HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/27/2006
AGENDA
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
Tuesday, June 27, 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: June 13, 2006
5. Unfinished Business: None Scheduled
6. Design Review:
a. Legacy Village Townhomes - County Road D and Kennard Street (Legacy
Village Development)
b. 5-8 Tavern and Grill Parking Lot Expansion - 2289 Minnehaha Avenue
c. Mounds Park Academy Comprehensive Sign Plan - 2051 Larpenteur Avenue
7. Visitor Presentations:
8. Board Presentations:
9. Staff Presentations:
a. Planning Commission and CDRB Duties
b. Community Development Tour - July 31, 2006
c. Sign Code Update
d. Community Design Review Board Special Projects
e. CDRB Representation at the July 10, 2006, City Council Meeting - Design
Review Items to be Discussed Include Legacy Village Townhomes and the 5-8
Tavern and Grill
10. Adjourn
DRAFT
MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA
TUESDAY, JUNE 13,2006
I. CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Olson opened the meeting with an informal discussion at 6:12 p.m. while waiting
for Board member Hinzman to be present for a quorum. The CDRB meeting was officially
called to order at 6:16 p.m.
II. ROLL CALL
Board member John Hinzman
Vice-Chairperson Matt Ledvina
Chairperson Linda Olson
Board member Joel Schurke
Board member Ananth Shankar
Present at 6:16 p.m.
Present
Present
Absent
Absent
Staff Present:
Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner
Lisa Kroll, Recording Secretary
III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Mr. Ekstrand requested moving the Design Review items 6. b. and c. to items 6. a. and b. and
make 6. a. Maple Leaf Ridge Business Center Comprehensive Sign Plan item 6. c. and
request the addition of the Landscaping Plan for the Maple Leaf Ridge Business Center to item
6. d.
Board member Ledvina moved to approve the agenda as amended.
Board member Hinzman seconded.
Ayes - Hinzman, Ledvina, Olson
The motion passed.
IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Approval of the CDRB minutes for April 25, 2006.
Board member Schurke was not present for the meeting but called the recording secretary with
changes to the minutes on pages 7 and 17. On page 7, first paragraph, after the words Arden
Hills add he believes. In the fourth paragraph reword the paragraph to read Board member
Schurke said the point is that there is a lot of light pollution and any additional lighting causes
problems whether it comes from signage or lighting. On page 17, delete the sixth paragraph
because it's a repeat of the motion made on page 18 and is unnecessary to state the motion
twice.
Chairperson Olson moved approval of the minutes of April 25, 2006, as amended.
Board member Ledvina seconded.
Ayes --- Ledvina, Olson
Abstention - Hinzman
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 6-13-2006
2
The motion passed.
Approval of the CDRB minutes for May 9, 2006.
Board member Schurke called changes into the recording secretary because he was absent
from the meeting. On page 7, fourth paragraph, fourth and fifth line, change the words
continuation to attenuation. In the fifth line, change the word instrl,lstional to structural.
Board member Hinzman moved approval of the minutes of May 9, 2006, as amended.
Chairperson Olson seconded.
Ayes - Hinzman, Olson
Abstention - Ledvina
V. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
None.
VI. DESIGN REVIEW
a. Ramsey County Library Comprehensive Sign Plan - Southwest Corner of Legacy
Parkway and Southlawn Road (Legacy Village)
Mr. Ekstrand said Jay Biedny, project manager for this proposal with Ramsey County, is
requesting approval of the signage plans for the proposed Ramsey County Library in Legacy
Village. The planned unit development (PUD) approval for Legacy Village required that the
applicant submit a comprehensive sign plan.
The signs proposed are all tastefully done and meet city sign code requirements. This proposal
also complies with the city's proposed sign ordinance amendment. Staff recommends approval
of this signage proposal.
Board member Hinzman asked if there were any conditions along with the recommendation?
Mr. Ekstrand said no, staff felt the signage was appropriate. He said Shann Finwall had
checked to see that it complied with the proposed ordinance and it does comply.
Board member Hinzman said he noticed a sunset clause provision for another sign permit that
stated it was approved for a 2 year period and if nothing occurred during that timeframe it
would need to come back for another review. He asked if that was a standard condition or if
that was only pertinent on the one permit that he had seen.
Mr. Ekstrand said that is not a typical condition put on by staff. The CDRB may have gone
through many sign approvals without his knowledge but he did not believe the city typically put
a sunset clause on sign permits for proposals.
Chairperson Olson asked what the symbol of the cartoon character representing a person
sitting reading a book meant and if it was a Ramsey County symbol or if the symbol was only
pertinent to this library?
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 6-13-2006
3
Chairperson Olson asked the applicant to address the board.
Mr. Tim Karl, HGA Architects, addressed the board. He said the symbol you referred to is an
official Ramsey County Library logo. The sign would be cut out of metal and backlit.
Board member Ledvina moved to approve the comprehensive sign plan for the Ramsey
County Library date-stamped May 15, 2006.
Board member Hinzman seconded.
Ayes - Hinzman, Ledvina, Olson
The motion passed.
b. Comforts of Home Comprehensive Sign Plan - 2300/2310 Hazelwood Street
Mr. Ekstrand said Brian Winges of Comforts of Home is proposing signage for the new
Comforts of Home assisted living facility to be developed on the southeast corner of Highway
36 and Hazelwood Street (2300/2310 Hazelwood Street). A requirement of the conditional use
permit for Comforts of Home is that all signs be approved by the community design review
board (CDRB) prior to issuance of a sign permit.
Chairperson Olson asked with the proposed roadway improvements to Hazelwood Street and
Highway 36, would either of those improvements along with the proposed sidewalk affect the
placement of the sign?
Mr. Ekstrand said he would anticipate that the requirement of moving the sign back would only
be a benefit to the Comforts of Home site.
Chairperson Olson asked the applicant to address the board.
Mr. Mark Paschke, Frisbie Architects, 215 North 2nd Street, Suite 204, River Falls, Wisconsin,
addressed the board. He said he understands the sidewalk would be placed in the right of way,
beyond the property line, along Hazelwood Street, and there are no issues. There is no
problem relocating the sign outside of the required visual triangle, and Comforts of Home
would have to wait for the road improvements to be done to see if it would be affected or not.
Board member Ledvina said sign A is an asymmetric sign and he wanted to make sure that the
elevation the CDRB is looking at is actually the east elevation of the sign, not the west
elevation as shown in the diagram in the staff report.
Mr. Ekstrand said that's a good clarification.
Board member Hinzman said during the review of the original proposal he noted a 30 inch oak
tree on the site located off the southeast corner and he was wondering if the tree could be
saved or not?
Mr. Paschke said he didn't believe the tree could be saved due to the steepness of the grade
and where the footings would have to be placed. When you look up at the canopy of the tree,
the root structure in the ground is usually as large and that can cause problems for building.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 6-13-2006
4
Chairperson Olson said that's unfortunate that the oak tree cannot be saved.
Board member Hinzman moved to approve the plans date-stamped June 6, 2006, for a
comprehensive sign plan for Comforts of Home assisted living facility located at 2300/2310
Hazelwood Street. Approval is subject to the following conditions:
1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a sign permit for this project.
2. Sign criteria for the site include the following:
a. Wall sian: One wall sign located on the north side of the building. The wall sign is
limited to individual letters which are 18 inches in height.
b. Freestandina sians: Two monument signs to be located on the northwest corner
of the property (along Highway 36) and on the east side of the property (along
Hazelwood Street). The monument signs are limited to 37 square feet in area
and 8 feet in height for the Highway 36 sign and 8 square feet in area and 5 feet,
9 inches in height for the Hazelwood Street sign.
The monument signs must maintain a 100-foot setback from one another, a 10-
foot setback to all property lines, and must meet the required 25-foot visibility
triangle per city code for any sign placed at an intersection. The signs must be
constructed of cultured stone or other material which is compatible to the building
with internally-illuminated sign panels. The illumination from the Hazelwood
Street monument must be turned off at 10 p.m. nightly.
3. Prior to issuance of a sign permit, the applicant must submit the following to be
approved by city staff:
a. Revised site plan showing the location of the freestanding sign which maintains a
10-foot setback to all property lines and does not impede on the required 25-foot
visibility triangle.
b. Landscape plan showing landscaping around the base of the freestanding sign to
include low-maintenance shrubs and perennials.
4. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may
approve minor changes.
Board member Ledvina seconded.
Ayes - Hinzman, Ledvina, Olson
The motion passed.
b. Maple Leaf Ridge Business Center Comprehensive Sign Plan -
2475/2485/2495 Maplewood Drive
Mr. Ekstrand said Jim Kellison of Commercial Equity Partners is requesting approval of the
comprehensive sign plan for the Maple Leaf Ridge Business Center on Maplewood Drive.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 6-13-2006
5
Mr. Ekstrand said the business center is on the west side of Maplewood Drive (Highway 61),
between Acorn Mini Storage and the Hmong American Alliance Church. This project consists
of three office/warehouse buildings which are under construction. The code requires a
comprehensive sign plan when there are five or more occupants or tenants in a building or
development.
Board member Ledvina said he has no issue with the monument sign; he likes the design and
attractiveness of the buildings. However, he has an issue locating signage above the second
floor windows. There are very few examples in the City of Maplewood where there is signage
on second story buildings. Staff mentioned an example of second story signage would be
similar to the ReMax real estate building on County Road D. The signage on this two-story
building conflicts with the architectural detailing on this newly constructed building. There are
two brown bands of stone along the top and the signage would go into the banding and
aesthetically he thinks that isn't going to look good. He wasn't sure if it would be necessary to
reduce the size of the signage so it wouldn't run into the banding. Personally he would prefer
to eliminate the signage on the second story of the building altogether.
Chairperson Olson asked if there would be separate tenants in each of these two story
condominiums that warrant the need for signage both on the main floor units and the upper
story units?
Mr. Kellison said the signage would not be required above all the upper story windows. There
is a strong likelihood there would be second floor users which is why they have the mezzanine
space there. Signage on the second story would not be a solid block; the letters would have
50-70% air or light through where the letters would be. The two bands of color along the top
look like brick but are actually a flat concrete block and do not protrude. He said they have
received many compliments regarding the detailing of the buildings. There is a need for
signage on the second story and he does not know how to minimize the signage in order to get
it below that banding area for some users and still allow others regular size signage. He asked
that the CDRB allow him to have signage on the second story of the buildings.
Board member Hinzman said he would concur with the comments regarding limiting the
amount of signage on the site. This seems to be a "destination" site and you wouldn't be able
to see signage from the rear two businesses from Highway 61. You are going to drive into the
site, enter the building and go into the tenant space, so driving by the signage doesn't serve a
purpose and the signage would seem to detract from the fine architecture of the building. In his
opinion this would be a better-looking building without signage on the second story. That being
said, he was not sure what power the board had during the comprehensive sign review. To say
yes or no to signage in the different areas on a building, he would feel more comfortable
deferring that to members of the CDRB that have been on the board longer than he has.
Board member Ledvina said it's an issue with the architecture of the building. The CDRB
wants to accommodate the businesses and the developer. In terms of the individual tenants in
the buildings, the CDRB had an idea of what this building was going to look like when the
CDRB approved it, and when you plaster signage all over the building, that changes the
appearance of the building.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 6-13-2006
6
Mr. Kellison said because of the visibility of the signage along Highway 61 those spaces have
sold fast. Secondly, the signage does not exceed the square footage allowance in the
ordinance and in fact is considerably under the allowance. Thirdly, when they submitted this
plan last fall they had these areas designated as future signage areas so those areas have
been approved. However, they did not have the style of signage on the building nor did they
have the monument sign.
Mr. Ekstrand said he agrees with Board member Ledvina regarding his view on building
aesthetics but he also feels the need to create the opportunity for the tenants in the upper
spaces to identify their space in uniformity with the rest of the tenants. Sure there is going to
be instances where above the signage isn't going to be uniformly spread across the building
front. Even as tenants or occupants turn over there are going to be holes in the uniformity, but
that is often the case in multi-tenant centers as tenants change. Basically he is supportive of
signage for all potential occupants.
Board member Hinzman said the CDRB has spent a lot of time going through the sign
ordinance, and if he is correct, the new sign ordinance makes allowances for these types of
signs to be put up, and this would be one of the first batch of buildings to come in under the
new sign code, and he would be reluctant to say no to signs that meet the new sign code if
they meet the new requirements.
Chairperson Olson said she would agree. She asked if the association would be limiting each
tenant in the building to only one sign?
Mr. Kellison said they would not limit the number of signs but potentially that is something the
city could do during the sign permit process. If two tenant spaces were sold such as Gladstone
Windows and Doors who would require a few units, they may need more than one sign but
each individual buyer of the tenant spaces will have to come to the city and apply for their sign
permit, and the city will have to set the limits for the signage. He is not sure that they can say
that each business is limited to one sign. Gladstone would have four spaces here but he isn't
sure Gladstone would be requesting four signs. He said he is looking for direction here
regarding where the signage can go and what "style" the signs should be.
Board member Ledvina said he didn't recall seeing these designated signage areas on
previous plans when the original site approval took place but he will go back and look at those
plans. If that truly is the case, the CDRB does not review the signage at the same time of
architectural review. If that was really shown on the plans and the CDRB reviewed it without
any issues, it's not fair for him to say they should not be allowed to have signage on the
second story of the buildings. At this point he would vote against the second story signage
because it would run into the banding and he feels the building would look nicer without it.
Chairperson Olson said for the buildings on Highway 61 there will be a lot of visibility but for
located in the back they will be more hidden and their signage will not be visible for anyone
driving by.
Mr. Kellison said he would imagine the back two buildings would have minimal signage. One of
the users doesn't even want anyone to know he is located there, so he will most likely have no
signage. Mr. Kellison said another space will be for Gladstone Windows and Doors for storage
and may not have signage.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 6-13-2006
7
Board member Ledvina asked Mr. Kellison if he would be willing to have no signage on the
second story for building #3?
Mr. Kellison said he isn't prepared tonight to make that kind of decision. His guess is the back
building would be signed very minimally and probably wouldn't have illuminated signs because
there would be no purpose for that.
Board member Hinzman moved to approve the sign criteria for the Maple Leaf Ridge Business
Center date-stamped May 26, 2006, with the following revisions and conditions:
1. The monument sign is approved as proposed.
2. The allowed wall signage for building occupants shall be restricted to individual
channel letters. These letters must be mounted on a raceway to minimize
building damage. Raceways must be painted to match the building. The color
and style of lettering is not regulated.
3. Wall-mounted signs may only be placed above the occupant's windows on the
east and west sides of the building. Such signs are not allowed on the north or
south sides of the building. Sign height shall be restricted to a total height of 30
inches in the sign band above the occupant's front windows and shall not extend
beyond either side of the occupant's front windows.
4. There shall not be any illuminated signs on the west side of the west building.
5. Signs are allowed on service and garage doors. These shall be non-lit, individual-
letter signs (painted, adhesive-back of the like). The lettering height, style and
color must be uniform throughout the business center. Letter heights must not
exceed four inches. Lettering of this nature may be placed on the end elevations
on service and garage doors as an exception to that listed above.
6. Signs shall not be allowed on the entrance towers of the building unless the
applicant chooses to place building addresses there.
7. The applicant shall submit a landscaping plan providing for landscaping at the
base of the proposed monument sign since the new sign ordinance draft requires
landscaping at the base of ground signs.
Chairperson Olson seconded.
Ayes - Hinzman, Olson
Nay - Ledvina
The motion passed.
Board member Ledvina said he voted nay for the purpose of aesthetics and he doesn't
approve of signage on the second story of the building exterior. It's a beautiful building and he
is very happy with how it's turning out.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 6-13-2006
8
Mr. Kellison said hopefully Board member Ledvina will be pleased with the building signage
when everything is said and done.
d. Maple Leaf Ridge Business Center Landscaping Plan - 2475/2485/2495
Maplewood Drive
Mr. Ekstrand said Jim Kellison is also requesting approval of the landscaping plan. He
understands from the neighbors that the trees that were delivered to the site were only 8 to 9
feet in height and the conditions were for 12 to 14 foot tall trees. The city code requires trees to
be 6 feet tall. Staffs feeling is that the 8 to 9 feet tall trees do meet the city code but staff
welcomes the neighbors to speak.
Chairperson Olson asked the applicant to address the board.
Mr. Jim Kellison of CEP Companies addressed the board. He said the landscapers began
planting the trees before he realized he needed to come before the CDRB for landscaping
approval and that's why this was added on the agenda so late. He said there have been
several meetings with the neighbors regarding this proposal and most recently a meeting one
week ago. He said during the meeting last fall the plan was to plant Norway pines 12 to 14 feet
tall. Unfortunately because of the season we are in now, you can't plant coniferous trees when
they are candling or you could lose as many as 50% of the trees. When they ordered the trees,
they were told the trees were between 10 and 12 feet tall. The landscaper purchased the trees
and it turns out most of the trees are 8 to 9 feet in height according to the tags that were seen
by the neighbors. He personally has not verified that fact and so the trees may be between 8 to
10 feet in height or they may be last year's trees and have grown since the tags were put on
the trees. They want the screening to work for the neighbors and they want to make the
neighbors happy. The city code requires that the trees must be 6 feet in height. If they need to
plant more trees in order to get better screening, they will. The landscaper began placing the
trees incorrectly which has since been corrected. Mr. Kellison said he reviewed the
landscaping plan and where the trees would be placed on the berm to provide the best
screening for the neighbors. They are planting spruce, Austrian pine, dogwood, amur maples
and autumn glaze maples. They will also be planting river birch trees in the corners of the rear
property. After the landscaping is done if any of the neighbors decide they would still like a
fence built to help with the screening, they would do that for the neighbors. He said he would
have to check with their lawyer regarding the legality issues with a fence being placed on the
berm and if the neighbors want to maintain the fence. Once this project is done the units (sold
as condominiums) would be run by an association. They will also provide a sugar maple for
Tom and Missy O'Connor at 2506 Adele Street.
Chairperson Olson asked the neighbors to come forward with concerns.
Ms. Kathv O'Donnell. 2498 Adele Street. Maplewood, addressed the board. Mr. Kellison said
the trees were supposed to be planted on the berm and they need to be moved. She said
there are two trees on the southwest corner that are almost dead and she was wondering if
those could be replaced by the developer.
Ms. O'Donnell said she and her husband haven't decided if they want a fence, but if they
decide to have the fence, they would like it up on the berm.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 6-13-2006
9
Ms. O'Donnell said having the fence down on her property would not serve a purpose but it
would help screen from the businesses on the berm, and she said she would be willing to take
responsibility for the fence. However, she isn't sure how that would work regarding the legal
issues of the fence.
Ms. Missv O'Connor, 2506 Adele Street. Maplewood, addressed the board. Her main concern
is that the two rows of trees be planted uniformly down the berm. She said the neighbors want
somebody supervising the landscaping to make sure it is placed correctly. The trees would
have all been planted if the neighbors weren't outside watching and if they didn't make some
phone calls to get it done right. She understands that the city requirement for trees is only 6
feet tall, but they were promised 12 to 14 foot tall trees here, and now they are only 8 to 9 feet
tall which is quite a bit shorter, so they are disappointed with that. This is a two story building
and having 12 to 14 foot tall trees would have screened this area from seeing the businesses a
lot better. The homes in this area have decks on the upper level and people enjoy sitting on
their deck which is located above the berm and barbequing. It will be many years before these
trees are fully developed and screen the area the way the neighbors thought the trees would.
Chairperson Olson said she works with landscape architects and the one positive thing to
planting a smaller tree is that it has a better chance of survival. She was happy the developer
is planning on planting autumn glaze maple trees because they are very nice trees and she
would like to see more of that tree species planted in the city.
Board member Ledvina said he would like to commend Mr. Kellison for working with the
neighbors on this project and listening to their concerns regarding the building and landscaping
for this project. There are not many project planners that go to these lengths to try and make
the neighbors happy. Personally he doesn't think putting a fence on the berm is a good idea.
There are problems with tree roots, tree branches, and maintenance issues that come with a
fence.
Ms. O'Donnell asked regarding the trees in her backyard if there was a possibility of planting
trees in between the trees that are already there so there are two staggered rows of trees
closest to them?
Mr. Kellison said he would be out on the site Wednesday morning so he would check the site
over and be monitoring the landscaping being planted. His only concern is having too many
trees planted close together can cause tree roots competing and cause the loss of trees. The
landscaping contractor should be on the site Wednesday and he would defer this to him before
making any decisions.
Chairperson Olson said she echoes the comments made by Board member Ledvina. She is
encouraged by the fact that people are working together on this site and the challenges here.
Board member Hinzman said he would like to clarify the minimum height of the coniferous
trees. The board decided on a minimum of 8 feet in height.
Ms. O'Connor said she doesn't want a fence because she and her husband prefer the natural
look of landscaping and trees versus a fence. She thought the reason the fence was being
discussed was for noise protection.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 6-13-2006
10
Ms. O'Connor said once all the businesses are in place she imagines there will be noise
issues, then what will the neighbors do? Because the trees are not as large as the neighbors
were promised and are not full enough yet, it will be a long time until the sound is dulled.
Mr. Ekstrand said staff recommended that the dock doors not face the residential homes but
that was not well received by the neighbors. Meeting the 80% code is very difficult even though
it is the city code. The trees will grow and fill in and if there are noise concerns the neighbors
could call the police and then it would be an enforcement issue.
Ms. O'Connor said the reason the neighbors did not like that recommendation was because
that would move the buildings 100 feet closer if the loading docks were facing the other
direction and the windows of the building would be looking right into the windows of their
homes.
Board member Ledvina moved to approve the revised landscaping plan date-stamped June
13, 2006, for the Maple Leaf Ridge Business Center subject to the applicant providing a
landscape materials legend identifying all planting sizes and species. The coniferous trees
shall be at a minimum heiaht of 8 feet.
Board member Hinzman seconded.
Ayes - Hinzman, Ledvina, Olson
The motion passed.
VII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS
No visitors present.
VIII. BOARD PRESENTATIONS
a. Chairperson Olson was the CDRB representative at the June 12, 2006, City
Council Meeting.
Chairperson Olson said Carver Crossing of Maplewood was discussed for 2 hours and
then tabled until Thursday, June 15, 2006. Comforts of Home assisted living facility at
2300/2310 Hazelwood Street for a comprehensive land use plan change and
conditional use permit, which was approved by the city council.
Board member Ledvina said if there were any CDRB items to discuss at the upcoming
city council meeting he would volunteer to be the CDRB representative.
IX. STAFF PRESENTATIONS
Mr. Ekstrand discussed upcoming agenda items for the CDRB to look forward to.
X. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 7:22 p.m.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
LOCATION:
DATE:
City Manager
Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner
Legacy Townhomes
County Road D between Kennard Street and Hazelwood Street
June 20, 2006
INTRODUCTION
Project Description
The Hartford Group, the master developer of Legacy Village, is proposing to develop the
final segment of town homes at Legacy Village. The application is for 119 townhomes
which would be located on the south side of County Road D between Hazelwood and
Kennard Streets.
This portion of the Legacy Village PUD (planned unit development) was previously
approved for 96 town house units and an office building on a 1 Y:.-acre site at the
southwest comer of Kennard Street and County Road D. The applicant is now asking
for an amendment to the approved PUD (planned unit development) to build townhomes
on this office site as part of their town house development. Refer to the applicant's
narrative, the attached maps and the plans.
Requests
The applicant is requesting that the city council approve the following:
1. A comprehensive plan amendment to build town homes where the executive offices
were previously approved. The applicant is requesting a change from BC (business
commercial) to R3H (high density residential).
