existinq required landscaping is healthy and growing, and replace the landscapinq if it is not healthv and qrowinq. Plant all other landscapinq required with this approval. 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. Signs are not part of this approval. The applicant shall submit any requests for new or revised signs to staff for sign permits. Chairperson Olson seconded. Ayes - Ledvina, Olson, Shankar, Schurke Community Design Review Board Minutes 3-1-2006 8 The motion passed. This item goes to the city council on Monday, March 13, 2006. VII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS No visitors present. VIII. BOARD PRESENTATIONS a. Board member Shankar was the CDRB representative at the February 13, 2006, City Council Meeting. Because the meeting went so late Board member Shankar had to leave before his CDRB item came up so Chairperson Olson reported. The only board item to discuss was the Ramsey County Public Library at Southlawn Drive, which passed ayes all. The proposal was approved with the galvanized green metal roof as opposed to the copper roofing product that was proposed. IX. STAFF PRESENTATIONS a. New member orientation Ms. Finwall reported on February 13, 2006, the city council appointed Joel Schurke to the CDRB. This vacancy occurred when Diana Longrie became Mayor of Maplewood. Joel Schurke will serve the remainder of Diana Longrie's term which began January 1, 2005, and ends January 1, 2007. The Community Development department would like to congratulate the newest member of the cDRB, Joel Schurke and welcome him. Ms. Finwall read the cDRB membership orientation that was included in the staff report. This material is intended to outline the objective, review process, responsibilities and scope of authority of the CDRB. b. 2005 Annual Report for the CDRB Ms. Finwall said on January 24, 2006, the cDRB reviewed a proposed draft report of the 2005 annual report. The CDRB requested that staff add square footages and number of units to the development proposals reviewed by the board and also expand the report to further describe the types of developments reviewed. Chairperson Olson moved to approve the 2005 Annual Report for the cDRB. Board member Ledvina seconded. Ayes - Ledvina, Olson, Shankar, Schurke The motion passed. This item goes to the city council March 13, 2006. Community Design Review Board Minutes 3-1-2006 9 c. Sign Code - Final Recommendation Ms. Finwall said on January 24, 2006, the cDRB discussed final changes to be made to the code based on this feedback and other research. The CDRB requested that city staff research how murals could be included in the draft sign code and also requested other minor changes to the code for review at the next meeting. Included in the staff report is a copy of the draft sign code with the language regarding murals and the other minor changes highlighted in red. The CDRB should recommend approval of the attached February 14, 2006, proposed sign code. This revised sign code, with any additional changes requested by the CDRB, will be presented to the city council for their final review and approval. The board said they were very pleased with the sign code changes and thanked staff for all the hard work and efforts to get the sign code ready for the city council. Ms. Finwall thanked the CDRB members for all their efforts and contributions to the sign code changes. Board member Ledvina moved to recommend the sign code to the city council. Board member Shankar seconded. Ayes - Ledvina, Olson, Shankar, Schurke The motion passed. This item will go onto the city council and the date is yet to be determined. d. New board member Joel Schurke volunteered to be the CDRB Representative at the Monday, March 13, 2006, city council meeting. The CDRB items to be discussed include Menards at 2280 Maplewood Drive for the CUP revision and parking reduction authorization and design, and the 2005 CDRB Annual Report. X. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 7:26 p.m. MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: DATE: City Manager Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner Second Harvest Heartland Freezer Addition - Design Review 1140 Gervais Avenue March 22, 2006 INTRODUCTION Project Description Sarah Schield, of Landform, is proposing to build a 7,268-sqaure-foot freezer addition onto the north side of the Second Harvest Heartland warehouse building at 1140 Gervais Avenue. According to the applicanfs attached letter, Second Harvest Heartland is Minnesota's largest non-profit hunger-relief organization and has been at their present location since 1977. Second Harvest Heartland needs this additional freezer space to serve their growing needs. The proposed building addition would have an exterior of steel-faced urethane wall panels. Request and Review Process The applicant is requesting approval of site and building-design plans. The applicant's narrative, however, also discusses a request for a conditional use permit (CUP) revision. During my review, I found that this project does not need a CUP revision. When the building was built in 1976, code required a CUP for warehouses. Since then, the city council revised the code to make warehousing a permitted use in M1 (light manufacturing) zoning districts. This use is now a "permitted" use and the CUP is no longer in effect. BACKGROUND On June 5, 1975, the city council granted a CUP and approved the plans for this building. DISCUSSION Building Design The existing building has an exterior of flat concrete block with ribbed-block accents. The flat block is painted cream color and the accents are rust colored. The proposed freezer addition would have vertical-ribbed metal panels. Although the addition would be metal, its exterior would not be of a lesser quality than the concrete block of the existing building. The color of the proposed addition is not given, but staff recommends that it be the same color, or a compatible color, as the existing building. The applicant should also enhance the exterior of the addition with an accent stripe or similar detailing to help break up the large exterior facade. Detailing similar to that on the existing building should be considered. Parking The proposed addition will eliminate 26 paoong spaces on the north side of the building, eliminate the drive aisle north of the proposed addition and widen the landscaped area from the boulevard to the addition. Based on building square footage within the existing building and proposed freezer addition, the applicant needs to have 126 parking spaces. They have 127 proposed which will surpass code requirements even with the loss of 26 spaces. The twelve proposed parking spaces (two groupings of six) that are in the drive lane south of the building are not functional. Staff has discussed this with the applicant and they propose to find alternative locations for these spaces. They should have an alternative design available for the CDRB meeting. In addition to the paoong lot striping, the property owner should patch the parking lot as needed. There are several areas of potholes that should be filled. Landscaping As noted in the applicant's