Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/09/2006 AGENDA CITY OF MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD Tuesday, May 9, 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: April 25, 2006 5. Unfinished Business: None Scheduled 6. Design Review: a. Comforts of Home Assisted Living Facility - 2300/2310 Hazelwood Street 7. Visitor Presentations: 8. Board Presentations: 9. Staff Presentations: a. CDRB Representation at the May 22, 2006, City Council Meeting - Items to Be Discussed Include Comforts of Home b. Draft Sign Code Update 10. Adjourn DRAFT MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD 1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, APRIL 25, 2006 I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Olson called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Board member John Hinzman Vice-Chairperson Matt Ledvina Chairperson Linda Olson Board member Joel Schurke Board member Ananth Shankar Absent Present Present Present Present Staff Present: Shann Finwall, Planner Lisa Kroll, Recording Secretary III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Board member Schurke requested a short discussion regarding the lack of funding for clean up of open space in Maplewood to be discussed under Board Presentations as item b. Board member Ledvina moved to approve the agenda as amended. Board member Shankar seconded. Ayes -Ledvina, Olson, Schurke, Shankar The motion passed. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of the CDRB minutes for April 11, 2006. Board member Schurke had changes to page 2, seventh paragraph, changing the word sesiment to sentiment. Chairperson Olson had changes to pages 2, 5, and 8. On page 2, second paragraph, add a paragraph indent after the word 18 months indenting the discussion about Board member Ledvina as its own paragraph. On page 5, third paragraph, Chairperson Olson asked if the second sentence could be stricken from the discussion which states The St. Paul Tourist Cabin site has a letter of intent from Central Community Housing Trust (CCHT). (Chairperson Olson could not remember if there was a letter of intent or not. As recording secretary that is what I remembered hearing at the HRA meeting but then Ms. Finwall thought that was incorrect and said staff would verify that and include the proper language.) On page 8, in the fourth paragraph, she thought this was a school board issue and did not want to cause any unnecessary grief by speaking out of turn and asked if the paragraph could read Chairperson Olson said the population of school age children in this area of Maplewood is on the decline. and thoro FRay be a Aoed to closo aRother school iR Maplowood. So thore would bo no Roed to build new schools iA this area and which appoars AOt to be an issuo. Community Design Review Board Minutes 4-25-2006 2 Board member Ledvina asked if it was appropriate for board members to amend statements as they were made and reflected in the minutes? He thought the minutes were intended to reflect what was actually said at the meeting. If there was a different meaning or if there was an error made, that's different, but he questioned if the board members should be removing or striking text from the minutes if those were statements that were actually made? Ms. Finwall said to clarify, you as a board member could change language stating that this is what you actually meant verses what you actually said and that would be appropriate but to change the intent may not be proper. Chairperson Olson said the reason she suggested the edits is for the purpose of accuracy. Board member Ledvina said if it was not what you actually said then it should be changed but if it what was what you said and you just don't want it misinterpreted, then it should remain in the minutes for the record. Chairperson Olson said once the minutes are approved they go onto many different levels and become documents of record and she doesn't want her passionate statements to be misconstrued. Board member Schurke said Board member Ledvina brings up an interesting point. Maybe Chairperson Olson could clarify for the record what she meant to say and have it recorded in the minutes now. Chairperson Olson said she would like the items she brought up to be clarified in the minutes but if it would cause conflict they should remain as she stated during the meeting. She didn't feel it was appropriate for her to be speaking for the school board or for CCHT, which was the interpretation of comments she had heard at previous meetings. Board member Schurke moved approval of the minutes of April 11 , 2006, as amended. Board member Shankar seconded. Ayes --- Olson, Schurke, Shankar Abstention - Ledvina The motion passed. V. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. VI. DESIGN REVIEW a. Town Center Comprehensive Sign Plan Amendment (Best Buy) - 1795 County Road 0 (6:10 - 7:05 p.m.) Ms. Finwall said Paul Anderson of WCL Associates, representing Best Buy, is proposing signage for the new Best Buy store located at 1795 County Road D. Community Design Review Board Minutes 4-25-2006 3 The new Best Buy store is currently under construction and is located within the Town Center Shopping Center. Best Buy is proposing three new wall signs on their building and is also proposing to reface the existing Frank's Nursery freestanding sign located along the highway. All existing signs on the current store will be removed. The city's sign code requires all multi-tenant buildings with five or more tenants to have a comprehensive sign plan approved by the community design review board (CDRB). Any amendments to the approved plan must be reviewed by the CDRB. Best Buy is requesting an amendment to Town Center's existing comprehensive sign plan. Chairperson Olson asked staff which of the wall signs she would recommend removing in her proposed conditions? Ms. Finwall said she would leave that up to the board and the applicant. Board member Schurke said on page 2 of the staff report, in the second paragraph it states "the draft sign code, when approved by the city council, would allow one wall sign for each street upon which the property has frontage, plus one wall sign for each clearly differentiated department." He asked what differentiated department meant? Board member Shankar said an example of a differentiated department is like a Pharmacy sign on the Target building showing different departments in the store. Ms. Finwall said correct. Board member Schurke asked how many departments Best Buy would have? Board member Shankar said he thought Best Buy would need a sign like automotive installation or something of that sort. Board member Schurke asked if there was language in the draft sign code that defines what differentiated department means? Ms. Finwall said no. Board member Schurke asked what street classification meant? He asked if Highway 694 represented a street classification? Ms. Finwall said yes. The draft sign code does not define a street in the sign code. Board member Shankar asked if the 375.4 square foot sign for Best Buy as shown on attachment 4 in the staff report exceeded the allowable square footage for a sign? Ms. Finwall said correct. The draft sign code would only allow for 150 square feet of sign for a building of this size. Board member Shankar said staff recommended one of the Best Buy signs be removed and he asked if that would be for the 375 square foot sign? Community Design Review Board Minutes 4-25-2006 4 Ms. Finwall said that's the size of the sign but not necessarily on that side of the building. Ms. Finwall said this is a good reality check of the proposed draft sign code for the CDRB. Chairperson Olson said she sees this is as a unique situation. Because Best Buy has one frontage and two streets and in her opinion this could justify a sign on every side of the building. Board member Shankar said there is really only one street frontage here which is County Road D. Chairperson Olson said she thinks Highway 694 counts as street frontage too. Board member Schurke said he would recommend clarification for the sign code regarding what street designation is. He doesn't necessarily see Highway 694 as street frontage, he sees this as adjacent and not as frontage. He stated his appreciation for Best Buy's very clear plans, which makes it easier for the CDRB to understand what is being proposed. By turning the building with the east facing orientation it almost drives the need for additional signage which may be an advantage for parking. He thinks this is could have too much signage and could be confusing for customers. He doesn't think it's necessary to add the landscaped masonry at the base of the sign. The clean lines of the sign coming out of the ground are fine with him. Knowing if the landscaping would be maintained is a real issue for him. He has often seen landscaping not maintained and it looks better without landscaping. The other issue is a limitation of the hours the signs could be illuminated or hours that the signs could be dimmed because he doesn't see a lot of advertising value illuminating the signs between the hours of 12:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. that could also be electrical savings and energy conservation for Best Buy. These signs could be put on the energy management system. He asked staff if the draft sign code addresses these issues in terms of light levels? Ms. Finwall said the signs are covered in the current lighting ordinance in terms of light glare, however the city does not have a requirement as to when the signs need to be turned off. Board member Schurke said as the sign ordinance comes into its own he would rather see more specificity in the illumination hours. Ms. Finwall said regarding the landscaping of the pylon sign, staff was proposing a brick base around the two existing sign poles with landscaping around the brick and not in the interior of the brick. Staff's proposed condition is based on the fact that this sign is the most visible sign from County Road D. Best Buy is required to install a sidewalk along County Road 0 where pedestrians will be walking by the sign and the brick base and landscaping would help with the aesthetics of the sign. Board member Ledvina said he didn't have any questions for staff. Chairperson Olson asked the applicant to address the board. Community Design Review Board Minutes 4-25-2006 5 Mr. Jason Kraus, Property Development Manager, Best Buy, 7601 Penn Avenue South, Richfield, addressed the board. Mr. Kraus said he wanted to clarify that the sign they are proposing to reface on Highway 694 is exactly the same size of the existing panel. There must be some discrepancy in the report. He had the sign company measure the sign and according to them the 20 foot width is actually 16 feet and should be 160 square feet in size so he isn't sure how the discrepancy in the numbers occurred. He is having a problem with the front wedge or Best Buy sign at 150 square feet. This is a 45,000 square foot store and to have a 150 square foot sign would look very out of proportion. This building is placed on the site in an unusual manner and the visibility for retail space is key here. He would like to stress Best Buy would like to be able to keep the signage they are currently showing on the plan. Regarding the comment about the pylon sign on County Road 0, Best Buy plans on leaving it the way it is. He knows there have been recommendations made to have brick and landscaping for the pylon sign but he appreciates the comments from the board members regarding the problem in keeping the landscaping maintained. The rest of the center is owned by Timco Realty and this Town Center sign is under their control. Board member Shankar said Best Buy opened a new store a few months ago in Oakdale on Radio Drive and he asked how large the sign is for that store? Mr. Kraus said he was not sure of the size of the Best Buy store sign in Oakdale. Board member Shankar asked if Best Buy had any other stores in the Twin Cities with signs that are 375 square feet in size? Mr. Kraus said yes most of the Best Buy store signs are 375 square feet in size. In Eagan they are currently building a Best Buy store that is 45,000 square feet like this store and it will have a sign 375 square feet in size. Board member Shankar asked if Best Buy wants to have a 375 square foot sign on the east side, why do you need the sign on the south side facing County Road D? Mr. Kraus said to catch the traffic driving east on County Road D. Board member Shankar asked why Best Buy would need the sign on the west side? Best Buy would have a pylon sign along Highway 694 that they are refacing so people coming from the frontage road would see that sign. Why would Best Buy need the sign on the west? Mr. Kraus said he noticed when driving on Highway 694 that there are a lot of trees and shrubbery on MnDOT's property and that blocks some of the visibility of Best Buy. Board member Schurke said if Best Buy had to pick from two wall signs which two elevations would Best Buy pick? Community Design Review Board Minutes 4-25-2006 6 Mr. Kraus said that would depend on which sign square footage the CDRB will allow Best Buy to have. He understands this is a draft sign code ordinance and it hasn't been enacted yet. He understands the fact that signage for Best Buy was not approved when the building elevations were reviewed. Now Best Buy finds out the draft sign ordinance has been complete, but theoretically Best Buy is under the existing sign code. Ms. Finwall said that is correct, however, this is a multi-tenant building, therefore it's covered by the city's comprehensive sign plan ordinance which allows the CDRB to make recommendations above or below the existing code to ensure compatibility and a comprehensive plan throughout the center. Mr. Kraus said he hopes the new Best Buy building will help dress this area up. He understands the need for additional aesthetics in this location. The existing Frank's Nursery building is coming down and the parking lot is going to be resurfaced. There is a good possibility that the owner is going to improve this site because of the need to get future tenants in here. Especially because of the new strip mall across the street. Board member Schurke said he understands the draft sign ordinance is a work in progress and he understands Ms. Finwall and the CDRB put a lot of time and effort into the sign ordinance. He asked if staff had thought of using a formula for total sign square footage and let the applicant decide how they would like to allocate this with five smaller signs or one large sign? Ms. Finwall said staff looked