2. A revision of the Legacy Village PUD to allow townhomes on the site previously
approved for an executive-office building.
3. A preliminary plat to create home sites for sale.
4. Site, building and landscape plans.
BACKGROUND
July 14, 2003: The city council approved the Legacy Village PUD, comprehensive plan
amendment, tax-abatement plan and preliminary plat for Legacy Village.
Since the council approved the Legacy Village PUD, the following projects have been
approved or built:
. Heritage Square Townhomes (220 units)
. Heritage Square 2nd Addition (81 units)
. Wyngate Rental Townhomes (50 units)
. Ashley Fumiture (completed)
. Kennard Professional Building (under construction)
. Maplewood Sculpture Park (completed)
. Legacy Shoppes Retail (construction pending)
. Ramsey County Library (under construction)
. Seniors Apartment (120 units, concept approved, plan review pending)
DISCUSSION
Land Use Plan Change
Comoatibilitv of Uses
The proposed land use plan change from BC to R3H is not a major revision. The area
previously planned for the office building is 1% acres in size within this 12.49-acre site.
The office, furthermore, would have been an accessory use to the town homes if they
were rentals since it would have served as a rental office. The townhome units are now
proposed to be for-sale units.
Although this office site also fits the "mixed-use" concept of the Legacy Village PUD,
development of this parcel would be better suited as townhomes. Townhomes would be
more compatible with the surrounding townhomes than a commercial office as a
neighbor.
Densitv
The proposed density is below the previously approved number of units. The approved
PUD allowed a total of 198 units for the proposed site and the townhome site to the east
across Kennard Street (this does not include the Hr.-acre office site, however). The
townhomes site to the east (Heritage Square 2nd Addition) has 81 units and it was
approved for 102. The proposed site, without the inclusion of the office site, was
approved for 96 units, totaling 198 between the two sites. The applicants proposed 119
townhomes, in addition to the existing 81 units, which would total 200 units. These two
extra units could easily be absorbed into the 1 %..acre office site. By itself, if approved by
the council, the density of this 1 %-acre site as townhomes could have up to 15 units at
the allowed density of 10.4 units per acre. The two additional units, therefore, do not
pose a density concem.
2
Land Use Plan Chanoe Summary
In consideration of the compatibility of uses with the proposed change and with the little
affect on the overall density, staff supports the proposed comprehensive plan revision.
PUD Revision
For the reasons stated above, staff finds no problem with the PUD revision to substitute
the office site with an extension of the townhome development. The PUD conditions for
the rental townhomes and office/clubhouse must be revised, however, if the council
approves the change to townhomes for the comer office site. Staff has noted these
revisions in the attached PUD resolution at the end of this report.
Preliminary Plat
The applicant is requesting approval of a preliminary plat to sell the individual
townhomes. This is typical of such developments. Staff does not find any unusual
concems with doing so beyond the usual requirements for platting which include things
like the signing of a developer's agreement, maintenance agreement, the approval of
final grading/drainage/erosion-control/utility plans and the dedication of any necessary
easements that the city engineer may require. Maplewood Engineer, Michael
Thompson, reviewed this proposal and made several comments in his attached report.
Staff recommends that the city council require that the applicant comply with the
statements in Mr. Thompson's report as conditions of plat approval.
Design Review
Architectural
The proposed townhomes would be attractively designed and would be comparable in
design and materials to the other owner-occupied townhomes in Legacy Village. The
buildings would have rock-face concrete block foundations and horizontal-lap siding of a
fiber-cement material. The gable roofs would have asphalt shingles. Garage doors
would be metal with raised panels. A condition of the approval should be that any
exterior utility meters be screened in a decorative manner.
Buildino Setbacks
Building setbacks meet the reduced-setback concept approved for Legacy Village. The
PUD required a minimum building setback of 15 feet from street right-of-way lines. The
buildings meet this minimum setback.
Sidewalks
The applicant has laid the site out to accommodate pedestrian connections throughout
the development.
3
Visitor Parkina
The visitor-parking proposal meets the requirements of the PUD by providing one guest
space for each two units with at least five guest spaces within 200 feet of the front door
of all units. There is a problem, however, with width of these proposed spaces. The
spaces are proposed at nine feet wide. City code requires 9% feet. The site plan should
be revised to meet this city code requirement.
Soils
During staffs review of this site previously by Town & Country Homes two years ago, it
was brought to our attention that there were poor soils on this property. The proposed
building placement covers the entire site very uniformly raising the question about
whether this has been addressed or whether the soils are suitable for buildings, roads
and drives. Determining soil quality for construction is a function of the building
department's review when permits are applied for. The provision of a detailed soils
analysis should be provided to the building official prior to construction beginning on this
project. If poor soils are found for construction, corrective measures must be taken or
the site plan must be revised regarding building and possibly driveway placement.
Landscaoina
The proposed landscaping plan meets the direction of boulevard-tree spacing in the
PUD. The tree sizes meet code requirements. Staff recommends that the landscaping
around the rainwater garden at the comer of Kennard Street and County Road D be
considerably further developed. This is a key focal point to the neighborhood and there
is a terrific opportunity to accentuate this comer with a very attractive landscaping
element around this pond. The applicant should revise the landscaping plan for staff
approval. Likewise, the landscaping around the other ponds and rainwater gardens in
this development should be treated more attractively to make them decorative amenities
for the future residents of this townhome neighborhood.
RamseylWashington Metro Watershed District
The applicant must obtain all necessary permits from the watershed district before
starting construction.
Building Official's Comments
Dave Fisher, the Maplewood Building Official, had these comments:
. The city will require a complete building code analysis when the construction plans
are submitted to the city for building permits.
. All exiting must go to a public way.
. Provide adequate fire department access to the buildings.
. All buildings over 8,500 square feet must be fire sprinklered.
4
. I would recommend a pre-construction meeting with the contractor, the project
manager and the city building inspection department.
Fire Marshal's Comments
Butch Gervais, the Maplewood Fire Marshal, had these comments/requirements:
. Need 20-foot emergency access road at all times.
. Fire protection system per codes and monitored.
. Fire alarm system per code and monitored.
. Mini sounders in each unit.
. Fire department lockbox required. Get the paperwork from the fire marshal.
Police Department Comments
Lieutenant Kevin Rabbet! noted there are no significant public safety concems. This
plan seems to meet the previously-approved plans for Legacy Village.
Engineering Comments
Maplewood Engineer, Michael Thompson, reviewed this proposal. I have included his
four-page report. Refer to Mr. Thompson's report. Other than concems regarding
utilities, grading, storm water treatment and erosion control, Mr. Thompson stated that
the developer shall:
. Implement a homeowner's association as part of this development to ensure that
there is a responsible party for the regular maintenance and care of the ponds,
rainwater gardens, retaining walls, private utilities and other features common to the
development.
. The developer shall sign a maintenance agreement, prepared by the city, for
rainwater gardens, ponds and sumps. The project plans shall clearly point out the
maintenance access route to each garden and basin.
. A 20-foot-wide easement needs to be dedicated over the centerline of the existing
18-inch storm sewer pipe that extends to Wetland F. The proposed steps over the
storm sewer pipe shall be relocated outside of the easement.
. The developer shall dedicate a pedestrian trail easement by separate document over
the trail on the south end of the development.
. The developer shall enter into a developer's agreement with the city for the
construction of the trail.
. The developer and project engineer shall satisfy the requirements of all permitting
agencies.
5
Citizen Comments
Of a large number of surveys staff mailed (209) to neighboring property owners, we
received very few replies. Of the eight that did reply, two had no comment and six were
opposed. Refer to the comments in the Citizen Comments section of this report for the
complete comments. The concems raised, though, were regarding increased traffic,
there being too many town homes already and the loss of trees/wetlandslwildlife.
Traffic
Traffic will increase with the continued build-out of Legacy Village. This is the reason,
however, for the extension and improvements of County Road 0 which are taking place.
These roadway improvements will handle the future traffic needs.
Densitv- Too Manv Homes Alreadv
The housing in Legacy Village, along with the other nearby townhomes and
condominiums, will create a rather highly-populated area. This has been foreseen,
however, with all the multiple-dwelling housing planned for this area.
Some feel that the city should not allow any further development until all of the existing
homes have been sold and occupied. Unfortunately, the city cannot regulate the
market-place. We must allow housing based on the city's approved development plans
and our land use controls. If these are being met, the city cannot stop the proposed
development.
Loss of Wildlife. Wetlands and Trees
It is always sad and unfortunate to see the loss of trees and wildlife habitat. This site,
however, was approved for development in 2003 and it is proceeding according to that
approved plan. Wetlands will be preserved or mitigated also as previously approved by
the PUD development plan.
COMMITTEE ACTIONS
June 19,2006: The planning commission recommended approval of the land use plan
change, PUD amendment and preliminary plat. They also suggested that the
community design review board require designated crosswalks across Village Trail East
to access the pedestrian trail to the south.
RECOMMENDATIONS
A. Adopt the resolution approving the comprehensive land use plan amendment from
BC (business commercial) to R3H (high density residential) for a 1 Yo -acre parcel
previously planned for an office building in Legacy Village. Approval of this change
is because townhomes would be more compatible and in character with the
adjacent townhome development than the previously approved commercial building
6
and because the proposed density of this site would be 13 units less than it
potentially could be.
B. Adopt the resolution approving a revision to the Legacy Village planned unit
development as it relates to the previously-approved rental townhomes and
executive-office suites and clubhouse sites. Approval of this revision is based on
the findings required by the ordinance and subject to the following conditions
(additions are underlined and deletions are crossed out):
1. The development shall follow the plans date-stamped May 11, 2006, except
where the city requires changes. The director of community development
may approve minor changes.
2. The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of
council approval or the permit shall end. The council may extend this
deadline for one year.
3. The city council shall review this permit in one year.
4. The applicant shall comply with the requirements in the engineer's report
dated June 1, 2006.
5. The applicant shall provide a copy of the homeowner's association
documents to staff for approval.
6. The following changes are hereby made to the approved PUD conditions:
Rental Townhomes ana OffiselCll,lllhelJse:
a. The project will be constructed according to the plans date-stamoed Mav
11. 2006 from HaFlfeRl Grol,lP aalea 6I2J03 in all aetails, except as
specifically modified by these conditions.
b. A siaewalk willlle pr-eviaea centiAlJel,lsly en the nelth er west siae ef Street
^ llet\veeA Kennar-a Street ana Hazelweea DAve, incll,laing the segment
Iletween tAe efficeJcll,lIlRel,lSe par:kiRglet aAa toWFIRel,lselll,lilaiAgs 11 aAa
~
c. SiaEl\wlk cenneGlieAs 'IIi11lle /HIded ceAReGtingllle power line wil to the
cuFll ef Str-eet ^ eppesile towAhemelll,lilaings 6 ana 8.
d. The siae\'l8lks SEl"ving the fronts Gftownhome Ill,lilaings 13,16,17,18,19
aAa 20 willlle eJltended selJlIl to COAnect witA the p9\'fer line tr:ail.
e. Stmet 8 ana Street C sel'lliRg the twmhomes willlle ceAstNGtea iA tAeir
entir-ety with the tewnhemes, regar-aless Gf the statl,lS ef the ml,llti family aAa
cemmel'Elial pa_ls to tAe east.
f. Par:kiAg spaces will be pro':iaea at the eAas Gf lIle aA\leways at iRe roar Gf
lll,lilaiRgs 1,2,3 aRa~, 15/16, 19120,21/22 aAa 25/26 aAa siaewalks will be
7
p!'Elviaea f!'Elm these parking spaces oonnesting te the frilnt sias'.valks sf
eaCR at these euilaings.
g. The infiltratien trenches en the sel,lth sides at lll,lildings 13/14, 15/1 e and
19120 will be meaified te acoommooate a re'lisea alignment far the pewer
line trail, pmvided that reasenallle grades are pFevided far the trail and any
sid9\valks cennestiAg te it, and app!'Elval at the city engiAeer oonceming the
size aAa fl,lnstieA at the tr-enshes.
h. A sill foot wide sidewalk shol,lld lie p!'El'.'ided if at all possillle en the sel,lth
side at Cel,lnty Road D far the ootir-e leRgth at the pFejest from Hazelwood
DFi\'El te SaulhlavJA DFi,..e, thFel,lgll oontinl,led disSllssieR eetween the city
and Har-tferd, facl,lsing on 9J(3st sidewalk width, lecation and Fight ef 'Nay
needs far wm lanes and ether faawres at the Cel,lnt}' Read D prejest.
i. I'. sid9\\'8lk will 00 pm'lided en the seulh side ef Ceynty Read D and
sidewalks willee pFe\'ided em te that sidewalk from the nerlh side at
lll,lildiRgs 1, 4. 21, 22, 23, 24 and 25 as '.wll as te the GIl,lllhel,lse front entl)'
and the sll,lehol,lse parking lot.
j. The grades of the power line trail and all public sidewalks will meet ADA
guidelines for slope.
k. O':eF&ter}' trees 'fAil 00 planted aleng llGtl1 sides at Street P. at an a-Jerage
at 30' te 40 ' en center instead at tRe a':erage 70' spacing sh9'l1fl en the
pIaA&.-
I. O':erstel)' trees willee planted aleng lleth sides at Street B and en the west
side at Street C at an average at 30' to 40' en GeRter instead at IRe
semetimes 100' SpooiRg sllewn en tile plaRs, Sl,lsh additieRallree islands to
ee ceerdinatoa with meaifiea parking eays tllat migRt ee aaaea te this
street,
m. Overstel)' tr-ees willee planted aleng eelll siaes at Kennar-d Str-eet in frilnt
at tile kl\'mllemes at an a'l9rage at 30' to 40' en Genter insteaa at IRe
a'..erage 50' to 80' spacing shevm en lIle plans.
n. The curve in Villaae Trail East St!'Elet /\ eppesite Dl,lilaings 10 ana 12 will
shall be flattened as much as possible to limit headlight clare on aimed into
the front of the units.
o. All setbacks are approved as shown barrina any construction reauirements
reaardinc the oower line easement to the south from Xcel. F!'Elnt lll,lilding
setbacks (G1l,lllheuse and lll,lildiRgs 1, 4, 5, 14, 15,21,22,23,24,25 and
26) to Hazelwoed Dri-/e, Kennar-d Street and Ceunt}' Read D that are less
than re~l,lired lly the zening Gede are specifiGally appre-:ed within this PUD
as shewn en IRe site plan, dawn to a miniml,lm at 5' far lhe G1l,lllheuse and
15' far the kl\'mAeme lll,lildings in erder to enhanGe the l,lrllan charaGter at
the streets aRd interseGliens.
8
p. Side \'ar-e el,lildina seteacks fer all el,lildinas that are less than real,lired e\'
the zanina cade ar-e saesificall'l aaar-Gved within this PUD as shawn an the
site alan.
q. Visitor-parking spaces for the feRtaI townhomes will be added or modified
as follows:
1) Parking spaGes will ee added se there is a lelal of at least 48 spaGes on
tt:!e 'Nest side of KeRnare aRd at least 51 spaces en the east side of
KenRare, sl,let:! that the frent dear of Ra Ilnit is mar-e tt:laR 200 feet frem a
grel,lp of at least 5 spaces. The applicant shall provide visitor-parkina
spaces at the minimum auantity of one-half space per townhome unit.
This works out to a minimum of 60 visitor parkina spaces reauired.
Furthermore, the visitor-parkina spaces must be placed such that the
front door of no unit is more than 200 feet from a aroup of at least five
spaces.
2) Street A will ee 'lIideRedle 26' GUm te cllm aRd eR street pamllel
parkiRg willl:le added aleAll tt:le ReFlR aRd west sides of the str-eet
Ell<Gept fer lfJithiR 100' of the pa\'ElmeAt Elf HazewJOOd DFi'/e aRd KeRRare
Street.
3) The pFivate dFi'fe immediately &el,ltt:l Elf el,lildiRgs 2 aRd 3 will ee widened
te 26' GUm Ie GUm aRd OR street pamllel parking will ee added aleng
the ROFth side Elf tt:le dFive.
4) Parking areas will ee added eehind el,lildings 1 and 4 where the
dFive'llay aellts tt:!e ponding area, consistent 'Nith the resammendation
Elf the sit}' engiReer an pre'fiding ade'll,late gredinll and NnGlioRiRll Elf
tt:!e pend.
5) P-aFkiAll areas willee addedeet:!iAdlNildiRIlS 15116, 19/29,21/22 aRd
25/26 ta meet the parkinll anddislanco criteFia cited here.
6) Str-eet B 'nill ee wideAed to 26' Gllm Ie cl,lm aAdparellelpaFkinll will ee
added aloAll tt:le AaAR aAd'Nest sides Elf tt:!e street, or additienal aRllled
paFkiRllwilll:le added te meet tt:le cFiteFia fer parkiRll spaces Gitelll1ere.
r. The parkin>! lot fer the cll,lehel,lse/9flice ellilding will ee medified to add
"proof of parkin>!" spaces in the gr-een ar-ea Rerth and east ef the swimminll
pool, fer a latal Elf 91 spaces possiele in the let Sl,lGt:! spaces will only ee
constNGted if the oViII1er I:lelieves they are Reeded, or if they ar-e needed in
the fllll,lre te address parkinllPFgelems at the el,lildiRll in the epinion Elf the
comml,lRit}' de'.'9lepment direGter, vme Gan oreer the spaGes te ee
constructed. Sllch spaces will maintain a side'.valk conneGtien eetwaen the
slNimRliAg pool aAd cll,let:!el,lse ellildin>! in an island in the middle af the
parkinll eays as ShOWR eR tt:!e plans.
s. An easement over the power line trail on this parcel will be provided to the
city for access and maintenance.
9
C. Approve the preliminary plat for the Legacy Townhomes at Legacy Village, subject
to the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall comply with the requirements in the city's engineering
report dated June 1, 2006.
2. The applicant shall sign a developer's agreement with the city engineer
before the issuance of a grading permit.
3. The applicant shall dedicate any easements and provide any written
agreements that the city engineer may require as part of this plat.
4. The applicant shall pay the city escrow for any documents, easements and
agreements that the city engineer may require that may not be ready by the
time of plat signing.
D. Approve the plans date-stamped May 11, 2006, for the Legacy Townhomes at
Legacy Village. Approval is subject to the developer complying with the following
conditions:
1. Obtain city council approval of a comprehensive land use plan revision from Be
(business commercial) to R3H (high density residential) to build townhomes on
the previously-approved office site.
2. Obtain city council approval of a revision to the previously-approved planned
unit development for this project.
3. Obtain city council approval of the preliminary plat for this project.
4. All requirements of the fire marshal and building official must be met.
5. The applicant shall obtain all required permits from the Ramsey-Washington
Metro Watershed District.
6. All driveways and parking lots shall have continuous concrete curbing.
7. All requirements of the city engineer, or his consultants working for the city,
shall be met regarding grading, drainage, erosion control, utilities and the
dedication of any easements found to be needed. All conditions of the
Maplewood engineering report dated June 1, 2006 must be complied with.
8. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for
this project by that time.
9. Any identification signs for the project must meet the requirements of the city
sign ordinance and the PUD approval.
10. The setbacks are approved as proposed.
10
11. The applicant shall:
. Install reflectorized stop signs at all driveway connections to Hazelwood
Street and Kennard Street.
. Install and maintain an in-ground lawn irrigation system for all landscaped
areas.
. Install all required trails, sidewalks and carriage walks.
. Install any traffic signage within the site that may be required by staff.
. Revise the site plan for staff approval providing for all visitor parking stalls
to be at least 9% feet wide.
. Provide a revised landscaping plan for staff approval providing considerable
landscaping in and around the rainwater gardens and around ponds.
. Provide a screening plan to staff for approval for any visible utility meters on
the outside of the building. No end units facing County Road D shall have
meters.
. Provide a detailed soils analysis to the building official and city engineer
prior to applying for building permits to ensure that there is proper soil
stability for construction.
12. The applicant shall take care to make sure that site lights do not exceed a A-
foot-candie spillover onto homes when lighting the private street and drives.
13. The applicant shall submit an address and traffic signage plan for staff
approval.
14. The applicant shall provide the city with cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of
credit for the exterior landscaping and site improvements prior to getting a
building permit for the development. Staff shall determine the dollar amount of
the escrow.
15. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community
development may approve minor changes.
16. A temporary sales office shall be allowed until the time a model unit is available
for use. Such a temporary building shall be subject to the requirements of the
building official.
17. The applicant shall work with staff to provide three crosswalks across Village
Trail East to access the power line trail to the south. The applicant shall also
provide three paved trail connections to the power line trail. This plan must be
established before a building permit is issued.
11
CITIZEN COMMENTS
Staff surveyed the 209 property owners within 500 feet of this site for their comments.
Of the eight replies received, two had no comment and six were opposed to this
proposal.
Opposed
. As a neighbor we completely disagree with this proposal. What we need in the area
is a kids' park and green land. We were in fact told by our builder, Town & Country
Homes, that at the time of our purchase that the city was thinking of having a park in
our neighborhood. (Shah, 1635 Legacy Parkway)
. Absolutely against any further development. The proposed area is the only area left
with any trees. When we moved into our townhome, we looked out onto woods with
water and daily saw deer, fox and other wildlife. The new developments have
destroyed what nature was here and the new development will destroy the only
remaining nature. The developments have brought noise, increased traffic with high
speeds and destruction of nature. There will be nothing "pretty" about the area
anymore. This is the #1 reason we will be putting our home up for sale within the
next few months. (Henderson & Waller, 1621 County Road 0)
. We oppose this development as it will diminish the wetlands which were on the
original plan. This development will also add even more traffic into the area. With all
the development that's been done in the last year, we have high traffic already.
(Tom Gelbmann, president of the Board for the Cardinal Pointe members/owners,
3003 Hazelwood Street)
. I do not agree with tearing up the wetlands to build more town homes. The wetlands
is one reason why I bought my town house. I enjoy watching all deer walk through
there. Another reason why I bought my townhouse is because it is in a quiet location
away from the commercial business and other townhouses. I think if you built more
town houses in the area it will definitely lessen the chances for the rest of us to sell
our home in the future. I think adding more town houses to the area will lower the
market value. (Stebbing, 1567 County Road D)
. I would like to see more green space in Legacy. By cramming in so many condos,
it's beginning to look like the projects. Please see to it that Legacy includes as much
open green space as possible on this corner to make this a more attractive
neighborhood. Consider this area 20-30 years from now. When overbuilding
consumes every inch of land, rarely is a healthy, vibrant neighborhood present.
Typically, this type of over-crowded area is pretty rough, attracting low-income
households, gangs and crime. (Bailey & Shenigo, 1613 County Road 0)
. Refer to the attached e-mail letter from Jon Sticha, 1567 County Road O. Mr.
Sticha's concems are regarding loss of trees, wetland and wildlife habitat. More
housing will force existing homeowners to sell for less. There are too many
vacancies now. Is there really a need for more townhomes in this area?
12
REFERENCE
SITE DESCRIPTION
Site Size: 12.49 acres
Existing Use: Undeveloped
SURROUNDING LAND USES
North: County Road D and townhomes
South: Heritage Square Town Homes
East Heritage Square 2nd Addition Townhomes
West: Hazelwood Street
PLANNING
Land Use Plan Designation: Existing R3H and BC; Proposed all R3H
Zoning: PUD
Findings for PUD Approval
City code requires that to approve a planned unit development, the city council must
base approval on the specific findings. Refer to the findings for approval in the attached
resolution.