narrative and site plan, they are proposing no additional landscaping-just a widened lawn area north of the proposed addition. The site plan, in fact, proposes the removal of eight trees that would be in the way of building and site changes. Staff had suggested that the applicant provide landscaping on the north side of the addition to soften its appearance from the street The applicant should submit a landscaping plan that provides eight trees north of the proposed addition to replace the eight trees removed by this construction project. Other Department Comments Buildina Official · Provide complete building code analysis to verify the existing structure can be increased by 7,268 square feet and stay in compliance with the construction type of the existing building and the building setbacks per 2000 International Building Code for allowable area and exterior wall protection. · The city will require a complete building code analysis when the construction plans are submitted to the city for building permits. . All exiting must go to a publiC way. · Provide adequate fire department access to the buildings. 2 . The freezer addition is required to be fire sprinkJered. . The addition must be built to meet 2000 IBe, Minnesota State Building Code and the Minnesota State Energy Code. . I recommend a pre-construction meeting with the contractor, the project manager and the city building inspection department Police There are no significant public safety concerns. Fire Marshal . There must be a 20-foot emergency access road around the building. Gervais Avenue on the north side of the building will suffice for access on that side. . There must be a fire-protection system that meets the fire marshal's requirements. . The fire marshal needs to review and approve the floor plan at the main entrance. · There shall be clear access maintained around the building. Assistant City Enaineer · An accumulation of one inch of runoff from the parking lot and the roof of the freezer addition must be captured in an infiltration basin, infiltration trench or some other BMP (best management practice). . The property owner must sign a maintenance agreement with the city assuring the annual maintenance of the BMP. RECOMMENDATION Approve the plans date-stamped February 28, 2006, for the Second Harvest Heartland Freezer Addition at 1140 Gervais Avenue. Approval is subject to the developer complying with the following conditions: 1. All requirements of the fire marshal and building official must be met. 2. The following requirements of the assistant city engineer must be met: a. An accumulation of one inch of runoff from the parking lot and the roof of the freezer addition must be captured in an infiltration basin, infiltration trench or some other BMP (best management practice). b. The property owner must sign a maintenance agreement with the city assuring the annual maintenance of the BMP. 3 3. The applicant shall submit a revised site plan providing for the relocation of the 12 parking spaces that are shown in the drive aisle south of the building. These 12 spaces shall be placed in accordance with city code requirements. 4. The property owner shall patch the entire parking lot and stripe it in accordance with the approved site plan. 5. The applicant shall submit a landscaping plan for the widened green area north of the proposed addition. This area shall be planted with at least eight trees to replace the eight trees removed by the building-addition project. New deciduous trees shall be at a minimum 2 % inches in caliper, balled and burlapped. Evergreens must be at least six feet tall. The new green area north of the addition must be sod. 6. The freezer addition must match or be compatible with the color of the main building. The applicant shall also provide a painted accent on the addition similar to that on the existing building. 7. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project by that time. 8. The applicant shall provide the city with cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit for the exterior landscaping and site improvements prior to getting a building permit for the development. Staff shall determine the dollar amount of the escrow. 9. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 4 REFERENCE SITE DESCRIPTION Site size: 4.16 aaes Existing Use: Second Harvest Heartland Food Warehouse SURROUNDING LAND USES North: Gervais Avenue and S.P. Richard's Warehouse South: University Auto Sales, Commercial Water and Windsor Landscapes East: U Haul Self Storage West: Highway 61 PLANNING Land Use Plan and Zoning Classifications: M1 (light manufacturing) APPLICATION DATE We received the complete application for this request on February 28, 2006. City action is required on this proposal by April 29, 2006. p:sec9\Second Harvest Freezer Addition 3 06 Attachments: 1. Neighbor1100d Map 2. Site Plan-Existing Conditions 3. Site Plan-Proposed Addition 4. Building Elevations 5. Applicant's Letter Dated February 28, 2006 6. Plans Date-stamped February 28, 2006 5 I J If J ., '1Ihuhh ~~ "~:\<..iIlO I I w ::> z ~ <( (/) ~ a:: w C) "I '0". \ I,": I '; ',- 'i<'" ~ -~ s: ::c C) ::c J . !III .... .111 i !lJ a t .II iii .. II t91 '\ b'41J(DIJ( 6 Attadlllent 1 -< 1 ~ '8 .l! 8 N ~" '8. "E < ~ 6 ! it) in -oh Uf U.l! :.88 .- $iN j'"i .!15 >=f:' ~~! Q. ; gi 4( lJlg ~ ~i c i~] 8 8 ~ %: i~ Q: p~ ~ ;~~ %: fJof S! Ii! ~ '5 ,. !f l~J I 'if~ ~]~ " &l.b" ~n o ! f!I ~ '" 8 8 ! Iii ~ o '" ~ o z .... I I I 8- ...'" , I II hl~ CJ) z 0 - I- - C Z 0 , 0 ') (!) z - l- . , CJ) z ~ - . >< . ~ w ~ . i ~ " u... II o . ,I 5 .....! I _Iii .. ,"" g I ~~ ;; I t;. II ''1' &~ I. 'l>. 2>CJ.. ! I IJ ~,~~. I "I;.'b,p. I 0; I l"'t I~l L Ii ia, I- o (J) z UJ ~. > ~~f~ a:: ~;~-~g~ :r<( ~~f I' i&~~~~ c a~~~ Z N" 8 UJ (J) / Attachment 2 ~ In Q ~ . ~ . II.~- l~ I~ !~~ ~~~ ~I lid l~~; ,~~i ~~~ I~ Ii i ~IP J I"," Ii I r , I b! . i" if in ~ ~ I I ~ J ~: ',; I Z '; w i. I: "' Iii '!! '.~' 'I · ::: :1: ~ ItI' . .:, ~ ! II 1 ~ t ! ~ I ' , ill,. llbl i i! If_ a!i I I! ji'i!/I ; ! l iI Iii'! Ii I",l,! ,.,1, : II -'I ",Ii! I I !li!!!l 111:,111 uhl 1mb ~D(] .... OJ : ,il ,II II.! jl' ! II' ill '''I . IIII 'II ,'111'1 "'1 In' I.: h' li!l: 1:!I!'j.1 1111' 1,1 ill ii,,' l!!11'i Iii: II lilli !!"l!.ll'l'l !11111!:!!liiilllliiil h ~ ~ ~ .. ~ .. '1 "I! i'lil' jlb.;1 li!l!ii'l illill., Illil!l~ i I,!!:I!.! . !lll;l I 7 , I I Ii elll hlil u.~.......' o . ~ j (3 " If ., II' I I,li I I... gls.o. I- en ~ !tJ ~~ .", ~~i'~ a:: :zi'( ,90", < lJ~~~~~ ::t >)....~.A!!i 0 ~:;~i=:t~ :Z"<{<iI ;Z ~,rB 0 . U w en !I 1 MAPI..EWOOOO ORNE Attachment 3 ~ !;; Q ~ Iii II I '1~ --: '0 ~~ ~~R 4 o!pJlj I.~~u 'ilt ~ < ...l ~ ~ 100 ~ Ipll i~ <)- ::E--~ :; ~ l~ ~i t!~i ~~~H~ Ii ~ .IH ~ z o - ~ c c <( c w U) o 0. o 0::: 0. 8 , 'I. ! II.' !!I' I,' ;'! il'l I' I h! , .Ill'!h 1'11'1 Ii' Ii - !II II " r ld.,l!l I, I j:i II ilil ".I;I'! I, 'I"! hl,'- 'I' i'll, i',.I1 ,,I t I i I h ~ii 11Idlj'I!;I.II,l!1 Ii,! III' ill' .1:!III~I:1 iii ,II.. II ,II ,! ,ill ,!.., "I ~ ~ . ~ 2 ~ Ii! , " ," 1"1 " ill!'!l Ii. lill!!!;!!I!! 'I!'I' Ill.' ~l' ! ! ,I ~!,I! I,' l,llll,j.l'.l i'I"'!';,l;'l :I:illlillllil .: ~ ~ ! : i,l:. Ii I 1.1 'I, il'l! :II I I'll:! 