at that in the drafting of the sign ordinance. Some cities do that but none of those cities would allow one large 500 square foot sign. Staff felt it would be cumbersome for additional signage as years go by to ensure they are meeting the requirements. If a particular business called the city and asked if they could add an additional sign it would be a matter of researching the existing signs. Board member Schurke asked if Best Buy would be willing to be limited to certain hours that the signs could be illuminated? Mr. Kraus said Best Buy has an energy management system and he believes the sign illumination could be included in that. Board member Schurke asked if the current Best Buy signs are turned off at a certain time now? Mr. Kraus said he would have to check into that. Board member Schurke asked if Best Buy would be willing to limit the hours the signs could be illuminated? Mr. Kraus said he isn't in a position to make that decision. Board member Shankar asked Board member Schurke what hours he was suggesting Best Buy turn the signs off? Community Design Review Board Minutes 4-25-2006 7 Board member Schurke said in some communities such as in Arden Hills there is a sign ordinance that relates specifically to sign height which make for a more interesting way to attract customers to your business as a result of subtle changes in signage that are at street level. Rather than looking up at a sign the sign is at the level that you are driving at which gives a completely different aesthetic to the community because there are no pylon signs. Board member Schurke said he lives close to Keller Lake and when you look up at the night sky it's amazing the dome of light that keeps you from seeing the stars and the problem is getting worse every year with additional development occurring and adding to the light pollution. It would be a good goal to put these types of limitations on so that you aren't needlessly lighting the sky. He feels there is such little traffic driving by at those hours, what would the advertising benefit be to leave the sign lit? Best Buy is a destination business and most people know where the Best Buy stores are located. Mr. Kraus said Best Buy typically runs into lights being on a timer more so with wall sconces and parking lot lighting for night sky ordinances but hasn't had that restriction for lighting of the signage. There are a lot of communities that are using the night sky ordinances. There really isn't a glare problem with signage lighting because most of that light is contained behind the panels and the light is not being directed up or down. Wall sconces have light that can be directed up and down and the parking lot light can be directed down and out. Board member Schurke said the point is that there is a lot of light pollution coming from developments and signage and any lighting causes problems for people looking at the night sky. Chairperson Olson asked if Best Buy had any foot candle data on the omissions that these signs put out? Mr. Kraus said no. Chairperson Olson asked for the purpose of safety would your signage provide any additional lighting that would help with security for pedestrians walking from the Myth nightclub? Mr. Kraus said very little security if any. The street lighting and parking lot lighting would provide more light security for pedestrians. Chairperson Olson said it seems to her the CDRB discussed wall sconce lighting on the side of the building along County Road D. She asked if that had been incorporated into the plan or not? Mr. Kraus said he is not familiar with that. Mr. Paul Anderson, WCL Architects, addressed the board. He said he was at the CDRB meeting last summer when these issues were discussed. He remembered the discussion regarding the wall sconces along the south side, adjacent to the sidewalk. Community Design Review Board Minutes 4-25-2006 8 Mr. Anderson said there are also wall sconces along the east side, which is the front wall and a few along the back of the building on the three piers. Mr. Kraus said a main concern for Best Buy is the amount of light on the site. He said not to stereotype nightclubs but being that the Myth nightclub is across the street, Best Buy is concerned about loss prevention and would prefer the site be well lit. Chairperson Olson said customers at the Myth nightclub are also your potential clients. The club could be an asset for Best Buy located across the street, so things can work both ways. Board member Schurke asked if the wall sconces would be night sky shielded sconces? Mr. Anderson said he would have to check but he thought these were all down lights. Chairperson Olson said she too thought the wall sconces were directing the light downward. Board member Shankar said his opinion is even though the sign code may be for a sign 150 square feet in size that may be too small for a building 45,000 square feet and visually get lost. He believes this building is large enough and the front wall sign should be at least 300 square feet but should be moved higher up on the building than the 16 feet 5% inches in height. He thinks Best Buy should remove the sign on the west side facing Highway 694. He doesn't see how adding the brick on the base of the pylon sign would be a benefit. Board member Ledvina said he agreed with most of the staff recommendations. The new sign code should be used as a basis for evaluating the signs for Best Buy. He would agree with Board member Shankar that the front wall sign should be around 300 square feet but not 375.4 square feet as Best Buy proposed. The staff recommendation is for two wall signs and he doesn't have a preference which sign is removed but he feels the sign on the west side has the smallest value. He would leave that up to the applicant. Regarding the base of the pylon sign on County Road 0, because Best Buy doesn't own that sign that would be difficult to require Best Buy to make changes to the sign. A comment was made that the mall would be getting some type of remodel and maybe at that time the pylon sign with the multi-tenants listed could be updated. Board member Schurke moved to approve the plans date-stamped March 28, 2006, for a comprehensive sign plan amendment for the Town Center Shopping Center located at 1805 County Road D. Approval is subject to the following conditions (changes made to the conditions by the CDRB during the meeting are underlined if added and stricken if deleted): 1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a sign permit for the Best Buy store within this time-frame. 2. Best Buy signage shall be limited to: Community Design Review Board Minutes 4-25-2006 9 a. Three +we wall signs. These wall signs are limited to one 300 square foot siqn on the east elevation: one 150 square foot siqn on either the north, south, or west elevations: and one 18 square foot siQn on the north elevation which advertises the mobile installations. 1 88.2 squaro feet in area and caA 130 located on any wall of the building. b. Two freestanding signs as follows: 1) 1-694: One freestanding sign limited to 180 square feet in area and 25 feet in height - Best Buy proposes to use the existing Frank's Nursery freestanding sign located along 1-694. This sign is 128 square feet in area and 25 feet in height. The following conditions to this freestanding sign must be met prior to issuance of any Best Buy sign permits on the property: ~ b) €ij c) a) If the new sign face exceeds 128 square feet in area, Best Buy must submit certified engineering approval that the existing footings and wind load carrying capacity which meets building code requirements. ~ A dotailoEl laRdscape plan FRl,Jst be submitted which shows landscaping arol,JnEl the base of the si€Jn. All existing Best Buy wall signs located on the old store must be removed once the old Best Buv store is closed. prior to certificate of occl,Jpancy of the Ae'l/ Best Buy storo. The sign cabinet located on the existing Best Buy freestanding sign at the northeast corner of the Town Center Shopping Center site must be removed once the old Best Buv store is closed. prior to certificate of occupancy ef tho AOW Best Buy store. 2) County Road 0: The existing Town Center Shopping Center sign will remain. This sign is approximately 25 feet in height and consists of an internally illuminated sign cabinet posted on two steel beams, and advertises four of the main tenants within the center, including Best Buy. Tho fellowing conditieAs to this existing fFOestanding si€JR must be FRet prior to the issl,Jance of any Best Buy sign porFRits on the preporty: ~ Revised elevations of tho County Road [) sign must bo submitleEl to staff for approval. Tho ele'/ations ml,Jst show a fOl,Jr feot high, or Ri€Jher, brick or concr-ete FRasonry unit ease constFl,Jcted aFOl,JAEl the existiR€J stool beaFRs. b) .'\ detaileEl landscape plan FRl,Jst be sl,JbFRitlod which shows laAElscaping ar-ound the ease of the sign. Community Design Review Board Minutes 4-25-2006 10 3. All other tenant wall sign age shall be limited to: a. Signs composed of a single line of copy shall not exceed three feet in height. b. Signs composed of two lines of copy (stacked) shall not exceed a letter height of 18 inches per line with a maximum space between lines of eight inches, for a total height of 44 inches. If more than two lines of copy are used, the total height shall not exceed 44 inches. c. There must be at lest 18 inches of margin between any sign and the end of the store front. d. All wall signs shall be composed of individual, internally-lit letters, not canister- type signs. e. Tenant wall signage is allowed on both the front and rear elevations. f. Logos are permitted on the sign fascia, but shall not exceed a height of four feet and shall follow the 18-inch spacing requirement. 4. All holes from sign mounting shall be properly patched and painted upon sign removal. 5. The shopping center identification pylon sign shall be located along County Road 0 and be subject to staff approval. 6. Staff may approve minor modifications to the sign plans. Board member Ledvina seconded. Ayes -Ledvina, Olson, Schurke, Shankar The motion passed. The board recommended that Best Buy remove their company sign from the sign panel of the multi-tenant building which would open space up for another tenant on the Town Center sign. b. Sign Code Interpretation - Electronic Reader Boards (7:06 - 8: 1 0 p.m.) Ms. Finwall said city staff is requesting an interpretation of the city's sign code in regard to electronic reader board signs. An electronic reader board is a sign with a fixed or changing display composed of a series of lights that are changed through electronic means. As a planner with the City of Maplewood over the last five years one of staffs responsibilities has been sign code compliance, including the issuing of sign permits. Each year electronic reader board sign requests have increased. Most of these requests include adding electronic reader board signs to existing freestanding signs. This seems to be due to the fact that these types of signs are becoming more affordable to businesses. Plaza TV and Appliance is a new business in Maplewood that moved into an existing building at 1918 Beam Avenue last year. Plaza TV applied for a sign permit that included the addition of an electronic reader board onto the existing freestanding sign. Community Design Review Board Minutes 4-25-2006 11 Staff explained to the sign company that the city prohibits those types of signs based on the interpretation of the sign code. David Motz, the President of Plaza TV and Appliance discussed the matter with staff and indicated that they could program the electronic reader board sign to have a steady and constant message rather than to blink, flash, or flutter. Staff stated that this request has been made in the past, and that staff has denied the requests due to the fact that the sign still has the capability of blinking, flashing, or fluttering. Allowing such signs, in staff's opinion, would become a code enforcement issue if a new manager or owner wasn't aware of the requirement of maintaining the text or image as a steady and constant display. The city would be constantly monitoring those types of signs. Staff indicated to Mr. Motz that the only way staff could issue a sign permit for such a sign is if the city council approved a variance from the sign code. After staff notified Mr. Motz of the variance requirement he submitted a letter to the city further requesting an electronic reader board sign. Mr. Motz's rationale is that they are not looking to vary from the ordinance, only to comply with the ordinance by programming their sign to be constant and steady. Electronic reader boards are designed to advertise products sold within a business, not to advertise the business itself. Many businesses have claimed that they depend on this form of advertisement to make their businesses viable. However, these signs are specifically designed to draw attention away from a motorist or pedestrian, which is a safety hazard. They also add to the constant barrage of advertisements the public experiences on a daily basis. (The Myth nightclub was issued a sign permit during the leave of staff member Shann Finwall.) The difference between this request of Plaza TV and Appliance and the sign at the Myth nightclub is based on the definition of sign types by method of movement. The city's existing sign code defines an animated sign as a sigh which depicts action or movement. However, this definition goes on to specify that the animation term does not refer to flashing, changing or indexing. The code defines a flashing sign as an illuminated sign which contains flashing lights or exhibits noticeable changes in light intensity. In staff's opinion, the Myth's sign is clearly a flashing sign since it has the capability of programming the lights to blink, flash, or flutter, which is prohibited in the city's sign code. An animated sign is not animated by function of its lights, but by function of its movement. An example of an animated sign would be a sign with movable parts, such as a sign depicting a person waving where the arm of a person is moving up and down on the sign. In staff's interpretation of the code the Myth's sign permit was issued in error and the Myth should be required to obtain a variance from the code in order to retain their sign. City staff recommends that the community design review board and city council offer clarification on the city's sign code pertaining to electronic reader board signs. Interpretation questions to be answered include: 1. Should businesses be allowed to install electronic reader board signs on the condition that they keep the text and images steady and constant? 