Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/25/2006 AGENDA CITY OF MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD Tuesday, July 25,2006 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 27, 2006 5. Unfinished Business: None Scheduled 6. Design Review: a. Maplewood Mall Comprehensive Sign Plan Amendment - 3001 White Bear Avenue b. Carpet Court - 1685 Arcade Street 7. Visitor Presentations: 8. Board Presentations: a. July 6, 2006, Planning Commission Meeting - Linda Olson b. July 10, 2006, City Council Meeting - Matt Ledvina 9. Staff Presentations: a. Sign Code - "Outdoor Television" Definition b. Draft Tree Ordinance Update c. Roles and Responsibilities of PC and CDRB 10. Adjourn DRAFT MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD 1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, JUNE 27, 2006 I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Olson called the meeting to order at 6:04 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 Present at 6:04 p.m. Present Present at 6:18 p.m. Absent Staff Present: David Fisher, Interim Community Development Director/Bldg Official Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner Shann Finwall, Planner Lisa Kroll, Recording Secretary III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Board member Ledvina moved to approve the agenda. Board member Hinzman seconded. Ayes - Hinzman, Ledvina, Olson The motion passed. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of the CDRB minutes for June 13, 2006. Chairperson Olson had corrections to the minutes on pages 6 and 9. On page 6, in the seventh paragraph, second line, add the word those in front of the word located. On page 9, third paragraph, third line, change autumn glaze to Autumn Blaze. Board member Ledvina moved approval of the minutes of June 13, 2006, as amended. Board member Hinzman seconded. Ayes --- Hinzman, Ledvina, Olson The motion passed. Ms. Finwall introduced David Fisher, Interim Community Development Director/Building Official. Mr. Fisher was present to familiarize himself with the board members and observe what occurs during a Community Design Review Board meeting. The board members welcomed Mr. Fisher and wished him good luck in his role as Interim Community Development Director/Building Official. Community Design Review Board Minutes 6-27-2006 2 V. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. VI. DESIGN REVIEW a. Legacy Village Townhomes - County Road D and Kennard Street (Legacy Village Development) Mr. Ekstrand said 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 town homes which would be located on the south side of County Road 0 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 Yo-acre site at the southwest corner 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. June 19, 2006, the planning commission recommended approval of the land use plan change, PUD amendment and preliminary plat. They also suggested that the CDRB require designated crosswalks across Village Trail East to access the pedestrian trail to the south. Board member Ledvina asked about the colors of the town home units. Mr. Ekstrand said the Hartford Group is proposing the town home units to be in the color palette as shown on the plans. Board member Hinzman asked if each of the townhome buildings would have different color schemes or would they follow the same color pattern as shown on the plans? Mr. Ekstrand said the Hartford Group didn't propose any other range of colors so staff is assuming the only colors being used were the ones shown on the plans. Chairperson Olson asked if they are going to be able to save any of the trees on the site? Mr. Ekstrand said the Hartford Group is not going to be able to save many of the trees, only the trees along the wetland area and along the pond. Board member Hinzman said the retaining wall on the east side of the pond appears to range from 5 to 14 feet in height. He asked what product they would be using for the retaining wall? He asked if it would be possible to terrace the retaining walls to break up the wall and then plant landscaping? Mr. Ekstrand said that could be made a requirement, however, the applicant has not proposed that. Often times the city prefers to see a fence or railing on top of the retaining wall for safety, if that is not shown as a condition in the staff report, it should be. Community Design Review Board Minutes 6-27-2006 3 Board member Hinzman asked if the retaining wall would be made of keystone block? Mr. Ekstrand said that typically has been what the retaining walls have been made of in the Legacy Development area. Board member Hinzman said he noticed the garages are rear loaded and there are no additional parking spaces outside of the garage doors to park. Mr. Ekstrand said correct. It's very tight between those buildings. Other phases of town homes within this project have a similar parking situation. The parking was something the CDRB reviewed with the other Legacy town home developments and the board was told there would be covenants telling the homeowner that people cannot park outside the garage doors and that it would be up to the association to maintain that covenant. Staff is not aware of any parking concerns in the Legacy developments currently but the sites aren't fully built yet either. Mr. Ekstrand said he wanted to recommend two additional conditions. 1. All street lights shall match the design already in use at Legacy Village. 2. Install wetland protection buffer signs as spacing of eveI}' 100 feet around the outer edge of the wetland buffer. These signs shall comply with the city's approved design for such signs and shall say wetland buffer area do not mow, cut, dump, disturb beyond this point - City of Maplewood. Board member Schurke said he noticed in the staff report that the original concept plan for Legacy Village had a park in the master plan. Mr. Ekstrand said there have been two major changes in the original plan. The Ramsey County Library, which is on a seven acre parcel, could have been three commercial sites with possible restaurants built there. The park elements have not changed and the sculpture park is built. The tot-lot south of this site is still proposed to be built by the city. Everything else is going according to plan. There has also been a small reduction in density then what there could have been. Board member Schurke asked if the wetlands are being reduced? Mr. Ekstrand said the applicant is complying with the original plan. There is a misconception with some of the neighbors who feel this wooded lot should remain wooded and that is noted in the staff report. The 120 units of senior housing will be built in this area as well but the application has yet to come in to the city. Chairperson Olson asked if the senior housing to be proposed would be independent senior housing or assisted living? She also asked if the senior housing would have elevators and be accessible? Mr. Ekstrand said he believed it's planned as independent senior housing at this point and the building would have elevators and be accessible. Chairperson Olson asked the applicant to address the board. Community Design Review Board Minutes 6-27-2006 4 Mr. Frank Janes, Hartford Group, 7900 Xerxes Avenue South, Suite 1300, Bloomington, addressed the board. The Hartford Group intends to landscape around the wetland area and make the area look natural. The senior building is planned for a four-story building with 116 independent senior housing units that would be accessible. Board member Hinzman asked if the color variations of the building would be repeated on every building or would the color palette be inter-mixed? Mr. Shaun Knoth, Architect, Hartford Group, 7900 Xerxes Avenue South, Suite 1300, Bloomington, addressed the board. He said the colors selected were chosen based on similar colors that are on the adjoining properties. There are four different building types, five units, six units, and two different seven unit building types and the colors would