1,1.!j !l' 'I ! II .11 1'11', ~!/ I, jililliil!!llll: !ii. ll'li I lllllil !,iill'li ii!1 III!! ,..~lo ... & ~ iU "!I Ill' . illill!lill. " Q . .' ~~:I ~ ~~. t ~;j;i;j sHj ; I : i -.-, ,~; i! HI t ,,1;,,1; , ~q; ] I ,Ii 'Ii I WI,' I',",' Illi i!! in ~ is ~ Ilml I'.. i Jul . I I . I I, I", !-li,' i!1'i!~1 1!~IIIII -II" I '-I,ll !I' n ! 1111'111 ,: ,!"'" 'I ' I !1'1!li" II i,Ii1MI':!,'j ,: I . :i~ .;i II li U lli!!l .1 IIJ:, ,II!' !I! II, , ',,1.1'1,1, ri I ~ il iI' i.I!: Ii !I i , G Ii ill !!III!I!11:il i . Q' . Q I .; I e I 9OOZlLOllO 11 va S.I.N~ A1fVNWffi'&1 601$ NN "{Dud 18 "9AVllJ1LU9f)otn P_H t"'Al1lJI PlIOOOS ~~....... z o !:1 9 SNOI1V^", """'"" JlIIIJS :sIDSlUlI Attachment 4 . : ~ i.== I < z C) - tn W C Z O-~- - ~ - C C <C C w U) o Q. o 0:: Q. Attachment 5 .~t~~ ~ LANDFORM M INN EAPO LIS' PHOEN I X February 28, 2006 RECEIVED FEB 2 8 2005 Tom Ekstrand Senior Planner City of Maplewood Community Development Department 1830 County Road BEast Maplewood, MN 55109 RE: Second Harvest Heartland located at 1140 Gervais Avenue Project Design Review and CUP Amendment Approval Dear Mr. Ekstrand, Landform, on behalf of the applicants, Tippmann Group and Second Harvest Heartland, is pleased to submit this application for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Amendment and Project Design Review for the Second Harvest" Heartland warehouse/office facility located at 1140 Gervais Avenue. Project Overview Second Harvest Heartland is Minnesota's largest non-profit hunger-relief organization and has been operating a 60,000 square foot warehouse and distribution center at the present location in Maplewood since 1977. Second Harvest needs additional freezer and cooler space in order to serve the needs of their growing customer base. Second Harvest is formally requesting approval from the City of a 7,268-square foot building addition. Building Design The building addition will be located on the northeast section of the site. The building will maintain a minimum 30-foot front yard setback from the adjacent Geryais' Avenue. The exterior faQade of the building addition will be constructed of steel-faced urethane wall panels. The building addition will be 26 feet, 8 inches high measured from the finished floor grade to the top of the parapet. Lighting There are no alterations planned for the existing luminaries on the site and no additional luminaries are proposed. 650 BUTlER NORTH BUILDING 510 FIRST AVENUE NORTH MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55403 OFFICE: 61.2.252.9070 FAX: 612.252.9077 www.landform.net 10 Tom Ekstrand Page 2 Re: Second Harvest CUP Amendment and Project Deslgn Review February 28, 2006 Landscaping There is an existing landscaped yard in front of the project area. The drive aisle and parking area between the building addition and the landscaped yard will be removed and the total area of the landscaped yard will be increased by approximately 500 square feet, which will decrease the overall amount of impervious surface on the site. There is no additional landscaping proposed. Utilities The existing building is serviced by adequate municipal sewer and water infrastructure. The proposed building addition and site improvements will not disturb the existing utility connections. Parking The building expansion requires 126 parking spaces for the site, which are indicated on the site plan. One parking space is required per 1,000 square feet of warehouse space and 1 parking space is required per 1,000 square feet of office space based on the following calculations: 1 st Floor Office 2nd Floor Office Warehouse Offices Total Office 5,220 sq. ft. 7,200 sq. ft. 300 Sq. ft. 12,720 sq. ft. 54,075 sq. ft. 7.268 Sq. ft. 61,343 sq. ft. Existing Warehouse Proposed Warehouse Total Warehouse 61,343/1,000 = 62 spaces 12,720/1,000 x 5 =64 spaces 126 parking spaces There are currently 108 parking spaces on the site that are 9 feet wide. These spaces meet the needs of Second Harvest. According to the City's off-street parking standards, 9-foot wide parking spaces are permitted for designated employee parking areas and 9.5-foot wide parking spaces are permitted for low-tumover customer parking areas. The existing parking area on the site will be restriped and reconfigured to meet the City's parking standards. There are a total of 127 parking spaces provided on the plan, of which 11 stalls are provided for customers and are 9.5 feet wide. These parking spaces are located in the northwest section of the site near the office and client pickup locations. Four parking spaces are provided to meet accessibility requirements and the remaining 112 stalls are for employee use. 650 BUTLER NORTH BUILDING 510 FIRST AVENUE NORTH MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55403 OFACE: 812.252.9070 FAX: 612.252.9077 www.landform.net 11 Tom Ekstrand Page 3 Re: Second HalVesl CUP Amendment and Project Design Review February 28, 2006 It should be noted that the building addition will not increase the overall parking demand from employees and customers at the facility. As previously stated, Second Harvest is adequately served by the existing amount of parking spaces and does not have plans to increase their current workforce of 77 people. CUP Amendment The CUP amendment request is to allow a 6,080-square foot expansion of the existing 64,000 square foot building. The request is consistent with the following nine standards of approval outlined in the Section 44-1097 of the City's zoning ordinance: 1. The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be in conformity with the City's comprehensive plan and Code of Ordinances. The existing site is zoned light manufacturing (M-1) and guided light manufacturing (M- 1) in the Comprehensive Plan. Warehouse/office facilities are a permitted use in the M- 1 district. The building addition will comply with all of the City's building, engineering, and zoning standards. 2. The use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area. The surrounding properties are zoned and guided M-1 and contain similar industrial uses. The expansion will not change the character of the surrounding area. 3. The use would not depreciate property values. The building addition will allow Second Harvest Heartland to continually operate within the industrial district. This will promote the overall health and stability of the industrial area and strengthen the economic base of the City of Maplewood. 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. The building addition will not involve any dangerous, hazardous, or nuisance aGtivities. 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. The building addition project will not cause an increase in vehicle traffic on local streets. Directional signage will be included at each driveway entrance to keep truck traffic separate from customer and employee traffic. 650 BUTLER NORTH BUILDING 510 ARST AVENUE NORTH MINNEAPOLIS. MN 55403 OFFICE: 812.252.9070 FAX: 612.252.9077 www.landlom1.net 12 Tom Ekstrand Page 4 Rs: Second Hervest CUP Amendment and Project Design Review February 28, 2006 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. The existing bUilding is served by adequate sewer, water, police, and fire services. When the building was originally constructed, the adjacent Gervais Avenue was improved to accommodate the increased activity. 