2. Is a state of the art, full color LED sign considered an animated sign or a flashing and blinking sign? If considered a flashing and blinking sign, should the Myth Nightclub be required to obtain a variance to retain their sign, even though the city issued them a sign permit? Community Design Review Board Minutes 4-25-2006 12 3. Is the draft sign code language adequate to address these issues in the future? Chairperson Olson said she is glad this subject came up. She said she has received several complaints in the last month from Maplewood residents regarding the sign at the Myth nightclub. People initially thought the sign was going to be on a few hours a day but the sign is on all the time. She assumed the sign would only be on while the Myth was open but that is not the case. She wondered how this sign made it through the approval process by city staff. She was going to send an e-mail to city staff and then this issue came up in the CDRB packet. She thought she would wait until the discussion came up at the meeting tonight. Chairperson Olson said people driving on Highway 694 see the Myth sign and the motion of the sign and it is very distracting. People driving on White Bear Avenue see the sign as well. There are flames shooting out of people's eyes and many other motions coming from this sign which are very distracting. The sign has already been approved and it's operating so there is not much we can do about it now but she would like to require the Myth to only have still images on the sign because when the sign is in motion it is very distracting. She said the city cannot keep electronic reader board signs out of the City of Maplewood any longer. These types of signs exist in the community and the request is going to continue to come in for those types of signs. Board member Shankar said the city has the right to say electronic reader board signs are not allowed in Maplewood. Chairperson Olson said she doesn't think that is reasonable. Board member Schurke agreed with Board member Shankar. He sees electronic reader board signs as eye pollution. Board member Shankar said he can see electronic reader board signs for buildings that cater to large groups of people like Aldrich Arena, Xcel Energy Center, etc. but he doesn't feel it's necessary to have an electronic reader board for a small business such as Plaza TV and Appliance. Other appliance stores don't require electronic reader boards to conduct business. Chairperson Olson disagrees, she thinks there are two different kinds of electronic reader board signs here. The Plaza TV representatives are requesting a small electronic reader board sign similar to the electronic sign on the Premier Bank building at the corner of White Bear Avenue and Lydia Avenue. They are not requesting a color electronic reader board sign or anything fancy. She said this is an electronic reader board sign that would contain text only. Board member Schurke said staff displayed a picture of the Plaza TV sign on the overhead screen with an electronic reader board sign shown already. He asked if that was a computer generated photo or has the electronic reader board sign already been installed? Ms. Finwall said that was a computer generated photo to represent what the sign would look like with the electronic reader board beneath the Plaza TV sign. Board member Shankar said he is concerned about what an electronic reader board sign would include. He asked if there would be animation, four different colors of text, or what? Community Design Review Board Minutes 4-25-2006 13 Chairperson Olson said the text should be constant and steady and not blinking or fluttering and that is all we as a board should be concerned about. Board member Shankar asked as a city how do we enforce that? Chairperson Olson asked how does the city enforce anything? There is a business in Maplewood at the corner of County Road C and White Bear Avenue that has 100% paint covered windows that still say "under new ownership" that has been there for 2 years now and the city hasn't enforced any regulations on that business. Chairperson Olson said by stating the sign parameters and requiring the owners to recognize the rules there shouldn't be any problems with signs in Maplewood. Board member Shankar said an electronic reader board sign is basically a television to him. Chairperson Olson said she disagrees with that statement. It's different when you are talking about text on a sign. Board member Shankar asked if Plaza TV would have the ability to change the text on the sign and flash an image as well? Chairperson Olson said Plaza TV should be able to change the text on the sign but should not be flashing images in any way. The electronic reader board sign for Premier Bank is very similar to what Plaza TV is proposing to have. The sign at the bank has scrolling words that have a series of community announcements. Ms. Finwall said just to clarify, the electronic reader board sign associated with the bank for time and temperature and public service messages are currently allowed in the existing sign code. This is a good example of code enforcement issues with that type of sign. The bank is advertising loan rates in addition to public service announcements so they are not using the sign for all the correct reasons. There are a few electronic reader board signs in the city that were approved with special approval by the city council like Aldrich Arena and a few signs that were approved years ago prior to the sign code and one or two signs with a different interpretation of the sign code, prior to her employment with the city. Chairperson Olson said when the CDRB was discussing the sign code ordinance the board discussed allowing gas stations to have electronic signs so it would be easier to change the price on the sign as opposed to taking vinyl magnetic numbers on and off. This is the right time to allow electronic reader board signs in Maplewood. As long as the signs are not flashing and fluttering it seems to be the appropriate thing to do. Ms. Finwall said staff has allowed electronic gas pricing signs because they are steady and constant. Staffs concern with electronic reader board signs is that they advertise a product within the business and not the business itself. A good example of that is the electronic reader board at Walgreen's in St. Paul at the corner of Larpenteur Avenue and White Bear Avenue where they have sales advertised scrolling across the screen. She personally sees that as eye pollution. Chairperson Olson asked the applicant to address the board. Community Design Review Board Minutes 4-25-2006 14 Mr. David Motz, President, Plaza TV and Appliance, 1918 Beam Avenue, Maplewood, addressed the board. He said this is a family owned business, they have two locations, the other location is in West Sl. Paul at South Robert Street, the previous location was at White Bear Avenue in St. Paul and they have since moved to their new location at 1918 Beam Avenue in July. Plaza TV said they want to follow the city sign code and will keep the electronic message constant or steady. They are a small business and they don't have the advertising budget that other companies have. That is why they want to have an electronic reader board sign to draw customers into their store. Mr. Motz said at the present time the West St. Paul store has a sign with the white board where you manually put magnetic letters and numbers on and off with a pole. They have had that for 10 years now. It's a real hindrance to have that kind of system. The wind blows things off the sign, the fluorescent bulbs have to be changed, the sign looks messy, and it is hard for the employees to go out and change the advertising on the sign. They are proposing to have an electronic reader board sign underneath the Plaza TV and Appliance sign, it would look more professional and is more energy efficient. Plaza TV spent a lot of money to move into this building in Maplewood and they want a decent sign out front to match their building. With the interpretation of the sign code he doesn't see why they can't have an electronic reader board sign if they follow the rules and doesn't see why they should have to apply for a variance. He said if the city informed people that if they get a permit for an electronic reader board sign and if they don't follow the city guidelines they could be fined for breaking the city ordinance. Mr. Motz said the city could place a fine such as $5,000 for breaking the rule. Most business owners aren't going to want to pay a fine like that and that would keep them from straying from the rules. It would really benefit Plaza TV if the city would grant them this electronic reader board sign. Board member Shankar asked what type of advertisement Plaza TV would have on this electronic reader board sign? Mr. Bob Sherlock, sign installer for Sign Art Company, 2170 Dodd Road, Mendota Heights, addressed the board. He said the electronic reader board sign would advertise products for Plaza TV and Appliance. This electronic sign would be a two line message board and would allow for two lines of text. The sign has the capability in the graphics software to animate, flash, rotate and do full graphics, although this sign is not a full color display sign like the Myth nightclub sign. Because of the reduced height and the size of the face it is not real high and it does not have the square footage capability to adequately present graphics on it. This is a low watt energy efficient sign with LED pixels. These aren't electronic bulbs with sockets. The graphic software can hold the same message for 1 year. The idea was to hold a specific message for at least 1 day. Chairperson Olson asked if the electronic reader board sign would be advertising products or would it be used to state the time and temperature like Premier Bank uses their sign? Mr. Motz said at times the sign could advertise the time and temperature but the sign would be more for advertising the product and the services they could give the customer. Chairperson Olson asked if Plaza TV felt they couldn't advertise the business through window advertising or other signs like what they use at their West St. Paul location? Community Design Review Board Minutes 4-25-2006 15 Mr. Motz said this building is set back a ways off of Beam Avenue because of the frontage road that separates Beam Avenue and Plaza TV. Window advertising would not be effective being that there business is set back off the road. If the city allows a sign like the one at the KFC restaurant that doesn't look very professional, why wouldn't the city allow Plaza TV to have a more professional, more modern looking sign? Board member Shankar asked if the sign would be double sided? Mr. Sherlock said yes. Board member Shankar asked if the sign would have the same message on both sides of the sign? Mr. Sherlock said he would have to check on the specifics of this particular sign to see the ability of the sign. Some signs are automatically displayed with the same message on both sides and others can be programmed to read different text on each side of the sign if they have two different computer systems. Chairperson Olson asked if Plaza TV has an existing pylon sign now? Mr. Motz said they refaced the existing pylon sign from the previous business. Mr. Sherlock said the sign could be programmed to change the text message at any time as often as Mr. Motz would like. Mr. Motz said their current sign turns off at 2:00 a.m. and turns back on at 5:00 or 6:00 a.m. Mr. Sherlock said he has been working with signs since 1980. Most commercial businesses will provide a photo cell on the sign with a timer combination to turn the sign off late at night and turn it back on early in the morning. Board member Shankar asked how Plaza TV felt if the city required them to only change the text once a week on Sundays? Mr. Motz said that probably wouldn't be a problem. Ms. Finwall said if the city started to allow electronic reader board signs how would the city be able to ensure the signs weren't being changed too often or what the signs are reflecting? Board member Schurke recommended disallowing electronic reader boards in the current and proposed sign code in the City of Maplewood. Board member Schurke moved to deny the use of an electronic reader board sign for Plaza TV and Appliance at 1918 Beam Avenue. Board member Ledvina seconded. Ayes - Ledvina, Schurke Community Design Review Board Minutes 4-25-2006 16 Nay - Olson Abstention - Shankar This item will go to the city council on May 8, 2006. Chairperson Olson said she would like to discuss this topic again at the next CDRB meeting. Ms. Finwall said the CDRB could also discuss the second part of question 2 and all of question 3 shown in the staff report at a later date as well. Chairperson Olson asked if the only option Plaza TV and Appliance has is to apply for a variance for the electronic reader board sign? Ms. Finwall said yes. Chairperson Olson asked if the variance fee is $1,000 as the applicant stated in their letter? Ms. Finwall said off hand she was not sure of the exact fee for a variance. The applicant would be able to go to the city council meeting on May 8, 2006; the decision by the CDRB is only a recommendation to the city council. The city council makes the final decision. If the city council agrees with the recommendation by the CDRB the applicant has the option to apply for a variance at that time. Chairperson Olson asked staff what the options are for the Myth nightclub and the sign that has already been installed. She asked if the city can ask the Myth to take the sign down? Ms. Finwall said this is an unfortunate situation for the city to be in. The planner that gave the sign approval contacted the Myth as the sign was being installed and asked what type of messages would be shown on the screen and what types of graphics would be displayed on the screen because the city was struggling with the sign interpretation. The owners of the Myth indicated they would have some public service messages, but mostly they would advertise upcoming events at the club If the city does not enforce the sign code, the code is unenforceable. Ms. Finwall said so regardless of how the sign was approved, the city has to address this sign and should require a variance. The hardship may be that the city issued them a permit, therefore, the Myth should be allowed to keep this sign, however the city could require additional conditions such as the message has to remain constant and steady, and the sign has to be turned off at a certain time