be repeated in some manner. Board member Ledvina asked if they had determined what colors would be used on each individual unit and for each five, six, and seven unit building? Mr. Knoth showed the board the seven unit buildings that would have the same color renderings that were shown on the plan. The units will be in the same color scheme but mixed in a different combination interchanging different gables and other design elements, so no two sets of buildings would look the same or be next to each other. Board member Ledvina said there are substantial retaining walls shown on the plan along the wetland. In past projects the CDRB has asked applicants to break the expanse of the retaining wall up or step the walls over a certain height. He asked if that would be something they could do here? He asked what type of material would be used for the retaining wall? Mr. Patrick Sarver, ASLA, Director of Development and Principal Landscape Architect for the project with Hartford Group, 7900 Xerxes Avenue South, Suite 1300, Bloomington, addressed the board. He said they can terrace the retaining walls and still maintain the function of the walls. The retaining wall product they are using is called an Anchor Landmark Series retaining wall and in his opinion it's one of the more attractive walls out there. The block comes with in a multiple sized retaining wall block with a tumbled appearance which really softens the way the wall presents itself and speaks of great quality. Board member Schurke asked what they would plant in the terracing of the retaining walls? Mr. Sarver said they would plant low maintenance plantings, shrubs along with mulch. Board member Ledvina said earlier there was some discussion regarding fencing along the top of retaining walls. He asked if this was something they planned on doing? Mr. Sarver said generally fences are needed along retaining walls that are immediately adjacent a wall higher than 30 inches. In his opinion it's better to be on the safe side to keep an accident from happening. He said they would use a similar metal railing system as was used for the Wyngate project. Board member Ledvina asked what staff's opinion was regarding railings on top of retaining walls? Community Design Review Board Minutes 6-27-2006 5 Mr. Ekstrand said any retaining wall over 4 feet in height requires a railing. Chairperson Olson said it appears the retaining walls are going to be right up to the sidewalk. Mr. Sarver said that's correct because of the proximity of the buildings relative to the buffer. Board member Schurke said he suggested the applicant use a darker color palette rather than the lighter color palette because of the size of these buildings. The nice thing about using the cream color palette is that it creates a separation of the units but the down side is that the dark color seems to recede more. The venting on the roofs are never shown on the plans so people don't think of what it's going to look like until they see the finished product but he would challenge the applicant to find other ways to do venting through the wall. He said he has successfully done that in projects and it looks a lot nicer. Chairperson Olson asked if the applicant is agreeable to the conditions listed in the staff report? Mr. Janes said yes. They still own the area on the plans labeled park which is 2 acres and they will be dedicating that to the city. They will be using soil from that area for this site. The sculpture park and walking trails are already built as part of the development. The Ramsey County Library is already under construction and the application for the senior housing will be coming into the city soon. Chairperson Olson asked if they are comfortable with the visitor parking space without taking up too much of the permeable space? Mr. Janes said as they mentioned at the planning commission meeting they can alter the visitor parking to comply with the city requirements. Board member Hinzman said he noticed the development has tuck under garages and there is no additional parking space in the driveway. He asked if the applicant had encountered that being a problem at all? Mr. Janes said these units have tuck under garages and visitors will have to park in the visitor parking spaces. There would also be on-street parking in certain marked areas. He personally has not spoken to anybody at Town & Country regarding any complaints about the parking. The design of the units are not meant to have cars parked in the driveway. Board member Ledvina said he believes people know what they are buying into when they purchase these units and understand the parking situation ahead of time. Board member Hinzman said people will park where it is the most convenient and sometimes that can cause a problem. He wants to make sure there are enough visitor parking spaces and that they are not too far away or they won't be utilized correctly. Community Design Review Board Minutes 6-27-2006 6 Board member Ledvina moved to 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: (changes made by the community design review board are underlined if added and crossed out if deleted): 1. Obtain city council approval of a comprehensive land use plan revIsion from BC (business commercial) to R3H (high density residential) to build town homes 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 compiled 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. 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 9Yo feet wide. Community Design Review Board Minutes 6-27-2006 7 . 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 0 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-candle 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. 18. The applicant shall submit buildinq colors of the units for staff approval. 19. The applicant shall install wetland protection buffer siqns as spacinq of everv 100 feet around the outer edqe of the wetland buffer. These siqns shall complv with the city's approved desiqn for such siqns and shall say wetland buffer area do not mow. cut. dump. disturb beyond this point - City of Maplewood. 20. Retaininq walls shall be staqqered or terraced if the retaininq walls are more than 6 feet in heiqht and are subiect to approval bv staff. There shall be railinqs built on the top of the retaininq walls that exceed 4 feet in heiqht and approved bv staff. 21. All street liqhts shall match the desiqn alreadv in use at Leqacv Villaqe. 22. The applicant maximize the use of throuqh wall ventinq to reduce neqative aesthetics of multiple roof penetrations. Board member Schurke seconded. Ayes - Hinzman, Ledvina, Olson, Schurke The motion passed. Community Design Review Board Minutes 6-27-2006 8 This item goes to the city council on July 10, 2006. b. 5-8 Tavern and Grill Parking Lot Expansion - 2289 Minnehaha Avenue East Ms. Finwall said 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. On June 19, 2006, the planning commission recommended approval of the comprehensive plan change, rezoning and conditional use permit. Ms. Jill Skogheim, Director of Operations, JBJ Dining, Inc., representing the 5-8 Tavern & Grill, 2289 Minnehaha Avenue East, Maplewood, addressed the board. She said they are in agreement with the conditions listed in the staff report. They are amenable to working with the neighbors regarding the fencing, landscaping and screening. The lighting proposed is between o and .1 foot-candles. Board member Hinzman said it appears that the light poles are 15 feet tall and located in the center of the parking lot. He recommended they look at moving the lights further to the east and put cut-off shields on the lights to get the light intensity across the parking lot without spilling light over to the east property line. Ms. Skogheim said her understanding was the lighting contractor was going to use cut off shields so she was not sure why the light illumination was shown so high on the plans. Chairperson Olson asked if someone could point out where the new trees would be