7. The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services. The building addition will not create excessive additional costs for public facilities and services. 8. The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and scenic features into the development design. There is an existing landscaped yard along the north, east and west perimeter of the site. The building addition project will result in the creation of 500 square feet of additional green space along the front of the building adjacent to Gervais Avenue. This reduces the amount of hardcover surface on the site. 9. The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects. Erosion control measures will be utilized to limit any environmental disturbances. The building addition project will not increase existing stormwater run-off rates on the site. Conclusion We look forward to presenting our request to the Planning Commission at their March 20, 2006 meeting and the Community Design Review Board at their March 28, 2006 meeting. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions concerning the enclosed items. Sincerely, LANDFORM" ,...--,., n ~~ Sarah Schield, Planner II SS/ag 650 BUTLER NORTH BUILDING 510 FIRST AVENUE NORTH MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55403 OFFICE: 612.252.9070 FAX: 612.252.90n www.landform.net 13 Tom Ekstrand Page 5 Re: Second Harvest CUP Amendment end Project Design Review February 28. 2006 COPY: File TCI06001 Troy Leyse, Tippmann Group Jon Livingston, Second Harvest Heartland Director ENCL: Existing Conditions and Demolition Plan Site, Grading and Erosion Control Plan Building Elevations Property Owner List Applications and Fee 'Landform Engineering Company doing business as Landform 650 BUTLER NORTH BUILDING 510 FIRST AVENUE NORTH MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55403 OFFICE: 612.252.9070 FAX: 612.252.9077 www.landfonn.nat 14 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: DATE: Richard Fursman, City Manager Shann Finwall, AICP, Planner Carpet Court Concept Review 1685 Arcade Street March 14, 2006 INTRODUCTION Project Description Gary Blair is proposing to develop a 7,848-square-foot retaillwarehouse carpet store on a vacant lot located on the northwest corner of Larpenteur Avenue and Highway 61. (Refer to Attachments 1 through 6.) Mr. Blair will relocate his existing Carpet Court store in St. Paul to this new location. The building will consist of approximately 3,966 square feet of retail space and 3,882 square feet of warehouselstorage space. He is proposing building with steel horizontal siding, stucco wall finishes, stone wainscot, and a metal roof. Requests Mr. Blair is requesting that the planning commission and community design review board review his proposed Carpet Court concept plan and offer feedback. In order to develop Carpet Court, the city would require Mr. Blair to get the following land use approvals: 1. Rezone one-half of the property from single-family residential (R-1) to business commercial (BC). 2. A 43-foot building setback variance. City code requires a 50-foot building setback from a commercial property to a residential property. The proposed building would be constructed within seven feet of a residential property line. 3. A 9.9 percent impervious surface variance. City code allows up to 40 percent impervious surface coverage for commercial buildings within the Phalen Lake Shoreland Overlay District. The proposed development would have 49.9 percent impervious surface coverage. 4. Vacation of a service road. This road is located on the east side of the property, adjacent Highway 61. 5. Design review. BACKGROUND November 20, 2000: The planning commission reviewed a development proposal by Mr. Blair for the vacant property on the northwest corner of Larpenteur Avenue and Arcade Street (Attachment 7). The development proposal included an 8, 160-square-foot, two- story building for his carpet store and warehouse. The proposal required a rezoning of one-half of the property from R-1 to BC, a 25-foot building setback variance from a residential property line, and a 13 percent impervious surface variance. The planning commission tabled the proposal, requesting that Mr. Blair revise his plans to eliminate the need for variances. Mr. Blair never resubmitted plans for that development. October 2005: Mr. Blair submitted a new development proposal for a 7,653-square-foot building for his carpet store and warehouse. During review of the project, the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MNDOT) indicated that they were interested in turning back the frontage road to the city. February 2006: MNDOT authorized the turn-back of the frontage road to the city. March 2006: Mr. Blair submitted a new development proposal for the property based on the turn-back and ultimate vacation of the frontage road. The new proposal includes a 7,848-square-foot building for his carpet store and warehouse. DISCUSSION Zoning/Comprehensive land Use Mr. Blair's property is located in a triangular tract of land which is bordered by Highway 61 on the east, Larpenteur Avenue on the south, and Parkway Drive on the northwest. This triangular tract of land includes 11 lots. All 11 lots are guided in the city's comprehensive plan as business commercial, however, only six of the lots are actually zoned BC, with the other five zoned R-1. (Refer to the zoning and comprehensive land use maps attached [Attachments 2 and 3]). Six of the lots contain single-family homes, four of the lots are vacant (including Mr. Blair's property), and one is used as a building contractor office (Bacchus Homes). Mr. Blair's property is located on the northwest corner of Larpenteur Avenue and Highway 61 and includes two of the 11 lots mentioned above. The east lot is zoned and guided in the city's comprehensive plan as BC and the west lot is zoned R-1 and guided as BC. In order to develop a carpet store and warehouse on the property, the western lot must be rezoned from R-1 to BC. Required Setbacks The building and parking lot setbacks within a Be zoning district are as follows: 1. Building: a. Front: 30 feet b. Side and rear (toward commercial): No required setback c. Side and rear (toward residential): 50 feet 2. Parking: a. Front: 15 feet b. Side and rear (toward commercial): 5 feet c. Side and rear (toward residential): 20 feet 2 City code requires increased setbacks from commercial properties when they are adjacent properties that are used for residential purposes. The properties to the north and northwest are zoned BC. However, only the property to the north is a commercial use (Bacchus Homes), the property to the northwest is "used for residential purposes." The property to the west is zoned R-1 and used as a residential purpose. Therefore, the required building setbacks from the northwest (at the angled lot line) and the west are 50 feet. The proposed development meets all required setbacks except the 50-foot building setback to the residential property to the