or something like that. Chairperson Olson said she is sympathetic to Plaza TV and Appliance. They were only asking for two lines of text on an electronic reader board sign compared to the Myth's huge video sign. Board member Ledvina said as far as the Myth is concerned this does not meet the requirements of the sign code so whatever actions the CDRB needs to take to correct this is appropriate. If the CDRB is going to look at the city's options we need to take the best course of action. The city can't ignore this situation. Community Design Review Board Minutes 4-25-2006 17 Board member Shankar said to answer question number 2 in the recommendations on page 5 of the staff report he answered yes to both questions. In his opinion a state of the art, full color LED sign is considered a flashing and blinking sign. Board member Schurke said he read the statement on page 4 of the staff report that says The city's existing sign code defines an animated sign as a sign which depicts action or movement. He understood the Sign Art representative for Plaza TV and Appliance to say the sign could have two lines of text that could depict action or movement by programming the sign that way. To him this is a sticky situation to define animation separate from flashing or fluttering. Board member Schurke said if the sign code text isn't clear enough we need to make it clear so there are no gaps in the sign code and mistakes aren't made. He asked if there is a rating requirement regarding animation on these signs? He said Chairperson Olson made a comment that flames were coming out of people's eyes on the Myth nightclub sign. Are there certain content guidelines that the applicants can follow so they don't cross the line? He said he has three young children and he wouldn't want to drive by this sign and have his children see certain things on the sign that may be offensive. Board member Schurke said to him the issue of policing these electronic reader board signs seems like it could potentially evolve into complaints from the community. What about the potential litigation the city could be exposed to in temns of car accidents as a result of a distracting sign such as the sign the Myth has. He thinks this is going to open the City of Maplewood up to potential lawsuits if someone has a car accident because of the distracting animation of the Myth sign. He asked if this was a potential problem in other cities. Chairperson Olson said she doesn't think the sign at the Myth is that crazy. She mentioned that she received comments from people regarding the Myth nightclub sign and the distraction from your peripheral vision, the content of the sign and the images that were portrayed. She isn't sure the city will have potential lawsuit issues here. She is concerned however, that the other planner approved this sign while Shann was on leave. The Myth sign is approved, it's up and working for 3 months now and we have to deal with it. Board member Ledvina said now the city has to evaluate what the best options are for dealing with the Myth sign. Now we have to find out what the city can ask the Myth to do regarding the situation. Board member Schurke moved to recommend disallowing the use of LED signs in the City of Maplewood. Board member Shankar asked if an animated sign is allowed by the sign code? Ms. Finwall said under the current sign code an animated sign is allowed and it is defined as a sign which depicts action or movement, however the definition does go on to specify the animation term does not refer to flashing, changing or indexing. The city prohibits any type of flashing or blinking. Board member Shankar said the new sign code should prohibit animated, flashing and blinking signs. Community Design Review Board Minutes 4-25-2006 18 Ms. Finwall said the only animated sign she knows of in Maplewood is at the Holiday store at Century Avenue and 10th. There is an auto repair business there and the sign spins around. An animated sign is a sign that spins or moves around. It's not the "movements" on the sign like an action on a television or video screen. Board member Ledvina referred to an animated sign to be like the barber shop sign where the red, white, and blue striped sign spins in a circle. Chairperson Olson recommended additional discussion regarding this section of the sign code to clear these issues up for the future. Ms. Finwall said it's imperative that the city council has the recommendation of the CDRB on the Myth sign. Chairperson Olson said this makes it difficult to work on these issues without a more clear and concise definition of the sign code from the city attorney. She thinks this discussion should be tabled because there are too many issues that are undefined. Chairperson Olson said regarding the questions on page 5 of the staff report, she answered yes to question number 1, yes to question number 2 and it is considered an animated sign or a flashing and blinking sign and they should not be allowed. Regarding question number 3, she thinks the CDRB needs to address the sign code on these issues more specifically. Board member Ledvina said you can call them big TV screens, flashing signs, animated signs, or whatever, either way they are not allowed in Maplewood. Ms. Finwall thought it was important to have a motion regarding question number 2. for the Myth nightclub. Board member Schurke moved that the existing sign code disallows LED signs and flashing and blinking signs such as the Myth night club sign. Board member Ledvina seconded. Ayes - Ledvina, Olson, Schurke, Shankar The motion passed. Chairperson Olson said when this comes back for discussion she would like to see these two issues broken down into two different categories. She doesn't see electronic reader board signs like the request from Plaza TV and Appliance in the same category as an outdoor TV screen with action and movement like the Myth sign. Ms. Finwall said because this is something new in Maplewood she believes it warrants different definitions. She will draft specific language regarding electronic reader boards and outdoor TV signs and bring this back to the CDRB at a future meeting. Chairperson Olson asked if staff could bring additional information back from the city attorney with recommendations on how to handle the Myth nightclub sign? Community Design Review Board Minutes 4-25-2006 19 Board member Ledvina said he wasn't sure this was anything the CDRB could deal with. He thought this was something city staff would have to deal with. This sign at the Myth is an enforcement issue and is out of the realm of the CDRB. Chairperson Olson respectively disagreed. The CDRB is an advisory group to the city council regarding the sign code and she believes this falls into the board's view. The CDRB should make a recommendation to the city council on this issue. She didn't think she could come up with the appropriate language tonight. She asked if the city recommends the Myth remove the large electronic reader board sign? Do we recommend that the sign be relocated so it's not near the roadway? Do we ask that the sign be mounted on the building instead of as a pylon sign near the road? Ms. Finwall said if the city council decides that type of sign should not have been allowed for the Myth and that the Myth should obtain a variance the CDRB would review this item again. Chairperson Olson said because the Myth sign exists already, would the variance be approved? Ms. Finwall said a variance should be approved based on hardship and she thinks it's a hardship to have a sign this size and value approved and installed and then for the city to say you have to take it down. Chairperson Olson said it seems incredibly unfair for surrounding businesses in Maplewood to see the Myth sign exist and then the city tells applicants they can't have an electronic reader board sign with two lines of text as requested by Plaza TV. Board member Schurke said regarding the topic of electronic reader board signage, the role of the CDRB is to guard the aesthetics in the City of Maplewood. The contrast between a white board with magnetic letters and numbers on it and an electronic reader board sign both equal eye pollution to him and he would prefer not to see either of them. But the city has a history of things that were already approved. Now the city has to decide what to do now that the Myth sign has been approved and what can the city do about it now. He would prefer not to spend more time discussing electronic signs. Chairperson Olson said she would respectively disagree. She would like to see clarifications made to the existing and proposed sign code. Ms. Finwall said staff will bring proposed language back to the CDRB to help clarify these items in the proposed draft sign code because staff believes this warrants clarification and this can be discussed at a future CDRB meeting. Board member Shankar said keep in mind that any backlit static sign like the Best Buy sign is also considered an electronic sign. Chairperson Olson said if the images were "still" on the electronic sign at the Myth that might be acceptable. Right now there is a tremendous amount of movement on the Myth sign. Community Design Review Board Minutes 4-25-2006 20 VII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS No visitors present. VIII. BOARD PRESENTATIONS a. Special City Council Meeting, April 18, 2006, Gladstone Redevelopment Concept Plan Chairperson Olson said the meeting was held at the Maplewood Community Center in the theatre and began around 6:30 p.m. The Maplewood residents spoke first, and then the different boards and commissions spoke. No decisions or recommendations were made by the city council. The Master Plan for 800 units was recommended, there was a report for a majority vote by three members of the PC for between 600-700 units. The Gladstone residents preferred the 400 unit plan. The city council decided they would need to have a retreat to make a final decision and weigh the information the city council received regarding the Gladstone Redevelopment Plan. b. Open space clean up discussion Board member Schurke said he is aware of at least two open space parcels that the City of Maplewood owns, both of which are in need of minor clean up. He isn't sure if there is environmental clean up needed but there is visual contamination on these properties with debris left over from when these parcels were purchased. At the April 18, 2006, Gladstone meeting AI Singer spoke about the open space in Maplewood. Board member Schurke said he was surprised there were no funds set aside for clean up of open space in Maplewood. He lives near one of the parcels at the intersection of Roselawn Avenue and Arcade Street where there is debris and he has heard complaints from Maplewood residents. The other parcel is on the east side of Maplewood and the parcel has barrels and other things on the property. He thinks it would be a good effort on the part of Maplewood to clean up those parcels. With future developments in Maplewood the city could earmark funds to save money to do maintenance on open space properties in Maplewood. He is not sure how to handle this recommendation or who it should be passed on to but he recommends funding be set aside to do this clean up. Chairperson Olson said this was a huge area of discussion for the Gladstone Redevelopment task force. She would recommend that Board member Schurke contact the Open Space Committee and Parks Commission on his own. She didn't know what the final recommendation was regarding the clean up. That was one of the reasons the issue regarding the sale of the Savanna kept coming back. One of the proposals was for funds from the sale of the Savanna could then be funneled in to create a permanent endowment for the parks and open space. That did not go over very well but this issue has been discussed several times. Ms. Finwall said the city does fund some maintenance and upkeep through the city's park access charge (PAC) which is a park charge on all new home building permits in the City of Maplewood. Community Design Review Board Minutes 4-25-2006 21 Ms. Finwall said the city council recently approved the (PAC) fee to be raised, because it had not been raised in many years. There just isn't a specific clean up fund for open space. The city's naturalist and environmental person are looking at all the options for grants regarding open space in the City of Maplewood. IX. STAFF PRESENTATIONS a. Board member Shankar will represent the CDRB at the May 8, 2006, city council meeting - Items to be discussed include the Sign Code Interpretation and Electronic Reader Boards b. Planning Commission and CDRB Responsibilities and Duties - Possible Meeting Ms. Finwall said this item was placed on the agenda based on conversations between a planning commissioner and a board member and the overlapping of discussion items at their meetings. Chairperson Olson said this came up in the annual report to the city council. One of the items the CDRB would discuss in the upcoming year would be to review the parking regulations. Chairperson Olson said in a discussion with a planning commissioner they said they would also be discussing that. She volunteered to go to a planning commission meeting to discuss what the CDRB reviews for parking. She would like someone from the PC to discuss with the CDRB what the PC reviews for parking. Ms. Finwall wasn't sure what the final decision was at the PC meeting. The recording secretary said she thought staff was going to compile a list of items the PC had concerns about asked if city staff for the CDRB could do the same. Then the two chairpersons could have a separate meeting to discuss the items rather than trying to get a joint meeting together between the PC and the CDRB. Ms. Finwall said she would follow up on this and bring it back to the CDRB at a later date. X. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:20 p.m. MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: DATE: Greg Copeland, Interim City Manager Shann Finwall, AICP, Planner Comforts of Home 2300/2310 Hazelwood Street May 3, 2006 for the May 9 CDRB Meeting INTRODUCTION Project Description Mathew Frisbie of Frisbie Architects, Inc., representing Comforts of Home, LLC, is proposing to redevelop two lots located on the southeast corner of Highway 36 and Hazelwood Street (2300 and 2310 Hazelwood Street). The two lots currently contain the vacant Auto Glass store and an electrical contractor's office. The proposed use on the 3.025 acre lot will be a 42-unit, two-story, assisted living facility. The facility will also include memory care, respite care, and a hospice facility with 24-hour, on-site homecare staff. (Refer to the applicant's narrative and plans - Attachments 1 throu9h 12.) Requests This proposal requires the following land use approvals from the city: 1. Comprehensive land use plan change from business commercial (BC) to high multiple dwelling residential (R-3H). 