planted and where the landscaping enhancements would be on the site. Ms. Skogheim clarified where the new trees and landscaping would be on the site plan. Board member Schurke asked if the current parking lot was fairly level? Ms. Skogheim said the parking lot slopes downward to the south. Board member Schurke asked if they considered relocating the rainwater garden that is on the south edge along with the small strip of rainwater garden and relocate that to the north to provide more of a buffer for the neighbors to the north? Ms. Skogheim said the primary concern of the neighbor to the north is that there is a drainage problem now where everything drains to the northeast corner of 2303 Minnehaha Avenue near Mr. Beardsley's and Ms. Sorenson's property. By draining everything away from there they would be decreasing the amount of water that gathers there by 75% which is viewed as a positive thing by the engineering department. Board member Schurke said he was more interested in knowing if there was an advantage to having the buffer. It may make the residential area feel softer. From a lighting standpoint, he asked what the operating hours were and if the 5-8 Club turns the parking lights off? Community Design Review Board Minutes 6-27-2006 9 Ms. Skogheim said they typically turn the parking lights off that face the south, and the west - facing lights stay on into the night and shut off on a photo cell. They close at 10:30 p.m. on Sundays, all other nights they are open until midnight except on Fridays they stay open until 1 :00 a.m. The cut off shields for the lights will help with the dark sky policy. Chairperson Olson asked if anybody in the audience wanted to speak to address the board. Mr. James Beardsley, 2311 Minnehaha Avenue East, Maplewood, addressed the board. He said his house is the most affected by this development. The drainage from the parking lot runs into his property already from the winter and spring rains. He doesn't want to add to the drainage he already gets on his property. Moving the rainwater garden would only force the water into the direction they don't want the water to flow. He currently has a sump pump that runs most of the year because of the drainage situation. It would be greatly appreciated to get the water to run to the south. Regarding moving the fence, he hadn't heard about the fence being relocated seven feet from the east property line. Originally they had talked about moving the fence ten feet away. He is not opposed to the fence being seven feet away, but he wants to make sure that whatever happens, it doesn't adversely affect his plantings that he has worked so hard maintaining. In general he is opposed to this proposal. He personally doesn't believe its right to allow a reasonably priced home to be bulldozed just so a parking lot can be constructed. Mr. Beardsley said, however, knowing that this proposal is going to happen anyway he would like to continue working with the 5-8 Club to make sure his property is not compromised in anyway. Chairperson Olson said Mr. Beardsley's letter stated that he is a Master Rosarian for the American Rose Society and is one of only 250 in the United States. She asked how many roses Mr. Beardsley has on his property? Mr. Beardsley said he has approximately 180 roses in his yard. Chairperson Olson asked how many of his plantings would be affected by this? Mr. Beardsley said along his west property line there is a 20-foot hedge of roses and many other types of plantings. There is a water garden along with a path on his property. Dale Trippler from the planning commission said the yard looks like a jungle because there are so many different plantings on the property. He didn't believe there was an adverse affect on relocating the fence between seven and ten feet. Whether the fence is seven or ten feet away that will still give his plants the light and air circulation needed and should not affect their root systems. Chairperson Olson said Mr. Beardsley said something in his letter regarding a fence that was damaged on the 5-8 Club property. Mr. Beardsley said the damage to the fence had happened in the past. He said his yard is toured by groups of people and he would like to see that the property looks as nice as possible so it does not adversely affect him. Tours of his yard are coming up in August and September so people can enjoy the plantings he has worked so hard on. Chairperson Olson congratulated Mr. Beardsley on his gardening efforts. Community Design Review Board Minutes 6-27-2006 10 Board member Schurke said as a precedent the city should not be supporting the demolition of affordable housing in Maplewood. He asked if the city has a policy regarding the elimination of housing for the use of parking lot? Ms. Finwall said she wasn't aware of a policy in the comprehensive plan, except the policy to promote affordable housing. In this instance it will create a more conforming parking situation for an existing business which is desirable. Board member Schurke said he can understand the value of that but would appreciate an answer to that question. As was voiced by the neighbor the goal should be to retain affordable housing and not get rid of it. Chairperson Olson said she and her husband have tried to eat at the 5-8 Club several times and have seen vehicles parking on the grass, across the street, and literally on the boulevard so she is sympathetic to the need for more parking for the 5-8 Club. She looks favorably regarding relocating the driveway to the east because this intersection is partially blind and can be tricky so any parking improvements are a positive thing. She is sympathetic to the landowners living close to the 5-8 Club and is glad everyone is working together to resolve the issues and concerns. Board member Schurke moved to 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: (changes made by the community design review board are underlined if added and crossed out if deleted): 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. Community Design Review Board Minutes 6-27-2006 11 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. 3) Fence elevations showing style, height, materials, and color; and also specifications on which portions, if any, of the existing fence will remain. 4) Revised landscape plan showing the following: a) Sizes of all proposed plants. b) A detailed plan of the plantings on the west side of the fence to include at least 1 tree and 18 shrubs. c) A detailed plan of the plantings 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 photometric plan showing the light illumination from all exterior lights not exceed .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. Community Design Review Board Minutes 6-27-2006 12 2) Repair all portions of the existing fence (unless a new fence is installed) that are broken or loose. At a minimum. the applicant must replace the existinq fence located on the east property line. 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. Board member Hinzman seconded. Ayes - Hinzman, Ledvina, Olson, Schurke The motion passed. This item goes to the city council on July 10, 2006. e. Mounds Park Academy Comprehensive Sign Plan - 2051 Larpenteur Avenue Ms. Finwall said 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. 