northwest. Mr. Blair's rationale for this decreased setback is twofold - first the building needs to be located as far to the west as possible in order to ensure the driveway maintains an increased setback from the intersection (described in detail in the service roadlfuture cul-de-sac section below) and the residential structure to the northwest is located 160 feet away from the proposed commercial building. Shoreland District The property is located within the Phalen Lake Shoreland Overlay District (properties within 1,000 feet of the lake). City code allows a maximum impervious surface coverage of 40 percent, which could be increased to 50 percent if the applicant qualifies for impervious surface bonuses. To qualify for these bonuses the applicant must provide and maintain significant man made facilities for reducing stormwater flow or treatment of runoff for non-point-source water pollutants. Mr. Blair's 2006 development proposal has 49.9 percent impervious surface coverage, which requires a 9.9 percent impervious surface variance. The 2005 development proposal was eligible for impervious surface bonuses due to the design of an infiltration basin on the west side of the property. Since no grading and drainage plans have been submitted for the 2006 development proposal yet, it is difficult to determine if those bonuses would apply here. Service Road There is a 325-foot-long service road which runs north/south between the property and Highway 61. This road was designed to allow access from Larpenteur Avenue to the three properties located on the east side of the triangular tract of land. During the Minnesota Department of Transportation's (MNDOT) review of Mr. Blair's 2005 development proposal, MNDOT offered to turn back the service road to the city. MNDOT supported the turn back of the service road in order to increase traffic safety and alleviate their maintenance of a small, underutilized service road. To increase safety, MNDOT requested that the property be limited to one driveway onto Larpenteur Avenue and that it be constructed as far away from the intersection (west) as possible. After redesigning the development to accommodate for the vacation of the service road, however, Mr. Blair states that he is not able to develop the property with a loading dock and parking lot without two driveways. The eastern driveway will be set back 45 feet from the Highway 61 intersection and will allow for access to the parking lot. The western driveway will be set back 133 feet from the Highway 61 intersection and will allow for access to the loading dock. 3 MNDOT has reviewed this proposal and finds it acceptable based on the challenges of developing this lot. However, they strongly recommend that Mr. Blair continue to examine alternatives such as having a shared driveway for the loading dock and the parking lot, etc. City staff is supportive of the turn-back of the service road for several reasons as follows: 1. Future cul-de-sac: The redevelopment of the entire triangular tract of land bordered by Highway 61, Larpenteur Avenue, and Parkway Drive is a strong possibility due to the varying land uses and disjointed nature of the current developments. In order to ensure access to future redeveloped lots in the triangular tract of land, city staff recommends planning for a future road which would extend from Larpenteur Avenue and dead-end with a cul-de-sac in the center of the triangular tract of land (Attachment 9). With the approval of the vacation of the service road, the city could require Mr. Blair to dedicate a 30-foot roadway easement on the west side of the property. This easement would give the city one-half of the needed easement for a road, with the other 30 feet coming from the property to the west when that redevelops and remaining portions of the road coming from properties to the north. 2. Impervious surface: The vacated service road would add 6,762 square feet to the existing property, for an overall square footage of 36,775. The additional land would have reduced the percentage of impervious surface on the 2005 proposed development (7,653 square foot building) from 46.9 percent to 38.2 percent, alleviating the need for a variance. After redesigning the development to accommodate for the vacation of the service road, however, Mr. Blair actually increased the impervious surface coverage to 49.9 percent. This is due to the fact that the building is slightly larger (7,848 square feet) and there is a second driveway. 3. Access for properties located to the north: Two properties to the north currently utilize the service road (Bacchus Homes and a residential property). City staff recommends that only the portion of the service road located in front of Mr. Blair's property be vacated and removed with the development at this time. The remaining portion of the service road to the north would remain and be used by those properties until such time as they redeveloped. 4. Driveway: City staff supported the vacation of the service road to reduce the number and location of driveways onto Larpenteur Avenue. City staff has suggested several alternatives to accomplish this including shifting the building, using one driveway for both the parking lot and loading dock, or allowing for a temporary driveway to the north (onto the remaining portion of the service road) until the future cul-de-sac road is constructed. As stated above, Mr. Blair states that he is not able to develop the property with a loading dock and parking lot without two driveways. 4 Parking City code requires one parking space per 200 square feet of retail use and one parking space per 1,000 square feet of warehouse and storage use. Based on these standards, Mr. Blair's development requires 24 parking spaces. However, Mr. Blair states that he does not need this many spaces and would be willing to reduce the number in order to reduce impervious surface coverage. City staff is supportive of the reduction in parking. This would require approval of a reduced parking space authorization from the city council. Building Design The building will be constructed of steel horizontal siding, stucco wall finishes, stone wainscot, and a metal roof. This is a vast improvement over previous proposals which included exteriors of flat concrete block and accent striping of rock face block on the 2000 proposal and steel vertical siding, brick wainscot, and a metal roof on the 2005 proposal. RECOMMENDATION Review the Carpet Court concept plan for the property at 1685 Arcade Street and give feedback on the land use aspects of the development. P:sec17\Carpet Court\March 20, 2006, pc Concept Plan Attachments: 1. location Map 2. Zoning Map 3. Land Use Map 4. Development Description 5. Site Plan 6. Building Elevations 7. 2000 Development Proposal 8. 