2. A conditional use permit (CUP) for a multiple dwelling planned unit development (PUD). 3. Design review. The planning commission recommended approval of the comprehensive land use plan change and conditional use permit at their May 1, 2006, meeting. The community design review board (CDRB) should make a recommendation on the design elements of the project including architectural, site plan, landscaping, and lighting. DISCUSSION Operations There are currently two Comforts of Home facilities operating in the Twin City Metropolitan area, Blaine and Hugo, and one in Hudson, Wisconsin. The applicants discuss the Comforts of Home operations in the attached narrative (Attachment 1). In summary, Comforts of Home is an assisted living and memory care/Alzheimer community designed to assist those needing mild to high levels of personal care. The facility will have 42 private suites, a large kitchen, group dining/living/activity areas, and a beauty shop. Each suite has a private bathroom and a separate bedroom/living area. Some of the units would have kitchenettes. The facility has 24-hour, on-site home care and nursing staff. The facility will provide the residents' meals, housekeeping, and laundry service. Land Use The property is guided as BC in the city's comprehensive land use plan map. In order to construct a multiple-dwelling building as proposed by the applicants, the property must be reguided to multiple dwelling residential. The city's comprehensive plan allows for three levels of densities within a multiple dwelling land use designation including low (R- 3L), medium (R-3M), and high (R-3H). The city's comprehensive plan does not clearly address assisted housing, but for density allowance purposes staff used the senior-only housing calculation. Densities for senior- only housing within each of the comprehensive land use levels is based on a calculation of the number of people per unit and the lot size, rather than the number of units per acre. This allows for slightly higher densities due to the fact that seniors tend to have less people living within one dwelling unit. The R-3M land use designation would allow up to 36 units on this property. The R-3H land use designation would allow for up to 62 units on this property. The applicants are proposing 42 units, and therefore the property must be reguided from BC to R-3H. The reguiding of this land from BC to R-3H for the Comforts of Home development meets the criteria for a land use plan change as outlined in the attached land use resolution (Attachment 14). Zoning The property is zoned BC. Within this zoning district multiple dwelling residential uses are allowed with a CUP. The property can remain zoned BC for this development, as long as the applicants obtain a CUP from the city for the construction of the multiple dwelling residential use (assisted living facility). The proposed Comforts of Home facility should meet the nine standards for approval of a CUP as outlined in the attached CUP resolution (Attachment 15). The applicants are also requesting that the CUP be approved as a PUD. A PUD is requested to allow flexibility from the city's codes in order to produce a superior development. Areas of flexibility to be discussed include reduced parking, reduced parking space width, and reduced unit floor areas. Highway 36 Improvements The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) has been planning for the reconstruction of parts of Highway 36 starting in 2007. Chuck Ahl, city engineer, states that there were originally several reconstruction plans being considered by MnDOT for Highway 36 in this location including widening Highway 36, constructing a pedestrian bridge over the highway, closing off access from Hazelwood Street to the highway, or constructing an interchange at the Hazelwood Street/Highway 36 intersection. It is unclear at this point if MnDOT has the funding to do any reconstruction near the 2 Hazelwood StreeVHighway 36 intersection. Mr. Ahl's best estimate is that the Hazelwood Street access on the north and south side of the highway would be closed and there may be a need for approximately 10 to 12 feet of additional right-of-way from the Comforts of Home property for the widening of Highway 36. The applicants are aware of these possible roadway construction scenarios. Hazelwood Street/Sidewalk Chuck Ahl also states that Hazelwood Street is set for improvements in 2009 in the city's capital improvement plan. The street improvements would probably include curb and gutter, with several on-street parking spaces in front of the property. As has been the city's policy in all new or redeveloped sites where warranted, the city should require that the applicants install a sidewalk along the entire Hazelwood Street frontage of the lot. The sidewalk would need to be six feet in width. Since the city does not know the exact layout of the improvements, a sidewalk installed this year with this development may need to be torn out and reconstructed in 2009. For this reason the applicant should be required to submit an escrow for the cost of the sidewalk to be constructed by the city in 2009. Noise Minnesota Rules, Chapter 7030.0030, states that the local governmental unit has to take all reasonable measures to ensure that the state noise standards have been met. There is a valid concern that the location of a residential facility in this location would violate state noise standards due to the vehicle noise from the highway. For this reason, city staff recommends one noise mitigation condition to include a 6 to 8 foot high berm with evergreen trees planted on the sides and top. The berm should be located on the north end of the lot, wrap around the northwest corner, and extend along Hazelwood Street for a short distance. In addition to the condition of adding a berm, the applicant should provide the city with verification that the assisted living facility will meet state noise standards. This can be accomplished through a study, testing or other documentation. If the noise on this site is a factor, then the applicant will have to construct the facility so it meets the standards. This may be done with thicker walls, heavier windows, requiring air conditioning or other sound-deadening construction methods. Traffic Three of the nine neighborhood comments received were in regard to concerns about additional traffic. These concerns came from neighbors on Sherren Avenue. Representatives of Comforts of Home state that none of their residents will drive and that in their existing facilities they have five to six visitors a day, six daytime staff and three evening staff, and food is delivered twice a week. This is minimal traffic compared to the traffic that would be generated from other permitted commercial uses that could be built in this location. 3 Tom SOhrweide, manager of traffic engineering services with Short Elliott Hendrickson, gave the traffic counts on the proposed use and three other development scenarios (trips per day = one vehicular trip to Comforts of Home and one vehicular trip leaving Comforts of Home in any given day): 1. 42-unit assisted living facility: 68 trips per day (10 employee trips per shift, 8 delivery trips per day, 20 visitor trips per day). 2. 10,000 square foot office building: 110 trips per day 3. 5,000 square foot office building: 55 trips per day 4. 5,000 square foot retail use: 220 trips per day With these comparisons it seems clear that the traffic concerns are unwarranted, particularly for neighbors on Sherren Avenue. The only additional traffic that these neighbors should experience is an occasional stray vehicle from the facility, as most of the traffic from this facility will be on Hazelwood Street or Cope Avenue. Parking City code requires two parking spaces per residential housing unit. One of the spaces must be enclosed. Comforts of Home is proposed with 42 housing units, therefore 84 parking spaces are required per city code. Comforts of Home are proposing 25 surface parking spaces. The applicant is requesting that the city authorize the reduction of 59 parking spaces as part of the PUD. The applicant's rationale for such a large reduction is the fact that none of the residents will have vehicles and the only parking needs they have will be for their employees and guests. In their current locations they state they have five to six visitors a day and six daytime and three evening staff. Twenty five parking spaces should be more than adequate for this parking need. The city's two existing assisted living facilities (Lakeview Commons - 1200 Lakewood Drive and Homestead at Maplewood - 1890 Sherren Avenue) were approved with parking reductions. Lakeview Commons has 100 units with 62 parking spaces and Homestead at Maplewood has 62 units with approximately 40 parking spaces. In addition, the reduction in the number of parking spaces will reduce the amount of impervious surface on the property. City code requires parking spaces for multiple dwellings to be 9.5 feet wide by 18 feet in depth. The applicant is requesting that the city authorize the reduction of parking space width from 9.5 feet to 9 feet. This width should be adequate for the use of the parking spaces by the employees and visitors. Unit Floor Area City code requires that multiple dwelling units maintain at least 580 square feet in area for an efficiency or one-bedroom unit. The unit sizes proposed at Comforts of Home includes units which are 221 to 360 square feet in area. The units are smaller due to the fact that they only include a private bathroom and separate bedroom/living area. Some 4 of the units have kitchenettes. The residents will have access to the on-site kitchen facilities and living/common areas. The applicant is requesting that the city authorize a 359 square foot floor area reduction in the required unit floor area with the as part of the PUD. Wetland The pond located to the east of the property is called Knuckle Head Lake. This is a Class 4 designated wetland. City code requires an average wetland buffer of 25 feet, and a minimum buffer of 20 feet to the delineated wetland edge. The proposed building will come within 25 feet of the wetland at the southeast corner of the building, and exceed the 25-foot setback in all other areas of the building. The Ramsey Washington Metro Watershed District has reviewed the preliminary plans and has no major concerns with the development. Conditions of approval should include that the applicant install wetland buffer signs which indicate that no mowing, cutting, or building is permitted within the 25-foot buffer and that they obtain a permit from the watershed district. GradinglDrainage Michael Thompson, civil engineer, reviewed the grading and drainage plan and submitted an engineering plan review (Attachment 13). In summary, Mr. Thompson is requesting additional storm water pretreatment measures by the use of rainwater gardens and also the submittal of a maintenance agreement for the infiltration basin. Mr. Thompson also points out that the applicant's site plan does not match the grading and drainage plan. Revised plans showing all engineering conditions of approval will be required prior to issuance of a grading permit. Design Review Site Plan The building and parking lot meet all required setbacks. A revised site plan should be submitted, however, which matches the proposed grading and drainage plan and reflects the required berm on the north side of the property. Buildina Desiqn The building is 27,055 square feet overall, with 13,795 square feet on the upper floor and 13,260 square feet on the lower floor. The exterior of the building will have a cultured stone veneer wainscot and brick veneer on the first floor and Hardipanel board and batten vertical siding on the second floor. The building will have asphalt shingles and Hardishingle in the false dormers. The building is attractive and will be compatible to the surrounding residential uses. Tree Preservation/Landscapina The city's tree preservation ordinance requires the replacement of all large trees removed, but in no case does a developer have to replace more than ten trees per acre. A large tree is defined as a tree with a diameter of 8 inches at a 4-foot trunk height, 5 except for boxelders, cottonwood, and poplars. There are 70 large trees located on this property. With the development, 26 of those trees will be removed. The property is 3.025 acres and based on city code requirements the developer would have to replace all 26 of the trees removed. The landscape plan includes 29 replacement trees as follows: 21 evergreen trees (2 Austrian pine and 19 Colorado spruce) and 5 deciduous trees (2 Patmore ash and 3 sugar maple) and 3 ornamental trees (3 spring snow crab apple). In addition to the trees the landscape plan includes 6 dwarf winged euonymus, 16 scandia juniper, and 22 magic carpet spirea. Following are recommended changes to the landscape plan: 1. The Colorado blue spruce should be changed to black hills spruce. 2. The landscape plan should reflect the required 6 to 8 foot high berm. The berm should be planted with the black hills spruce on the sides and top. The trees should be planted 15 feet on center (approximately 20 to 25 trees). 3. Plantings should be shown in the infiltration pond and rainwater garden. The plantings should include pre-approved native seed mixtures. 4. The landscape area called out on the main floor plan in front of the entry canopies (sheet A2) should be reflected on the landscape plan. 5. A planting bed should be included in the interior of the loop driveway (in between the driveway and the road). 6. Two additional sugar maple trees should be planted along Hazelwood Street. 7. All landscaping (excluding landscaping within the infiltration basin and rainwater garden) must be irrigated. The landscape plan must reflect the location of all required underground irrigation sprinkler heads. 