APPLICATION DATE
We received the complete applications and plans for these requests on May 11, 2006.
State law requires that the city take action within 60 days of receiving complete
applications for a proposal. City council action is required on this proposal by July 10,
2006.
13
p:sec 3\Legacy Townhomes 6 06
Attachments:
1. Location Map
2. Property LinelZoning Map
3. Land Use Plan Map
4. 2003 Legacy Village PUD
5. Site/Landscaping Plan
6. Proposed Subdivision
7. Building Elevations
8. Applicant's Narrative
9. Memo from Michael Thompson dated June 1, 2006
10. E-mail from Jon Sticha dated May 19, 2006
11. Land Use Plan Resolution
12. Planned Unit Development Resolution
13. Plans date-stamped May 11, 2006 (separate attachment)
14
Attachment 1
~
<:
t?
r
~
" .
. "
I .1 1 1
!, I , I 1f,jIlfji,'j , .!
!lIl!u!lh = ~ ~~ 0'l i~
~, "'". 0 ~I ~i~~ -Ii;
~ . CIlFS- H , , I.
· . ~ - b " "' "J
-'T :.li:;j
~"'flII= lilt;; r.J r ~~ ~ ' !l!f l~i
3la -- '" " t+ 1':":' -- "1,
' LIl h I Jr "- " ;,
~ h 1> ./1 " 111
L '. 'C = 0' ,/' . j c ",
'it.I1'1':; , , ~ I~ I ;t~t.. ~ / \' ~ C .. :,-=,='k ,;- m II.
' C" -- '" '~iftl. ~ ) '-'- ~ '" .. n' cc
"", }!iJ!, rr ''''' A, c:.. ~ ., fllif!" I ::E
/" 1 ~ H 'I "'~:l Z
~ ~ '.. "" " = tl, 0
''''':' r r 'i ""]","- _ / '.~] _
.", - I.~ -'\ ~ _, ~
' .': \;:,,, :i1~ G'~., <<.~ ;. ~ ilt C(
~l ~i".. l"!:,,,, l"aeJ I--1JIfi . hl u
' ., . - -11 "'- - ~ L'JII ." , ItJ 'l~ 0
I~ - W 1.\:: =i ~ iF;!; J,,;'l1h b--j'; 'r~ H\,Jkl~~f..J
" . C '" 'II ) - . "l" _ , '..
'" w 0 _ ~ . ~ "0, , '" 'I~
['-"eY y" ~ t i -,I d' I" . fl,l '. 0 hit
.... ~ w' =-"" ~, "'"~'''
o " ~ '" __ " " .. ",
· - w 0 -;,08 ..,
it -,,- .,:~ g" . ~ll
~bllUmi.! ~, l · w; II!
N "'" ~" '><'~.
' _L:f~ : "..., ~ C<!,;l,~;, " '. I I I ~'. - '.' ~J is !
-'-" ,3 ... "J. " <' "- I, . . i
",", ; :. · E' ",LL.,/.' :.., ":.; " 'l~""-'-''' i
c1 =-r: ,'J ", '\'l~ J~'::~ / ,~~ i
~::=fl:!.:'.'~~ ........... ..1.'- I- f
'\,,,,' .. v~~' :)!! .:.:~. ,
1\ '~...
L
15
I~
r
...
.
\
~
Cf J.
.
Attachment 2
~~
---"
.....:1..-@
t
z
0.
.S
&~
tlli~
1i
I]
..
t
z
('I)
.....
~
CD
C)
(U
a..
C\I
C\I
I
0>
~C\I
;. I
~('I)
~o
~z
.
.
.
I
a
I
t ~
~ ~
IJ tl
i
ii
K
~ 11
a_'
1~~
i: I ::l
= ~ !
o;!l
;S!I
H
.. c;
. . .
!~ ~~-~
" 1 _ R ~ ;;
1i i!: ~ f!i .;....lO
l! 1!. ;; f l' n!
I i.lO I ~ ~ I
u ~] ~ e I I m
:~Hnn~
j . e & ~ ~ << << <<
!DDDID[]II
_ 5
~ e
~ ~ i:
~~ n _I h
!i€!!8~~!
Hh!UU
~iiJ~j~in
e-~'6 -Siilt
.~I~ ~.illim
JIIIIIIII
u.
Iil'!~
iFI
!"h
j!U.
f'IH.
'"
II:CulG.
.Uil
i._._
s ~....
111;1
....
-;1-..'
J~lf
.,1,
,;~.llII
16
....:1-.0
t
I
I:
::t
1~
~i
1~
oJ2
I
.!
l-
I
Attachment 3
(II)
.....
=11=
CD
C>>
('G
Q.
N
N
I
cO)
oN
~ I
~(II)
~O
~Z
.i
l!
u
.
.
i
.
" .
H
~I
I
I~ ;
I.~_' ^C
J.-d ",
~g~B]~~~
~D.....I
Ii
~ ''''
Ii ~jg~~
l~i1ilE:~
ij:~~l~iiii
~al!~i~~
~~.~~j!~
i~~!it!!
mm..D.
d
_..~ i~o
i E oS ~ _ E ~ :'?.
~~~iS~E
Ii 3" i -u ,3 E i :: -
1~~t8~;';~~-~
~:i~l~!=lllit
zrif;1!-~'::~~~
:J;3~185dlil6~
SI..rn.III....
~, i
If!';:
h~;
lI,ii
HE
..'iiiI'll
zU~1
IfBvr
l:~H
tiZH
~.!!'J;-III.
l~if;
I~!-
Hi~
1I-~ 1!!
., .
17
\
Attachment 4
LEGACY VILLAGE AT MAPLEWOOD
...!..,.",~"._.
, ,"""~<<'m
~ .-",,- ,.,
.f-.--.-.--........-...-...--;....-
-
-...
-Y.
OUT1..0T
H
; i..
if'
i i ~1'.'
i ! '~f
I b:~[J=q:,
;;
ji
i\
!L__
l;---~O
ii \:..'
It------
II
,
POltIALl!
1'O\.1I1IDIIO
GItOII11.TlIc.
".,---
. I
RllTAlJRANT \ ~
'"' ; .
l#'~T !:-
_ n ~~i
~~,lR.;-i\
1\....
.....----..1...'.
r
APPROVED PUD
DEVELOPMENT-CONCEPT PLAN
JULY 14, 2003
18
m= 1t.!I'JD'
I :;, t&1
f I L ~im I II!! i) I I it ~ l!i~ I ~
r--
t;W r ~-I
g~ ~~lIl
~
i~
~
jh 'I
'lilt .[ iji ;( il':
iitilll'I' Ii I I:.
. , ' I 'I' ....-
J.'... :111 II'! ~~:-~""c-i:::.:
'1:1' i ' I - -,,;;i!-~ -,-;.;:'
I!' ,: ,i: \ ..J. _ ,--.:.r~- 'If ~rc;~,,-- , 0,
ill, t'" - ~~"'-j<1:'~'~~----- .", - I'"
i'~~:~----" -::--'~_:::..=+r~~f;i:fJ"';":-;;"~:""'O~"'-<"'" ~::.,~ F)I'."'~1-;1;,-"""" !~~~~':':'_:-:'
-_"-~fr:r~o;-'~;-wr.rM''''I' ~~- ""'"~ ',----
:j.-:~';;1:;:.~.~i~;f~';;RE[T _, ~:'->-
:_.:Mat"
Attachment 5
~~ 1
i'jO
~~
~~
..8
i2~
b
z
,.:_..111
I?, '"
..".-..1
,.,i"ll
:'111;1'1
11~',l!1 "
i.' 1,111
'Iii 'i'! '!'
".Ill!
;!II !iI !Ii
; I!. illl I ".' 'II!
I I!'lll '110' i 'II! 11"11
' II. '1111" , , I-'ll
ij'lllll!!:'li l'jljlll,1
1'!"I'll'l'l III q'll
II ill II 'll,I" jl"
;'I!I!,.lml II 1111 1,1~1..
Ii I'l!!i l~:!! i' !11~III:i;1111
!. !llill.llil J .II!. ~1I1!
.
!
,
i
I
,
I
Ii
~I
.,
I- ,,'I ~ 'I
!!l l'l;jill I. !"i
Ii. II'! 1111
U!I, :1'111, : lid,
1111'I!oi 'II !;~ I!ll'
II'" ,'1'1 I,
,10 ""II '1Ill!,1
~11 I I- i 'if Ii
11.11. I! Ill' I ,I"" I"
~r III !Oil ~ II II III
mll!lml!I!IIi!1I11
I!' '10 iil ill
III :'1 'II ,',;
I- ~I i'.* :Ii
~I Jill !rt! _:;
"I'll ',I II'
I"~I ii !I! ii,
:Ii~ i'l ill/lli",
110 "I; .. I~.i il
,'1II',,',I'!II'1
~I..I ...1Ii1~... .. III.
, 1 9 Wd 9lo:"1~1 9OOl1S1s 'ton '6MfJS1lS"lOHH.1-tOMW\lQ!S Oo\lllWloU.\IQMW\JlOOMJld8H\:'lI
Attachment 6
.' '~.
<:-;i!l
:"11::
: ~
'~
. il
,>--1
--=; ~
c:il"11
UI'I
. ,?
Ji
_,II'I !I
11 it
i
IIJJi a ~
~ ~ Ill: - '1""1
I IH I I ~
iuiU ml~dl ~ >
'"
~I ~i
...
II
~z
~~
. ~z
! !I! 8
: itg;
i it
i5
z
i,l:
'j~ 1 i:
;'Il iiii I lit:
Ii: ,; " ,i
,I 'Ii II ' i~I!:
:1" ! : i '\ J I: ,.' ----:~~ i
',1'1:' 'I" ,. - ,- --
'I' 'Ii II:, \ __~---:::;~~-~~:::;l' -~',,~.,.;,.=~-- ~ j!i~"_"".~~~i:!""'::'~II"1Il
!il II' 1 _~-"~{!i?~-
n!! ~~\ll:':-_"--~-=-".,:~~~t-t::':~:,-~!Zl:~~~~:--- ~.:.:;...~- ;,,' ~~~~-~~_:~~:~~: !...._n~....w...~........_......
',,'-'f!~"11!r--- --'fllJ't'fIr,/. -Z"JrL",-",,~ ,~..~,~~~,#,r I ~.J ,--~, -...--- -~
-"r""- "-'.,.-"~' _~~-;::::::r';':-,,__,----"---rri!
1!"I~I!,',i Ilft~r.i~~~l~,,, ',iJ:;" iHimiiiiHmiHiiiHmmmm
;,,~i """ u.[~~JU.WI 1\ ~.. 'I" . .
II:~ i ..... '< g s i " i I:' I"
:r~] ~'.'II ("--_-I \ -J -Ii ':' I
1'1 ,II b"uliio-1 fI:i ~ : I'. ,L. ~ ~lIl1i..llI..~'....._~..I!!~""t."~I!!"Il"lIQIl"'--~
id,\ ~'; :,"~', , . . ~ "", ,Iii
h ~i!::.J ~~Mi :-; i I C;J ,"", i: Hi
,'I! ~::!~ III .~ i~ i ~ .~j bi".41,41\.\
'~ !1:I.t..;.jt~ ~ !, "ell 1'1 iLLj .~.__'. ,I, ';:t\till.. . ~.'!
i t\I' r~ -: : P.~ ~ -; 1 : l'~! 'I~ ~':2"i iCe : iii
ti '1:~-1 Ii: ~ , t__....JJJ , ,,,,:JO.-.., il,:' ,,!:-,
, ,'I. . "-._.1 ~J'/ E"j""" II' ",
, : ,"-....1 .... ,""C /' 'J :=-, t._.J: I';
-;[ '., r J' .... /, _. . I:.
~.g h' i/ //,! ~,. I: II ',.: 1:"'\"
V iJ':' i ,.j:>! / I ii ~ "I
III! i?:x/ ,/ ,---- --hll~i ,J., ~ :,",:
,,'I: 1.1' / _---- I' ~~l
. I ,,,, \ ----- , " ",t
I ~ I /' //~ >,:"~ \ -- ~i j' ~ ~~
I II " ":'1.' ~ ~ 'I I II ~~~~It~ltlOlOltltltltlOltltli'ltt:ltltlOt:ltltlOt'r:ltltt:r:ltlOt'
I lei ;.;/",,// ...1:' " 'I I::"~ CJ :' I': '",] i""'"''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
,'I;.
.,,"
.~~.~
~I;'~
'I! i ' '"' / /(. il . . ~'" r"':Jl I _-_.'''t~';;:~-~~
, I! .,. /// ./ :::>',\1 t..--. ~ f' .-. , ,
i I I'~ " ~/ ,"::',1 or i,'
, : \ i ! >: /' ru~~~:":'-l 9 9 ,\, "
, il! 1! i ' / ./ I' : i: f''';:", r--:',' i i
j i I\!, ,/ / ~ I iii g ,t;---~I ill c"
, 1':\\1' //~" ~ fP-I: ;:;:! ;~ :- !+,'~:;:;;,'~u.
" \},! // /<<'. .'\g~ ~ fl f~ ~ 1 fLLl .11 ",
t\ :\\'L1.'" /./$!!! . a:: ~ 1 l~ ~ .. I ,j ',f
" r / ""'"'\, r----; , ... ,~ ' .,
\, ,\., ~~rI~"<7)/~/ c!."... ~.:i.J! ~2J W 'I 'I' ~~if:
~ 1\ \ ~~l 'f;.:~~~> ...~" > 1"-- - A
\ :\\: \~\'':''\ V'$;' ~.i >' _)-n_^-......n-:C.:ij;~,'
, 1\ \ \' ~~~y /~ '-;"\l~r ~
\\ \;~\~~ / /' ";, C' g" f,
'\ ~\\;,,:~v./ . .---1 -.k."- . T';-
~ \. \ \ \ ~/ ~ ~ 'J II I
\ \ \\ / 13,' ~ 'I: I
" I,., ,\ - u"\ q 1 s. . I ~ r O' ,'I. l
, ~ \\(-; ~f~\'\ iil · I 'l~~ -,-,~, "1._'" I
"\ ;,'\\~,<<\~g:,\//V' 1\ :: ~:: :1, },", -L
, 1\' / ~"\)'~~ ~.~~, .i:t }~':,;""- r
\ p.. ,\\("~~;~\,~:<,:/,;;-'-"_:'''L';'':->_'I .' ;
\ "<f.J; \ \~l' ~\;>y/:/ - ~~~---'.-,-, c>k ~~ ' , I
\ ~\,.~ \;-.-' /F~: .-- I " '-~.: L :
~~ ;~, / /;;' ~~=- . '''.' ;~>_ ~;:--c''t---''::d:
-\. '~:_1!~-~n--n_--- t-~~~~
...'"' ' i
..
I!I
II'
,,!
i!i
. IIi
I i!11
It ~ It 1: 1: Ii' ~ 1: It It .. It It ~ It ~ Ii' 1: c: Ii'
i"I~'~~II'~'.'.~"~ ~
!!!;;!!!!!;;!!!!!!l !
1_""__""............................
.: t' It Ii' r: It It ~ Ii' Ii' t' It It to It t: t: Ii' Ii' Ii' ~ ~ It It It t: ~ t: 1: Ii' t: t' t' It It
i.I...............~.................
!!!!!!!!!!!!I!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
i
I ~ ~ ~ ..""..:>:t".~ ". ~ ..~.~. ~ .." ,,"~ ~ ~.~ ~ ~I";JI
,
!-""""""-_._-"""""""."'""""--"""""""
20
wv so:a:0l9OOl1S/5 'tOt^ '5Mp'3JJS-tOHHl-tQMH\iq5 0 O\tlloilH1't~atd8H\:'tI ~
m g-: I fffiJ1J~ Ll ~. II
I!.~..I.,. ! ~Im iIlll 11 ! · ~~~ I!i~
;,~ 'b I j B ~
Ii ~I
z
0
~ ~
il;
:1 -'
w
w
0
u;
@ ~
co
z
15
-'
5
'"
1=
z
=>
z
~
'"
,. T
" a
lrw
T
~
T !
a
'I~
! T
II
~
T ! ~
a ~
:~ ~
! T g
~~I;;
~I~
I _
T !;
~- :~
- U Wilt
I il;'
! '" i
1:;ijj~1
~::l II '
....I> ..$
iI~
~
co
z
@9
u 5
'"
a ~
Iii -,
z.
~ '
",I
i
'"
z
o
~
il;
-'
w
w
o
u;
z
o
~
~
w
'"
U'i
'"
-
'"
z
9
5
'"
....
z
=>
,
z'
w .
il; .
'" 1
JW11! ~-~J' fil
IIiLI in Il~J
~~
08
i!i~
~~
",8
f2~
15
z
WV 9O:LE:n 90071sJS 't"5V 'liMpT5-Y\S9MlJ\l()}IY'\lOWH1\lllMH\JlClOlo"'::\IIw\:lI
Attachment 8
"till HARTFORD
GRou:r INC.
REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT. ARCHITECTURE. ENGINEERING. MANAGEMENT
May 11,2006
RECEIVED
MAY 11 2006
LEGACY VILLAGE TOWNHOMES
RESIDENTIAL TOWNHOMES
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA
Narrative in Support of
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
PUD Amendment
Preliminary Plat Approval
and Community Design Review Board Approval
DEVELOPER
Hartford Group, Inc.
7900 Xerxes Avenue South
Suite 1300
Bloomington, MN 55431
952-838-2420
Fax: 952-838-2401
www.hartfordgro.com
PROPERTY OWNER
ARCHITECTIENGINEER
Legacy Holdings-MW, LLC
7900 Xerxes A venue South
Suite 1300
Bloomington, MN 55431
952-838-2420
Fax: 952-838-2401
Hartford Group, AlE, Inc.
Hal Pierce, AlA
Patrick Sarver, ASLA
Aaron Archbold, PE
7900 Xerxes A venue South
Suite 1300
Bloomington, MN 55431
952-838-2420
Fax: 952-838-2401
www.hartfordgro.com
7900 Xerxes Avenue South . SuIte 1300 . Bloomington, MN 55431 . 952-838-2400 (P) . 952-838-2401 (F) .. www.hartfordgrp.com
22
I.
THE PROPERTY
Prior Review
This property is part of the larger Legacy Village development for which the City Council
approved the PUD, comprehensive plan amendment, tax abatement plan and final plat in 2003.
Prooertv Location and Boundaries
The Property is 12.49 acres located in the northwest corner of the Legacy Village development,
legally described as Lot I, Block I, Legacy Village of Maplewood and bounded on the north by
County Road D, on the west by Hazelwood Street, on the South by future City parkland and the
Heritage Square townhome development and on the east by Kennard Street.
Prooertv Use and Adiacent Uses
The Legacy Village PUD approved the Property for high density residential, with a business
commercial use approved in the northeast corner. On the west edge, there is AUAR Sub-Area 2,
a row of five existing residences totaling 4.6 acres. Town & Country Homes is constructing its
Heritage Square II townhome project across Kennard Street to the east; townhomes and retail
development is to the north, and future City parkland and the Town & Country Heritage Square
townhome development to the south.
II.
THE LEGACYWLLAGE DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Aoolication Summarv
Hartford specifically requests the City Council approve the following:
I. A revision of the Legacy Village PUD to allow a high density residential use for
the entire Property.
2. An amendment to the comprehensive land use plan from BC (business
commercial) to R3H (high-density residential) for the portion of the property
located at southwest corner of Kennard Street and County Road D.
3. A preliminary plat for the new lot line configuration.
4. Site, building and landscape plans.
Prooosed Develooment Plan and Building Descriotion
Hartford requests that the City Council approve its plan to develop construct I 19 direct entry
townhomes in eighteen buildings. Each townhome building has from five to seven units. The
townhomes are designed in a traditional two-plus story style, with rock faced architectural block
23
foundation treatments and shingled gabled roofs. Details are traditional mullioned windows,
with arched and bay windows. Features such as front yard private space, varied front entrance
and window styles, and roof dormers provide individuality for each home. Each unit has a two-
car garage with an additional 66 parking spaces located throughout the Property. A private drive
(Village Trail East) will serve the development.
Directly to the south is future City parkland and the central east-west Village Trail, allowing easy
walking access throughout Legacy Village. Village Trail connects to Southlawn Drive in the
east for easy access to Maplewood Mall, the new Anoka County Library and the surrounding
retail and commercial development, connecting with Hazelwood Street in the east and Kennard
Street in the west. The parkland (Lot 2, Block I, Legacy Village of Maplewood) will be
conveyed to the City at a mutually agreeable time. It is Hartford's intention to rough grade the
park site as a part of this development. We will work with City park staff to ensure that the
grades are consistent with City plans.
The townhomes will be part of a newly established condominium association that will govern the
operation and maintenance of the property and its amenities on behalf of the owners.
Density
The original Legacy Village PUD was approved for 198 townhomes. This included Lot I, Block
2 east of Kennard Street, approved for 81 units by the City Council on July 26, 2004, leaving 117
approved for the subject west parcel. However, the Property includes 1.5 acres previously
approved for commercial use. Converting this use to high density residential at 10.4 units per
acre provides for an additional 15 units. Added to the approved II 7, this totals 132 potential
units. Accordingly, the proposed 119 units comply with the City's density requirements. The
final density of the project will be 9.53 units per acre.
Open Space
Hartford's plan calls for 314,518 SF or 7.22 Acres of impervious area, 57.8% of the total
acreage. The remaining 42.2% of the Property will be open space.
Parking
Each townhome has a two-car private garage meeting City requirements. The PUD guideline
requires .5 visitor parking visitor spaces per unit or 59.5 spaces. The development plan provides
for 66 visitor spaces (46 off-street and 20 on-street standard spaces), thus exceeding the City
visitor parking requirement by 6.5 spaces.
All of the townhomes are located within 200 feet of visitor parking.
Subdivision
The property is proposed to be re-platted into seven blocks lots as shown on the Preliminary Plat.
24
Upon completion of the first phase oftownhome buildings, Hartford intends to file a crc plat for
the newly established association, which will be professionally managed and govern the
operation and maintenance of the property.
Desil!I1 Review Board
The Legacy Village Townhome project has been professionally designed by Hartford relying on
aesthetics as a valued amenity and selling point. Main entrance doors front the streets or paths to
reinforce the village's channing character. Hartford's focus is to continue the legacy tradition to
emphasize pedestrian traffic and the streetscape. The initial building elevations show the detail
and quality materials typical of Hartford neighborhoods. Hartford has worked with consultants
and staff of other communities, and added their positive ideas to the Legacy Village Townhome
design. Hartford is requesting Maplewood's Design Review Board approval for the townhome
buildings.
Planned Unit Development Revision.
I. The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be In
conformity with the City's comprehensive plan and Code of Ordinances.
Because the majority of the site has been approved for townhomes, changing the office use in the
northeast corner so that the entire site use is designatedfor townhome use also conforms.
2. The use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area.
Hartford's proposed use change will not.
3. The use would not depreciate property values.
Hartford's proposed use change will not.
4. The use would not involve any actIVIty, process, materials, equipment or methods
operation that would be dangerous, hazardous, detrimental, disturbing, or cause a
nuisance to any person or property, because of excessive noise, glare, smoke, dust, odor,
fumes, water or air pollution, drainage water run-off, vibration, general unsightliness,
electrical interference or other nuisances.
Hartford's proposed use change will not.
5. The use would generate only minimal vehicular traffic on local streets and would not
create other traffic congestion or unsafe access on existing or proposed streets.
Hartford's proposed use change complies with this factor.
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.