2005 Development Proposal 9. Future Cul-De-Sac 10. Large Plans of 2006 Development Proposal (Separate Handout) 5 Attachment 1 u- o Phalen Park 1685 , ...... <0 :>. ~ .s::: C> [? r;::] ~ - CD ~ - C/') CD " ~ <( 0", o o d St. Paul N W*E S L.ocation Map Attachment 2 1685 Arcade 'I Street ~ Larpenteur Avenue St. Paul N w+. s Zoning Map Attachment 3 1685 Arcade Street ~ Larpenteur Avenue St. Paul N W+E S ...... <0 >- ~ .r::. C) :E ~ Qj ~ - (J) Q) "'C ~ <( Land Use Map Attachment 4 Mr. Gary Blair Carpet Court 1121 Minnehahah Ave E St. Paul, MN 55106 (651) 774-3321 March 13, 2006 Ms. Shann Finwall, Planner City of Maplewood 1830 County Road BEast Maplewood, MN 55109 Re: Property Located on the Northwest Corner of Arcade Street and Larpenteur Avenue. (1685 Arcade Street & adjacent lot) Dear Ms. Finwall: This letter is for the proposed building (7,848 sf I lot size 36,775 sf) to house my retail/warehouse carpet store called Carpet Court. The building proposed for this property will vastly improve the property of which I have made application. The property currently is a vacant lot adjoining 2 commercially rated lots. The property to the North is operated with commercial rating by Bacchus Homes. To the South Gustavus Adolphus Lutheran church and its adjoining parking lot. Our building will be an asset to the neighborhood both by the clean lines created in the building itself, and the landscaping (including new trees) surrounding the property, and parking facilities. The building will have siding I stucco and stone facing, the metal roof will be the same as your building (1830 County Road BEast) At the rear of the building we plan to have a water garden to improve the water quality which will help treat the water prior to runoff. This should also qualify us for the needed impervious surface requirements. Our business is a family owned business who has been operating in the middle of a residential neighborhood in St. Paul for over 33 years with no traffic congestion problems. The new location already has some of its residents using there property for commercial use, further use should not be a traffic problem. If you need to contact me for additional information: my work number is (651) 774-3321 and my home number is (651) 774-7021. Feel free to call me with your concerns. Thank you for your consideration of the project being submitted to your department. '7 ~~oo~ . Blair / Development Description 1S~=:,\de(jt 101 J Attachment 5 \ ~ \ \l'~ \ R; ~ ~ ~ l 1/ ~ I C- JJ ~ z c rr - ':J Ir-- t..>O' , II 7;'1 - - - I H I I 1 L..o- -- 1 : 1 1 1-____1 - - h hli~ - ,~ - ,I, - - , " '1'1 ~t;ja -. ~ . i!' , - ~. . ~cl; lr aLL D - H , / , I DoG; 7' 3D' 0.. ~ ~ I I ;,~ ~ -.s" r--, ~ - 1 I r-.., ... 1 1 3 '"'" -- -, , .. - I' ; I ~ ~ I ~ ;; ~ - L , - OODE~ lDT_ ........ --~ .-. ...-.....- -'.. 1'SOl:B<l"__ .... - r<.. ,// . ,/ ... I 1--/ /Y5/ ~ 17-/ / '// ' -' ...../ ( ! / / , " I I--Igf-' - - / " /~/ / ~ / / / / / ~ // / ~ / ..' / / 1'\ -k ~X\STI~0' ~'l\5'€' R<;>I\O / //", /,~ / / J~jN4 J _/ t- J,l ~ '-. \'1 100' ,j; \ ff1l(l<'ctj h~e.. H \ bltwi'\Y lol c.rb I'~l Site Plan Attachment 6 00U_ 'f! EJ151 100000 E1\51 Building Elevations Attachment 7 N W.E S 2000 Development Proposal Attachment 8 I" , II! : //-1/ ! .......1Y'" _--" ,-' _,/ --.:--=::--~---;;--- ---- -" -:-~.-- !1I!;" :1\'\. )1, '. O~ --, .n. l <0 01 z ~.1 >- - ~ :I: <:> :r --... I'! ., ~ on n_____-....--- -....... -. '. "'''.5 IN 1~1.I -<-<-<- ~ LARPE~~'U;" . I AVENUE' n -,~ IOVIn.t -- -- --------- ------ N W.E s 2005 Development Proposal = Larpenteur Avenue St. Paul N W+E Attachment 9 --- ..: Cl '8 ~ ~ Phalen Park III :E ~ <0 o~ >- ~ .r:. C> I ~ - CD ~ - CJ) CD "0 ~ <( Future Cul-De-Sac s MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: City Manager Ken Roberts, Planner Gladstone Area Redevelopment Master Plans March 22, 2006 INTRODUCTION For the last two years, the city has been conducting an extensive planning process for the possible redevelopment of the Gladstone Neighborhood Area (the area near Frost Avenue and English Street). The process has included the hiring of consultants to prepare and evaluate development and redevelopment plans and altematives for the area. It also included the formation of a task force of citizens and city commission members to provide input to the city and the planning consultants about the proposed plans. Through this extensive process, the city and the consultants completed a draft neighborhood redevelopment plan in November 2005. This plan had about 800 housing units in the Gladstone Redevelopment Area. The HRA and the CDRB reviewed this plan during a joint meeting on January 10, 2006. The city council, in January 2006, directed staff and the planning consultants to study whether a redevelopment plan with about 500 housing units in Gladstone would be financially feasible. Staff has completed the concept design for such a plan and the financial analysis. That plan, also known as Plan B or the Bartol Plan, is now ready for review and comment by the city advisory boards and commissions. The city is now asking all the city boards and commissions to each make a recommendation to the city council about the latest plan and to make comparisons and recommendations about various elements of the two different plans. The CDRB will be reviewing the latest plan during their meeting on March 28, 2006. The HRA is invited to this meeting to listen to the presentation and then to provide comments on the different possible plans for Gladstone. BACKGROUND On December 19, 2005, the city held a meeting at the Maplewood Community Center for all city boards and commissions. The planning consultants provided the board and commission members an overview of the planning process and a summary of the draft Gladstone Redevelopment Plan. The consultants and city staff also answered questions about the planning process and the draft plan from those in attendance. DISCUSSION Attached to this memo I have included a memo from city staff about the latest plan and other information about Gladstone and the possible redevelopment plans. These documents provide excellent background information about the Gladstone planning process and the status of the planning process. Please bring your copy of the draft neighborhood redevelopment plan to the meeting and be prepared to review the proposed plan. RECOMMENDATION Make a recommendation to the city council about: 1. The draft Gladstone Neighborhood Redevelopment Plan (dated November 14, 2005). 2. Plan B (the Bartol Plan) for the redevelopment of the Gladstone Neighborhood. 