8. All disturbed areas must be restablished with turf. 9. The applicant must take all means necessary to protect the large trees on the property during construction of the facility. Lio hti no City code requires that a lighting and photometrics plan be submitted with this type of development. The plan should show that the light illumination at all property lines does not exceed .4 foot candles of light illumination and that the height of freestanding lights are 25 feet or less. The plan shows two freestanding lights located on the west side of the parking lot and seven wall pack lights located on the east side of the building. The architectural style of the downcast lights matches the building design and will be an attractive design element to the site. The light illumination at all property lines is .0 foot candles, which exceeds city requirements. However, the height of the freestanding lights is not specified and should be included on the plan. 6 Dumpster Enclosure City code requires trash and recycling dumpsters to be screened. The applicants propose to screen their dumpster and recycling with a 140 square foot building located on the northeast side of the parking lot. The building will be constructed of cultured stone and hardishingle notched panels. The building will match the design of the main building. Siqns As part of the PUD approval the city should require that all signs be approved by the CDRB. No signs have been submitted with this proposal, however, the site plan does show a freestanding sign located along Hazelwood Street. This sign, and any other proposed signage, must be approved by the CDRB prior to issuance of a sign permit. OTHER COMMENTS Police Department: Lieutenant Michael Shortreed has the following comments and suggestions for the Comforts of Home development: 1. Construction site thefts and burglaries are a large problem affecting many large construction projects throughout the Twin Cities metro area. The contractor should be encouraged to plan and provide for site security during the construction process. On-site security, alarm systems, and any other appropriate security measures would be highly encouraged to deter and repot theft and suspicious activity incidents in a timely manner. 2. Appropriate security and exterior lighting should be provided and maintained in order to assure that the entry to and exit from the facility is readily recognizable and accessible. 3. Appropriate staffing should be available to assure that residents with Alzheimer's disease do not walk away from the facility, especially with a state highway (Highway 36) being located just north of the facility. Building Department: Dave Fisher, building official, has the following comments and suggestions for the Comforts of Home development: 1. The city will require a complete building code analysis when the construction plans are submitted for a building permit. 2. Provide public restrooms. 3. Provide adequate fire department access to the buildings. 4. Contact the state fire marshal office to verify any regulations they may have for assisted living facilities. 5. The building is required to be sprinklered. 7 6. I would recommend a preconstruction meeting with the contractor, the project manager, and the city building inspection department. Fire Department: Butch Gervais, fire marshal, states that the building must have a sprinkler system (per code) and a fire alarm system (per code). RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Approve the proposed comprehensive land use change resolution attached (Attachment 14). This resolution changes the land use plan from business commercial (BC) to high multiple dwelling residential (R-3H) for the properties at 2300 and 2310 Hazelwood Street. The city bases these changes on the following findings: a. This site is proper for and consistent with the city's policies for high- density residential use. This includes: 1) Having 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, town houses, manufactured homes, single-family housing, public-assisted housing and low- to moderate-income housing, and rental and owner-occupied housing. 2) 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. 3) The city will continue to provide dispersed locations for a diversity of housing styles, types and price ranges through its land use plan. 4) 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. 5) It is located off an arterial street, on a collector. 6) It is located near a park, open space, and wetlands. 2. Approve the conditional use permit resolution attached (Attachment 15). This resolution authorizes a conditional use permit for a multiple dwelling planned unit development within the BC zoning district. The multiple dwelling development is a 42-unit assisted living facility at 2300 and 2310 Hazelwood Street. Approval is subject to several conditions as outlined below: a. Have the engineering department approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall comply with all requirements as specified in the city engineering department's April 25, 2006, engineering 8 plan review including, but not limited to, the installation of a six to eight foot high berm with evergreen tree plantings on the north side of the lot (adjacent Highway 36) and the submittal of an escrow to cover the cost of constructing a six-foot wide sidewalk along the entire Hazelwood Street frontage. b. All construction shall follow the plans date-stamped March 27, 2006, with revisions as noted in this approval. The city council may approve major changes to the plans. The Director of Community Development may approve minor changes to the plans. c. The applicant must provide the city with verification that the assisted living facility will meet state noise standards. This can be accomplished through a study, testing or other documentation. If the noise on this site is a factor, then the applicant will have to construct the facility so it meets the standards. This may be done with thicker walls, heavier windows, requiring air conditioning or other sound-deadening construction methods. d. The project is approved with a parking reduction of 59 parking spaces (84 parking spaces are required per city code, 25 parking spaces proposed). e. The project is approved with a 359 square foot floor area reduction in the required unit floor area (580 square foot units are required per city code, 221 to 360 square foot units are proposed). f. The project is approved with a 0.5-foot parking space width reduction (9.5 foot wide parking spaces are required per city code, 9-foot wide parking spaces are proposed). g. All signs on the property must be approved by the community design review board. h. The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of city council approval or the permit shall end. The city council may extend this deadline for one year. i. The city council shall review this permit in one year. 3. Approve the plans dated stamped March 27, 2006, for the 42-unit, two-story, assisted living facility (Comforts of Home) to be located at the southeast corner of Highway 36 and Hazelwood Street (currently 2300/2310 Hazelwood Street). Approval is subject to the applicant doing the following: a. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. b. Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit, the applicant must submit to staff for approval the following items: 1) Revised grading and drainage plan which meets all requirements as spelled out in the April 25, 2006, engineer review, including the 9 installation of a 6 to 8-foot high berm on the north and northwest side of the lot and the submittal of an escrow to cover the construction of a 6-foot wide sidewalk along the entire frontage of Hazelwood Street. 2) Revised landscape plan showing the following: a) The Colorado blue spruce should be changed to black hills spruce. b) The landscape plan should reflect the required 6 to 8 foot high berm. The berm should be planted with the black hills spruce on the sides and top. The trees should be planted 15 feet on center (approximately 20 to 25 trees). c) Plantings should be shown in the infiltration pond and rainwater garden. The plantings should include pre- approved native seed mixtures. d) The landscape area called out on the main floor plan in front of the entry canopies (sheet A2) should be reflected on the landscape plan. e) A planting bed should be included in the interior of the loop driveway (in between the driveway and the road). f) Two additional sugar maple trees should be planted along Hazelwood Street. g) All landscaping (excluding landscaping within the infiltration basin and rainwater garden) must be irrigated. The landscape plan must reflect the location of all required underground irrigation sprinkler heads. h) All disturbed areas must be restablished with turf. i) The applicant must take all means necessary to protect the large trees on the property during construction of the facility. 3) Revised lighting and photometrics plan which shows that the height of the freestanding lights do not exceed 25 feet (measured from ground grade to the top of the lumen). 4) Watershed district approval. 5) Building material samples. 6) The owner shall combine the two properties into one lot for tax identification purposes before the city issues a building permit. 10 7) 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. c. The applicant shall complete the following before occupying the building: 1) Replace any property irons removed because of this construction. 2) Provide continuous concrete curb and gutter around the parking lot and driveways. 3) Install all required landscaping and an in-ground lawn irrigation system for all landscaped areas. 4) Install all required outdoor lighting. 5) Install wetland buffer signs which indicate that no mowing, cutting, or building is permitted within the 25-foot buffer. d. If any required work is not done, the city may allow temporary occupancy if: 1) The city determines that the work is not essential to the public health, safety or welfare. 2) The above-required letter of credit or cash escrow is held by the City of Maplewood for all required exterior improvements. The owner or contractor shall complete any unfinished exterior improvements by June 1 of the following year if occupancy of the building is in the fall or winter or within six weeks of occupancy of the building if occupancy is in the spring or summer. e. Signs are not approved with this design review approval. All signs must be approved by the community design review board before installation. f. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 11 CITIZEN COMMENTS Staff surveyed the 64 surrounding property owners within 500 feet of this site for their comments. Following are the nine replies received: Supports the Proiect 1. Roy Pogue, 1516 Cope Avenue (telephone conversation): Okay with the use. It looks like a nice building. They should attempt to save as many trees as possible. Aren't they concerned about the vacant house across the street? 2. Mary Diebel, 1509 Cope Avenue (written response): Great idea - sounds good to us. Please keep us informed. 3. Bee and Houa Moua, 1531 Viking Drive East (written response): I feel that this is a great idea. Living across the street will give us a pleasant view. Comforts of Home will be a great building to replace the two old buildings. 4. Robert Dunkel, President of Maplewood Park Shores Townhomes, 1626 Cope Avenue (written response): Comforts of Home will be a great asset to the City of Maplewood. We welcome Comforts of Home care center to our neighborhood. 5. Eugene Morisset, 1526 Sherren Avenue (written response): I think Comforts of Home would be a welcomed addition to the neighborhood. Opposes the Proiect 1. Dennis and Kaye Norbeck, 1502 Sherren Avenue (written response): We are in opposition to this being put at this location. There is a daycare center (licensed daycare) directly across from the proposed facility on the corner of Sherren and Hazelwood on the southwest corner. The traffic that will ensue will be more than the street of Sherren Avenue is able to handle. We feel that the space (area) proposed for the Comforts of Home is inadequate for its future residents to walk outdoors and or exercise. Therefore, we are sure that there will need to be improvements for all the residents to take a walk! That means upgrading Sherren Avenue with possibly sidewalk and curbing. We will have the staff and visitors from the Comforts of Home going up and down this block long street at all times of the day and night. We then will also have to contend with the ambulance and other emergency vehicles that will be needed for residents of this facility and the noise that they create at all times of the day and night. There will be a need for sewer, water, street maintenance due to increased traffic flow and who is going to get hit with these assessments??? We, all the people on Sherren Avenue!!! Of the residents on Sherren Avenue, one half of them are retirees on fixed incomes. We moved here in 1967 and very much enjoy the quiet one block long street and the neighborhood. This will have a great impact on this neighborhood! 12 2. Richard Low, 1511 Sherren Avenue (written response): I am totally against the development. I have major concerns about the safety of my neighborhood. Parking and unwanted extra traffic on my street will disrupt my quiet close-nit street. I think it will also bring crime and aarbaqe and trash to our yards and street. 3. Violet Gallion, 1494 Sherren Avenue (telephone conversation): Concerned about additional traffic on Sherren Avenue and about existing traffic on Hazelwood. Concerns with the Proiect 1. Mary Jo Freer, 2255 Hazelwood Street (telephone conversation): There is a lot of traffic on Hazelwood and Highway 36. Her concern is for that type of use on those busy roads. What if someone from the facility wanders out and walks into traffic? The use doesn't bother her in general; it just seems as if it should be located somewhere else. 2. Robert Carye, 2291 Hazelwood Street (telephone conversation): Mr. Carye and his wife do not directly oppose the Comforts of Home project, but have concerns over the reduced parking and impacts to the wetlands. 13 REFERENCE SITE DESCRIPTION Site size: Existing Use: 3.025 Acres Vacant Auto Glass store and an electrical contractor's office SURROUNDING LAND USES North: South: East: West: Highway 36 and Single Family Residential Beyond Cope Avenue and Sherwood Park Beyond Knucklehead Pond (Wetland) Hazelwood Street and Single Family Residential Beyond PLANNING Land Use Plan Designation: Zoning: Business Commercial (BC) Business Commercial (BC) Criteria for CUP Approval Section 44-1091 states that the city council may grant a CUP subject to the nine standards for approval noted in the attached conditional use permit resolution (Attachment 15). Criteria for Land Use Plan Change There are no specific criteria for a land use plan change. Any land use plan change should be consistent with the goals and policies in the city's comprehensive plan. 1. The land use plan has eleven general land use goals. Of these, three apply to this proposal including minimize land planned for streets, minimize conflicts between land uses and provide many housing types. 