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 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. Chairperson Olson asked the applicant to address the board. Mr. Kirk Van Blaircom, Pyramid Signs, 245 Marie Avenue East, Suite 150, West St. Paul, addressed the board. He said the planning stage for the signs at Mounds Park Academy lasted four months because they were very sensitive that this is in a residential neighborhood and were careful with the placement of the signs. The bulk of the signage is in the center of the campus. The monument signs will be located at each entrance to the campus and only the lettering will glow rather than the whole surface of the sign minimizing the amount of light. Mr. Blaircom reviewed the signage on the site and correct placement of the signage on the campus. The signage color palette is brushed aluminum and a darker metallic with black and blue coloring. Community Design Review Board Minutes 6-27-2006 13 Ms. Margaret Earley, 1783 Beebe Road, Maplewood, addressed the board. She is the immediate neighbor to Mounds Park Academy behind the new field house. Ms. Earley's concerns were: 1. She has put up with all of the construction noise, trucks driving back and forth, for the past 1 Yo years as have the rest of the residents on Beebe Road. 2. She asked the city council to lower her taxes because of what she has had to endure but they said they couldn't do that. 3. She had to look at the two trailers for 1 Yo years and she asked if the art department could paint a nice scene on the trailers because she hated to look out her window and see the trailers. 4. The plan shows all this nice landscaping and how manicured the lawn and landscaping will end up looking like but who at the city goes to the site to make sure that it is done right and keeps up with maintaining it. 5. If Maplewood is going to have a major construction project they should construct a parking lot first for the workers to park that come to the site every day so they aren't parked on the street. That was a real problem on Beebe Road, there were cars parked on both sides of the street, city buses running both ways and across the street there is an apartment building with handicapped people and they needed to get to the buses and most of the time you couldn't even get the buses through because of the congestion. She told people to call it in and complain but nobody did anything about it. She is sure the city knows her name from her complaint calls. She also complained to Mayor Cardinal and the new Mayor Longrie. 6. She would like the city to talk to Ramsey County regarding her taxes along with the others who live on Beebe Road and pay taxes. Mounds Park Academy does not pay taxes and from what she gathers there will have to be a new street built now because of the construction and truck traffic. Xcel Energy dug up about 3 yards and said they would resod the property and make it look the way it was and that is just not so. They planted sod at her house when she was out of town for a week. Nobody called her to make sure she would be there to water it and then the sod died. She poured water on it for days to see if the sod would come back. The City of St. Paul sent her a letter stating that her water bill is so much higher this year compared to last year. They asked if there was a reason or did she have a leaky faucet. She has yet to have that situation taken care of. 7. She was concerned about the soil conditions of the site. The dirt smelled funny - like horse manure. Was the soil contaminated because it smelled like manure and that's a concern, especially because of the children. There used to be a lab there that made medicine for horses and animals at one point in time. 8. She was sorry the rest of her neighbors didn't feel it was important enough to show up at this evening's meeting to speak regarding the issues at the school during the construction phase. Community Design Review Board Minutes 6-27-2006 14 Mr. David Fisher, Interim Community Development Director/Building Official said as far as the landscaping issue goes that is something the planning staff deals with. If it were regarding construction, that would be his area of expertise. The Planning staff goes to the site when the site is complete to make sure what is shown on the landscaping plan was actually planted. Through the construction process there is a lot of traffic and noise which is "typical" of construction projects. Ms. Finwall said the expansion of Mounds Park Academy is not quite complete yet. It's difficult to be a neighbor next to any type of construction. Ms. Finwall said the plan reflects that the sign is off the property line. That is a condition of approval that the applicant submits a revised site plan showing that they maintain a 10-foot setback. Regarding the smell of manure, people have called the city during construction before and have found that when old compost is dug up there is sometimes a strange smell to the soil. During the construction of the 3M Leadership Development Institute building a similar complaint was called in regarding the smell of the soil. Mr. Fisher said the contractor had to dig down very deep on the site in order to correct the soils to handle the additional weight of the building addition. Mr. Blaircom said he was unaware there was an issue regarding the property line for the sign to be located. He is sure Mounds Park Academy will get things cleared up with a site survey and ensure the appropriate setback is maintained for the sign installation. If the sign has to be moved another 10 feet that would greatly impact the visibility of the sign. Chairperson Olson asked if the sign in question would have an impact on Ms. Earley's property? Mr. Blaircom said there would be no impact on her property regarding light coming from the sign. The colors are very subtle, the lettering is opaque and does not allow light to come through. Board member Ledvina moved to approve the plans date-stamped May 23, 2006, for a comprehensive sign plan for Mounds Park Academy at 2051 Larpenteur Avenue. Approval is subject to the following conditions (changes made by the CDRB are underlined if added and crossed out if deleted): 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. Five 5-foot-tall freestanding signs (interior directional signs). These signs must be located within the interior of the parking lot. Community Design Review Board Minutes 6-27-2006 15 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. 1.1 The freestanding signs located along Larpenteur Avenue and BooBo Road maintain a 10-foot setback from all property lines and that tRey i! does not pose visibility obstruction for vehicles or pedestrians exiting the parking lots. n The freestandina sian located alona Beebe Road meets appropriate site line reauirements. 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. Board member Schurke seconded. Ayes - Hinzman, Ledvina, Olson, Schurke The motion passed. VII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS No visitors present. VIII. BOARD PRESENTATIONS Chairperson Olson said she attended an ice cream social at the Bruentrup Farm on County Road D. Representative Chuck Wiger was there and mentioned the $100,000 the legislature appropriated for the irrigation system for the farm so the Bruentrup barn can hold social events. Community Design Review Board Minutes 6-27-2006 16 IX. STAFF PRESENTATIONS Ms. Finwall gave an update to the board regarding the Gladstone Redevelopment Plan. She said the city council held another workshop June 26, 2006, from 5-7 p.m. to discuss the city council's individual comments for the master plan. City staff is hoping to have a final decision by the Gladstone moratorium date of September 8, 2006. If there is no final decision at that point and a development proposal was submitted to the city, the applicant would be bound by the existing zoning and land use on that property rather than any type of concept or future zoning or land use. a. Planning Commission and CDRB Duties Ms. Finwall said the planning commission and community design review board recently asked staff to review the duties and responsibilities of the PC and the CORBo Specifically, it was pointed out that there should be clarification as to which group should be reviewing which parts of the development requests and providing comments on a variety of site-related development improvements. On June 7, 2006, the PC reviewed the city ordinances which guide the PC and CDRB. Based on the ordinances and past experience with development proposals it was determined that there are areas of development requests which impact both group's decision making process. 