25
Hartford's proposed use change complies with this factor.
7. The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services.
Hartford's proposed use change will not.
8. The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and scenic
features into the development design
Hartford's proposed use change complies with this factor.
9. The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects.
Hartford's proposed use change complies with this factor.
Land Use Plan Change.
Please .see the attached graphic showing the site area currently classified as BC that we are
requesting be changed to RH3. Hartford believes that having a residential townhome use for the
entire site fits in well with the surrounding uses and the overall development plan. It will have a
minimal impact on utility systems.
III.
SUMMARY OF RATIONALE FOR PROJECT APPROVAL
Legacy Village Townhomes provides a high-quality residential development that fully integrates
with the surrounding Legacy Village project. Successful developments throughout the
metropolitan area are incorporating a mix of housing options, and in many redeveloping suburbs,
are bringing the first significant new housing options to those communities. The townhomes
provide another housing option and compliment the adjoining home concepts by Town &
Country and the Wyngate workforce housing being constructed by Hartford to the east.
26
Attachment 9
Page 1 of4
Enl!ineerinl! Plan Review
PROJECT: Legacy Town Homes of Maplewood
PROJECT NO: 06-11
REVIEWED BY: Michael Thompson (Maplewood Engineering Department)
DA11E: June 1,2006
The developer, Hartford Group, Inc. has submitted project plans for the for the last town home
segment of the larger Legacy Village development. The developer or project engineer shall
make the changes to the plans and site as noted and shall address the concerns listed.
Drainage & Treatment
1. All rainwater gardens, ponds, and wetlands shall have emergency overflow swales lined
with a permanent erosion control blanket (Enkamat, NAG350, or equal) extending to the
downstream receiving waters/drainage structure. The emergency overflow elevation and
path shall be marked on the plans. The normal and high water levels need to be shown
for the rainwater gardens.
2. Provide a detail on the plans for rainwater garden construction. The gardens should
include rock sumps, see Maplewood standard plate 115. It is important that rainwater
garden construction is phased into the project schedule appropriately. Often times the
gardens are constructed too early and need to be completely reconstructed at the end of
the project. Ideally, the rough grading ofthe garden is done with the mass grading. Then
gardens may be used as sedimentation basins. Once adjacent construction is complete
(right before sod is placed) the accumulated sediment should be removed, the rock sumps
constructed, the bottom area scarified and the final grading completed. Appropriate
phasing shall be noted on the project plans for the construction of the gardens.
3. On the project plans the existing Wetland F shall show the wetland delineator and the
date of delineation.
4. The class I wetland located at the northwest corner of the development is to be filled as
part of this proposed development. This wetland is being mitigated as part of the County
Rd D project. The mitigation site is located just south of the new County Rd D and
approximately 400-feet east ofT.R. 61. All of this is described in the Minnesota
LocaVState/Federal Water/Wetland Project Permit dated July 7th, 2003.
5. The site is meeting the 1" infiltration requirement as part of the enhanced storm water
management practices by using trench infiltration and rainwater gardens.
6. The project engineer shall revise all drainage manhole catch basins upstream of the
proposed ponds to include 3' sumps in order to capture sediment and debris. This
includes catch basin manholes 101, 301, 401,501, and 601.
27
Page 2 of 4
7. It is unclear how runoff is being directed into the rainwater gardens from the paved areas.
Runoff should be directed into the gardens via a storm sewer inlet.
8. A ten foot safety bench shall be provided at the normal water level in the western pond.
Grading & Erosion Control
I. Special attention shall be given to the existing Wetland F. The project engineer shall
show double silt fencing at the buffer limits which shall be installed prior to any grading
of the proposed development site.
2. The project engineer shall clearly detail a street-sweeping on the project plans for
Kennard and Hazelwood Streets to address any tracking that may occur from the
proposed development area. Also on the project plans, include a note that states watering
of the site must occur regularly to keep dust to a minimum.
3. The project engineer shall clearly state on the plans that the contractor shall install inlet
protection devices such as filter bags or WIMCO devices on all existing and proposed
drainage inlet structures in order to prevent sediment from entering the storm water
system.
4. All 3: I slopes or greater require an erosion control blanket and the project engineer shall
clearly label these locations on the project plans.
5. Any graded areas left undisturbed for more than 14 days shall be stabilized with a
temporary seed. This shall be noted on the plans.
6. The proposed contours at the south end of the site do not tie into the existing contours.
The accuracy of the existing contours shall be verified and the necessary revisions made
by the project engineer.
7. The engineer shall show "J-hooks" (silt fence barrier perpendicular to runoff to decrease
velocity and catch sediment) on all long downhill runs and parallel to proposed silt fence
and at ditches.
8. The project engineer also shall show biorolls on longer slopes in order to reduce runoff
velocity and catch excess sediment.
9. The project engineer shall provide more information on stockpiling locations and
measures of containment. Also, show rough cut and fill quantities for the site.
10. The grading erosion and control plan shall provide phasing information through housing
construction. More erosion and sediment control devices may be required at that time.
II. Prior to any work beginning on site, the developer must stabilize the stock pile of dirt left
at the south west corner of County Road B and Kennard Street. Any sediment that
28
Page 3 of 4
reached the pond must be removed and the area restored with native seed approved by the
city.
Utilities
1. Submit plans to Mike Anderson at Saint Paul Regional Water Services (SPRWS) located
at 1900 Rice St, Maplewood (2nd Floor) for their review and approval.
2. Submit plans to Tina Carstens at Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District located
at 2665 Noel Drive, Little Canada for their review and approval.
3. Both the water main and sewer main in the development are not shown connecting to the
proposed town homes. Please provide information on the service locations and materials
to be used for the services (i.e.. . . 6" PVC SCH40 for sanitary sewer service laterals).
4. A water main stub off of Hazelwood was constructed as a part of the Hazelwood/County
Road D reconstruction project. Asbuilts for the project have yet to be completed. The
engineer shall work with the city and the city's consultant, URS, to show the new water
main connection into the existing stub on Hazelwood.
Miscellaneous
1. The developer or project engineer shall submit a copy of the MPCA's construction
stormwater permit (SWPPP) to the city before the city will issue a grading permit for this
project.
2. The developer or project engineer shall obtain a building permit for all retaining walls
that have a height greater than 4 feet.
3. The developer shall implement a homeowners association as part of this development to
ensure that there is a responsible party for the regular maintenance and care of the ponds,
rainwater gardens, retaining walls, private utilities, and all other features common to the
development.
4. The developer shall sign a maintenance agreement, prepared by the city, for the gardens,
ponds, and sumps. The project plans shall clearly point out the maintenance access route
to each garden and basin.
5. A 20' wide easement needs to be dedicated over the centerline of the existing 18" storm
sewer pipe that extends to Wetland F. The proposed steps over the storm sewer pipe
shall be relocated outside of the easement.
6. The developer shall also dedicate a pedestrian trail easement by separate document over
the trail on the south end of the development.
29
Page 4 of 4
7. The developer shall enter into a Developer Agreement with the city for the construction
of the trail.
8. The developer and project engineer shall satisfy the requirements of all permitting
agencies.
3Q
Message
Page 1 of2
Attachment 10
Tom Ekstrand
From: Sticha, Jon, A [JASticha@Bremer.com]
Sent: Friday, May 19, 2006 8:51 AM
To: Tom Ekstrand; City Council; Diana Longrie (External)
Cc: Gammell, Sarah
Subject: Development Proposal- Legacy Townhomes Proposal
I recently recieved information in the mail informing Maplewood citizens in my area about a proposed
development by the Hartford Group, for the area south of County Road 0 between Hazelwood and Kennard
Street. Tom Ekstrand has asked for a few comments, so I thought I would share them with all of you.
First off, I don't want to sound like a hypocrit. I understand that growth and development in Maplewood has
enabled myself to have a new town home in a new development. I don't take issue with a developer wanting to
build. I take issue with where and when they wantto build.
The area being proposed for development IS a wetland with big tall pine trees. When I chose to move to
Maplewood, one of the things I really liked about my current residency was the view. Being in the city, but being
able to look out and see habitat such as geese and the deer we have living there, has made this a very cozy
place to live. It would be ashame to see a nice, natural habitat like that destroyed.
Secondly, the timing. There have been so many townhomes built in this area during the last year that supply has
far outweighed demand. There are new places being developed between Kennard and HOM Furnishings as well
as many new townhouse buildings between Kennard and Hazelwood on Legacy Parkway. I've been closely
watching these areas develop and two things are clear, construction speeds are slowing and houses are sitting on
the market much longer. For example, the development I live in was forced to lower their selling price by $15,000
because they have 5 out of 6 townhomes on one side that they can't sell. With so much recently built and so
many in the process I don't see why we need to develop the propsed area at this time.
What would I like to see happen? Again, I'm not opposed to growing and developing Maplewood, just the area
and the timing. First of all, couldn't we find a better area for the Hartford Group to develop? What about an area
like the old City View golf course along Beam? Maybe there are already plans for this, but ifs an example of an
area that would be much more appropriate for development. The other thing I would like to see happen is to make
the Hartford Group wait on their development. With so many vacancies why do we need to develop this area now.
If in a year our two from now, all the existing homes in the area have been filled, and demand is still that strong, I
may be more inclined to approve of their development. Assuming of course a better location can't be found. But
right now there is realistically no need for more development.
So there are my thoughts. If any of it is unclear, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely ,
Jon Sticha
1567 -B East County Road 0
Maplewood MN. 55109
320-761-5151
Jon Sticha
EquitylFixed Income Trader
Bremer Asset Management
651-312-3510
NOTICE - CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
The information in this communication is proprietary and strictly confidential. It is intended solely for the use of the
5/2212006
31
Attachment 11
LAND USE PLAN CHANGE RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, The Hartford Group applied for a change to the city's land use plan
from Be (business commercial) to R3H (high density residential).
WHEREAS, this change applies to the property located at the southwest comer
of County Road 0 East and Kennard Street.
The legal description is:
Lot 1, Block 1, Legacy Village of Maplewood.
WHEREAS, the history of this change is as follows:
1. On June 19, 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 land use plan change.
2. On , 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 the above
described change because the proposed townhomes would be more compatible and in
character with the adjacent town home development than the previously-approved
commercial building and also because the proposed density of this site would be 13
units less than there could be potentially.
The Maplewood City Council approved this resolution on
,2006.
32
Attachment 12
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REVISION RESOLUTION
FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
WHEREAS, The Hartford Group applied for a conditional use permit to revise the
Legacy Village planned unit development by eliminating a 1 Yo -acre commercial building
site and propose townhomes instead.
WHEREAS, this permit applies to the 12.49-acre site in Legacy Village lying
south of County Road D East between Hazelwood Street and Kennard Street. The legal
description is:
Lot 1, block 1, Legacy Village of Maplewood.
WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows:
1. On June 19, 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 this conditional use permit revision.
2. The city council reviewed this request on ,2006. The
council considered the reports and recommendations of the city staff and
planning commission.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council
above-described conditional use permit revision because:
the
1. The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and
operated to be in conformity with the City's Comprehensive Plan and
Code of Ordinances.
2. The use would not change the existing or planned character of the
surrounding area.
3. The use would not depreciate property values.
4. The use would not involve any activity, process, materials, equipment or
methods of operation that would be dangerous, hazardous, detrimental,
disturbing or cause a nuisance to any person or property, because of
excessive noise, glare, smoke, dust, odor, fumes, water or air pollution,
drainage, water run-off, vibration, general unsightliness, electrical
interference or other nuisances.
33
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 (additions are underlined and
deletions are crossed out):
1. The development shall follow the plans date-stamped May 11, 2006, except
where the city requires changes. The director of community development
may approve minor changes.
2. The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of
council approval or the permit shall end. The council may extend this
deadline for one year.
3. The city council shall review this permit in one year.
4. The applicant shall comply with the requirements in the engineer's report
dated June 1, 2006.
5. The applicant shall provide a copy of the homeowner's association
documents to staff for approval.
6. The following changes are hereby made to the approved PUD conditions:
Rental Townhomes and OIficelCll,lbhel,lse:
a. The project will be constructed according to the plans date-stamoed May
11. 2006 from HaFlfeRl Group dated 11l2JQ3 iR all details, except as
specifically modified by these conditions.
b. .^. sidewalk will be pr-ovided oontinl,leusly en the nerlh or west side of Street
.^. between Kennar.a Street and Hazelweod DR'/O, incll,lding the segment
bet\'1eon tho effiootGll,lbl=louse parking let and tewRl=louse bl,lildings 11 and
~
c. Sidll\'Jlllk conneGliens ...Jilll:le added ooRRElGling tho power line wil te the
Cl,lrl:l of Street .^. opposite tewnl=lome buildings e aRd 8.
34
d. The sidewalk!; sefVing the fFeRts 9f tGV:nhame lll,lilllings 19, HI, 17, 1S, 19
aREI 20 willlle exteRded salolth to oonReGt'lAth tile pawer liRe trail.
e. Street 8 anll Street C sefViRg the tGwnhemes willlle sanstrustell in their
entirety with the tel/JAhemes, regar-llless af the staWs 9f the mlllti family anll
cemmeroial par-Gels te the east.
f. PaFking spaGes \'AlIlle pro','illell at the enlls ef the llFive'Nays at the rear 9f
lluildings 1,2, g aRd1, 15/16, 19/20,21/22 and 25/26 and sidEl'lalks willlle
pFevillell from these paFking spaGeS sanReGling to the fFeRt sille.talk!; 9f
aadl af thase lll,lillliRgS.
g. The infiltratian tr-eRCRes an the sal,lth sillas 9f lll,lilllings 13/11, 15/16 anll
19/20 vJilllle madifiad to acsammooate a relfisell alignmant fer the pawer
liRe trail, pFe'fidoo that reasooallle gralles are provillell fer the trail anll any
sillewalk!; ooRR9Gting ta it, anll appFelfal 9f tRe sity engineer sansaming the
size anll fl,lnelian af the tr-endles.
h. A six faat wille siller....alk shaulllbe providell if at all passible an the sal,lth
sille 9f Cal,lnty Raad D far the entire length af the prejeel from Hace"''1oall
DFi'Je to Sal,lthlawn DFi\'e, thFel,lgR oontinl,lellllisGllssian bet\'igen the city
anll Har:tfeRl, feGusing an exaGt sille\'alk \'lilith, leGatian anll FigAl 9f way
neells fer llIm lanes anll ather featllres af the Cal,lnty Raad D prejeel.
i. .^. sillGV/alk will 00 pra'fillell an the sal,lth sille 9f Cal,lnty Raall D aRll
sillewalks 'tJilllle pro','illell 9l,lt to that sillewalk from tha narth sille 9f
lll,lildings 1, 1, 21, 22, 23, 21 anll25 as ',vell as to the Q!l,lllhalolse front entry
aFKl the G1l,lIlR911Se pa~ing let.
j. The grades of the power line trail and all public sidewalks will meet ADA
guidelines for slope.
k. OveFStery trees will 00 plantell alang llath silles 9f Street A at an a',.erage
9f gO' to 10' en GeRtor iRsteall 9f the a','erage 70' spacing Sl:1owR eR tRe
pIaA&.-
I. Overstory trees willlle plantoll alang llath silles 9f Street 8 amI an the west
Gies at Str:eet C at SA s':eFag9 at 30' ta 49' en seAter iAsteaEl at iRe
sametimes 100' spacing sl:1El'lJR an the plans, Sl,lGh allllitianal tree islanlls to
lle saaRlinateO \'lith mooifioo pa~iRg !lays that migRt 00 allllell to this
streel
m. Ovarstory trees willlle plantell alang bath sillas ef Kennarll Str-eet in fr-ant
ef the tewnl:1emes at an a'/erage 9f gO' to 10' en santor insteall 9f the
aver-age 50' te SO' spasing shGVJfl aR the plans.
n. The curve in Villaae Trail East StAlet 1', appasite bllilllings 10 anll12 .....ill
shall be flattened as much as possible to limit headlight clare on aimoo intG
the front of the units.
35
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
APPLICANT:
LOCATION:
DATE:
Greg Copeland, Interim City Manager
Shann Finwall, AICP, Planner
5-8 Tavern and Grill Parking Lot Expansion
Jill Skogheim
2289 and 2303 Minnehaha Avenue
June 21, 2006, for the June 27 CDRB Meeting
INTRODUCTION
Project Description
The owners of the 5-8 Tavern and Grill located at 2289 Minnehaha Avenue have purchased the
single family house located to the east of their existing property (2303 Minnehaha Avenue). Jill
Skogheim of the 5-8 Tavern and Grill is proposing to demolish the single family house for the
expansion of the restaurant's parking lot.
Requests
To proceed with this project, Ms. Skogheim is requesting that the city approve the following:
1. A comprehensive plan amendment from single-dwelling residential (R-1) to business
commercial modified (BC-M) for the property located at 2303 Minnehaha Avenue.
2. A rezoning from R-1 to BC-M for the property located at 2303 Minnehaha Avenue.
3. A conditional use permit (CUP) to expand the restaurant and a nonconforming parking lot.
4. Design review.
BACKGROUND
September 24, 2001: The city council approved a comprehensive plan amendment and rezoning
from R-1 to BC-M, a CUP to allow a restaurant within the BC-M zoning district, a CUP for the
expansion of a nonconforming structure, a parking lot setback variance, and design review for the
remodeling of the former Beau's Food and Spirits at 2289 Minnehaha Avenue to the 5-8 Tavern
and Grill.
October 14,2002, and November 10, 2003: The city council approved one-year extensions of
the 5-8 Tavern and Grill's CUPs.
November 22, 2004: The city council approved the 5-8 Tavern and Grill's CUPs and moved to
review the CUPs again only if there was a problem or if significant changes were proposed to the
site.
DISCUSSION
Land Use and Zoning
The restaurant building was constructed in the mid 1950s and was the site of Chicone's Bar and
Restaurant. From 1950 until 2001 the land use and zoning on the property at 2289 Minnehaha
Avenue was R-1, which made the restaurant a pre-existing nonconforming structure since
restaurants are not allowed within the R-1 zoning district. In 2001, the 5-8 Tavern and Grill
purchased the property and proposed an expansion of the building with an outdoor deck and the
expansion of the parking lot. With the expansion, the city council authorized a comprehensive
land use plan amendment and rezoning from R-1 to BC-M for the property at 2289 Minnehaha
Avenue.
The BC-M zoning district is intended to provide for the orderly transition between more intensive
commercial uses and low or medium density residential property. Within this zoning district, sit
down restaurants (no drive-through facilities) are allowed with a CUP. The CUP process allows
the city oversight to ensure there are limited impacts on the surrounding residential properties.
The single family house located at 2303 Minnehaha Avenue is guided and zoned R-1. In order
for the 5-8 Tavern and Grill to expand their parking lot into this property, it must be reguided and
rezoned to BC-M. This change meets the spirit, purpose, and intent of the zoning code by
allowing a much-needed expansion of an existing business's parking lot, while protecting the
character and privacy of the surrounding residential properties through the controls afforded
through the CUP process.
Conditional Use Permit
A CUP is required for the expansion of the restaurant and the expansion of a nonconforming
parking lot. Section 44-1097 states that the city may approve a CUP based on nine standards as
outlined in the CUP resolution (Attachment 15). Ms. Skogheim states in her CUP statement
(Attachment 2) that the proposed changes will enhance the existing property and eliminate
current safety and traffic congestion. She also describes how the project will meet seven of the
standards. The neighbor located to the east of the proposed expanded parking lot (James
Beardsley at 2311 Minnehaha Avenue), disputes that the use would meet these standards in his
letter to the city (Attachment 12).
Staff finds that with adjustments to the plan as suggested below and with adequate screening and
landscaping, the proposed expansion of the nonconforming parking lot would meet the standards
for a CUP as outlined in the code.
Parking Lot
According to city's parking code, the 5-8 Tavern and Grill is required to have 53 parking stalls.
The restaurant added 23 parking stalls in 2001, for a current total of 46. Since the parking
situation was made more conforming with the expansion of the parking lot in 2001 from 30 to 46
parking stalls, no special parking authorization was required at that time. In 2001 the restaurant
owners felt that 46 parking stalls would be adequate since they were adding parking to the
existing restaurant and the new deck expansion would only be used seasonally.
Over time the restaurant's parking needs have grown. Ms. Skogheim states that the existing
parking lot can become congested and unsafe, particularly due to the location of the driveway on
Minnehaha Avenue. For this reason, the owners of the 5-8 Tavern and Grill purchased the single
2
family house at 2303 Minnehaha Avenue in January of 2005. They have been renting out the
house until they receive the required city approvals for the expansion of the parking lot.
The proposed parking lot expansion will add 20 additional stalls, for a total of 66. The parking lot
will come within 5 feet of the north property line (matching the existing parking lot setback) and
would be 20 feet from the east property line. The required setback for parking lots adjacent to
residential property is 20 feet. However, since the parking lot setback to the north is pre-existing
at 5 feet, the applicant can expand this portion of the pre-existing parking lot setback as part of
the CUP.
City code requires restaurant parking stalls to be 9.5 feet in width by 18 feet in length. The length
of the parking stalls can be reduced to 15.5 feet when the parking stall is adjacent a curb or
landscaped area. City code also requires the drive aisle within a parking lot to be 24 feet wide for
two-way traffic, with no requirement for one-way drive aisles.
The proposed new parking stalls will be 9.5 feet wide by 15.5 feet deep along the curbs and 9.5
feet wide by 17.5 feet deep on the interior of the lot. The drive aisles are proposed at 20.5 and 20
feet wide. As a condition of design review approval, the applicants should revise their plans to
ensure that the interior parking stalls are 18 feet deep. This can be accomplished by reducing the
drive aisles to 20 and 19.5 feet wide and posting the drive aisles as one-way traffic with painted
arrows and signs. The engineering department finds that this width will be adequate for one-way
drive aisles in this parking lot.
Driveway
As proposed, the Minnehaha Avenue driveway will be shifted 105 feet to the east, further away
from the intersection. Minnehaha Avenue is a county road. Dan Solar of Ramsey County Public
Works supports the new access configuration with the entrance constructed further away from the
intersection. Refer to Mr. Solar's comments attached (Attachment 10).
Mr. Beardsley, however, has concerns over the location of the driveway closer to his house. Mr.
Beardsley states in a letter submitted to the city (Attachment 12) that the relocation of the
driveway will increase noise and pollution to his lot. He proposes that the driveway remain in its
current location. Ms. Skogheim states that relocating the driveway further to the east will allow for
better traffic circulation in the parking lot.
Staff agrees that the relocation of the driveway will have an impact on the adjacent property
owner, but will also allow for better traffic circulation. As a compromise, staff recommends that as
a condition of design review approval that the driveway be shifted only 45 feet to the east, in line
with the first drive aisle rather than the second aisle. The driveway would then be located 87 feet
from Mr. Beardsley's property line, which should alleviate the noise and pollution concerns; and
would allow direct access into the first drive aisle of the parking lot, which would create a better
traffic flow than the existing driveway. Mr. Solar was also supportive of this scenario as it would
still shift the driveway further from the intersection.
The construction of the new driveway will require a permit from Ramsey County. With the
removal of the old driveway and as a condition of design review approval, the applicants should
also construct new curb to match the existing curb along Minnehaha Avenue from the west side
of the existing driveway entrance up to west side of the new driveway entrance.
3
Drainage
During the city engineering department's review of the 2001 parking lot expansion the
engineering department stated that if the 5-8 Tavern and Grill did not do any grading on the
existing parking area (which was a gravel parking lot at the time) the water runoff restrictions
would only be required for the new parking lot addition. This was the reason that the existing
driveway remained in its present location, rather than shifting to the east during the initial parking
lot expansion.