2. The land use plan also has several general development and residential development policies that relate to this project including: a. Transitions between distinctly differing types of land uses should not create a negative economic, social or physical impact on adjoining developments. b. 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, town houses, manufactured homes, single-family housing, public-assisted housing and low- to moderate-income housing, and rental and owner-occupied housing. c. Protect neighborhoods from encroachment or intrusion of incompatible land uses by adequate buffering and separation. 14 3. The housing plan also has policies about housing diversity and quality that the city should consider with this development including: a. 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. b. The city will continue to provide dispersed locations for a diversity of housing styles, types and price ranges through its land use plan. c. 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. Criteria for Design Review Section 2-290 of the city code requires that the CDRB 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 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. 15 Application Date The complete application and plans for this proposal were submitted on April 11 , 2006. State law requires that the city take action within 60 days of receiving complete applications for a land use proposal. City council action is required on this proposal by June 10, 2006, unless the applicant agrees to a time extension. P:Com-DevISec10\Comforts of HomeI5-1-06 PC Memorandum Attachments: 1. Applicant Narrative 2. Location Map 3. Land Use Map 4. Zoning Map 5. Address Map 6. Site Pian 7. Grading Plan 8. Utility Plan 9. Tree Preservation and Landscape Plan 10. Exterior Elevations 11. Main Floor Plan 12. Second Floor Plan 13. Engineering Plan Review 14. Comprehensive Land Use Plan Change Resolution 15. Conditional Use Permit Resolution 16 Attachment 1 Comforts of Home is an Assisted Living and memory Care/Alzheimer Community designed to assist those with mild to high levels of personal cares in a warm, home-like environment. Our suites offer private bathrooms, a separate bedroom area and living room with a tea kitchen that includes a sink, refrigerator, and microwave. Our community provides a cozy and secure setting that ensures independence, dignity and safety. Comforts of Home is focusing on needs not being met by other assisted living and memory care communities. We offer a higher level of care and service to our residents so we can reach out to those in nursing homes that are not in need of 24 hour skilled care. Weare filling a gap in the continuum of care by fulfilling the needs of those caught between traditional assisted living and those individuals requiring more extensive care. Many traditional assisted living communities will not admit residents that need extensive levels of care. Comforts of Home would like to fulfill this niche that is needed. Residents at Comforts of Home can enjoy their private suites and retain their independence, while also enjoying the peace of mind that comes with 24-hour assistance. Comforts of Home is a proponent of aging in place. As a resident's frailty level increases, we work with family members to provide or coordinate the necessary health care resources. Our philosophy, staff training, and the use of community resources are geared to allow residents to remain in our home-like setting. At Comforts of Home, we think you should only pay for the services and care you need. Our rates are competitive and much lower than a nursing home rate. It is important to us at Comforts of Home to meet the needs of seniors or people under the age of 65 who are on the Elderly Waiver or CADI program. Therefore, we work closely with the county on these programs. Our rates are mostly inclusive and the include your personal cares, 24 hour on site home care staff, Registered Nurse and LPN support, caregiver respond system, all meals, housekeeping, linen/laundry, monthly suite rent, all utilities and cable. We also have our own staff of physicians working with us at all of the communities. Our buildings are designed with residents' comfort and needs foremost in mind. We offer cozy sitting areas for socializing with friends and family. Each day in our community there are planned activities to meet individual needs - music, exercise, outings, entertainment, reminiscing and sensory stimulation. Social activities and events are offered throughout the day by our activity coordinator, so it is easy to make new friends. Family is very important at Comforts of Home, we invite and encourage them to participate in activities and support groups. Our philosophy is to provide quality care to each resident at a competitive price with a personal touch. Our buildings are small and intimate which creates a cozy, comforting feeling. We value the relationships we build with our employees and the communities by creating stable, rewarding and good paying jobs, which in Maplewood, we expect to be at least 30 professional employment opportunities. Attachment 2 lu- ".~J\~j~ j '~~.----I '--l 'I,' IC:J~u! -:-~.J II ~_JI],L~iC!,=-"j I :J .J_ il\/.-'j\ IL_ ! i . 1'l.:;r I,. .'-- q,- ---:2 LJ ~i 'Il) _ (;:r1f " '-c _ _;;_-.=J I --~Bi!1 -D~ ~ I,~ ::-:;;l'-)i'>'~"_--'-: J",-.J II \J .: -- RU I I tf -- J i,l; c;''-; '_~ ",_.7 ';~j - '0"__ ..I'II-J'rl ~'::',,:;~ lJl;l-c~ _"-J__l-..-:.~_rl"--'-_':J, 1Ic]..~cJCJILip""b k{ " 1e."I'i, , " . ,'I :0- I. Dill', i:J ,j1'J-~dl ...... I ' ,.:] - : tlJl -PL?l" 'J '.y '-', -t.:J__P::J I --r, ~ 1".:;J'j -- 1 '=L ~-cn] , i(-l'c'JIJUIC'C'rJF:::JeJ. ;::,1,-"': 1=-..--' - __,:1.' I~.wr.-": . '.'-- ':I-!,I~ _"'-\_'~\."\ -,"i"J ,/ -" I -- 'I~) -...J. .....', .... .' : -. . ,I l II -'L ,-----.J . >' v~ ; -'! ~ I\]' -- ,: -Cl D 1-' 1:- bL1=P'lllFLi:j U I I-.J I.:J ; -u"! _ ';., ..J j J ~ "c_ 'IU ~j'lj-b 0 cl'JIII~'. I ,.e, '011 I ,,'" ,,:;~ Ll.' 1- Ic::r '",,',_- - 1, - ,I~"\ _,J,J,D"J J-c' !Il,?] u, :D!"' " \j\O:J~C;Jjd5..'I,j.~=,.,c"u81'J"U~'UP'i,C;j -.___ !"c..t'fPI".".D'.C.CDCF..'D. ,'UII,.':-'C'b'~"',\Y)F,',. I~!i- i~ . ,.'1. I" c _".1 'r, ," ,. :'IIO,kt,_)~'?uJdl',PL,"";,;ljld'''L'icH~U' 1-.-1 ,,--'.J!~_c_, ,-J / ,1_ ::::J-J~rrL.:::.c.l[ '1! I'J=:JI=-~--,IC::l/..:::::J111 'I '-- I _ J' J ' L.":-"I r _.1u r..--,"-~n........r-; .Ji L-J - 111- )c_jc~~lu_,~p./, )1~1?'C;cf""-) ! i' 2300/2310 Hazells~:.,.d/ ".:.t:~ ' C" _,~il! a" c- ,Hi9~~.~ 'J3!1~" I I r -- ~!~ij"Bpl) . g I c:J~0 I J; ~ 'J.cil--'"- I I. !UU~ !.' D!D!~fJ';'l',l~?;1 ClII'-~~ ~n~'~~lUl ~ c ,) ,",,)c1]l)J;.I~ - ~,~ !e --I C I ) ~ "J :J I , ' [J -'1.0 [J D 0' ".';c 'm = ~HD1' U U c'" ,,~_uu, 1,__ I _1::1 J ] ~.:,u ~ : ;~".l ",.__,...._ _. i-' 'I ! 'J".::.d::JJ::J !l~:---;--:.'-JJ ~L{~.J"~'~t C,)-.::.JL..--17J,:,j U ~ i I.. [J._, _ !Li~ _ _ c ? ~U5 I ; I. J',LJ~.~, '--J:' _' ~ ' "':' ,J'l~luq' CJ. I "~:]_"' "1",_"1111 !~ucl]f~~(1'!Q:_~I)I:=,~~~' Ju i-:~l-' , IIIJ:\Ju'~~U~; il'l '~~I~~I: ':i . ~ "'-"_ ,_J -L " ,- -~ -' , !'-::::J,t;JLJJ:::J "J, ,,~!,':_-:!pLr:;...J" WlLL'4 _ . i -". I ",J" l2.'e;;~' ,lot r -' J ~-, _~ 1 L~ CJ"~,"--.'~~I:O :::=ll .::J ',I=~JILJ.LJ :::..JLJi'J -=-'1 ',.T.=J ~ J d IJ ~ :W'"IL-;J - , l. 'I Ju ~1,!:JcjG~' ) ,!~':I) I I' '=1 _-:J Il ,! !., ','I G~! ~/ ),' Lc UCC ' 1--, - L- I'! ,"lr--.h -,-,? " N w ~J~ ~~~ E Location Map s Attachment 3 I '-'I ~~J ~~ c=::J.'_ I' ',I ;1 ,,1 I ' i _~__~J ~.J I_TJF"~-.!i,l!~.) I, I '1"I'~:~~,"~~bl"[::l~i'1 I -:J=IF-_~'~'I! II __L-'I~ I[ ~'.--1 Land Use Map 'I ' I, I il ~:I:\I~ I,_,~ t_" II I, 2300/2310 Hazelwood streetl. . .' - c, . -I ~' l~__:\\ III \" r--Ir-\-n f:-l~'^'..l~~, Sherren Avenue -, J. ,r-~~-I,J-;-::Ii[~~_l _I ;l-,'----V-~] ~J ! I ' I " ~. _I I 1_- r~-I,II~ - I ~l-J I I ~- I: I 1_-1 riLl - 'I $ ~",~ , '"0 18 3= IQ) j M " ' r', '~ CI I I I, -- i,- i I ;I,--~ -ii' -'- " II 'If:', .,l --pi-- " I ;,,,, .olJ l'IJ I I -- 'I '-~ land Use legend _ Business Commercial (Be) _ Limited Business Commercial (LBC) _ Light Manufacturing (M-l) _ Park (P) Single Dwelling Residential (R-l) _ High Multiple Dwelling Residential (R-3H) N w ~J~ ~~~ E s e_ 11 f"' c I I' Highway 36 Cope Avenue Attachment 4 1'1 C-I'--';-=--Y'q:--:J,--li~I~J Ii I. i- I,. I _I II \[~-"I-l !-lL~~'[_~'~W~J -:-1~' 2300/231 0 Hazelw~od Street~ =J I']'J,- iJ?}: I~~'_,I 0 i I '-li~JbJhC:il=C1vC::;' : c D ~ [J , . nn - p "' - i" _ _ -L-, _"' !in_ I' I \'.'i--;J ~,! i fen I n"J, L::'l ~I/'- l-'j='::Jic:::J,Dr-",i. I' i 1--1 ~I--;J IlJj::J !'I:J i I I I I..i .1 ... -, " " I ~II;' "10 : P [] I I -,.---, (L--,----'lJ , I i~~ ,__, i, . " I Highway 36 ::-Tl I] -, 1'-' i ':: Ii I- e c- !'-;;, C:::,'::iJ ~I i-"~ "<~ , IN J '~'J I~l, "ICO i,o,",_ ,~ _-I I . - I _.n I ,!t1', - -'[] D 1', I I 'I".--J 11 ~~ I J,_::, i I :_~-C-'f--!TI c. ____.-::JL__l[IC'l-:? r~I'=J ~ Sherren I Avenue , ['.J h_'I-' 'IF,]j G LI -J"'J~_ IJ - t1 l_1 L ~- , " II __1''''11 I....... ,.._, L , ~I 'I :'11 , . ,"- 11' , Uj JJ I ~I,-I",- ....1.", ','I l ---, I i i 0 '-1 L-' !J I I r ; '" Zoning Legend _ Business Commercial (BC) _ Light Business Commercial (LBe) _ Light Manufacturing (M-1) Single Dwelling Residential (R-1) _ Multiple Dwelling Residential (R-3) N w E Zoning Map s o 0 Attachment 5 [f09 ~01 - 0 - D 2Qo ciJ [lJ cT L ~ GRANDVIEW AVE LJL' <( cc ~5 2 ~9 2&J ~ ~O~lP~ ~ ..- ...... ...... ...- ...... o o ro ID ~ a ro ~ ~ 2B J:J#J ~ c:3o ~o [jO C3;jJ o >0 (J B3 o o @l3 ODD ~E!:J~ctJc!c::!~dD ..... ..... ....... ..... ..- ..... ...... l- (/) ~ ....J () ~ ~ ~cP I~ I c!OciJc:!J I ~ o o ~cpC{J"'C!JC:P~4J ...... ........- .....".............. SERVICE RD I GERVAIS AVE '" <!J OCJC!J D ~ocf <!J ~ N , "' <D .... , 2Ef ~ C3J q G 0 n 0 w r:;:; ~ W clJ "' '" '" ~ ~ ~ ~ ~\CERD HI\:*twftY ~~ CJ O<.:J1S o ~5 . (/) o @p7 5 () a:: ~ ;i3 ~ ~ o co iJ ~ ] COPE AVE ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ct co cio ~ [j o 0 o o o 0 o ~ Em N CID c1J D(J U ...- ...- ...... ...- ..- ...... ...... CilUJ", ~ ~ ~ LARK AVE r! c:!J cbJJ ~ cj ~ ~~ 000 ] 0 tJO~ O~It=J~b ~ ~Oc::tD r- .................. ..... ..... ..- ...... LAURIE RD ,i,~~ o !J ~ ~dJ ~ ~9 o 0 o o o {) 0 wO ~ Address Map , 23~ 2240 6~~ V~" .~o 0)>0 >...,~ ~I"'TI 1110 ~'" 0-1 0(1) 00 (1)"11 =l:t: 1110 ...,~ rill )> z Attachment 6 "' :t: III '" '" III Z }> < III Z C III .'] o HAZELWOOD STREET o o o \}) III }> < III Z C III --~ .~. P---* (-~--:'--;;O'--;'~ING i~n.. _ \ _ ~ 30'-0' ~L.O~'~TUC~ I '<"'-' ~ " . .I...................'''.!':,,-,/ v' t /............. I, r/'/ /:.......~~~ 1(" " , ,"- II I " ......." If I " pr'''........ I r ~p'"... ~'i , ...... '''''....'''11' J '..... '''';'-.. , -..... ........ I : - --~~:i:::- ! , I ~ 1: I : ':::..:--'...... :1 : I ""'",", II 1 I .......... ,,\. I 'U' , l' "'0. " i : 1_________________ ___________~'.L.~ I 1 " "- I I , , I I \ I , \ \ I I \ \ \ \ I I I I I I I I '&.ill __- (\i) €j) , , ' , , , , , , nO'.O' .R.I.S.B.I.E ,~, ,.~~ ,S" ,,,~...,,,~,,,!, "'''~'''.S ",.T,,,,,~ [I~~~II Ill!11 ,,, 01,1 1;'1 .,1 I nnil~1 'I~ I e~: ;.::;.,", II 10 POST '~"~~""E"T -< I 3C" "'" -I r:::j ~; - ~ 1~~I\n\ 1\ II; I :~I ~ ~ ~.~ ~ I Ie "".',, ;.. 0 .:; m ~ ~,%. ~~~ ~ ~~i I~ '//~ ~~: 5 "<<''^ - ". '''~''i y. t~ ~ ~ y. ~~ 1 8~ ' 8~ . ~ II J ," , Ihll , . '" ~r n o~ a; " ; i.! 0 "l~ I~' ~ ~e! T z Q... ~~ , ~i ~lI: ; !Il Ii ! II ~ '" ,,~ i"e c !/l, ~! 'I ! I n =' "Ii . , 0 ; , I z I" i' , ~ '. " z II -< ; T '" I . >- z \i . ~ n . ~ \ 110"'0.'.., - J/'~/lOI)6 O3,]7p", I g ~ ~~~j I ~i ~U~~~~~; ~I!: ~i~P~; ~~~~ _a ~~i m~ ~1~!~~~HI,~~~gi! e~~~ o~ ,!",U.6 . ~~ ~>cchg .~~ c I "01 0 , I' j' "~~~ ~"Il :;! :1',,,., l'i; 'I'l'i' :!I: II II;! i j,! ,jl,! II!! ~i;i H ~~i,I~~~; il~; !;i~i;~ :!i n ~Ij~ ~ j~ d U~i~ ~iai h~~ ~: ~ala~l~i i~~~ ~~;~~h Iii ~~ !~~~ ';oi~~~m'~dj ~A:~ \l~ i~'~~"~ i~~,~ 2hl~!~ ~~l ~!l~ . ~,~ I i~ ~~ !H":~ a>f !lie," ',i ~~~!~~;~ ~~~~ ~~~ ~~! ~~il ~!'l ~~~ i ~~ U~l) ~ ~i~~ ~~ ~~~~::~~l !~~~ ~!.~l~ ~;~ .~i ~~I ~ ~i ;~ .;~H~~; .~~. "~ ~~~~~+ ~q ~b.~~ g~! c o. ~~J:; ao~ ~.~ ~; ~~~a s~.~ J;~!i, ~ ~i~~a;l~ ;!h ~}:~;i ~~l~~ .i~:~ l~~ ~t<l ~ ~~ i i ~dgU l~~ ; l~~I~~i ~ ~aa. l~~hl. ~" ~,~~la !~~ :~la ~ ~~ ~~ ~!~~ iil;ii 7~ 'i:~ ~~i'.; U~~ .,~~~~ ~!~ ~~~~ 0"1 t:la ~~! ~~ ~a~~ ~~ ~ S~l ~z~~~ C i- ~~~ o~ ~w~ ieiH ,f~ ~~~ ~ ~ n ~h~~! " ~~~ ~~ ~\i~ ~ ! ~\i.~~t ~~~ L~~. ~~ ~i ~ i I 'II ! ' ~~j ~9ll~ .~. gt~;~~ ~h;~~~i 5~ ~ il"" ~ > 0 l l ~ 9~18~ a" ~ o3~5 \i5) " ;: ,,~ ~ <~ t:;;;~ I ~ J R H'II I :::","::.".:,~;.,.. ames . I, nc. ;?:-~_~ .:::-:~. PLANNERS / ENGNEERS / SURVEYORS $~"I"~' -- .....""........,...-,....... _V,.<7 ~- ,..- __ ,..........11..... ___ .~-=.aIl>IIl..."o---"l!L ~1_""'..l>OIl>R-"" ~ 1 ~; ~ I' I),~ "j,~~ ~r~ f2" ~ , -+- I ~ I ----i ')~- { ~,,/ l '\l~( )> -: L IX 1 , 1 ,Je R; ~ .!.'C"'ii: > ." " " ,0 ~. , ; '. ~~~ "" ~;>.~ ~~8 -+-+I!1 ~ ~ z o ---1 '1 o :::0 'O<"'N ..~[ ""''''' , 'I~jj III () o z (f) ---1 :::0 C () ---1 o Z i~~ ~~~ ~ i o ". ~; 0, c , " ~~ ~ i . ~ COMFORTS OF HOllE WN'I..ElOQOO."INN!;rolA GRADING & EROSION CONTROL PLAN FRISBIE ARCHmcTS, INC. 21~"O.TI<SECON>S1llEET.$lJITE2"....'<EIlrAIJ.s...~1 Attachment 7 -~. , ~ ::~".~, .~ --- ;> - t' -,~,., ~TRI:*~' ~, __1_Lc.....!.1~.YLI ..Y-=-:::'" ---,~'.<-~1---- 1-.. . ~~ ~~ e~ 1 , I ~ ~~ . :<~>,'~,' . " ,.!. ~z ~, '-" \. " \ ~ P ~ '- ,..........\ I,>, ~~~ ~. ~ , '. '/' ", , (~~l~\ ! '.,. ! ' I, , 1\'1 1\' !I : II: '! - v z 'lJ :::0 fTl I :5: z )> :::0 -< I I ~l[!;\JD j I @ . " . bi2iJ i I , j I I ~ 0 ;:2:nl , '"",'^ q~ , ""0 ~ , c:<j~~ i ~ 'il" I ~g l\i~ , ~~i c" ",no , ; 0,> . - ~ "0. ~~~ ~ ! 00 i 0 ^<< i ~~ ';iH <! ; 00 0 Z ~ I I I J , I' ,>, , 0 , il~ II f'i : I. .jll"'", II! ", 'II "'" I, '. """" ~ , 'Ii I z 0 ---1 , '1 \J d 0 ::::0 ::::0 rrl () ,- 0 ;;;: z - z (j) )> ---1 ::::0 ::::0 C --< () ---1 0 Z , ~~~~ ~~ S~zi~~~ "p - z <=1'; o ~ " ~ t:!~ ;g, 'i ~;;I . ~ "ii V Z . ~I n , li,~ , 'If/ ~ . C--- 0 I ~~ - I I a lill n I!ii~ . 11-- \ \ \ \ \ +- , m_~'~,~~". ,_1::_::8_:,_:~:~~ , , , m '0 ~~ 00 U ~;g ., ~i ~g '" ~~ ~~ ~~ , . I I D;i j' 01 ,', I ~ !" 'iIIi'" "'" 1'1 t!iil'l 'jl'I' I. i. i~ ""'1'1 IUi, I!li j; m~ i~ ' . ~l~' 'II : I,... .'",' ,. .. j, '~r ! ; 'il' 'I",;f I. il. .... 'I ',', . . ~I " ! : :"1 h 'I ,'I'" I i;U ~ ~ q~ l! ~ : ~. ; t! i::! II '1 ! ~ ~ . : '" ' , .1 , ,,,;, ~ ~ ~ "il g i;1~~ l; S S S ~~2i OOlol"",,,, ~ ~~~!~~ ,.,-<miliz"' ~ ~ ~ '" ~ > '" ~ ~ ..'...... .~..-'\--" "'j'" Attachment 8 I 1 1- ;l~ I, , ~ ~~ t II: I z ~ ~ ~ , . II' n 1111'; '11~;li 'Ii'i im II!'I' ~ I h! !11 !i:!i ,ili:i !"!i; ~1!3: ~ li"!'A :lil ii!;jJlilll!i!1Iji II H''';!II ,j'II"Hli,! '!;il" 1.111'1' 'I"!' '1"11,1' I, I"! . i '~I~ < 'I: ~I 'III ~;l: '. ~ ~ if! l.. Ii ll'~ II' ~!.i I "j"l!j!11 !Il' ",, 1'1' .1," "il '1"'1 ,,I,: 'II. 