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. The PC requested that the item go to the CDRB for comment. Staff asked that the board provide staff with direction regarding changes the CORB wants to see with the duties and responsibilities of the PC and the CDRB. Chairperson Olson felt comfortable with the way things were being reviewed and thought it was appropriate to have some review overlap. It's beneficial to have a second opinion since the PC and CDRB review proposals for different things. Because the PC usually reviews applications first it's very seldom that the CDRB reviews something and then passes feedback onto the planning commission. She does see a problem with parking code and thinks the CDRB could use direction from the PC regarding revising the parking code. Ms. Finwall said she believes the CDRB should review the parking code and then bring it to the PC for discussion and then to the city council. The parking code would include parking space width, parking drive aisle width, visitor parking, off-site parking, and number of parking stalls. Board member Ledvina agreed with staffs recommendation. Mr. Ekstrand said no matter what you do, there will probably always be overlap of discussing items. It's beneficial to get views from both groups on certain subjects. Community Design Review Board Minutes 6-27-2006 17 Mr. Ekstrand said he just reviewed the application for a Car Max proposal on Beam Avenue and Highway 61. They had requested a PUD to have narrower parking spaces at 9 feet wide versus the code of 9Yo feet wide. He thought that was appropriate and he recommended approval of the 9 foot width request. That is an issue that the CDRB would probably want to weigh in on. As part of a PUD that request would be discussed by the PC and he believed the CDRB would also want to review it as well. The CDRB members agreed. Board member Schurke said a few CDRB meetings ago he brought up the question of how the city could fund open space in Maplewood. He wondered if the city would be willing to allow the developer an advantage in lieu of the developer doing something for the city. For example, the city is willing to give you the developer approval for 9 foot wide parking space instead of following the code at 9Yo feet wide but here is a list of things you the developer can do for the city. It would be an incentive approach to get what the city and the applicant want by working together. Chairperson Olson said she thought that was what the city did by negotiating with Town & Country for Legacy Village to pay for the parks to be built in return for the higher density to be allowed. Mr. Ekstrand said there was a lot going on with the whole development and negotiations but said he couldn't answer that question specifically. Board member Hinzman agreed with the comments made and believed the CDRB and PC look at things in a different manner. This is good to get two different views regarding the same topic. He would like to take a look at the proof of parking areas and the needs of the applicant because often times the needs are different between the city requirements and the actual needs of the developer. The CDRB decided it would be best to work on the parking code revisions in the near future and then engage in dialogue with the planning commission before passing it onto the city council for review. Staff will schedule a time for the chair of the PC to attend the CDRB meeting and vice versa. b. Community Development Tour - Monday, July 31, 2006, at 5:30 p.m. Ms. Finwall reminded the CDRB of the Annual City Tour and asked that the board RSVP to Community Development as soon as possible. c. Sign Code Update Ms. Finwall said the CDRB recommended approval of the sign code update in March 2006. Staff hopes the sign code will be heard by the city council on August 14, 2006. There are some code enforcement issues that need to be ironed out before the city council reviews the sign code. More information will follow. Community Design Review Board Minutes 6-27-2006 18 d. Community Design Review Board Special Projects Ms. Finwall said during the May 9, 2006, CDRB meeting the board discussed topics of interest for future meetings. Since the sign code has been completed the other areas of interest included: recommending site and design criteria for the Gladstone Redevelopment Area, gaining a better understanding of sustainable building design concepts, exploring specific design standards for new commercial and multi-family developments, reviewing and updating the city's landscaping requirements for commercial and multi-family developments, and parking code requirements which will be items to discuss in the near future as mentioned by the CDRB in their 2005 Annual Report. e. CDRB Representation at the July 10, 2006, City Council Meeting Board member Ledvina volunteered to be the CDRB representative at the July 10, 2006, city council meeting. Items to discuss include the Legacy Village Townhomes at County Road 0 and Kennard Street and the 5-8 Tavern and Grill Parking Lot Expansion at 2289 Minnehaha Avenue. f. Board member Joel Schurke said it has bothered him to read the articles in the St. Paul Pioneer Press regarding the negative press the City of Maplewood has received lately which is unbecoming. He wanted to voice his support to the staff at the City of Maplewood regarding a most recent article that some staff at the city were thinking of making a career change as a result of what has been going on at the City of Maplewood. He personally wanted to go on record that he has been truly impressed with the quality employees at the City of Maplewood and he hopes the city staff will weather the storm during this time of change. Board member Ledvina agreed with those comments. With his personal experience of serving as a volunteer on the PC and CDRB for many years now he has enjoyed dealing and working with city staff on many different issues. He said he has found they are very professional and do high quality work for the City of Maplewood and he supports them. He would recommend Board member Schurke make an official motion. Chairperson Olson agreed with the comments made. She personally made that comment to the city council during the Gladstone Redevelopment process and said that the city council should appreciate the advice and direction that the staff at the City of Maplewood provides. Board member Hinzman also agreed with those comments. He said as someone who has worked in different municipalities and with a lot of different people in city government, the City of Maplewood has some of the best employees around. Unfortunately there are times from a political standpoint which make it difficult for city employees to do their job. He said he personally has experienced that and he hopes the employees at the City of Maplewood will stick around. Community Design Review Board Minutes 6-27-2006 19 Board member Schurke recommended that the employees at the City of Maplewood weather the storm during the political change and continue to do professional and high quality work as they have done in the past. Board member Ledvina seconded. Ayes - Hinzman, Ledvina, Olson, Schurke X. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:52 p.m. MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: LOCATION: DATE: Greg Copeland, Interim City Manager Shann Finwall, AICP, Planner Maplewood Mall - Comprehensive Sign Plan Amendment Tina Volpe, Director of Marketing for the Maplewood Mall 3001 White Bear Avenue July 5, 2006, for the July 12, 2006 CDRB Meeting INTRODUCTION Project Description Tina Volpe, Director of Marketing for the Maplewood Mall, is proposing two billboard-style signs on the east and west elevations of the mall. The signs are called wallscapes and are constructed of BriTex, which is a white, flexible and durable vinyl substrate material. The signs will advertise the mall products (i.e., Simon Gift Cards, etc.), mall tenants (i.e., Old Navy, etc.), and ultimately could advertise the "products" sold by the tenants. 