The grading and drainage plan for the new parking lot expansion (Attachment 8) shows a majority
of the property being regraded with the expansion of the existing rainwater garden to help treat
the stormwater runoff. Because of extensive grading, the engineering department is requiring as
a condition of design review approval that the applicants provide drainage calculations showing
that 1" of runoff from the impervious area on the entire site be infiltrated. Refer to the engineering
report attached (Attachment 11). With this additional treatment, the 5-8 Tavern and Grill will be
required to implement additional infiltration practices to meet this requirement. These infiltration
practices could include additional rainwater gardens or the construction of the parking lot with a
pervious surface.
The applicant's engineering firm submitted revised grading and drainage plans on June 19, 2006,
which reflect the infiltration of the required 1" of runoff in a larger rainwater garden located along
Minnehaha Avenue. The city's engineering department has reviewed the plans and finds them
acceptable. These plans, however, will need to be revised to reflect the new driveway location as
specified above.
Mr. Beardsley also recommends that the expanded parking lot be constructed of a pervious
surface in order to protect his property from runoff and reduce the negative impacts on
surrounding trees and wildlife. Ms. Skogheim looked into the costs associated with this type of
surface and found that even with the grants available from the watershed district for pervious
surfaces, the construction of the parking lot with a pervious surface would be cost prohibitive. In
addition, Ms. Skogheim points out that the revised grading and drainage plans reflect that they
are able to treat the runoff as required by the city's engineering department, which will protect Mr.
Beardsley's property from runoff.
Design Review
Screenina - There is an existing 6-foot high cedar fence installed on the north and east side of
the property. With the expansion of the parking lot the applicant proposes to add onto this
existing fence or remove it entirely and replace it with a new wood fence.
With the expansion of the 5-8 Tavern and Grill's parking lot in 2001, the CDRB recommended
that the applicant let the existing cedar fence weather naturally, rather than sealing or staining the
fence. It was felt that this would create a more natural looking fence. In staff's opinion, however,
the cedar fence has not weathered well and should either be stained a natural color or rebuilt
entirely and sealed to ensure the cedar coloring remains.
The staining or sealing of the fence should also match the existing patio boards. There is an area
on the exterior of the patio, facing Stillwater Road, where there are two different color boards.
This was the result of the original boards not being sealed and the new boards (which were
replaced due to a vehicle hitting the patio) being sealed.
The applicant originally proposed to construct the new fence along the north property line, and
five feet from the east property line. The five-foot setback was proposed to alleviate Mr.
4
Beardsley's concerns about a reduction in light to his plants. Since the planning commission,
however, the applicant and Mr. Beardsley have agreed to work closely together to create a
screen along the east property line that both are in agreement with. As a compromise, the
applicant is suggesting the fence be set back seven feet from the east property line. This would
allow additional light onto Mr. Beardsley's property and also allow 13 feet between the fence and
the parking lot to install landscaping on the west side of the fence. The remaining seven feet of
property from the fence to the east property line could be planted with low maintenance hostas or
ground cover that is acceptable to Mr. Beardsley.
Landscapina - The applicants also submitted a revised landscape plan on June 19, 2006. The
revised plan shows the removal of two trees and the planting of two new trees, 18 shrubs, and 73
perennials. In addition, the plan shows additional plantings within the expanded rainwater
garden. This plan must be revised to reflect the new location of the fence.
Liahtina - Currently the building is equipped with three rooftop lights that shine onto the existing
west and south parking areas. These lights are not facing residential property and have not
proven to be an issue for the neighbors in the past. In addition, there are seven wall lights and
three fence mounted lights.
With the expanded parking lot the applicant is proposing to remove three fence mounted lights
and install two freestanding lights in the center of the parking lot. These lights will be
approximately 15 feet in height and will include two sodium metal halide downcast lights per pole.
City code allows freestanding lights to be up to 25 feet in height and requires the light illumination
from exterior lights to produce no more than .4 foot candles of illumination at all property lines.
The lighting and photometrics plan (Attachment 9) show light illumination readings of 2 foot
candles at the north and east property lines. The lighting wattage or the height of the
freestanding lights need to be modified to reduce the foot candles and meet city code
requirements.
Existina Conditions - Upon inspection of the site, staff found that there are a few shrubs which
are in poor health or have died, an area north of the Stillwater Road driveway which has no grass
established, and some of the existing fence boards are loose or in poor repair. A condition of
design review should include the replacement of all dead or unhealthy existing plants, a detailed
landscape plan for the area north of the Stillwater Road driveway to include hearty plants and/or
decorative boulders, and the repair of all areas of the existing fence in poor repair (unless a new
fence is constructed).
Other Comments
Police Department: Lt. Michael Shortreed states the following:
1. Additional parking stalls will benefit the business and its customers by providing an
environment where customers will no longer have to walk across Minnehaha Avenue on
foot in order to get to the business. As a result, the City of Maplewood should consider
posting both the entire south side of Minnehaha Avenue as well as the north side in front
of the business as "No Parking" zones.
2. The three concerns that are identified in the design review application (fence
maintenance, parking lot drainage, and lighting plan development) should be specifically
addressed by the contractor. The necessary steps should be taken to assure that all of
the concerns are resolved at the end of the project to the satisfaction of the neighborhood
5
residents in order to avoid future complaints that the concerns were not addressed
appropriately.
Building Department: Dave Fisher, Interim Community Development Director/Building Official
states that they will need a demolition permit for the removal of the existing house and garage.
Mr. Fisher also states that the accessible parking design and signage looks fine.
Committee Action
On June 19, 2006, the planning commission recommended approval of the comprehensive plan
change, rezoning, and conditional use permit.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Adopt the comprehensive land use plan amendment resolution attached (Attachment 13).
This resolution changes the comprehensive land use plan from single dwelling residential
(R-1) to business commercial (modified) (BC-M) for the expansion of the 5-8 Tavern and
Grill parking lot onto an existing single-family lot at 2303 Minnehaha Avenue. The city is
making this change because:
a. The expansion of the parking lot will supply adequate off-street parking and
loading facilities for the site.
b. The parking lot will be designed in the best manner to avoid disruption of adjacent
or nearby residential areas including locating the parking lot 20 feet from the
residential property to the east and installing a 6-foot high privacy fence along all
shared residential property lines.
2. Adopt the rezoning resolution attached (Attachment 14). This resolution changes the
zoning map from single dwelling residential (R-1) to business commercial (modified) (BC-
M) for the expansion of the 5-8 Tavern and Grill parking lot onto an existing single-family
lot at 2303 Minnehaha Avenue. The city is making this change because:
a. The change is consistent with the spirit, purpose and intent of the zoning code.
b. The proposed change will not substantially injure or detract from the use of
neighboring property or from the character of the neighborhood, and that the use
of the property adjacent to the area included in the proposed change or plan is
adequately safeguarded.
c. The proposed change will serve the best interests and conveniences of the
community, where applicable, and the public welfare.
d. The proposed change would have no negative effect upon the logical, efficient,
and economical extension of public services and facilities, such as public water,
sewers, police and fire protection and schools.
e. The proposed change is supported by a majority of the neighbors surveyed.
f. The applicant is proposing to use the property in question for a commercial parking
lot and not for residential purposes.
6
3. Adopt the conditional use permit resolution attached (Attachment 15). This resolution
approves two conditional use permits for the 5-8 Tavern and Grill at 2289 and 2303
Minnehaha Avenue including:
a. A conditional use permit to allow the expansion of a restaurant within the business
commercial (modified) (BC-M) zoning district.
b. A conditional use permit for the expansion of a nonconforming parking lot (20-foot
setback from residential property required, 5-foot setback proposed).
Approval is based on the findings required by the code and subject to the following:
a. Construction of the 5-8 Tavern and Grill and parking lot shall follow the site plan
approved by the city. The director of community development may approve minor
changes.
b. The parking lot expansion shall comply with all city engineering requirements as
defined in the June 9, 2006, engineering review.
c. The proposed parking lot expansion must be substantially started within one year
of council approval or the permit shall become null and void. The city council may
extend this deadline for one year.
d. Remove snow from the parking lot as necessary.
e. The city council shall review this permit in one year.
4. Approve the plans date stamped June 19, 2006, for the 5-8 Tavern and Grill (2289
Minnehaha Avenue) parking lot expansion. The city is approving these plans based on
the findings required by the code. The applicant shall do 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 permit for the parking lot expansion the applicant
must submit the following for staff approval:
1) Revised grading and drainage plan showing the relocation of the driveway
to the west, in line with the first drive aisle. The grading and drainage plan
must be approved by the city engineering department and must comply
with all requirements as specified in the June 9, 2006, engineering review.
2) Revised site plan showing the following:
a) Relocation of the fence seven feet from the east property line.
b) Relocation of the driveway to the west, in line with the first drive
aisle.
c) All new parking stalls 18 feet deep.
d) Reduction in the new drive aisles to 20 and 19.5 feet wide and
posting the drive aisles as one-way traffic with arrows and signs.
e) Replacement curbing (to match existing) along Minnehaha Avenue
from the west side of the existing driveway entrance up to west side
of the new driveway entrance.
7
3) Fence elevations showing style, height, materials, and color.
4) Revised landscape plan showing the following:
a) Sizes of all proposed plants.
b) The planting of water tolerant plants within the rainwater garden.
c) A detailed plan of the plantings on the west and east side of the
fence to include at least 2 trees, 18 shrubs, and 73 perennials. The
plantings located on the east side of the fence to be approved by
the property owner of 2311 Minnehaha Avenue prior to planting.
d) A detailed plan of the plantings proposed in the rainwater garden.
e) A detailed plan for the area north of the Stillwater Road driveway to
include hearty plants and/or decorative boulders.
f) The replacement of all dead or unhealthy plants previously
required.
g) The location of all sprinkler heads for the required underground
irrigation system (code required).
h) In addition to the above, all common grounds shall be sodded
(except for mulched and edged planting beds).
5) A revised photometrics plan showing the light illumination from all exterior
lights not exceeding .4 foot candles at all property lines.
6) Obtain a permit from the Ramsey County Public Works Department for the
relocation of the Minnehaha Avenue driveway.
7) Obtain a permit, if required, from the Ramsey Washington Metro
Watershed District for the grading of the expanded parking lot.
8) Submit 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. Prior to final inspection of the expanded parking lot by the city the applicant must:
1) Complete all required exterior improvements including parking lot,
screening fence, landscaping, underground irrigation, and exterior lighting.
2) Repair all portions of the existing fence (unless a new fence is installed)
that are broken or loose.
3) Stain the existing fence (unless a new fence is installed) and the patio
boards to match the new fence.
4) Install the required replacement curb along Minnehaha Avenue.
5) Replace any property irons removed because of this construction.
d. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development
may approve minor changes.
8
CITIZEN COMMENTS
I surveyed the owners of the 39 properties within 500 feet of this site. Five responses were
received as follows:
In Favor
1. Gaung He Virginia Ng, 3356 Park Avenue South, Minneapolis: "It's OK"
2. David Livingston, 7901 Ninth Street Court North, Sl. Paul (owner 2297 Stillwater Road):
"OK-to allow expansion of the parking lot as requested. We are located directly across
the road on Stillwater Rd. This would reduce parking in our lot on weekends & evenings.
We have incurred some damage to our property due to 5-8 lack of on site parking. They
need their own parking area."
3. Kathryn Sorenson, 2302 Stillwater Road: "The plan looks OK & does address the issues
discussed at the meeting. My property & house are on the north side of proposed parking
lot and I have a chain link fence which would have to come down. There are a number of
trees that had been cut down by the previous owner but are 3 to 4 feet high and also need
to be cut down to ground level. Also I have a dog so I would need a short section of chain
link to both sides to meet up with the new fence. Maintenance of the new wood fence is
an issue as the existing fence has not always been maintained very well."
4. Roger Vanderhoff & Richard Vanderhoff, 2300 Stillwater Road East: "I am not against this
if they do a better job picking rocks up where they put the fence. Water runs off their
parking lot on my lawn-there is a broken fence post still in the ground from the fence-and
wire still in a tree.
Opposed
1. James Beardsley, 2311 Minnehaha Avenue: Refer to Mr. Beardsley's letter attached
(Attachment 12).
9
SITE DESCRIPTION
Site Size:
Existing Land Use:
REFERENCE INFORMATION
36,974 square feet (.84 acres)
RestauranUBar and Single Family House
SURROUNDING LAND USES
North and East:
South:
West:
PLANNING
Existing Land
Use Plan:
Single-Family Homes (Zoned R-1)
Wells Fargo Bank and 3-M (Zoned M-1)
Multi-Tenant Building: Martial Arts and Floral Business (Zoned BC)
Business Commercial-Modified (BC-M) and Single-Dwelling Residential
(R-1)
Business Commercial-Modified (BC-M) and Single-Dwelling Residential
(R-1)
CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL
Existing Zoning:
1. Land Use Plan Amendment: There are no specific criteria for land use plan changes.
Any change, however, should be consistent with the goals and policies in the
Comprehensive Plan. Two specific goals apply to this proposal:
a. Promote economic development that will expand the property tax base, increase
jobs and provide desirable services.
b. Maintain and upgrade environmental quality and, where needed. reclassifv land
uses.
In addition, four specific commercial policies apply to this proposal:
a. Require adequate off-street parking and loading facilities.
b. Avoid disruption of adjacent or nearby residential areas.
c. Require commercial developers to make all necessary improvements to ensure
compatibility with surrounding residential uses.
d. Require adequate screening or buffering of new or expanded commercial areas
from any adjacent existing or planned residential development.
2. Rezoning: Section 44-1165 of the Zoning Code requires that the city council make the
following findings to rezone property:
a. The proposed change is consistent with the spirit, purpose and intent of the Zoning
Code.
b. The proposed change will not substantially injure or detract from the use of
neighboring property or from the character of the neighborhood, and that the use
of the property adjacent to the area included in the proposed change or plan is
adequately safeguarded.
10
c. The proposed change will serve the best interests and conveniences of the
community, where applicable, and the public welfare.
d. The proposed change would have no negative effect upon the logical, efficient,
and economical extension of public services and facilities, such as public water,
sewers, police and fire protection and schools.
3. Conditional Use Permit: Section 44-1097 states that the city may approve a conditional
use permit based on the nine standards for approval as outlined in the conditional use
permit resolution (Attachment 15).
Application Date
We received the complete applications and plans for this proposal on May 18, 2006. State law
requires that the city take action within 60 days of receiving complete applications for a land use
proposal. As such, city action is required on this proposal by July 17, 2006.
P:\Sec25\5-8 Club\2006 Parking Lot Expansion\6-19-06 PC
Attachments:
1. Applicant's Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezoning Statement
2. Applicant's Conditional Use Permit Statement
3. Applicant's Design Review Statement
4. Location Map
5. Land Use Map
6. Zoning Map
7. Site Plan/Landscape Pian
8. Grading and Drainage Plan
g. Lighting and Photometric Plan
10. Ramsey County Public Work's Review
11. Engineering Department Review
12. James Beardsley Letter
13. Comprehensive Land Use Plan Change Resolution
14. Rezoning Resolution
15. Conditional Use Permit Resolution
11
Attachment 1
Plan Amendment/Zoning Application
Applicant: JBJ Dining Inc.
Property: 2303 Minnehaha Ave.
Contact: Jill Skogheim
JBJ Dining, Inc. dba 5-8 Tavern and Grill requests that the property at 2303 Minnehaha Ave. E.
be zoned Business Commercial Modified (BC-M) and that the city's comprehensive plan is
amended to reflect the change.
JBJ Dining, Inc. has operated the 5-8 Tavern and Grill in Maplewood successfully for the past
four years. During that time, we have found that our parking lot is inadequate for the size of the
building and our customers' driving patterns. Our lot is regularly over capacity creating a
potentially dangerous enviromnent for cars entering and exiting the parking lot. In January of
2005, JBJ Dining acquired the immediately adjacent residential property in hopes of correcting
the parking flow.
During our time in Maplewood, the company has been a good citizen in the community and has
not been a source of controversy or complaint for the city since opening in May of 2002.
A zoning change at this location will enhance the 5-8 Tavern and Grill and promote public
welfare in the following ways:
1. Traffic congestion would be reduced with the added parking area, as it will allow us to
meet the city code for restaurant parking and ensure adequate flow of parking for our
customers. Additionally, the proposed entrance from Minnehaha will decrease
congestion at the intersection of McKnight and Minnehaha and reduce the bottleneck
caused by customers attempting to turn left into our lot.
2. As a result of the traffic congestion described above, some safety issues occur.
Presently, people drive more quickly than they should given the tight area of the lot and
minor "fender-benders" occur on a fairly regular basis. Further, when there are no
remaining striped spots, people park their vehicle anywhere they see fit. In the best case,
people dart across busy Minnehaha Ave. In the worst case, people double park and
prevent safe passage to the entrance of the building. This proposal would eliminate these
safety issues through design and increased number of spots available.
3. The proposed plan allows for adequate lighting and open space. New "Black Sky"
technology allows us to ensure better safety for our customers as they walk to their
vehicles at night while maintaining virtually zero light at the outside perimeter of our
property.
4. Our improvements (Ex. landscaping) as seen on the site plan improve the aesthetic
quality over the present parking lot and provide an added buffer for the immediately
adjacent residential property. The landscaping is designed to keep the character of the
area intact, maintain a desirable look for the neighboring properties, and preserve
adjacent property values.
5. The proposed changes should not have any significant impact on either the sewer or
water systems. Sewer use will remain the same and our drainage pond is designed to
drain all water on our property.
Attachment 2
Conditional Use Permit
Applicant: JBJ Dining, Inc.
Property: 2303 Minnehaha Ave. E.
Contact: Jill Skogheim
All proposed changes will enhance the existing property and eliminate current safety and
traffic congestion issues. All proposed improvements will maintain compliance with the
city regulations.
I. The proposed improvements ensure quality design and construction in accordance
with city code.
2. The planned expansion will not change the character of the surrounding area.
Presently, the area is a combined commercial/residential area on a main
thoroughfare in the area. The planned changes are designed to meet the required
setback between residential and commercial areas and great care has been taken to
propose landscaping that is desirable for the adjacent property owner and ensure
the survival of his landscaping.
3. The continued use of the property as a restaurant will not involve any activity that
is hazardous, dangerous, detrimental, or a nuisance, nor will it cause excessive
noise, pollution, or unsightliness.
4. Our proposed changes to the parking lot will decrease congestion and eliminate
the current unsafe access to the property and existing improper parking generated
from people double parking and parking across a busy street. Additionally, the
change in egress will further add to the safety of passing traffic by moving away
from the right-of -way.
5. Streets, sewers, and water lines will not have a significant change in use. As
such, all facilities are adequate for the continued use of the building as a
restaurant.
6. Our proposed changes will not create additional costs for public facilities or
services.
7. The environmental effects on the property will be beneficial in that we intend to
beautify the property with improved landscaping, enhance the present drainage pond
area, and minimize runoffby draining water from the lot in the expanded pond.
Attachment 3
Design Review Application
Applicant: JBJ Dining Inc.
Property: 2303 Minnehaha Ave. E.
Contact: Jill Skogheim
JBJ Dining, Inc. dba 5-8 Tavern and Grill proposes a parking lot expansion to better meet
the needs of our customers. Presently, we have 46 parking spaces for approximately 150
seats in our restaurant or one spot per every 3.26 seats. This is a variance from the city
requirement and an ongoing safety and feasibility issue for our business.
A neighborhood meeting was organized and held at the 5-8 Tavern and Grill on March
30, to identifY concerns. The concerns brought up were: Fence maintenance from
snowplow damage along the northern border of the property, drainage of water from the
parking lot, developing a lighting plan similar to the present lot as there had been no
problems from neighbors with lighting light level, light level for the garden at 2311
Minnehaha, and visibility of personal property from the restaurant parking.
As a result of this meeting, 2 comers of the parking lot have been striped to indicate no
parking and will be used to pile snow in the winter. This eliminates piling of snow
against the fence, and in turn the fence maintenance issues. This design also minimizes
the chance of snow melt chemicals running into the adjoining yards. To further address
the drainage issues the pond has been placed adjacent to our current drainage pond
causing water to drain away from the residential area.
To address the lighting issues, downcast lights with substantial cutoff shields were
chosen on recommendation from Collisys Electrical Systems to maintain the light
necessary for our customer's safety while minimizing light at the property's edges.
The enhanced landscaping on the east side of the property is intended to resolve concerns
from neighbors as well. The required 20 foot setback has been designed as a perennial
and shrub garden. Bachman's Landscape completed the design with the goals of adding
color and interest to the property, preserving the neighboring garden's (2311 Minneahaha
Ave. E.) light and water needs, shielding personal property, and maintaining an
environment that is appropriate for a residential/commercial buffer. A hedge of
arborvitaes/yews were discussed with the neighbor and were not viewed favorably due to
the light. Instead similar plantings have been incorporated into the garden to address the
opposing concerns of property owners (shield personal property and maintain present
sunlight levels).
N
w
~~~
'~f~
s
Attachment 4
In I i".___ TJ
JO"
I --<:,
~: :' ,-
il il
Ii
lIil~. ;~I
I 'CJ
I _'j -
D i
'u..":.-I
~~p.1
___-.1_ _i __
-c.. -.;:: r
q,lol='d''',p'Ci
. . o. . 00..111
11-'---5 'I
o 'I
""8\'\')"
()
, c
/"; i?
r-,-c--"..--:::J I' / 1/
:,..j /)
l\----.J ,..:/
..'e-c- --;,$f,c-' bc2'::lc'
- 7@':~p'jll
I~j~l; -- ..4:.
~G:Ls. -I TII
, -;ill. 'l.... - fr+
iJ .c. J;~,:,o o'o-;lt; l,l
. ,. f~OrO~!D-Fr::,~'=:~--;c (c-.-,=i:i.)
kr 1,~I/~cQ "bo ~n 2289 Minnehaha Avenue .1
,D~ ~ J c 5-8 Club CD ~
II ~
I 0 ~ 0 ~ II "' u D J u I \l .~
cy I"~", o!ig It~~~~-:;~~~, ~o~.~] .=... _
-- 'I?Jols,bloldD'c 6'"
I I I 'e, . I'
I, III
I I
!I I' I,
1.1..1,l
10 ~- T-
II ""[j -iSol
I'"~; ',"".'.'.
Id!J ,Il'
rcfp~_E
-c:::; '"
III
3M Campus
,I
!'
!I I
'I
'I I I
'I
I,:
"
c~,_
.'CT''' [
~< :J
4
. c
S
'i[
D,c
"L
I::JCJ
uc;:
Location Map
E
Attachment 5
I. .. . '. jt);f.'. b.. ~.f'. I ~.....' ~~I,.,"..,.'i.I..'I.'" '. "1.1.~.-".:1'
1..,,-- ~~" /Q- 1"-: I I' #,.",I!!l, u 4 I
I w- -n"'-T",c,,,,~.. .;! 1,11- -!..-; ...... ,I 1 I'
I.....~'~LCJJ,:J'~/ ,....'-~ _v - ~- I.:, II ! f.'./: ..A< . ... CO";. !