3. The pros and cons of each plan. P: Gladstone:Gladstone Plan to HRA and CORB (2) - 2006 Attachments: 1. Gladstone memo dated March 14,2006, from city staff 2. Informal Poll Results and Comments 3. Gladstone Advisory Board Questions Memorandum TO: City of Maplewood Advisory Boards and Commissions FROM: Bruce Anderson, Chuck Ahl and Melinda Coleman DATE: 14 March 2006 SUB fEeT: Review if Gladstone Neighborhood Redevelopment Plan and recent alternative concept INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND Over the last several years, the City of Maplewood has been exploring redevelopment concepts for the Gladstone Neighborhood. In December of 2004, the City retained the services of a consultant team to conduct! facilitate a planning process and develop a master plan for the neighborhood. A Task Force representing City Council, boards and commissions, community residents and neighborhood businesses was assembled to provide guidance to the process and to serve as a conduit to the neighborhood and greater community. The process has included five public meetings and ten meetings of the task force over the last 14 months. In November of 2005, a draft master plan was presented to the public and to advisory boards and commissions. In December of 2005, newly elected Council member David Bartol requested that an alternative concept be developed and explored. At a City Council meeting in January, the Council authorized staffto develop the alternative presented by Mr. Bartol and to put this alternative through the same analysis and public review as the November 2005 draft plan. Consultants and staff completed this review over the months of January and February, presented the concept to the Task Force and presented the concept to the public the first week in March. WHERE WE ARE AT IN THE PLANNING PROCESS Weare nearing the point in the planning process where the City Council will need to converge on a preferred master plan for the Gladstone Neighborhood. The redevelopment planning process includes a review by City advisory boards and commissions. The objective of this review is for each board! commission to offer a recommendation on the plan or its key aspects relative to the board! commission's individual mission or purpose. The Gladstone Neighborhood Redevelopment Master Plan is an important part of the community and virtually every advisory board or commission will be involved in the ongoing implementation of the master plan. SUPPORTING INFORMATION To assist you in preparations for your upcoming meeting we suggest reviewing the following items (note: some of these items were distributed in November while others are attached for YOUT use): 1 . The Draft Gladstone Neighborhood Redevelopment Plan dated 14 November 2005 (distributed in November of 2005) 2. The Draft Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) (distributed in November of 2005) 3. February 21 Memorandum to the Gladstone Task Force describing the alternative concept andevaluation 4. Powerpoint presentation slides from public workshop/task force meeting presentation presenting alternative concepts and comparison to the November 14 draft plan 5. Summary of public meeting #5 survey questions evaluating the alternative concept compared to the November 14 2005 draft. This summary is of the evaluation form filled out by participants at the March 2 2005 public meeting. 6. Evaluation questions. These questions were developed by staff and consultants to help facilitate a review and discussion of key items of the plan. The core difference between the two concepts has to do with the level of public investments that form the basis of the plan (those public investments include improvements to parks, open space, trails, road reconstruction, burial of power lines, streetscape, stormwater systems). In the November 14 draft, a public improvement budget was established at roughly $18 million. In order to fund this investment without using general tax dollars, redevelopment to the magnitude ofroughly 800 new units would need to occur. That level of development also would support 50,000 to 75,000 square feet of neighborhood commercial development. The alternative concept reduced the public improvement budget to the tune of $11 million in order to reduce the development levels to 490 units. This concept would support approximately 10,800 square feet of commercial development. Reductions in pubhc improvements were achieved by reducing the scope and magnitude of the $18 million dollar improvements. A more detailed summary of the changes is included in the attached information. The consultant team's analysis concluded that the either concept works from a financial perspective. The alternative concept with the lower public improvement budget and lesser development magnitude runs a greater risk of not achieving the broader vision and guiding principles established through the planning process. Through the task force meeting deliberations and the public process we know that the November 14'h concept exceeded the level of acceptance for some members of the community. We also know that the alternative concept with the lesser public improvement budget and resultant development magnitude, underachieves what the Gladstone Neighborhood could or should be. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the board/ commission discuss the master plan from November and the more recent concept alternative with supporting documentation and offer recommendations or opinions on the concept and relevant aspects of the plan. Your recommendation(s) will be assembled with all other advisory board/commission's recommendations and the recommendation from the Task Force and submitted to the City Council for their use in considering the plan at their meeting tentatively set for April 18'h. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact staff. MEMORANDUM Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. 11I13 IlU To: Gladstone Area Task Force From: Brad Scheib Subject: Gladstone Neighborhood Redevelopment Plan project update - Task Force Meeting #10 Scheduled for Thursday February 23'" at City Hall 6:30 to 8:30 17 February 2006 Date: Background As noted in our last memorandum dated January 18, we have been revisiting an alternative scenario for the project at the request of Council member David Bartol and as approved I directed by the Maplewood City Council. This memorandum is intended to provide you with the basic description of the concept alternative including the development patterns, density and public improvements associated with the project. We intend to entertain a discussion with the task force in evaluating the merits of this concept, its strengths and potential risks, in comparison to the concept that is reflected in the current Master Plan Draft report dated 14-Nov.2005. City Council member David Bartol proposed a plan for the Gladstone Area that attempts to establish the lowest limit of possible development within the project area. It was requested of the City Council that direction be given to staff to consider this evaluation and conduct analysis to illustrate a pattern of development that results in 490 new units as opposed to the current concept which is for roughly 800 units. The alternative concept being proposed included a reduction in the public improvement investments from roughly $18 million dollars to approximately $11 million dollars. General thoughts on where the reductions in public improvement costs could be provided and where reduction in density could be accommodated were described in the agenda report to the City Council dated January 3, 2006. The City Council approved this analysis at its January 9'" City Council Meeting. Alternative Concept Description Attached to this memorandum is an alternative concept plan reflecting the directions as approved in by the January 9'" City Council action. It was requested of us to prepare a concept that directly Ulustrated the number of units as could be built on each site. The attached concept plan illustrates a total of 332 new units. Not illustrated in this concept is the Tourist Cabin site which we have