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." The addition of the two wallscape signs requires an amendment to the mall's comprehensive sign plan. BACKGROUND The Maplewood Mall was constructed approximately 30 years ago. Signage on the exterior of the mall has been approved by the community design review board (CDRB) and city council individually during the construction or remodeling of the mall or anchor tenants. Therefore, there are no specific sign criteria for the exterior signage of the mall; just that each sign get approved individually and be consistent and compatible. DISCUSSION The owners of the Maplewood Mall, Simon Property Group, and its subsidiary partnership owns or has an interest in 285 properties in the United States containing 200 million square feet of gross leasable area in 39 states plus Puerto Rico. Four of the retail properties are located in Minnesota including the Maplewood Mall and the Mall of America. Simon Property Group is proposing to install wallscape signage at 70 of these properties, including the Maplewood Mall. There are currently no other malls in the Twin Cities that have wallscape signage. Existing Signage The Maplewood Mall has the following signage which advertises the mall: 1. Entry monuments: Four entry monuments approximately 25 feet in height. The monuments are located at the entrance to the mall long White Bear and Beam Avenues. 2. Wall signs: One large wall sign on the upper portion of the east elevation and six smaller wall signs located above the entries on the east and west elevations. 3. Directional signs: Six directional signs located at the end of the driveway entrances. The signs are six feet in height. All of the monument and building signs, except one, were constructed during the first years that the mall was open. The wall sign above the east facing entry, next to Barnes and Noble, was added a few years ago with the exterior addition of the Barnes and Noble store. The directional signs were added in 1996. The signs, eXCluding the new entry sign, are pink in color and seem outdated and worn. Proposed Signage The Maplewood Mall proposes two wallscape signs including: 1) a 750 square foot sign on the east elevation, toward White Bear Avenue. This sign will be located between Potbelly's and JC Penny. 2) a 600 square foot sign on the west elevation, toward Southlawn Avenue. This sign will be located in between Sears and the mall entrance. Comprehensive Sign Plan Requirements Comprehensive sign plans are required for multi-tenant buildings to ensure an improved relationship between the signs, building, and neighborhood. Staff finds that the wallscape signs are compatible to the commercial nature of the neighborhood and the building. However, staff has concerns that these signs will not improve the relationship between the existing signs including: 1. The signs are large and resemble a billboard. 2. The signs will likely display products sold within the mall, rather than the stores located in the mall or the mall itself. 3. The signs are made of a vinyl material which is susceptible to wear and tear. 4. Approval of these signs could open the door to the mall refacing the signs with LED sign age similar to the Myth's sign in the future. 5. The existing mall signs including the four monument signs, six of the seven wall signs and six directional signs are old and outdated. It is staff's opinion that the addition of the wallscape signs would not meet the intent of the comprehensive sign plan. Simon Group and the city would benefit more from an update of their existing signs at the mall. Therefore, staff recommends denial of the proposed comprehensive sign plan amendment to add two wallscape signs. RECOMMENDA liON Staff recommends denial of the proposed comprehensive sign plan amendment to add a 750 and a 600 square foot wallscape sign on the east and west elevation of the Maplewood Mall located at 3001 White Bear Avenue. Denial is based on the fact that the wallscape signs will not improve the relationship between the existing signs as required by the sign code for a comprehensive sign plan. PlSec 2NIMaplewood Mall\Comprehensive Sign Plan Amendment (2006) Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Site Plan 3. Existing Sign Elevations 4. Proposed Sign Elevations 5. Wallscape Sign Examples 2 Attachment 1 __ _ ~c -_ -- -_ _- ~ ~- 1~.6~~ -- =-=c:fc:. =_- = - _ __c__ _ee",>. !l!I'I'~l,]IIN r. , -.-- iiI~.I.~r.l. I.JI:r:, .]lll~\;~[+:IEIIJ,-c _ - ',i~L'lj _! 1'11,- I .T....l~'i',';II' ~.III:lltn II :::--~'""'j'Ir.a.:- l'i)l~: _ I"~_~ ~JL::: '~'I~l III 0r 11"fI;":'~"I:. r :"-" / /- " I '-I III~I b ,j.J J, "'TjjjlII~' r' , c ~Od~eW.W.O.h~~~:~r Avenue. r - /, l\'!t I ~~-'~:;/'I'~. ~~ .111~'~~:i*!~~I'r ~T~III~Jjft~~. ~! Ip,,:[ . I,' ~ 1,,'- :,lik~~J'~!"'J...~fi~'.t'"bIL"J'!I!t:'Jilill:i,~jl i!-..J,II',~=.~l=')11 k... I,I()-- \~f~'\:ettf1 ~~;~ll~rJ~' 11,. .'; . ',~ i ....J. _.i'".......1~...-:: _.1 1,.t.li'I,.- -.--.J'~...J.-~.lr\\i ....>,.l~lli,I.'..III--.,.- . . I..~:J.:~.;~. '.~:~"~~.~.;:.~~~~~ i'J-c~-dIL~JJL =~__ I_I .lk~_A t.jt:_~L_=.::::J;~,;;.~II~,I~:?r~~~-:;ii ...r~;'I_.~~-~.-,cc- ~;~T~ --. .1 II. ~ I~. .r'l-tl'" ';;-,-J1'1-. I I,-r-:,~al~~ lill /---'--.-1 I f-- ."" ~-"T--f.---;rl'-- I Ii. =r.,!,' '1:1. 'r.. ~r~.'*"'~I'11 " -J' -'------~ ..' I 1~II:t",..I.~-~~..\..I,I" I", '-,:;-b'i-U",~""':~-""1'~II~';-~~ :_.._'1".111,1 '~f-=_ ~.'..~.'l..~itr~t.:'I;;:'1 .II"'~. ..-.1-1"'. ' · c;,I::;~~11 1__ jll:.31'....... ~--;~ ,,~.I =~.-II"r .....'11 . I I;~,'--~~'jlj '"~-Jjfr.~ ..-1 ~".. . r :.:"I,l.' f. ijl~~C~~ III ~i j'. :~~..5j!1 'VI ':'"Tjl'l. <<' i---81lc.-=-'l1 I' I ' li1'V11"'4- '.-cl. i' i' .. ollft.~~ . II:~ tr-,-- II- II'~+ I l~J:ii - I 'i~~J~llt.. "._ ~;g;.;!f~IIliT+'.i~I'.I;~'I-rTIJlf~~.II.iJ'" ------.hI. . ';roo:-.~~I~~,,:'lj '.F. ..,~,I""~IITI..;--"l.~. '~I'-I--'--.II~'....~-j..i""T~. -I~.!A.-,~."-=-'... I'i' -. ...... I ~".'I ~I.:' "I II~..I l-~:;'i"J. [- :-::::~J II ..' ~, - ------ -I I! i ,', - ,-.~;::' r= i-..-- I ..---.- ~.i .'1' L--;-l _~'i."_I'I'" l~=-:ol!c!':c:'_c', _::'-1;, " -- .,- ~--'-'--x;Iii-::'=lI~I' ~. ;U,r-;I -, ~ II .'~f1_~- !~ I', A l ~1~lt:J ,I ~--....~II,Li:-- ~~- --=--l i-I;' , , II I N W+E Location Map s Attachment 2 ~ ~ l ~ i i i i l } ~ 3 *" iI " 1/ 'I I' :i I' ,I I' :i I, r , I / ;mU~^VWlr.l8 f .0 I", .1l ~ 'I!' 3h j,- J"' , .. ~fH Hi fin "Iii p~. 'IN 1",1' ....s{' "1'1 Ii II l~ ~ il '\"1 ! 1'. I 111 ~ ...... V) _N'3'o" -r-oi15 roo-.... ::; -~. O~" - . "'0 '5;2: 8 o "'::E o g-" ~ U ia " > 0- -..("": 0." ~ '" ~ ::;~ ~ ! " / ;; o ~ a \: c:: ~ 2 en 0 ~ I! I! ~ II !i iilil u ~ cooo II ~~ I~ I~ "'1' II~ gggg ..,~.., .... ..;...."'..; 0'; .;..;~ :5:' . ""'NOO :!!;!! " ~ , ~ . ~ Q . ~ . ~ ~ ~ I " u I, l, i ~ 3 ill 00 , "'~~ I ,~ " ~ i~l . ~ "0 53! e ~ :::t; ". I" Attachment 3 o\~ sry\e. -QM('1Wq1 w"IlI 5'jl'\ CD \o,Jt w~l\ SIJY'\ @ f\tw st'i It er'ltr',! W'1Y W~) I 51j Yl d-i ('-tv T' 01\"1 I (Y\OI\\lrYiei\r Attachment ~ ,,; c- o -+- : If ~ . u <:,) . 1; 'e ~ .- . 0 <::.t:- \:)) e 'l! . .. " 01)+ . iE .! . '" 0 cfl E . in .. u . ~0 \f) <:S . . . ~ i . r- CD . ~ ~ . ~ U U . ~ . .i:::: I .1~1 -:a:::: 1 ._N -Ii lC:lC::a Ji ~i~5~ cz::.. . ".. 52~~~ u ___c: :::Jg~~~ f:30Z1..i:::.i!~ e Q. .;! . - s 1 c- o -f- <S'" ? ~ ,~ VI ~i : . ~ . u "€ j . 0 E 'l! . " . '" E a.! en .. .. C - . ~'" ; :! 'i .! = :: . . Q . ~ ~ '531 _=1 .-- ...... ~ eej ii~~!5 ..... . "'!:'" =~iiS (J ~~...:c: Sio~~~ .... ea~~ j t MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: LOCATION: DATE: Greg Copeland, Interim City Manager Shann Finwall, AICP, Planner Carpet Court Gary Blair 1685 Arcade Street July 20, 2006 for the July 25 CDRB Meeting INTRODUCTION Project Description Gary Blair is proposing to develop a 7,848-square-foot retail/warehouse carpet store on a vacant lot located on the northwest corner of Larpenteur Avenue and Highway 61 (1685 Arcade Street). Mr. Blair wants to relocate his existing Carpet Court store in Sl. Paul to this new location. The building will consist of approximately 3,966 square feet of retail space and 3,882 square feet of warehouse/storage space. As proposed, the building would have steel horizontal siding, stucco wall finishes, cultured stone wainscot, and a metal roof. Requests In order to develop the proposed retail/warehouse carpet store, Mr. Blair is requesting the following city approvals: 1. The rezoning of one-third of the property from single dwelling residential (R-1) to business commercial (BC). 