,', "v ~ _'.. -'.~'.'.~'... 41.. . I vi _.11 ...1 j "t ... ....~ ~
1:.....-- I ___I - ---- --~! ---';-.-':::'.'.' ~~,. _ ""'-
'i , .-- ... _ . 'I I I. . .,. . .." #'
I').. - ~. :#!-~..J' ;.~~~Ir~.t?- . .\.:~, '/.~'"
II' ...;:~.. ":'~I;r=!,;, '-~c-'r';. '.-,,1'. ,~.-..-.;;; '-...~. '.1!... ~'.. ..-"'........ ..',
-4 ~ . - iii .. 1_. 1'1 J.I ar _ I _~<::\,\:,' .'4-__ ',', .,:.-,-11
II ~'. '. ,..,.,-1.. .I...r '1 Ii. 1'1' . I "I ." ,.,..." '.'1 ',' .-.
':...-\. 'I ...... _. _,- II, ' (, . 'E ',' .. 'f' I I j-
, I,~' 1.1'," ~ ~'. ~ 2 3, 991 ~n,ooe~l. ~aAv-.ef1 lilet:.IIII,. Iv r.1 Iltl~-~--
"w. '1_ 11,",~"r'. '. II 'I ~
I. "~ . ".-- '__ Il_', -__[I"
! . ..". · .' I . ~ " I' ..e II - -i!.... ~.
I, , irl-l_.1 ll~." .,. · "'_
i'!I.UI"I.I..'~. .-
OJ . I
5-8 Tavern and,
2289 Minnehaha'
I"
, "
III"
Legend
_ Business Commercial (BC)
_ Business Commercial Modified (BC-M)
_ Cemetery (C)
_ Light Manufacturing (M-1)
- -- Single Dwelling Residential (R-1)
n Double Dwelling Residential (R-2)
N
W*E
s
Land Use Map
Attachment 6
I' . " I ." 1.,.11'.... ~ ..... I I ....'. '. '....~. ',1
· -"--- -, - -- -~~ - - ~. - hI' ..- 11111' .' _I ~. .
I .~ ~ 1111 i::J'-l ,! _.# _ ~. 1 . II
I.... ,Jei CI_uu JI ___. I I '1'1 L .'" # .. __.-
1....- _LJS$. 111'"111 .~.~. .. .-
. - ,- ",;?"\'_. . I I~~." ... ..
I '. --," &. II I.. I I. ,... ./ .-#
I .. , .~; -... .,- l-l' ~ I ~.' "Ilia ... . ·
I.. ~ r(/f" _ - -.~-"..,""Hq 1,_'"",,"1 .. ~t .+.
'I ..'_11.1.[j~~- 1~~';;~lj 1...I',~:'.~r:.. .;.\ '\...
I ... .. I r I ~ . '[, Ol' l . I ,..1
!l::: .-1"1;': f'i'1lll-r-' 1$'I"\li~':lt'.
.~. I ~ - 309- rleI2tla A ehu~ -I ' . '..IIII~
II 1.~', '1'1.:'=11" -'I j'I" '.,_
1"~.rJl~"1 "I:.~~I' ~,~I r..~ I''L"'I-'~. ~ 111).~~~:I:.r..__
5-8 Tavern and Grill ;C -: =-= - -- I'!'"i II;, "I" i.- ..
2289 Minnehaha Avenue I. I I "_I " .
i-II '
! '
I
I
.j
Legend
_ Business Commercial (BC)
_ Business Commercial Modified (BC-M)
_ Farm Residence (F)
Light Manufacturing (M-1)
I Single Dwelling Residential (R-1)
C-=-J Double Dwelling Residential (R-2)
N
w
~~~
~~~
E
Zoning Map
s
~
CJ)
"-3 ~"'ill
'i!
!i'
j-'
-II
- ~II'_~
to;:
"2 <;
[, ~ ~ /
[: tJ:j
~ ~ .~
~ '.....
I/~
I
I
, f"
Ii
I
II
I
I
I
1---
~ H~
'"liiR
II!
~ll
II
I
,
i ! !
!l ~ ~
8 0
~ ~ ~
, >
. "
Q.
" ; ~
I ~ ::s
~ : ~
! ;0:
I - "
. .
~ ~ 3.
~ ~~
_~ : 0
~
, -0<:
I . -.
. "
0"
, .
, . ~
~ ~.s
=1=
'n
'"
I
"CD
>n
-or
~rC
CDI'lCD
~~I
z8-c
z. >
P!;~
_zz
zz",
nl'l
. "'>
0",
~g
oj
o
z
,I
~
;:
Attachment 7
r-,' -I
: ~; :
1__-
I
,
.
'P.
.
"', ,
,
i
,
. .,
, 0
I" ;~
"
, ,
~
!
b
[----
..,"
- ,#;'.~'=O
i1;~~~;;;
'I'
~ ',!
I"
~ ,.
:<: ,I
l' I'
[iJ "..... ri.,
'I '1'1'
I I'
I I
L_________l_____
~
[.;. j
- Ii ~:.
,
!1~i$1
" I
'" i~~~ia~ ~~~~i~i ~..~~~~ i i i ! ' · ;
ii1 "..e_~~ o..e_ i':~M'~ ~Sz ~~ ! ~~ ~ ~~~ t~
'T''r'_:i!11 lD'r'I.i!J!... fr!:l~ I 0 '0 - -'"I"
-0 ii.~~~ ~.i~~~ 'i~"'~l I! " l "I 'I I' Ii
r ,- ., !! !. 'I"'
> ~~~ffi; ~ ~~~ I; n :& r:!j;j _ o~ ~ ~3-. h
z ~ -i ~ ~za ~~ ~ ....'" ..-< ill ,.
~ ~~ t~ ~ 'I r.'" i!
7~ ~~ ~ !. . " :
~~ ~~ f f~ ; i ~? ~ :~
~.z ~:z ;;l ~: ,~,I I
gf; 8~ ii ~~ ~ z~ ~.....
. ,.
q II . II
P. I
~ ~ " .;- ';!" , .
,
'-"\l""""I'm"'T"""~I~~l""'''''''''''
~ - ~ '"
"tj'1'
~ ~U
III
!iI
~H
II
I
,
l II ! i illl!! I .
! I . I'
II ! Ii II i!l! ,'1 ,'I 1"1
,- I II II !ll!.I' -
II II ,'., '1111
" I-
i! !!I!i!!!l!!li! I! II j!l! I
II i!I!i1i!!il!liiHq!!
II
illi I ! !! 1111
II i !I
!
Attachment 8
IIi!!!!! i'I"lii 'i'!! !lill!l'I~!!!!I!i!l!!,;'!il!;11!i!!il:'!'!ii!j!:! I !lifl!~!ii!!!I'I'li!li!l! liiiiiii'I' ','ilil'l"
"oIll.j,III+' "'!"l"i'~"! i'ill" 'Vlr,!,i!I'! III" II'j
!I! iil ii li~! !difli! Iml:l ill!!!lj ,!iillll iHi I i ili1j III ::!~ !i, I!iilqlj! Ij'il!! i Iii!::
mil ill!!l :!I!I!llli!!!!! iill!!! ill!!!i!!il!llliil!rl~ii!!I!!I!jlli Ih'l ! ill!!
!li! i~ !, !11!!11! ill! I ilii ! 11!III,lI! !'I'!I!,ll!ii'!! 1 ! I'll S Ii illill!' il!,ll i' ilq!
", I' I , " 'II! Ii' I 1 III . I ,'I "I IS ' i' I
!ll ,I i dill, ;!j! '!Il ! il!i!l! ,i !Iii i i:1 ~ : ill!; Il!1
I.' III .111 ' "'il! I 'I I,~ 'i,
~ i ~ I II. . . Ii'
,
'S-
"0.
. "
- . ~
I ~:::I
,: :i
!I : 5'
I! : g
f; ~ 5"
i! ~ (Il;l
j ~ .. g,
ii :~
i I :;:
. "
! . ~
- :F
: b
;("J
!,1 ,I il
'"
I
,,"
>()
"..-
ffiJ;iffi
~2'i1
z8"'C
z. >
.G")~~
_~z
~rr1C')
. en>
00
>2
:l
o
Z
"'"
"'",
0> 'I
~2 ~i'!~'
ZZ
"
()' 'lIlt
00 ,I
z'"
;;j1!:
OZ I
..->
" I~~~
"'"
t;p,o llll
Z !
q , I'Dfi
Il, I in:1
() , 'f"
'" i ~ i~1o
. ~
'I
II In\\
n .-,
:1
"
i;1
I', i. ili
Ii ! iI!
;i ~l
" !I
,
!!!'!
!1I!!
"Ii~
lij',i
'1 '
i'" T
"
i"
I !' I ':
- l! I'
i1
I
I
I
I
I
'I
I
',I
',I
\1
i
. I,
"1\:,;
II ·
I ;:
II'
F Co:I
1\ ~
lij
Ii
I j
r
I j
uL
II
II
II
I
I
[)....
I
I'
I: "
~~,>::::>
""'~
~~~"'~,
~'::::~<:~"
;~~~~~
~~~
~J);/~~")
. "'"<i>
<"Po
'"1.0
~
VJ
'-3
I~
I
-E --
ili!;
,:
;,.,1"
j~ 'I:
~h
~."/
"toj
,':1)
:\1 "1 ..i I;
h Q<;
-I ~~
I I" ~. I
l~'
~----_____l____
i II I ~I~ !! ! rlu:i Ii; Ii; II; I; !1I ~
:: " Ill:!: i'I!! 111:1 II Iii
!! I'll! I,: !!!!!I!'I!
ii !hl ill!!!!!! 'I'
il!'ll! !! ill I !I
!!'Iil! !!IIL I
Iii" II !llll !'
;1- ii Ii I' II i :~
!~:!~
'is;
~ ~
,.
"
TYPE:
DETAILS
....
--
';!
I~
,2
IU .........
,ir' "
1
t..!
[QJ--
L-S---!
.~
COOPER LIGHTING
CATALOG .:
Attachment 9
COOPER LIGHTING-
3
1 "'ASTM G.... ...1.... plate with ASTM A366 be" 1XJ\I'8f.
Z...Hend holeauembly~xS. on 5. end IS. pole; andTx..on". pole.
3---ASTM A50D grede "8. 1l8eI_haft, Shot blaeted ami painted with
po--.....
4 "'DrilIed or i_on (epec:ifyl.
....Anchor bon per AS1'M A6711 with (2) nuts. (21 n.r Wllllher" .nd .1) lock
WII.r.er. Nuls,. wash.... lAd threaded ponIon of bolt ..... hot dip
goIvanlzod. T hook1","J/4"""'. .. hook 1"". boll.
FOUR BOLT ANCHORAGE I... ordering lftfo,-metion)
IIC-Bott CirdlJ
_8a1l Poojec:<lon
__Soft Dimenafons
o.BoIt Di.meter
IWIoIt Dim.....
flNI8H COLO..
F-o.rlr:Bronze
Q..O.tv.nized
Y-G"",
W.white
Y...Bhn:k
SSSSQUARE
STRAIGHT STEEL
10... 39.
Mounting Heitht
SQUARE STRAIGHT STEEL
--
~
TYPE:
CATALOG .:
DE8CRIPTlON
SPECIFICATiON FEATURES
The McGraw..fdison
Concourse UI is the most
versatile. functionally
designed. univen;ally
adaptabkl outdoor lighting
luminaire available. Through a
variety of motJnting styles. it
offers 8 famUy of low profUe
sharp-cutoff luminaires that
make optimum use of today's
high output HID sources.
A...L.tch..
Two spring-eteel quick reIeaae
latches on housing for toolless
entry.
....Socket
Porcelain moguJ..base screw
shell type lamp socket with
spring--lOBded CBnter contact.
C ...Hovaln,
One-piece; dle--cast afuminum
housing feature& aesthetically
p~easlng soft--corner design.
D.-Gasketing
Closed cell gao-filled high
temperature silicone gasketing
completely _Is oplicol system
from dirt, bugs or other foreign
material.
APPLICATION
Enhancing nabJrallandscapes
as well as cityscapes, the
Concourse III brings
outstanding performance and
style to walkways. par1<ing lot>.
roadways. loading docIes.
building areas, and any
security lighting application.
u,L. listed and CSA certified
for wet locations.
E...Lens
Thermal shock- and impact~
resistant dear tempered glass.
A
B
c-
E
F
H
J
McGRAW-EDISON"
F-..Optics
Optional high efficiency
segmented or hydroformed
reflectors available in 8 range
of distributions. Reflector
modules attach to the housing.
All reflectors are field rotatable
in goo ;ncrem8nts.~
G ...Mounting
Universal mounting clamp
concealed in housing fits 11/T
to 23m-D.O. horizontal tenons
without adapters. Provides a
R vertical leveling adjustment
AI mounting option includes
arm and round pole adapter
with the fixture for single canon
shipment.
H...Ballnt
Easily removable high power
factor HID multi-tap baltast is
standard.
"noHing.s
tntegral hinges prevent door
rocking and optimize sealing
capabilities.
DIRECT ARM MOUNTINGS
WALL MOUNT ADAPTER
~,.
om-
I.......
CAl.
CONCOURSE III
70..00.
High Pr...ur. Sod'am
Met.t H_lide
ARCHJTECTURAL
AREA LUMINAIHE
~
ENERGY DATA
111- ..........w.as
7(J/NHK~_Wattsl
7r:/W MH HPF 1M w.al)
100w tf"S HPF f130 w.tta)
100w MH HPf t12!1 WllIlts)
cwa. .....InpId:WUts
15OV11'MHHPF(210w.1t81
17SN lei HPF (210 w.tts)
21501N HPS HPF l30D WBtbI
2fiIJW IMH HPF (296 Waul)
40DW HPS HPf l4I5 Wattsl
400W ~ HPF {456 w.u.)
DIMENSIONS
COOPER UGHTIIIQ
.'A
___........~O.!I
SHIPPING DATA
....... . ......WIIgtII:
39..... (18..1
-
,~
t/1'
01- 01- 01- 01- 01- ot- ot- .... .... .... .... .... .... 01- 01- 01- 01- 01- Of- Of-
01- .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... ot-
.... '" .... ,oj ,oj c'I c'I ef- t'! t'! t'! c'l c'l .... .... .... .... }\
------ ----------..
/' "
.... '" c'l. c'I' e'!- "'I-~/.9t- ....'~ e'!- c>i. e'!- .... "'-
/ ',,-
, '
. .
ot- <'I c>i. <:'I. t'!' ~ e'!- c>i- .... 01-
f '
01- .... e'!- e'!- i t e'!- c"I- .... Of-
.... .... e'!- e'!- c"I- c'l .... ....
" //
"
J'\- J'\- e'!- c'l c'f A-'''" $'I- S't-/l'I- e'!- e'!- c'l .... ....
, , /
---------
}\- .... e'!. e'!- t'I ef- ef- et-. e'!- c'l .... <'t.
J'\- .... .... .... .... .... e'!- c"I- e'!- c"I- .... .... .... .... .... ....
J'\- J'\- .... .... .... .... e'!- e'!- e'!- e'!- .... .... J'\- .... .... ....
.~ .... .... c'I e'!- ..... ..... T
"-
~
<'! .... c"I- c'l c"I- c"I- c'I- <'I. .... }\
if "'"
~ .... .... e'!- c'I- e'!- cT .... .... '"
01- .... e'!- e'!- c'l- c'I- .... 01- !
01- .... c'l. c'l c'f c'f- .... 01
.... .... c'l e'!- c'f c'l- c'l c'l- '"
.... '" "'. <'t. .... c'f. c'I <'t .... <'t <'t <'t
ot- .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... Of-
01- 01- 01- 01- 01- 01- Ot- .... .... .... .... .... .... 01- ot- 01- 01- 01- 01- 01-
-
. (
I
't-- lOt.. ~
Attachment 10
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Shann Finwall
City of Maplewood
FROM:
Dan Soler
Ramsey County Public Works
SUBJECT: 5-8 Tavern & Grill
DATE:
June 13,2006
The Ramsey County Public Works Department has reviewed the proposed redevelopment plan
for the existing 5-8 Tavern & Grill at the intersection of Stillwater Road and Minnehaha Avenue.
Ramsey County has the following comments regarding this proposal.
I. The use of the site will stay the same as it is today. This upgrade of the site will not have a
measurable impact on traffic operations in the area.
2. The existing access point on Minnehaha Avenue will be closed and a new access point will
be constructed into the site further east. Ramsey County supports the new access
configuration with the entrance constructed further east of Stillwater Road.
3. The new access point on Minnehaha A venue will require a permit from Ramsey County for
construction onto County right of way.
Thanks for the opportunity to make comments regarding this issue. If you have any questions or
need any additional information please give me a call.
Attachment 11
Page I of2
Eneineerine Plan Review
PROJECT: 5-8 Tavern and Grill
PROJECT NO: 06-12
REVIEWED BY: Erin Laberee (Maplewood Engineering Department)
DATE: June 9, 2006
The 5-8 Tavern and Grill is expanding their parking lot to the east. The developer and engineer
shall address the following concerns:
Drainage & Treatment
I. The engineer shall provide drainage calculations showing that I" of runoff from the
impervious area from the entire site is infiltrated. Additional infiltration practices may
need to be utilized to meet this requirement.
2. Currently there is no sediment control shown on the proposed plans. Either inlet
structures with 3' sumps or another means to trap sediment before it enters the rainwater
garden shall be constructed.
3. The plan shall show where tip out gutter is to be utilized.
4. An infiltration trench or inlet structure connected to a storm system shall be constructed
at the northeast comer of the site to manage ponding water in the low area that is created.
5. The developer shall enter into a maintenance agreement for annual maintenance of all
best management practices utilized on site.
Grading & Erosion Control
I. The project engineer shall clearly state on the plans that the contractor shall install inlet
protection devices such as filter bags or WIMCO devices on all existing, proposed and
downstream drainage inlet structures in Minnehaha Ave.
2. Any graded areas left undisturbed for more than 14 days shall be stabilized with a
temporary seed. This shall be noted on the plans.
3. The type of inlet protection to be used at the curb cut shall be detailed on the plans.
Utilities
1. Submit plans to Tina Carstens at Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District located
at 2665 Noel Drive, Little Canada for their review and approval.
Page 2 of2
Miscellaneous
I. The developer shall submit plans to Ramsey County for their review and obtain a right of
way permit from them as Minnehaha A venue is a County road.
2. A planting plan utilizing native plants is required for the rainwater garden and shall be
submitted to the city for approval by the city's naturalist, Ginny Gaynor.
Attachment 12
James I.. Beardsley
23/ / Minnehaha Avenue East
Maplewood, MN 55/ /9-3834
651-738-7957
June 9,2006
Shann Finwall
AICP, Planner
City ofMaplewood
1830 E. County Rd. B
Maplewood, MN 55109
Dear Ms. Finwall,
First 1 want to thank you for the letter requesting comments on the expansion of the 5-8 Tavern
parking lot at 2289 Minnehaha Ave East.
As one of the homes that will be directly impacted by the destruction of the home at 2303
Minnehaha Ave and construction of a parking lot, 1 must state clearly that 1 am opposed to this
proposal.
1 have many reasons for opposing the wanton destruction of a well maintained, reasonably priced
home for the simple satisfaction of the Tavern owner's greed. Some of these reasons are
philosophical, some are the negative impact this proposal will have on the environment, my
home, my life style and property value.
As an avid gardener, (1 am a Master Rosarian for the American Rose Society, one of only 250
Master Rosarians in the United States), 1 have invested thousands of dollars and countless hours
on developing, planting and maintaining a series of gardens throughout my property. One such
garden starts at the eastern edge of my property flows west to that edge (near the proposed
parking lot) and proceeds all the way to the northern edge of my property, some 350 feet of
garden. The first 150 feet of this garden is a mix of sun loving and shade loving plants. This
garden will be adversely affected by the demolition of the house, construction of an impervious
parking lot and a privacy fence. There is no other possibility.
The change in drainage, infiltration, light pattems and amount of light, as well as the air
movement cannot have anything but a negative impact on my gardens. For example, simply
changing the air patterns by addition of a fence can result in increases in plant diseases as the air
does not move across the plants sufficient to dry the foliage. This will stress plants possibly
causing them to die. At the least this will cause me to use fungicides on a regular basis to protect
my investment in plant materials, something that 1 only do sporadically now. The increased use
of pesticides obviously has a potential negative impact on the environment.
As for the light, not only will the duration of light change, the intensity and quality of the light
will change. This too will have a negative impact on this garden with the distinct probability that
1 will be forced to remove and replace the sun-loving plants. This of course will be at my
expense and labor - all for the satisfaction of greed.
1
James L Beardsley
2311 Minnehaha AI'enue East
Maplewood, MiV 55/19-3834
65/-738-7957
As I contemplate being forced to replace an entire garden I cannot but consider the expense that I
alone will endure. There are over ISO plants, including trees, shrubs, martagon Wies, roses,
peonies and astible and some heritage plants from my grandparents and great grandparents in the
garden. The heritage plants are obviously priceless, the others at an average cost of $30 (which
considering replacing mature shrubs and roses is cheap) will cost me approximately $4500. This
does not include any cost to remove any of the larger plants and my time to prepare and replant -
all for a parking lot so the Tavern can make more money.
I also oppose the plan to move the entrance to the parking lot to the west end of the property,
adjacent to the property lines. This will only increase the noise and pollution that I will
experience. Leaving the entrance where it is at least gives me some measure of relief
I believe the experience of the previous owners of2303 Minnehaha Ave E in attempting to sell
this residence only reinforce that having a Tavern and parking lot immediate to one's property
does not increase the salability or value of adjacent properties which is one criteria the council
must address to approve a CUP as detailed in the City Code.
As I stated in my opening I have philosophical opposition to this proposal. First I believe
Maplewood should encourage the maintenance of affordable single family homes over the profit
of corporations. Second I frankly do not trust the owners and managers of the 5-8 to live up to
any conditions ofa CUP. At the meeting called by the 5-8 to inform the neighbors of the pending
parking lot, the status of the existing fence was discussed. When asked why the fence was not
repaired and maintained the response given by the manager was that the fence was damaged by
the contractor hired to plow the parking lot and it was the contractor's responsibility to repair the
fence. It would be wonderful if we could all pass the responsibility on to others. When the
condition of the "rain garden" was discussed a similar view was expressed by the management
that the blame belonged to those who planted the garden, with the addition of a condescending
request to me that they need help in what plants to plant. Certainly a for profit corporation can
afford a landscaper. Again the attitude came across to me was one that management and
ownership of the 5-8 were not willing to take responsibility and made all the decision based on
greed and profit, not complying with anything as trivial as a CUP or the neighbors. Third on at
least two occasions calls were placed to the Manager of the 5-8 requesting that the weeds and
grass be cut at 2303 Minnehaha After the calls the grass was cut, but I guess it was the renter's
responsibility and the management and owner of the house had no responsibility to see that the
property was maintained. Fourth I do not see the need for the parking lot. To my knowledge there
have not been any personal injury accidents related to tavern patrons crossing the street. I do
understand that there have been a few fender bender accidents in the current lot, but I fail to see
how adding a large lot will solve the problem of poor or impaired drivers.
Code reouirements:
My comments in italics.
As I interpret Maplewood City Code, Chapter 1, Article 44, Sec 44-1097, "Standards" states:
(a) "A conditional use permit may be approved, amended or denied based on the following
standards for approval, in addition to any standards for a specific conditional use found in
this chapter:"
(2) The use would not change existing or planned character of the surrounding area
2
James L. Beardsley
2311 Minnehaha Avenue East
Maplew()od. MN 55119-3834
651-738-7957
A parking lot replacing a home changes the character of the surrounding area.
(3) The use would not decrease property values.
A parking lot replacing a home certainly will not increase 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, fiunes or air
pollution, drainage water runoff, vibration, general unsightliness, electrical interference or
other nuisances.