'I' I'l' I il " 1'~~!1 :iI"! I j! ~~! 1'1 ! 1'.1,'"" " '1"'j",1 ' ~ !I lj~~al IJ! i ; tl i . COMFORTS OF HOME ~"cElIOO<I. """""'>TA UTILlTY PLAN FRISBIE ARCiirrEcTS, INC. 2t~"""1HSEC(INOS""H.5U,,,.,,,,,",,,,,.F~"''''''' r~:::'.1 ~ James R, Hill, Inc. ";;:""".';':::: ~:-;;'~. PlANNERS I ENQNEERS I SURVEYORS ""..._to. "::ft~f -- ....."".....-,... -... """ """'-,..- ...- ""......,............- ,,~=ao:II....."..->lliL """'{lO>llI>-"" '''l1'OIl.....oro ')~ ~a .. . , I ~,~ I ~l' Ii.< ~7. : .0::1.. ~.".-"., I s' ". J::[]":.~. . ~ 'j'> '. '" "....,: ~1 ~ ~ , W. " P"" I"'"~ ~"'i'!" " 1'1,1 'II 11,ltl :. I" I! "I 11 -"'111- l!~ Po ~ J~ i~ IIO"IW,I"'"'' '. ","Ii :!II . .... ~ I l II:' , ''ol;1 'I~l I i! . 'I 1 'i_1 ~II~ ,. I' ~ -,;,- "'," .' ; 1106'fP'~ _ '(15(lQ06H'FM Attachment 9 " / / -----~ < '--- <<~ ----- \ I I " , J7 , , Z " ~~;!!:i ~ ~~< ! .;~~ s~ - I ~~i~; ':1 I'" ii'H""il i~' ~~~~ ~, Ji~~ I"li a~<~ "~i!~ ~~ ~ iH~:H!~ H~~ ~'Uh ~:;; Q Q ~ a~u II illi i~ iU~ i f l~ dl Ii! 'I~~ r'in~ !~~~" u~ ~l<'~ !!~ I~U!i!! &'~II ~ '" ~ u~ _,,~~ l~' ~ ~.! ~2>..~ d j!~~ ~~~u~ ~!~_~! j; ~i:~ ~~ ~;:~..i ~~~ ~;n ~I~~~~ ~l~~ ~~~ ~~~! if pg~h ~h ~~~~ ~aa,> a g~ t~~ il~~ ~{"g~~.~ g~~ ~!~! ~!i;; ~~M ~:~ f~!i~ iiI ~~;~i~! ~~~ i~l~ h 'a ~~a~ ~p - ~~ ~'~~~~~ 1M ~~~~ ~~i~~ ~~i~~ i~; ;;:~ ~~ i;~!~; ~:~ ~~;~ ;i~~~ ~ii~ ~~! ~~d ~~ ~h~l~ ~~~ +~ ~n~~ ~~ ~ ~~. ~i'", l~ :~~'il Q~S ~~~~ . " ~ > ~< o~. ~ ~. 0 f. ~~< ~:~~ F~~h ~t~ !~i ~a~; ~~ ~!r G~ ~~~~ ig!H 2~~S ~I !~~ ~e ~!~! h h;i i~~~~ ~~i~ I ,!~ ~2 i!~l!;~ ~~ '!~ q~2~~ ~ f' ~>~ 2~ ~ ~ ~l ~ ':; ~OO!~ i~~~ ~ i~~ ~l ~~b~ ~ > ,~i1 Q ~t~~ '~ ~~~ ~'iI. ~ "~ ~,. i~~'~ lr! Of .~~' ~ I' ~ ~ ~ ~~ I ~! ~ ~; ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ e ~ ~ ~,,~,~ 00 ~ ~:; ~; ~ ~ ~ J ~ !lli iIf ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ J~" ~! ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~'~ ~ ~ l:!l~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~,,~;1" $ n II ~ ~; ~ U ~. f~. ~.: ~ ~o II ~ ll; ~; ~!! U ~ ~ ~; U II ~ U ~"5ll:; ~ ell; ~; Ii II ~~! oooo....................m...........m...o.<>......................1 ~_~.".e..~."~"o. ..~..~...D"".."."~ . ,,~,,~ ,0'""":':1 ,; ".. ~ ~ ;:; .. . " ~. >. ~., ~ >. ~ ~.. ~ ~ > ~ ~. ~ ~ ~. ~..~ ~. ~.. ~ ~ ~ > >, > >.>! ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ > > > g ~ q'" I ~ g" ~ ~ Q'.. ~ ~'!I cr;;~t ~t~H'i~~ .a~~~\iiHit~<~~~~~;;.~_ He ~H iH~.. fHn~. ~ H .1<0 h ~... . ! , ~UI.E\fOXO, "'NHBOlA ....mm.m. ............1 ......m.. ......... I D ~ ~~e~~~!f~c. . :!l ~..,o :!! ~J;;:::1ii ~~ ~~~; ~~ p " g t!~ ~ ~ "";;1 "Z I ~ COIIFORTS OF HOllE TREE PRESERVATION & LANDSCAPE PLAN FRISBIE ARCHm:CTS, INC. 2'~NO"TI<..CONlslREn.suIIT'O<.IlIw:",AU.s...~, .- 'Z :ll ;1 I.. .X j~ o " .. ; ~ ~ i ! i j 1 ~ i- i t3J1 J lDJJ -TI . EEl . -- i ~ .' --]. EEl !! EEl ~ Ii ~ ~ ! Ii n if~! l!i 0" ~~ ! p I! il II !! I ll;' H !!,I , Attachment 10 .- ~~ ~~ l~ " ~ .. ~ i ~ W ! II , .1 I jl i ,! o , , ~ ~ II T' 1111,1, d!'l" j 11 i I' . !jl ;; Ii i BJ]~ ~ .R.I.S.B.I.E ARCHITECTS "..,....""..,,,,,.....,,,,,,,",.,,.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, lllj! 1::1 "I ." .1, .- EI :'" '" i~ ,. ~ " " ~ 6~~ 'V':! . : :!~~ "l: :1.1 .' j~ 1~ I! i~~~ ,. . 'I ;;j; 'j,' il':',' I", : i ~:..:", " I' 'I ~ '. ii " ~ . ;! . i .. "",-,,, ';"'1 UU t: ~~ ". ~i"Jt Ii; ~~ ",. ' ?II '. j! I!I l! I 1!1 " '.1 I t i i ", i 1 P ~ I- I I ,I ." :!I'l :1; ! "1 I- ;.... i ~J~ ~ I" ~~ 'l,"; .1 'I! :~ Ir I" , 8 I . '" " ~ 111111111 ~ ',I !I 8 ~l I" z ,'I ill !i, Jl " ,'. , . .~ il Ii Ii II I; I; , " I! '" I,' .. ~; E~ ..... ~:': i~ o z Ii 'I' I,; l"l ll!~ I: ,;! ~ II 1'1" I " ' . i' IlInil~; .R.!.S.B.!.E ARCHITECTS ,,,,,.. ". "',..,,,,,,,...... "",ft.."",,,,, ""''','''' Ii! II ll..1 ! j! 'd '''! I" i'l I" 'I !ili;}jll, ~ $ ~ ~i ~ii1 ~ ~i II , l , . , / II 1 1 I ! Ii ! 'I I I. . -~~ -~ ~.. ~ ." ~ .... " ~ '" ili " ~ o z t Ulittt~!! IIIII !M 1;'1 II! I i ~ :iQl ~ [!i] ~: [!i] , a ! II ~ ii c [!i] , a 101 ~ il [!i] i i ~I ~ .1 , . [!i] ~ !I ~ .~ i . a i9l 101' 6.~~ [!i] <;:;7,1 i :~ ;z " <.- !g I", ~ I,; ! IInn,! Attachment 11 ~l . .R.I.S.B.I.E ARCHITECTS "'.,,. "",..,,,,,,,,,,.,, ",,,.,'''''''''''''''''''''' II:"~II Illi! !::I !iil ~~ ~ Illnil1i ~- ... ~i . ... Ii ~ @); , e , . @l , ~ oo! : ' ~l '[g] !~ @l T, I, ~ w: , . [g] J .R.!.S.B.!.E ARCHITECTS ",. '0' h.",''''',..,",,,.,, ,,,,,h.'"'''.''''''''''.''''''' Attachment 12 D D !i! D D I I I I I I I I I Illl! 1.1, d" "'I ,'I d, Attachment 13 Enl!:ineerinl!: Plan Review PROJECT: Comforts of Home PROJECT NO: 06-06 REVIEWED BY: Michael Thompson, Maplewood Engineering Department DATE: April 25, 2006 The developer is requesting City approval to redevelop two lots located on the southeast corner of Highway 36 and Hazelwood. The developer shall make the changes to the plans and site as noted below and shall address the concerns listed below. Drainage & Storm Water Treatment I. The City encourages the use of rainwater gardens as additional storm water pretreatment measures. 2. The Nurp pond shall have a safety shelf@ 10: 1 starting at the normal water elevation since the normal water depth is greater than 2' . 3. In the case the Nurp pond is not utilized, rainwater gardens throughout the site may be used as pretreatment for runoff prior to entering the infiltration basin. A berm will be required as noted under Miscellaneous, Comment 2 on the next page. The Nurp pond may need to be eliminated or moved in order to provide space for the berm. 4. A 3' sump shall be installed just prior to drainage entering the infiltration basin in order to capture excess sediment. 5. Soil boring information in the approximate location of the proposed infiltration basin shall be submitted. 6. The overflow elevation of the infiltration basin needs to be shown. 7. Provide information on the establishing of vegetation within the infiltration basin (seeding and planting). Rock sumps are required within the basin along with deep rooted plantings in order to provide better infiltration and treatment. See Maplewood Plate No. 115. 8. The plan must clearly show where the roof drainage is flowing and how it is being treated. 9. The wetland delineation by others needs to be more specific and include the delineator and the date of wetland delineation. Grading & Erosion Control I. The engineer shall provide information about addressing fugitive dust particulates. 2. For the construction entrance pad, please callout Maplewood Plate No. 350 on the plans. 3. All disturbed areas by grading shall be restored. Please address how all disturbed areas will be restored (i.e.... seeding, topsoil, and sodding). 4. A permanent type erosion stabilization mat (Enkamat or equal) shall be installed from the overflow point of the infiltration basin to the receiving waters. This defined overflow path shall be clearly defined on the plans. 5. Temporary sedimentation basins need to be shown in order to catch sediment laden runoff that may occur during the grading phase before turf is established. Landscape I. The applicant shall include additional information in the landscaping plan for the pond and infiltration basin areas to include pre-approved native seed mixtures. There is no mention of turf establishment in these areas. Utilities I. Submit plans to Saint Paul Regional Water Services (SPRWS) located at 1900 Rice St, 2nd Floor for their review and approval. 2. Plans shall conform to any conditions generated by staff at Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District. Miscellaneous I. This is assisted living facility is for those in need to specialized care and traffic would mainly reflect employee trips. This type of facility should see little in the way of traffic as compared to a two story office building but the applicant shall provide a brief analysis on traffic movements and expected daily trips. 2. A 6-8 foot berm with planting on top shall be a condition for noise mitigation. Other requirements may still be required. The berm shall be located along the north end of the lot and wrap around the NW comer and extend along Hazelwood Street for a short distance. 3. The front sheet of the plan set does not match the rest of the sheets (the storm water retention pond location is different). Make appropriate changes to make site layout identical throughout the plan set. 4. A maintenance agreement for the infiltration basin will be required and must be signed prior to approval of plans. 5. The developer shall ensure that all construction activities conform to Maplewood's standards by entering into a Development Agreement with the city. A sidewalk along the length of frontage shall be required and build per Maplewood Plate No. 110. The City would require an escrow for the cost of the sidewalk. Attachment 14 COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN CHANGE RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Maplewood Comforts of Home, LLC, applied for a change to the city's land use plan from Business Commercial (BC) to High Multiple-Dwelling Residential (R-3H). WHEREAS, this change applies to the property at 2300 and 2310 Hazelwood Street in Maplewood, Minnesota. WHEREAS, the legal description for the two lots is: Parcel A: The North 200 feet of that portion of Lot 9, E.G. Roger's Garden Lots lying Southerly of the right of way of S.T.H. No. 36-118. Except that portion of the above described tract conveyed to the Village of Maplewood by Quit Claim Deed recorded May 21, 1981 as Document Number 1798958, Ramsey County, Minnesota. Parcel B: Lot 9, lying South of centerline of Highway 36 except the North 312.5 feet thereof, E.G. Roger's Garden Lots, subject to a road. WHEREAS, the history of this change is as follows: 1. On May 1, 2006, 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 everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The planning commission recommended that the city council approve the comprehensive land use amendment. 2. On May 22, 2006, the city council discussed the 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 approved the above-described change for the following reasons: 1. This site is proper for and consistent with the city's policies for high-density residential use. This includes: a. Having 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, town houses, manufactured homes, single-family housing, public-assisted housing and low- to moderate-income housing, and rental and owner-occupied housing. b. 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. 1 c. The city will continue to provide dispersed locations for a diversity of housing styles, types and price ranges through its land use plan. d. 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. e. It is located off an arterial street, on a collector. f. It is located near a park, open space, and wetlands. The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on May 22, 2006. 2 Attachment 15 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Maplewood Comforts of Home, LLC, applied for a conditional use permit for a planned unit development to construct a 42-unit, assisted living and memory care, facility within the Business Commercial zoning district for a development known as Comforts of Home. WHEREAS, this permit applies to the properties at 2300 and 2310 Hazelwood Street. WHEREAS, the legal description for the two lots is: Parcel A: The North 200 feet of that portion of Lot 9, E.G. Roger's Garden Lots lying Southerly of the right of way of S.T.H. No. 36-118. Except that portion of the above described tract conveyed to the Village of Maplewood by Quit Claim Deed recorded May 21, 1981 as Document Number 1798958, Ramsey County, Minnesota. Parcel B: Lot 9, lying South of centerline of Highway 36 except the North 312.5 feet thereof, E.G. Roger's Garden Lots, subject to a road. WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: 1. On May 1, 2006, 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 everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The planning commission recommended that the city council approve the comprehensive land use amendment. 2. On May 22, 2006, the city council discussed the 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 conditional use permit, because: 1. The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be in conformity with the city's comprehensive plan and code of ordinances. 2. The use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area. 3. The use would not depreciate property values. 4. The use would not involve any activity, process, materials, equipment or methods of operation that would be dangerous, hazardous, detrimental, disturbing or cause a nuisance to any person or property, because of excessive noise, glare, smoke, dust, odor, fumes, water or air pollution, drainage, water runoff, 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. Have the engineering department approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall comply with all requirements as specified in the city engineering department's April 25, 2006, engineering plan review including, but not limited to, the installation of a six to eight foot high berm with evergreen tree plantings on the north side of the lot (adjacent Highway 36) and the submittal of an escrow to cover the cost of constructing a six-foot wide sidewalk along the entire Hazelwood Street frontage. 2. All construction shall follow the plans date-stamped March 27, 2006, with revisions as noted in this approval. The city council may approve major changes to the plans. The Director of Community Development may approve minor changes to the plans. 3. The applicant must provide the city with verification that the assisted living facility will meet state noise standards. This can be accomplished through a study, testing or other documentation. If the noise on this site is a factor, then the applicant will have to construct the facility so it meets the standards. This may be done with thicker walls, heavier windows, reqUiring air conditioning or other sound-deadening construction methods. 4. The project is approved with a parking reduction of 59 parking spaces (84 parking spaces are required per city code, 25 parking spaces proposed). 5. The project is approved with a 359 square foot floor area reduction in the required unit floor area (580 square foot units are required per city code, 221 to 360 square foot units are proposed). 6. The project is approved with a 0.5-foot parking space width reduction (9.5 foot wide parking spaces are required per city code, 9-foot wide parking spaces are proposed). 7. All signs on the property must be approved by the community design review board. 2