2. Vacation of a public ri9ht-of-way (the existing service road). The service road is located on the east side of the property, adjacent Highway 61. 3. A 42.5-foot building setback variance. City code requires a 50-foot building setback from a commercial building to a residential lot line. The proposed building would be constructed within 7.5 feet of the residential lot line on the northwest side of the building. 4. Design review. BACKGROUND November 20, 2000: The planning commission reviewed a development proposal by Mr. Blair for the vacant property on the northwest corner of Larpenteur Avenue and Arcade Street (Attachment 10). The development proposal included an 8,160-square-foot, two- story building for his carpet store and warehouse. The proposal required a rezoning of one-third of the property from R-1 to BC, a 25-foot building setback variance from a residential lot line, and a 13 percent impervious surface variance. The planning commission tabled the proposal, requesting that Mr. Blair revise his plans to eliminate the need for variances. Mr. Blair never resubmitted plans for that development. 2000 through 2006: City staff and the city attorney's office have been working with Mr. Blair to ensure the removal of all exterior storage on the site. Mr. Blair has been storing carpet equipment and had also occasionally sold boats from the site since 2000. October 2005: Mr. Blair submitted a new development proposal for a 7,653-square-foot building for his carpet store and warehouse (Attachment 11). During review of the project, the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MNDOT) indicated that they were interested in turning back the service road to the city. March 9, 2006: MNDOT authorized the turn-back of the service road to the city. March 20, 2006: The planning commission reviewed a concept plan of Mr. Blair's revised development proposal which included the service road being vacated and combined as part of the property. The planning commission expressed concern over the amount of impervious surface and the location of the driveways. March 28, 2006: The CDRB reviewed Mr. Blair's revised concept plans and expressed extreme concern over the style of building proposed at that location. July 20, 2006: The planning commission reviewed Mr. Blair's current proposal and recommended approval of the rezoning, public vacation, and building setback variance. The planning commission recommended two additional conditions of approval including a hammer-head turnaround to be constructed off of the loading dock driveway and a driveway access to be constructed on the north side of the parking lot onto the remaining portion of the service road. DISCUSSION Zoning/Comprehensive Land Use Mr. Blair's property is located in a triangular tract of land which is bordered by Highway 61 on the east, Larpenteur Avenue on the south, and Parkway Drive on the northwest. This triangular tract of land includes 11 lots. All 11 lots are 9uided in the city's comprehensive plan as BC, however, only six of the lots are actually zoned BC, with the other five zoned R-1. (Refer to the zoning and comprehensive land use maps attached [Attachments 3 and 4]). Six of the lots contain single-family homes, four of the lots are vacant (including Mr. Blair's property), and one is used as a building contractor office (Bacchus Homes). Mr. Blair's property is located on the northwest corner of Larpenteur Avenue and Highway 61 and includes two of the 11 iots mentioned above. The east lot is zoned and guided in the city's comprehensive plan as BC and the west lot is zoned R-1 and guided as BC. In order to develop a carpet store and warehouse on the property, the western lot must be rezoned from R-1 to BC. Previous Use of Property Mr. Blair purchased the property in 1998. Approximately 30 to 40 years ago there was a gas station on the property. Prior to purchasing the property Mr. Blair states that the previous property owner removed the old gas tanks and the also removed and replaced contaminated soils. Mr. Blair has submitted a document from the Minnesota Pollution 2 Control Agency that verifies that the clean up performed on the site adequately addressed the petroleum contamination and that their files for this property have been closed. Vacation of a Public Right-of-Way There is a 325-foot-long service road that runs north/south between the property and Highway 61. This road was designed to allow access from Larpenteur Avenue to the three properties located on the east side of the triangular tract of land. During MNDOT's review of Mr. Blair's 2005 development proposal, MNDOT offered to turn back the service road to the city. MNDOT supported the turn back of the service road in order to increase traffic safety by moving the access further to the west (the service road is approximately 15 feet from the Highway 61/Larpenteur Avenue intersection) and to alleviate their maintenance of a small, underutilized service road. City staff is supportive of the turn-back of the service road for several reasons including: 1. Future cul-de-sac: The redevelopment of the entire triangular tract of land bordered by Highway 61, Larpenteur Avenue, and Parkway Drive is a strong possibility due to the varying land uses and disjointed nature of the current developments. In order to ensure access to future redeveloped lots in the triangular tract of land, city staff recommends planning for a future road which would extend from Larpenteur Avenue and dead-end with a cul-de-sac in the center of the triangular tract of land (Attachment 12). With the approval of the vacation of the service road, the city should require that Mr. Blair dedicate a 30-foot roadway easement on the west side of the property. This easement would give the city one-half of the needed easement for a road, with the other 30 feet coming from the property to the west when that redevelops and remaining portions of the road coming from properties to the north. The city should also require that Mr. Blair relocate the proposed rainwater garden proposed for the west side of the property to ensure it is not located within the easement. 2. Impervious surface: The vacated service road would add 6,762 square feet to the existing property, for an overall square footage of 36,775. The additional land will help reduce the percentage of impervious surface on the property. 3. Access for properties located to the north: Two properties to the north currently utilize the service road (Bacchus Homes and a residential property). City staff recommends that only the portion of the service road located in front of Mr. Blair's property be vacated and removed with the development at this time. The remaining portion of the service road to the north would remain and be used as a right-turn-in and right-tum-out access onto Highway 61 by those properties until such time as they redeveloped. Driveways Another reason city staff supports the vacation of the service road was to reduce the number and location of driveways onto Larpenteur Avenue. Since last fall city staff has made several suggestions to Mr. Blair regarding development of his lot with one driveway including shifting the building, using one driveway for both the parking lot and 3 loading dock, or allowing for a temporary driveway to the north (onto the remaining portion of the service road) until the future cul-de-sac road is constructed. Brigid Gombold of MNDOT recently submitted an e-mail to staff (Attachment 14) which "encourages" the city to allow one access onto Larpenteur Avenue. She suggests keeping the most westerly driveway in its current