The demolition of the home at 2303 and construction of a parking lot and fence cannot be
anything but detrimental, disturbing and a nuisance to me. The comings and going of cars in
the parking lot next to one of the bedrooms of my home can only be a disturbance and a
nuisance. As it is. today the parking lot is at least 70 fret from my home and overflow parking
is on the street, again about 60 feet from the bedrooms of my home. Reducing the parking
distance to 30 feet (20 foot setback plus approximately 10 feet setback of my house to the
property line) will increase the noise by afactor of 4, (sound increases or decrease by the
square of the change in distance). Also the exhaust fUmes from the cars in the lot will
decrease the air quality in the surrounding area, again closer to my home than currently.
(9) The use would cause minimal impact on the environment.
To me. the environment includes the light reaching my plants, the drainage from west to
east that is critical for some of the plants in my garden in the Spring and during heavy rain events
and the fteling of privacy I currently enjoy in my garden. RLtising the parking lot to ensure that
all the runoff drains to the planned water gardens in the front changes the normal spring and
summer runoff that is essential for the plants in my garden. This would mean that I will most
likely be required to water my garden more than currently, not only costing me money but also
using city water that currently is not used The parking lot would also bring salt and sand from
the roads closer to my trees, shrubs and plants many of which are sensitive to calcerous soils and
water. The parking lot would also possibly interfere with the critical root zone of two mature
hardwood maples on the west side of my property. No matter what the engineers state snow melt
water will flow off of the parking lot onto may property polluting the ground and damaging my
gardens and thus becoming a nuisance to me.
The parking lot would be also detrimental to my personal environment as I would be forced to
cover the windows on the west side of my home to insure privacy and saftty, depriving me of the
sun. Additionally it would mean that the privacy I currently enjoy in my garden would be invaded
by the noise of patrons of the Tavern coming and going late into the night.
Since I do not trust the 5-8 management to live up to the CUP, I request first, that the request be
denied. Understanding that the possibility of that happening is miniscule, I request the following:
I. That the parking lot be constructed of pervious materials, thus reducing the negative
impact on surrounding trees and wildlife.
2. Anyon street parking up to the east edge to parking lot be prohibited.
3. That the entrance to the parking lot remain where it is, and not be moved closer to my
property.
4. That a bond of $100,000 be required to ensure maintenance and compliance with the
provisions of the CUP.
3
James L Beardsley
231/ i'j;linnehallll A venue Easl
llJaplewood. MN 55//9-3834
65/-738-7957
5. That the current owners and manager and any future owners and managers! operators
agree that there will not be any further requests for enlarging the restaurant or
modifications to the property.
6. That any disagreements between the current owners and manager and any future owners
and managers! operators and the property owners surrounding the Tavem will be
submitted to any impartial arbitrator with the costs of this process paid by the current
owners and manager and any future owners and managers/ operators of the tavern or
successors.
7. That any breach of the CUP will result in immediate and irrevocable closer of the tavern
and future denial of any license to operate any business within the City of Maplewood.
Again, I strongly oppose this proposal for the negative impact this project will have on the
character of the neighborhood, the City of Maplewood, the environment in general, and
specifically on my garden, my environment, my property value and the nuisances it will cause to
me.
Sincerely,
James L. Beardsley
~~
4
Attachment 13
COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN CHANGE RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, Jill Skogheim of the 5-8 Tavern and Grill made application to the City of Maplewood for
a change to the city's comprehensive land use plan from single dwelling residential (R-1) to business
commercial (modified) (BC-M) for the expansion of the restaurant's parking lot.
WHEREAS, this change applies to 2303 Minnehaha Avenue. Maplewood, Minnesota.
WHEREAS, the legai description of this property is: South 11, of Lot 16. Minnehaha Suburban
Heights.
WHEREAS, the history of this change is as foilows:
1. On June 19. 2006, the planning commission held a public hearing. City staff published a hearing
notice in the Maplewood Review and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The planning
commission conducted the public hearing whereby ail public present were given a chance to speak
and present written statements. The planning commission recommended that the city council
approve the plan amendments.
2. On . 2006, the city council discussed the land use plan changes. 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 land use
plan change for the foil owing reasons:
1. This site is proper for and consistent with the city's policies for commercial use. This includes:
a. Require adequate off-street parking and loading facilities.
b. Avoid disruption of adjacent or nearby residential areas.
c. Require commercial developers to make ail necessary improvements to ensure compatibility
with surrounding residential uses.
d. Require adequate screening or buffering of new or expanded commercial areas from any
adjacent existing or planned residential development.
2. This development will minimize any adverse effects on surrounding properties because:
a. Expansion of the parking area will supply adequate off-street parking and loading facilities
for the site.
b. The parking lot will be designed in the best manner to avoid disruption of adjacent or nearby
residential areas including locating the parking lot 20 feet from the residential property to the
east and installing a 6-foot high privacy fence along ail shared residential property lines.
The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on
,2006.
Attachment 14
ZONING MAP CHANGE RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, Jill Skogheim of the 5-8 Tavern and Grill has proposed the following change to the City
of Maplewood's zoning map: single dwelling residential (R-1) to business commercial (modified) (BC-M).
WHEREAS, this change applies to 2303 Minnehaha Avenue, Maplewood, Minnesota.
WHEREAS. the legal description of this property is: South Yo of Lot 16, Minnehaha Suburban
Heights.
WHEREAS, the history of this change is as follows:
1. On June 19, 2006, the planning commission held a public hearing. City staff published a hearing
notice in the Maplewood Review and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The planning
commission conducted the public hearing whereby all public present were given a chance to speak
and present written statements. The planning commission recommended that the city council
approve the rezoning.
2. On , 2006, the city council discussed the rezoning. They considered reports and
recommendations from the planning commission and city staff.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above-described change in
the zoning map for the following reasons:
1. The proposed change is consistent with the spirit, purpose and intent of the zoning code.
2. The proposed change will not substantially injure or detract from the use of neighboring property or
from the character of the neighborhood, and that the use of the property adjacent to the area
included in the proposed change or plan is adequately safeguarded.
3. The proposed change will serve the best interests and conveniences of the community, where
applicable, and the public welfare.
4. The proposed change would have no negative effect upon the logical. efficient, and economical
extension of public services and facilities, such as public water. sewers, police and fire protection
and schools.
5. The proposed change is supported by a majority of the neighbors surveyed.
6. The applicant is proposing to use the property in question for a commercial parking lot and not for
residential purposes.
The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on
,2006.
Attachment 15
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, Jill Skogheim of the 5-8 Tavern and Grill applied for two conditional use permits
including:
1. Expansion of a restaurant within the business commercial (modified) (BC-M) zoning district.
2. Expansion of a nonconforming parking lot (20-foot setback from residential property required, 5-foot
setback proposed).
WHEREAS, this permit applies to property iocated at 2289 and 2303 Minnehaha Avenue,
Maplewood, Minnesota. The legal description is:
Minnehaha Suburb Heights: Subject to the highway, the E 60' of Lot 13, the S 148.5' of Lot 14, and
the S Yo of Lot 15, the S Yo of Lot 16, Minnehaha Suburban Heights.
WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows:
1. On June 19, 2006, the planning commission held a public hearing. City staff published a hearing
notice in the Maplewood Review and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The planning
commission conducted the public hearing whereby all public present were given a chance to speak
and present written statements. The planning commission recommended that the city council
approve the conditional use permits.
2. On , 2006, the city council discussed the conditional use permits. They considered
reports and recommendations from the planning commission and city staff.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approves the above-described
conditional use permits based on the building and site plans. The city approved this permit because:
1. The use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area.
2. The use would not depreciate property values.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services.
7. The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects.
Approval of the two conditional use permits is subject to the following conditions:
1. All construction of the 5-8 Club shall follow the site plan approved by the city. The
director of community development may approve minor changes.
2. The parking lot expansion shall comply with all city engineering requirements as defined in
the June 9, 2006, engineering review.
3. The proposed parking lot expansion must be substantially started within one year of council
approval or the permit shall become null and void. The city council may extend this
deadline for one year.
4. Remove snow from the parking lot as needed.
5. The city council shall review this permit in one year.
The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on
,2006.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
APPLICANT:
LOCATION:
DATE:
Greg Copeland, Interim City Manager
Shann Finwall, AICP, Planner
Mounds Park Academy - Comprehensive Sign Plan
Dave Aune, Mounds Park Academy; Kirk X Van Blaircom, Pyramid Signs
2051 Larpenteur Avenue
June 22, 2006 for the June 27, 2006 CDRB Meeting
INTRODUCTION
Project Description
Dave Aune of Mounds Park Academy is proposing to install several new signs within the
expanded school campus at 2051 Larpenteur Avenue. Signs proposed include identification
signs along Larpenteur Avenue and Beebe Road, identification signs on the building, and
directional signs within the campus.
Request
The city's sign code requires a comprehensive sign plan for "a business premises which occupy
the entire frontage in one or more block fronts or for the whole of a shopping center or similar
development having five or more tenants in the project." While the Mounds Park Academy does
not have five or more tenants within their campus, they do have five or more uses. Requiring a
comprehensive sign plan for Mounds Park Academy meets the intent of the code by assuring
consistent signage throughout the campus and ensuring compatibility with the building's
architecture and the surrounding residential uses. As such, Mounds Park Academy is requesting
approval of a comprehensive sign plan.
BACKGROUND
On May 24, 2004, the city council approved a land use plan change, a CUP amendment, and
design review for the expansion of the Mounds Park Academy. Expansion included
reconfiguration and expansion of the parking lot, addition of classrooms and a field house,
expansion of the library, remodeling of the cafeteria and kitchen, and relocation of the main
entryway.
DISCUSSION
Draft Sign Code
The CDRB should reference the board's recently drafted new sign code when reviewing this
proposal. The CDRB recommended approval of the draft sign code on March 1, 2006. The city
council's final review of the draft sign code is scheduled for July or August 2006.
Mounds Park Academy is zoned residential. Within the residential zoning district the draft sign
code would allow one wall sign (up to 24 square feet) per street frontage, one monument sign (6
feet high and 32 square feet) per street frontage, and any number of on-site directional
information signs (not exceeding 6 square feet and 6 feet in height). A freestanding sign must
maintain a 10-foot setback to all property lines. The freestanding sign must be designed to be
architecturally compatible with the building or project, with the base of the sign, including pylon
sign poles, consisting of materials and colors compatible to the building or project. The area
around the base of the sign must be landscaped.
Mounds Park Academy has two street frontages, Larpenteur Avenue and Beebe Road, and as
such would be allowed two wall signs and two freestanding signs. The comprehensive sign plan
section of the draft sign code states that "exceptions to the sign schedule regulations of this
chapter may be permitted if the sign areas and densities for the plan as a whole are in conformity
with the intent of this chapter and if such exception results in an improved relationship between
the various parts of the plan."
Proposed Signage
Mounds Park Academy is proposing to install new signage on the school campus as follows:
1. Three wall signs (one at 43 square feet and two at 32 square feet). These signs will be
located on the sports center and above the two school entryways. The signs will consist
of individual letters which are internally illuminated.
2. Three 8-foot-tall freestanding signs (identification signs). These signs will be located
along Larpenteur Avenue, Beebe Road, and in front of the school. The signs display the
name of Mounds Park Academy, and will be constructed of materials which are
compatible to the building. The square footage of the text on the sign will be
approximately 20 square feet in area and only the text will be illuminated.
3. Four 5-foot-tall freestanding signs (interior directional signs). These signs will be located
within the interior of the parking lot. The signs display the location of various uses within
the campus and will be constructed to match the larger freestanding signs. These signs
will not be illuminated.
4. Fifty 1-square-foot directional signs. These signs will be located within the interior of the
parking lot and will not be illuminated. These signs display various content such as
"Reserved Parking for Parent of the Month."
5. Relocation of the existing 5-foot tall freestanding sign. The existing sign displays the
name of Mounds Park Academy and will be relocated from Larpenteur Avenue to the end
of the Beebe Road driveway entrance, within the interior of the campus.
Summary
The Mounds Park Academy campus is 31 acres in size. The Academy has kindergarten through
twelfth grades with approximately 700 students and 125 employees. The campus consists of the
school with classrooms, library, cafeteria, etc.; outdoor recreational facilities; and a four-court field
house. The field house is used for the Academy's athletic programs and rented to outside parties
for various activities.
Mounds Park Academy's proposed signage is over the draft sign code's allowable signs for
properties within a residential zoning district. Staff finds that the additional signage is needed due
to the size and number of uses within the Academy. The signs will be consistent throughout the
campus, will be compatible with the building's architecture, and will "improve the relationship
between the various parts of the plan." In addition, only two signs will be clearly visible from the
2
street and surrounding residential properties. These signs are attractive and will be compatible
and non-obtrusive to surrounding residential uses at 8 feet high, with only 20 square feet of
illuminated text.
RECOMMENDA liON
Approve the plans date-stamped May 23, 2006, for a comprehensive sign plan for the Mounds
Park Academy at 2051 Larpenteur Avenue. Approval is subject to the following conditions:
1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a sign permit for the Mounds
Park Academy within this time-frame.
2. Mounds Park Academy signage shall be limited to:
a. Three wall signs (one at 43 square feet and two at 32 square feet). The signs
must consist of individual letters and can be internally illuminated.
b. Three 8-foot-tall freestanding signs (identification signs). These signs must be
located along Larpenteur Avenue, Beebe Road, and in front of the school. Only
the text can be illuminated.
c. Four 5-foot-tall freestanding signs (interior directional signs). These signs must be
located within the interior of the parking lot.
d. Fifty 1-square-foot directional signs. These signs must be located within the
interior of the parking lot and must not be over 6 feet in height.
3. Prior to issuance of a sign permit the applicant must submit to staff for approval the
following:
a. A revised site plan showing that the freestanding signs located along Larpenteur
Avenue and Beebe Road maintain a 10-foot setback from all property lines and
that they do not pose visibility obstruction for vehicles or pedestrians exiting the
parking lots.
b. A detailed landscape plan which shows landscaping around the base of the two
freestanding signs located along Larpenteur Avenue and Beebe Road.
c. Structural engineering for all freestanding signs over 6 feet in height.
4. The applicant must obtain sign permits from the city prior to installation or relocation of the
signs.
5. Staff may approve minor modifications to the sign plan.
P\Sec14\Mounds Park. Academy\Comprehensive Sign Plan
Attachments:
1. Location Map
2. Site Plan
3. Wall Signs
4. Freestanding Signs
3
Attachment 1
ii"1
,I' !<.~-.;... -I' ~~.~~iii\t.\~.<,'....'.~:]~".~ I;~~.~j...".-".:" hI i.1 ....,
i I\.~ rl- ~~J",~\,.lrt~,<;:;~:f4.t f~;'
~;~~;;;~~~ .\. · . r\!,\ \\~~!l ..
2051 ~'~"::;~~IIJ ,~l ~;~~~L~i'
1:.~tJ&~;"-.r~~U,_!U_. 1\ '"j~':1 :1 - ':4 II' 1..1 ~." .:
"".~I'-'"'I.T.I~..r.'-.'.llll j \' ..,1,' I '"II.~' . ·
'j-rtt-i:1ite Ij-.~. , ". ~.,". II' -....I~ I' -
II"-=-.'....j__....-'"'-.I.!J'I~~ r-.....:II'~ ~-I,'.' ~I.~ . ·
l..r.r.rt~.~.l"t~III[..----iil'l I ...~. ",.. I-
r.'" -'~I :.11: ,~. ~ d.1 /r tll -,. - . · . I
I I 1..- II I~ · I ! ~. . I .
"'.1. .....~JilllrL... 1:11_ \,:-.....,~It;,!iI!.I~ =-
- ,.~ .~.I..~....~ -.. taiper,-teu1j. I~VeTIbe-~ I, _...~..
, ,
Ii
, -0
, lIl.
1&.'
~.
li.-
" t
II~
IIIi 3
i .:.~. ~
I.; " _::'
I....:
, ' .i' "I
Ii'"
1,1 _. .?,'
N
W*E
s
Location Map
I :
: r -
,I: i.
m:1
!oill:
~ II [
,
H
:~~il"
:'-~ l' I : : : : : J' ~ " ,,-i[>~ '-
"I: II Ijlllll ~III+o.ll"'~
' 1 - 1I I I I r T I I 1 '~j..;I. I ,
1,1, . ~I' '-,'.' {' (""I : ,">! 1lll
.. II I I ")I; .., I>" ~~,~~
! '~" '" ':;:" "
--,\---j'I--;- II~'= .-!~i-7~ 111 j
,i" I I I -;;;-,,-;,? O""""",L~" ---
1,'1 ", ,====--=',
" Iii::; r-=~'"
j :I,i: :i\ 1lllllm}JTITIII r~;!:>.
I I I,^ r.'': 6;;<."",
'". I '," ,'"
:11:: I H 1'1 ~llltllhF I
,: I .
i; i ,i, I Hlllm'iJ 1111111:11
I I i Ii
jl : I i' I Ii I i H I Ii-I HII H 1:11
: : II
! I: ______~--_-~,...---~_I,_
i !:: ~." ~- -
: ~ - I _ ~'.l+ _ _~~,~~,~"L :11\_/_ -liill
l i--r- _~",J.L~_=..~-""~~"fO...l~ _1__Jj1J
...:.. I _ ----
~~I rrrrrr:::-t L Ill] t7'rr~I:71 [[ _
(:~
"'{,
~'.
,
f'1 O~O'>'
" tI .. II "I
.J:: \.>l - U1 <$>,
U' ... 1Jo -::i'
lI' VI~:;r _.,
. ~. Ulo.-S>
::t'. p..7::T,
i ~ ;--+,~ ~I
e..::=~ ,...
- ~ ~'
lJI,-'- ,
1ft -, ~:r 1
,~CS> :J ~ ~
"-V.:J l2.. 0..
;) ~,:;.,
(J\~'
<to I
c..o \I' CJl
~.-.,
~i
~t
(JI
ijt
~
.:D
z:.
~m
Oc
~5
~~
z
~I
I
_ 1
I
, ,
i'f,~' I
1;'t''';1
I 'Ii Ij I:< I
I I
I I
r---J "
I '
: - JJ
, ;,---
I I,
I "
I;'; Ii: I'
,~ Ii
,; L; ,j
IP If I"
I" Ii,;
i, I
l' I
;: : 1
, JO",,'LO"""1r.=<'''',I J I J
~=. =i!~::;!T~:;~:;::~--:-_--:-.J.1
,~ITTTTTtTTlTITlTrrrrTTTT_i ~
~~ ..-_.____~,____,..._____ n___. _ I
I~~ Allrll/IL" :
---\
~'"
I .lftI"\_.rrr. D
II I
~Ir ~
II ~~~ I> .:
II- ~~~ Ie
I "
II ~~~ ' ~
Ii ~~~ \
II
I ~~~ ~
/
II ~~~
I ~~~
o;O~ II ~~~
"~::I II ~~
;:,-~
"1 . II ~~
'"
q
. I
...
'" "
'^ II
.
." II.
f ,..
· '~1"ri I
f!flill ~. II
if
If'ill ~
~
lslc:~ a
H Jf{ '"
g
(f..J i ~
,"( ~.
i .
. z ~
llliIl " ~
'"
3:: [ II
~ " II
" ~ II c::J
I url 0 ~
t &li fi: II
~ 5' O:()ra II
I lih !!-
[ "'S!'::I II
~~:[
6' " . I
0
i Iifl gg8 I '" II
. II
'"
i ilii ~~I '"
€ .. I~-
".. .,
~. 1> II
~ ~BII il'~e ,.. II
i < '" m
t". _ CI II
F Uii ~: II
(JI II
- Bl z ~ ~
~ eO II
' <
"'0 0 )..:J
~Q:!.... ~ ~ ~ n
" ~." II
Z < a
!l: e,
-~ "'"" II
s- ~ )>
0 .U
0
f}
3
Attachment 4
1;- -<
~ ""
..' )>
"
~
iiFt'i n
I!ftl}' -c.n
=tcQ" ~
~ '::I
if'ill ~:~ ~ " "!
.'-.
"" q
l'iD:~ ~ ),.
H p. t..> on
5'
11..11 <::J Q I
'"I ~ <;
I . a..
. z
11111I '" [ ..
..
~ 0 "!
"
~ ~ ~
'"
, nlj Q
t "ii ~
I hh ~
~ ~
i iiif!gH CIl""
I<) ~p;~~!(,'s;
zS!? ~
i 1111 ~~I OtC -:l' -1~~=tOZ
i' " ::r_:::jI"'~ tv
mQI cAz ;;
~ <5';<- ? ZZS:; ()o
".."'d
~'~l C!'~e <;'" ~ ~ -I m
f c: Vt rn 0..'" .J,.~ Z
if OM --Q ~ Z -<
1i () ill
~ Iff Q :J. a.. m
f:=' !! 1 ~ h 0
~
~ ~ "!
n
0 "
cr " ~
, co <;
),." ~
\C ~e-
, ""
(j gJ ~ Q
e. l\J~ *'
~'i~ 1:-
~ Q
g..
3
~
c.n ~
cO'
" '"
~ ~ m
'" ~
~o""'l;ll m
'" S" ~I: ", u;:
() ~ ~~~~e
~
n
g ~
<; ~
"
"'"
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
Greg Copeland, Interim City Manager
Ken Roberts and Shann Finwall, Planners
Planning Commission and Community Design Review
Board Duties
June 21,2006
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
INTRODUCTION
The planning commission (PC) and community design review board (CDRB) recently
asked staff to review the duties and responsibilities of the PC and the CDRB.
Specifically, it was pointed out that there should be clarification as to which group should
be reviewing which parts of development requests and providing comments on a variety
of site-related development improvements.
BACKGROUND
On April 17, 2006, the PC had a discussion about the responsibilities and duties of the
PC and CDRB (Attachment 1). The PC asked staff to put together more information
about the duties and responsibilities of the two groups.
On June 7, 2006, the PC reviewed the city ordinances which guide the PC and CDRB
(Attachment 2). Based on the ordinances and past experience with development
proposals it was determined that there are areas of development requests which do
impact both group's decision making process. The PC requested that the item go to the
CDRB for comment.
DISCUSSION
Attached find the two city ordinances that have the duties and responsibilities of the PC
(Section 2-252) and those of the CDRB (Section 2-286). These ordinances do not give
detailed information about which development items or matters each group should be
reviewing, but rather guidelines. Both groups are advisory boards to the city council. In
general, the PC deals with all land use request such as comprehensive land use plan
changes, rezonings, conditional use permits, variances, etc.; and the CDRB deals with
all of the exterior improvements of commercial or multi-family housing and some
variances.
Some of the exterior improvements on a development affect how the PC view a land use
request such as reviewing a rezoning request from residential to commercial which is
adjacent other residential properties. The PC may be more supportive of the rezoning
knowing that there is adequate screening from the new business to the existing
residential. The PC identified the following items as those that are most often looked at
by both groups:
1. Parking (size of spaces and parking lot layout)
2. Screening
3. Lighting
1
4. Landscaping
5. Rain Water Gardens
6. Site Grading and Drainage (including impervious surfaces)
Most of these items would be addressed as part of design review conditions of approval.
However, there are instances when these items could be included as a condition of a
conditional use permit or variance.
SUMMARY
The question for the city to decide is whether the city needs to clarify which group (if not
both) should review and comment on these and on other similar items. It is staff's
opinion that there are times when the PC may want to review items which the CDRB
would make recommendations on such as the screening example listed above. In these
instances staff would bring the PC's comments and concerns to the CDRB for
consideration in their recommendations. It would not be appropriate, however, for the
CDRB to make comment or recommendation on the overall land use request, but rather
on the improvements made on that land.