assumed could yield an additional 150 units. The total of both unit counts combined is 482 units. This falls 8 units short of our directed target of 490 units for the project. We are confident that the additional 8 units could probably be absorbed somewhere else within the project area to achieve the 490 unit target. Development pattern and density. We were also directed to consider development patterns of 6 to 14 units per acre with a variety of attached single family units (townhomes) and potentially some detached single family units. We attempted to prepare a concept site plan that did not include any stacked units (more than two story multi-family structures). The 123 North Third Street, Suite 100. Minneapoli~ MN 55401-1659 Ph (612) 338-0800 Fx (612) 338--6838 www.hkgi.com Direct (612) 252-7122 Email bscheib@hkgi.com Task Force Memo 17February 2006 Page 2 feasibility of achieving the desired unit count proved to be physically constraining without some stacked units that would exceed the desired 14- unit per acre maximum density. The final concept plan illustrates two structures on the northwest corner of the Maplewood Bowl site. These would be 3 story structures with underground parking and could be designed with the principles articulated in the master plan. We attempted to minimize the amount of stacked units in the concept. The footprints represent 57 total units of stacked housing. The remainder of the area consists of different attached townhome products. The footprints of these structures are reflective of product examples that we were able to pull from local and regional developments that might be well suited to the project. We will provide some examples of these at the task force meeting. (If you are interested in exploring some of these prior to the meeting, follow this link on line to a good resource that we used and look at the New Brighton and Woodbury fact sheets. htqi.//www desi!'Pcenter umn edulreference ctr/fa<t,heets/FS housing density hlml). Actual density levels within the various areas range from a low of 7 to 8 units per acre on the edges to a high of 20 units per acre on the Maplewood Bowl site. On average across all areas shown as redeveloped, densities are approximately 13 units per acre a. The current draft master plan illustrated 800 units, including some additional areas of redevelopment along the east side of the Vento Trail south of Frost and across form the Gladstone Fire Station. Stacked units were illustrated in the current master plan fronting on Frost and English Street. Densities ranged from a low of 10 units per acre on the edges to 35 units per acre at the core area for the current draft master plan. Also as part of the project, we have included a small retail structure that contains approximately 10,800 square feet on the site of the funeral home. This structure would accommodate a small convenience grocer and potential coffee shop/bakery or other service retail. The intent would be to accommodate neighborhood retail services. The current draft master plan included 50,000 to 75,000 square feet of retail and commercial service space spread throughout the core area at Frost and English. Setbacks on this concept also vary from the current master plan. The sethacks shown on the attached concept are generally a 20 foot minimum setback from the property line, whereas the current master plan Ulustrated smaller setbacks particularly along Frost Avenue ranging from 10 feet for residential units to 5 or 0 feet where commercial fronted on the street. The maximum building height of any structure in the attached concept is 3 stories. The current master plan contemplated up to 4 stories. Public Improvements Part of the directions from the January 9'" Council directive were to consider a reduction in the scope of the public improvements. In general terms, this reduction was from roughly $18 million to $11 million. It has been achieved in the attached concept in two ways. First, we reduced the scope of the improvements by limiting roadway improvements from extending all the way to Hazelwood along Frost Avenue. Reconstruction of Frost Avenue was reduced to include a 2" bituminous mill and overlay for most of the streets with some limited concrete curb and gutter replacement. A landscaped center median and concrete parallel parking bays are still planned along Frost Avenue between Frank Street and English Street but are not extended beyond those points. Bituminous parallel parking bays are also maintained in the attached concept along English Street north of Frost Avenue. Costs also assume that the existing Frost Avenue and English Street roundabout will remain as existing. The proposed rotmdabout at East Shore Drive remains as assumed in the current draft master plan. Task Force Memo 17Februarj 2006 Pane 3 Powerline burial has also been reduced in its scope. The attached concept asswnes burial of power lines along Frost Avenue from Birmingham Street to Phalen Place. The draft master plan extended this to Hazelwood Street. English street remains the same as the CWTent draft master plan. We also have limited the volume of the improvements. The most significant volume reductions occur in streetscape improvements and park and open space enhancements. The streetscape enhancements continue to include a sidewalk but lessen the amount of landscaping and amenity treatments. At the meeting on Thursday we will present some imagery to demonstrate the possible difference in public improvements from the attached concept and the current master plan. The assumptions for storm water improvements remain the same as in the current draft master plan. The Bebo structure (pedestrian bridge) proposed to connect Flicek and the Savanna has been reduced to a culvert that will provide storm water overflow. A more detailed tabulation of the public improvement costs compared between the attached concept and the current master plan draft will be provided at the meeting. Evaluation We have been working through an analysis of this alternative concept. It is imperative that prior to moving forward with this concept, we fully understand feasibility from a financial and market perspective. We also need to discuss the pros and cons of the site as perceived by the community stakeholders. This evaluation begins with the Task Force discussion on Thursday and will be followed with discussions at the advisory boards and commissions and a public meeting. In preparation for Thursday's meeting, I would suggest as a starting point, that you review the attached concept, read wough the brief description above and revisit the Vision and Guiding Principles as articulated in Chapter 3 of the draft master plan dated November 14, 2005. Purpose of Task Force Meeting At the meeting staff will provide a presentation of 1he concept and walk through 1he rationale behind it. We will also provide a greater degree of detail em 1he public improvements proposed and engage 1he task force in a discussion about how this concept achieves the goals and principles of 1he Master Plan. As usual, please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Attachment: concept2-16-06 Layoutl (1)