In regard to ordinance changes, there may be an instance where both groups feel a
need for a change to a particular ordinance. This is the case with the city's parking
ordinance. Both groups mentioned this as an area to address since the city had
receives so many requests for reductions in the size and number of parking stalls. In
this instance it would be beneficial for the city council to receive comment and
recommendation from both groups, since both groups review the parking ordinance with
development proposals. Other examples of ordinance changes such as the sign code
changes proposed by the CDRB or the noise ordinance changes proposed by the PC
would not need additional review by the other group, as these are clear areas of review
by one group or another.
RECOMMENDATION
Provide staff with direction as to any changes the CDRB wants to see with the duties
and responsibilities of the PC and the CDRB as to the review of proposed development
plans or ordinances changes.
p:com_dvptlcommunity design review boardlpc and cdrb duties - 2006
Attachments:
1. April 17, 2006 PC Minutes
2. June 7, 2006 PC Minutes
3. Division 4 of City Code (PC)
4. Division 5 of City Code (CDRB)
2
Attachment 1
Planning Commission
Minutes of 04-17-06
-22-
X. STAFF PRESENTATIONS
PC/CDRB Responsibilities and Duties - Possible Meeting Date
Mr. Roberts said there has been discussion regarding the responsibilities and duties of the
Planning Commission and the Community Design Review Board and the overlaps. The most
common item that has come up is the parking ordinance. Who should review those things and
who should comment on them? Should we leave things as they are? Do you want both Chairs to
meet and report to the commission and board on the decision?
Commissioner Pearson said one thing he would like staff to provide in the packet is if the
proposal had been reviewed by the CDRB or not or if it doesn't need to be reviewed by the
CDRB. If it doesn't need to go to the CDRB then certain items should be brought up by the
planning commission for discussion before it goes to the city council.
Commissioner Trippler said he has had this discussion with the CDRB Chairperson Linda Olson.
It may be good for staff to put together a list of things that are discussed at both meetings such
as parking lots and then decide how many things clearly fall under the CDRB or under the realm
of the PC.
Commissioner Pearson said the PC finds themselves discussing things like screening, lighting
etc. and those are really items for the CDRB. Years ago the PC used to discuss the location and
screening of the mechanical equipment on rooftops and now the CDRB covers that in their
review.
Chairperson Fischer said in the past the city had the pleasure of having Matt Ledvina on both the
PC and the CDRB so the PC could get a report on items that were discussed and covered by the
CDRB. That was a rare situation to be in. Now with people's time commitments it's too difficult to
serve on two boards or commissions.
Commissioner Grover said he would be interested in rainwater gardens.
Commissioner Dierich said she would like to know more about roof heights, grading surfaces,
and impervious surfaces.
The PC decided staff should compile a list of things the PC has concerns about. Then Mr.
Roberts would check with Ms. Finwall to see if she could bring this item up at one of the CDRB
meetings. Then the PC and the CDRB can decide if a meeting is needed or if the chairpersons
should meet to discuss the overlapping of certain items that get discussed at the meetings. Then
the chairs from each group can bring the discussion back to the respectable groups. This would
alleviate the need for a joint meeting or having to make sure there is a quorum. Then city staff
would decide what the next step would be.
XI. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 9:03 p.m.
Attachment 2
MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION
1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 7, 2006
VII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Planning Commission and CDRB Duties
Mr. Roberts said the planning commission recently asked staff to review the duties and
responsibilities of the planning commission and the community design review board.
Mr. Roberts said specifically, the PC thought it important to clarify which group should be
reviewing which parts of development requests and providing comments on a variety of site-
related development improvements.
On April 17, 2006, the planning commission had a discussion about the responsibilities and
duties of the planning commission and CDRB. The PC asked staff to put together more
information about the duties and responsibilities of the two groups.
The planning commission identified the following items as those that are most often looked at by
both groups:
Parking (size of spaces and parking lot layout)
Screening
Lighting
Landscaping
Rain Water Gardens
Site Grading and Drainage (including impervious surfaces)
The question for the city to decide is whether the city needs to clarify which group (if not both)
should review and comment on these and on other similar items.
Commissioner Trippler said he read in the staff report a statute that states the CDRB has the right
to make recommendations to the planning commission regarding certain items. But what about
the planning commission making recommendations to the CDRB?
Mr. Roberts said he read that as an overlay district of a neighborhood where there may be a
different set of design criteria for a geographical area such as the Hillcrest or Gladstone area
where there is a special set of criteria that is laid out for a specific area.
Commissioner Trippler said he believes that is a correct interpretation but that it goes beyond
that. There is still the issue regarding should the CDRB be considering the item or should the PC
be considering the item. If the PC can clearly understand what items the CDRB should be
reviewing so the PC doesn't have to review them that would be helpful and could eliminate the
overlap of reviewing it twice.
Mr. Roberts said if staff writes the report so all the CDRB and PC conditions are included in the
report then everyone knows what will be reviewed by the commission or board. This could be very
helpful but the commission members or board members would have to make sure to read through
all of the recommendations. The PC could point things out to the CDRB as well as an additional
means of checking things. Staff feels the PC is generally outspoken enough that they would bring
something to staff's attention if they felt something needed to be reviewed closely.
Planning Commission
Minutes of 06-07-06
-2-
Commissioner Trippler said the Environmental Committee which he serves on is looking at
making some changes to the ordinances regarding wetlands, tree ordinances and other things so
when those kinds of ordinances are changed the plan would be to come before the PC and
CDRB and present the changes in the ordinance.
Commissioner Dierich said she was struck by how detailed the CDRB responsibilities were on
pages 4-12 in the staff report because the PC which has 9 members lists responsibilities on
pages 4-6 and the CDRB which has 6 members lists responsibilities on pages 7-12.
Commissioner Dierich said she has brought this issue up for 3 years now regarding what should
be included and what needs to be reviewed and by whom and she really liked Sec. 2-288. She
would really like to see the city be more detail oriented because the more eyes that look at things,
the better. Each board or commission member looks at things with a different eye so to speak
than another group does.
Commissioner Hess asked if there was ever a time that both the PC and the CDRB review an
item at the same time? He also asked when and how often the CDRB meets?
Mr. Roberts said depending on the calendar, the CDRB meets the second and fourth Tuesdays of
the month so basically the CDRB meets 1 week after the PC reviews a proposal. The one thing
that drives proposals and projects is the 60 day clock which by state law says you are required to
have a project through to the city council within 60 days of receiving a complete application. If it's
a project like Carver Crossing of Maplewood the normal process would be it would go to the PC,
to the CDRB and then to the City Council, which would be 3 weeks after being heard by the PC.
He said staff tries to get the staff report done for the PC including the CDRB conditions or
recommendations for the PC to read through. Staff would say 90% of the projects follow this
timeline. Occasionally a project may be heard by the CDRB first and then be heard by the PC and
then by the city council. In a case like that staff tries to have the completed staff report ready but
depending on the timing of the meeting the minutes may not be done in time to get them included
in the staff report. However, staff could report to the CDRB or PC what was discussed at the
meetings. The city council would have the minutes from each of the meetings and the staff
reports to refer to in order to make the final decision.
The planning commission decided staff should take this matter to the CDRB for their comments.
Attachment 3
~ 2-246
MAPLEWOOD CODE
DMSION 4. PLANNING COMMISSION"
Sec. 2-246. Established.
The city council establishes for the city a planning commission as an advisory board to the
city council, as provided in Minn. Stats. ~~ 462.351-462.364.
(Code 1982, ~ 25-17)
Sec. 2-247. Advisory body; exceptions.
All actions of the advisory planning commission shall be in the nature ofrecommendations
to the city council, and the commission shall have no final authority about any matters, except
as the council may lawfully delegate authority to it.
(Code 1982, ~ 25-18)
State law reference-City planning agency to be advisory, except as otherwise provided
by state statute or charter, Minn. Stats. ~ 462.354, subd. 1.
Sec. 2-248. Composition; appointment; qualifications; terms.
(a) The planning commission shall have nine members appointed by the city council. The
members shall be residents of the city and may not hold an elected city public office. When
possible, the council shall select commission members to represent the various areas ofthe city
and to help meet the needs of the residents.
(b) The city council shall appoint members of the planning commission for three-year
terms. The city shall divide the membership into three groups of three members each. The
terms of the three members in the same group shall end in the same year. If the appointment
is to fill a vacancy, the appointment would be to finish the unexpired part of the vacated terms.
All terms shall expire on December 31 of the year in which the appointment ends.
(Code 1982, ~ 25-19)
Sec. 2-249. Chairperson and vice-chairperson.
The planning commission shall elect a chairperson and a vice-chairperson at the second
planning commission meeting in January each year. The chairperson shall be responsible for
calling and presiding at meetings and shall have an equal vote with other members of the
commission. If the chairperson is not at a meeting, the vice-chairperson shall assume the
duties of the chairperson for that meeting. If the chairperson resigns from or is otherwise no
longer on the planning commission, the vice-chairperson shall become the acting chairperson
until the planning commission can hold an election for new officers.
(Code 1982, ~ 25-20)
"State law references-Municipal planning, Minn. Stats. ~ 462.351 et seq.; city planning
agency, Minn. Stats. ~ 462.354, subd. 1; metropolitan government, Minn. Stats. ch. 473;
Ramsey County included within "metropolitan area" over which "metropolitan council" has
jurisdiction, Minn. Stats. ~ 473.121, subds. 2, 3; metropolitan land use planning, Minn. Stats.
~ 473.851 et seq.
CD2:16
ADMINISTRATION
~ 2-252
Sec. 2-250. Vacancies.
(a) Any of the following may cause the office of a planning commissioner to become vacated:
(1) Death or removal from the city.
(2) Disability or failure to serve, as shown by failure to attend four meetings in any year,
may be cause for removal by council majority, unless good cause can be shown to the
council.
(3) Resignation in writing.
(4) Taking public office in the city.
(b) Vacancies shall be filled by the council for the unexpired portion of the vacated term.
(Code 1982, ~ 25-21)
Sec. 2-251. Officers; meetings; rules of procedure.
(a) The planning commission shall elect its own officers, establish meeting times, and adopt
its own rules of procedure to be reviewed and approved by the city council.
(b) All meetings of the planning commission shall be open to the public.
(Code 1982, ~ 25-22)
Sec. 2-252. Duties and responsibilities.
The planning commission shall have the duty to:
(1) Prepare and recommend a comprehensive plan of development for the city.
(2) Conduct hearings and make recommendations to the city council about the adoption of
the city comprehensive plan and any amendments thereto. The comprehensive plan
certified and adopted by the city council shall be recognized as the city's official
comprehensive plan.
(3) Study and make recommendations to the city council about implementing the
comprehensive plan and any land use regulations.
(4) Study and make recommendations to the city council about zoning code amendments.
(5) Review, prepare and make a report to the city council by the second city council
meeting in February of each year regarding the commission's activities in the past year
and major projects for the new year.
(6) Maintain a liaison and coordination with government and private agencies so that the
city council may be familiar with the planning activities of such agencies in order to
establish an order of planning and development unity for the city.
(7) Review and recommend, on or before June 30 of each year, a capital improvements
program to the city council, which is designed to accomplish the comprehensive plan
for the city.
CD2:17
~ 2-252 MAPLEWOOD CODE
(8) Review and make recommendations to the city council on development applications,
such as rezonings, conditional use permits, variances, vacations, preliminary plats and
home occupation licenses.
(9) Accept such other and further duties as may, from time to time, be directed by the city
council, including conducting hearings.
(Code 1982, ~ 25-23)
Sec. 2-253. Compensation; expenses.
All members of the planning commission shall serve without compensation. However,
approved expenses of the planning commission shall be paid from available city funds.
(Code 1982, ~ 25-24)
Sec. 2-254. Responsibilities of community development director.
Subject to the direction of the city manager, the planning commission and its chairperson,
the community development director shall:
(1) Conduct all correspondence of the commission.
(2) Send out all required notices.
(3) Attend all meetings and hearings of the commission.
(4) Keep the dockets and minutes of the commission's proceedings.
(5) Keep all required records and files.
(6) Maintain the files and indexes ofthe commission.
(Code 1982, ~ 25-25)
Sec. 2-255. Duties of city engineer, city attorney, city inspectors and other city
employees.
(a) The city engineer and the city attorney shall be available to the planning commission.
The city engineer and attorney shall have the right to sit in with the commission at all
meetings, but shall not be entitled to vote as members of the commission.
(b) All city inspectors and other regular employees or personnel of the city shall cooperate
with the planning commission and make themselves available and attend meetings when
requested to do SQ,
(Code 1982, ~ 25-26)
Sees. 2-256-2-280. Reserved.
CD2:18
Attachment 4
ADMINISTRATION
~ 2283
DIVISION 5. COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
Sec. 2-281. Established; objectives.
The city council does hereby establish a community design review hoard in order to:
(1) Encourage the orderly and harmonious growth of the city.
(2) Provide for the orderly and harmonious appearance of structures and property within
the city.
(3) Maintain the public health, safety and general welfare.
(4) Maintain property and improvement values throughout the city.
(5) Encourage the physical development of the city as intended by the city comprehensive
municipal plan.
(Code 1982, ~ 25-61)
Sec. 2-282. Purposes of division.
It is the purpose of this division to:
(1) Recognize the interdependence of/and values and aesthetics and provide a method by
which the city may implement this interdependence to its benefit.
(2) Encourage the development of private and public property in harmony with the
desired character of the city and in conformance with the guidelines provided in this
division with due regard to the public and private interests involved.
(3) Foster attainment of those sections of the city's comprehensive municipal plan which
specifically refer to the preservation and enhancement ofthe particular character and
unique assets of this city and its harmonious development, through encouraging
private and public interests to assist in the implementation process.
(4) Ensure that the public benefits derived from the expenditure of public funds for
improvement and beautification of streets, public structures and spaces shall be
protected by the exercise of reasonable controls over the character and design of
buildings and open spaces to include street landscaping, median strips, parks, etc.
(Code 1982, ~ 25-62)
Sec. 2-283. Membership.
(a) The community design review board shall consist of five members. The city council shall
appoint all members of the board. Each appointment shall be for a two-year term.
(b) Council-appointed members shall be as follows:
(1) Two architects shall be appointed, if available to serve.
(2) Two members shall be from a related design or construction field, i.e., landscape
architects, interior designers, planners, civil engineers, contractors, appraisers, real-
tors, etc.
CD2:19
~ 2-283 MAPLEWOOD CODE
(3) All of the members appointed pursuant to subsection (b)(1) or (2) of this section shall,
if applicable, be registered and licensed to practice in the state.
(4) At least two members of the community design review board shall be citizen
laypersons.
(c) All members shall be able to read and interpret architectural drawings and to judge the
effect of a proposed building, structure or sign upon the surrounding community.
(d) The director of community development shall serve as secretary of the board and shall
have no voting status.
(Code 1982, ~ 25-63)
Sec. 2-284. Officers; quorum; changes to rules of procedure.
(a) Chairperson, vice-chairperson. At every second meeting in January, the community
design review board shall elect a chairperson and vice-chairperson.
(b) Quorum. At least three members of the board must be present at the meeting to
constitute a quorum.
(c) Changes to rules o{procedure. Any changes to the rules of procedure shall be submitted
to the city council for approval.
(Code 1982, ~ 25-64)
Sec. 2-285. Approval of plans.
(a) The city shall not issue a building permit for minor construction plans unless the
director of community development approves the plans. The director shall also review plans for
single dwellings, where required by this Code. The city council shall define minor construction
by dollar valuations set by resolution. Before approving the plans, the director must determine
that the plans meet all city ordinances and policies, including the design standards in section
2-290(b). The director may send any minor construction plan to the community design review
board. The director shall send a copy of all approved plans to the city council. For setback
changes, the director shall also send a written notice and plan to the adjacent property owners.
This notice shall advise the owners of their right to appeal the director's decisions.
(b) Only a city councilmember, community design review board member or an applicant
may appeal the director's decision about a minor construction project. Only a city councilmember,
an applicant or an adjacent property owner may appeal the director's decision about a single
dwelling. The director shall send an appeal about a single dwelling to the city council. The
director shall notify the applicant and the adjacent property owners of the meeting. The
affected parties may waive their right to an appeal by informing the director of community
development. An appeal must be received by the director of community development within 15
days after the director sends a copy ofthe approved plan to the city council. The director shall
send an appeal of a minor construction project to the community design review board. The
board's decision shall be final, unless someone appeals it to the city council within 15 days
after the board!s decision.
CD2:20
ADMINISTRATION
S 2-287
(c) The city shall not issue a building permit for a major construction project unless the
community design review board approves the plans. Major construction includes projects not
defined as minor construction, but does not include single dwellings. The board's decision shall
be final, unless someone appeals it to the city council within 15 days after the board's decision.
However, no person shall revise a plan that the city council originally approved without its
approval.
(d) This section shall not apply to interior construction, repair, maintenance, underground
tanks, administrative variances or the same-style replacement of building parts, such as a new
roof, door or windows. See article VI of chapter 44 for administrative variance procedures.
(Code 1982, S 25-65)
Sec. 2-286. Duties and responsibilities generally.
The duties and responsibilities of the community design review board shall be to:
(1) Review all building plans, except proposals excluded from review under section 2-285.
The board shall review sign applications as required in article III of chapter 44.
(2) Approve, modify, deny or table any matter it reviews. The board, however, shall not
review interior designs.
(3) Hold regularly scheduled meetings and advise an applicant of the date, time and place
when the board will review the applicant's application. The staff shall notify the
property owners within 350 feet of the applicant's site of the meeting, unless the city
council will hold a hearing on the applicant's project.
(4) Make a decision based on a staff report, the findings required by this Code and the
applicant's presentation.
(5) Prepare a report to the city council by January 31 of each year outlining the board's
actions and activities during the preceding year. The report may include recommended
changes, including but not limited to ordinances and/or procedures.
(Code 1982, S 25-66)
Sec. 2-287. Determination of similar exterior design and appearance of homes on
smaller lots.
(a) The director of community development shall have the power to determine whether or
not single-family dwellings on lots containing between 7,500 square feet and 9,999 square feet
in R-2 zone lots are similar in exterior design and appearance. Appeals of the director1s
decision shall be made to the community design review board.
(b) Dwellings on lots with less than 10,000 square feet in R-2 zones, having a similar
exterior design and appearance, shall be located at least 500 feet from each other.
CD2:21
~ 2-287
MAPLEWOOD CODE
(c) Dwellings shall be considered similar in exterior design and appearance if they have one
or more of the following characteristics:
(1) The same basic dimensions and floor plans are used without substantial differentia-
tion of one or more exterior elevations.
(2) The same basic dimensions and floor plans are used without substantial change in
orientation of the houses on the lots.
(3) The appearance and arrangement of the windows and other openings in the front
elevation, including the appearance and arrangement of the porch or garage, are not
substantially different from adjoining dwellings.
(4) The type and kind of materials used in the front elevation are substantially the same
in design and appearance as adjoining dwellings.
(Code 1982, ~ 25-67)
Sec. 2-288. Applications for review; required documents and information.
All persons required to submit building or remodeling plans under this division shall submit
a community design review board application form and the following written materials, as
applicable to the specific project and in sufficient quantities as determined by the board, to the
community design review board:
(1) A design development plan of the entire project showing the following:
a. A dimensioned site plan.
b. A roof plan of all buildings.
c. The locations of all existing trees and structures on the project site.
d. The locations and dimensions of all streets, alleys and highways, both adjacent to
and within the project site area.
e. The locations of all off-street parking and loading facilities and areas.
f. The locations of points of entry and exit for all vehicular and internal circulation
patterns.
g. The locations of all walls and fences.
h. The locations of all exterior lighting standards. A detailed photometric plan shall
be submitted as required by the outdoor lighting requirements in section 44-20.
i. The grading and slopes, where these affect the relationship of the buildings on
the project site and surrounding buildings adjacent to the project.
(2) Dimensioned architectural drawings which show the following:
a. An entire plan drawn to scale.
b. Elevations, including all sides of the proposed project buildings or structures,
including materials and colors.
CD2:22
ADMmrSTRATION
~ 2-290
c. Perspectives, models or other suitable graphic materials, at the option of the
bnard.
(3) Preliminary landscape plans designating all areas to be landscaped, with an indication
of both types of materials and their elevations.
(4) Site photographs, at the option of the board.
(Code 1982, ~ 25-68; Ord. No. 826, ~ 3, 4-8-2002)
Sec. 2-289. Staff duties.
The community development department staff shall process and review all community
design review board applications and shall act as professional advisors to the board. Other
staff members of the city may provide advice to the board, depending upon the complexity of
the subject and the need for specific expertise.
(Code 1982, ~ 25-69)
Sec. 2-290. Review of application; required findings for recommended approval.
(a) The community design review board shall review the written materials submitted with
the application under section 2-288 with respect to the following aspects of the proposal:
(1) General site utilization.
(2) General architectural considerations, including a review of the following:
a. The height, bulk and area of all buildings on the site.
b. The colors and materials to be used.
c. The physical and architectural relationship of the proposed structure with
existing and proposed structures in the area.
d. The site, layout, orientation and location of all buildings and structures and their
relationship with open areas and the topography.
e. Height, materials, colors and variations in boundary walls, fences or screen
plantings.
f. Appropriateness of sign design, where provided by article III of chapter 44, and
exterior lighting.
(3) General landscaping considerations.
(4) Graphics to be used.
(b) 'Ib recommend approval of an application, the board shall make the following findings:
(1) The design and location of the proposed development and its relationship to neighbor-
ing, existing or proposed developments and traffic is such that it will not impair the
desirability of investment or occupation in the neighborhood; it will not unreasonably
interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring, existing or proposed develop-
ments; and it will not create traffic hazards or congestion.
CD2:23
~ 2-290 MAPLEWOOD CODE
(2) 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 division and the city comprehensive
municipal plan.
(3) The design and location of the proposed development would provide a desirable
environment for its occupants, as well as for its neighbors, and it is aesthetically of
good composition, materials, textures and colors.
(c) The board, in its recommended actions for approval, may:
(1) Recommend any conditions that it deems reasonable to its action of approval.
(2) Recommend that the applicant, as a condition, provide guarantees that the conditions
of approval will be complied with.
(Code 1982, ~ 25-70)
Sec. 2-291. Recommendations for establishment of special community design re-
view areas.
The community design review board may, from time to time at its discretion, recommend to
the planning commission that certain special community design review areas, and that specific
criteria to be considered in reviewing applications for development within such areas, be
established. The planning commission shall review such recommendations and shall recom-
mend approval, modification or denial of the applications to the city council. The city council
shall take the final action on all such recommendations and may designate such areas by
resolution.
(Code 1982, ~ 25-71)
Sec. 2-292. Criteria for final inspections and issuance of occupancy permits for
developments.
No final inspection shall be made or occupancy permit shall be granted as to any
development reviewed by the community design review board pursuant to this division, unless
the completed work complies with the plans approved and the conditions required by the city
council pursuant to this division.
(Code 1982, ~ 25-72)
Secs. 2-293-2-345. Reserved.
ARTICLE V. FINANCE-
DIVISION 1. GENERALLY
Secs. 2-346-2-370. Reserved.
*Cross reference-Any ordinance appropriating funds, levying or imposing taxes or
relating to an annual budget saved from repeal, ~ 1-19(a)(3).
CD2:24