location and then connecting this driveway to the parking lot on the east side of the building. City code requires a parking lot or parking drive aisle to maintain a 15-foot setback to the right-of-way. The building is setback 30 feet to the Larpenteur Avenue right-of-way. Therefore, a driveway connection between the westerly driveway and the parking lot would require a setback variance and may not provide adequate traffic flow for vehicles entering and exiting the parking lot. After redesigning the development to accommodate for the vacation of the service road, Mr. Blair states that he is not able to develop the property with a loading dock and parking lot without two driveways. The eastern driveway will access the parking lot. This driveway will be set back 52.5 feet from the new easterly property line (approximately 60 feet from the actual intersection). The western driveway will access the loading dock. This driveway will be set back 140 feet from the new easterly property line (approximately 182 feet from the actual intersection). Steve Kummer of the Maplewood engineering department reviewed Mr. Blair's proposal (Attachment 13) and states that Mr. Blair should consider reconfiguring the parking lot layout. The changes would eliminate the easterly most driveway entrance and attempt to realign the western driveway to be in line with the Gustavus Adolphus Church driveway located across the street, which would be approximately 160 feet from the new easterly property line. In addition, Mr. Kummer expresses concern over trucks having to back onto Larpentuer Avenue in order to exit or enter the loading dock. He suggests that a different site and building layout be proposed which allows for one entry from Larpenteur Avenue. This design would allow trucks to turn around in the parking lot prior to exiting onto Larpenteur Avenue. Planning Commission Review On July 18, 2006, the planning commission reviewed Mr. Blair's proposal. During the review Mr. Blair stated that Carpet Court will have smaller trucks (25 feet long) making deliveries once a week and a semi-trailer truck making deliveries approximately three times a year. Also during the review, the two neighbors to the north (Randy Bacchus and the Palmes) expressed concern over the vacation of the service road and their access to Larpenteur Avenue. The planning commission recommended approval of the rezoning, public vacation, and variance on two conditions including the construction of a hammer-head turnaround on the west side of the loading dock driveway and an access from the north side of the parking lot onto the remaining portion of the service road. The hammer-head turnaround was requested to ensure trucks could turn around on Mr. Blair's property prior to exiting the site and the additional access was requested to allow the property owners to the north access to Larpenteur Avenue. This access would also require an easement over Mr. Blair's parking lot. 4 Building Setback Variance City code requires increased setbacks from commercial properties when they are adjacent properties that are used for residential purposes. The properties to the north and northwest are zoned Be. However, only the property to the north is a commercial use (Bacchus Homes), the property to the northwest is "used for residential purposes." The property to the west is zoned R-1 and used for residential purposes. Therefore, the required building setbacks from the northwest (at the angled lot line) and the west are 50 feet. The proposed development meets all required setbacks except the 50-foot building setback to the residential property to the northwest. Mr. Blair is proposing the building with a 7.5-foot setback at the northwest corner. Mr. Blair's rationale for this decreased setback is twofold - first the building needs to be located as far to the west as possible in order to ensure the driveways maintain an increased setback from the intersection and the residential structure to the northwest is located 160 feet away from the proposed commercial building. Mr. Blair has also submitted an estimate of hardship for the variance which describes further hardships associated with the variance (Attachment 1, page 2). Shoreland District The property is located within the Phalen Lake Shoreland Overlay District (properties within 1,000 feet of the lake). City code allows a maximum impervious surface coverage of 40 percent, which could be increased to 50 percent if the applicant qualifies for impervious surface bonuses. To qualify for these bonuses the applicant must provide and maintain significant man-made facilities for reducing stormwater flow or treatment of runoff for non-poi nt-source water pollutants. Mr. Blair's development proposal has 27.46 percent impervious surface coverage. Mr. Blair was able to reduce the amount of impervious surface from the March 2006 concept plan by proposing porous pavement for his parking lot. This type of pavement allows the water to soak through the pavement for cleansing prior to being released from the site. Porous pavement is more expensive than regular non pervious pavement. Mr. Blair has submitted an application for the Ramsey Washington Metro Watershed District's pervious surface grant which could fund up to $30,000 of the porous pavement. With the use of porous pavement, Mr. Kummer has stated that the size of the proposed rainwater garden on the west side of the building could probably be reduced. This will be determined upon submittal of revised grading and drainage plans as outlined in the engineering review (Attachment 13). In addition, as stated above, the rainwater garden must be relocated to ensure it is not located within the 30-foot-wide roadway easement. Parking City code requires one parkin9 space per 200 square feet of retail use and one parking space per 1,000 square feet of warehouse and storage use. Based on these standards, Mr. Blair's development requires 24 parking spaces. Mr. Blair proposes 24 parking spaces for his development. 5 The addition of a driveway access from the north side of the parking lot to the remaining portion of the service road may require the removal of parking spaces. Mr. Blair states that not all 24 parking spaces are needed for his business. However, to meet city code requirements, he states that Gustavus Adolphus Church has authorized his business using six of their parking spaces during the week in exchange for the use of his parking lot on Sundays. Staff supports this shared parking scenario if necessary. Design Review Buildina Elevations The building is proposed with steel horizontal siding, stucco wall finishes, cultured stone wainscot on the east and south elevations, vertical steel wainscot on the north and west elevations, and a metal roof. The colors proposed are beige for the stucco and siding and burgundy for the roof and steel wainscot. This design is an improvement over previous proposals which included exteriors of flat concrete block and accent striping of rock face block on the 2000 proposal and steel vertical siding, brick wainscot, and a metal roof on the 2005 proposal. City staff finds that this style of building would be more acceptable in an industrial area, as opposed to this very visible site in Maplewood. The CDRB also stated this concern during the March CDRB concept review of the plans. Staff has attempted to work with Mr. Blair on improved building designs, but Mr. Blair wishes to proceed with this style of building. As indicated in the background section of this report, staff has also been working with Mr. Blair over the last five years to ensure the removal of exterior storage on the site. Mr. Blair states that the carpet equipment stored under the tarp was put there in 2000 as part of the initial development. Since the development fell through, Mr. Blair has had nowhere else to store the equipment. Mr. Blair proposes to use the equipment in his new building. With that said, staff is pleased that Mr. Blair is moving forward with the development of the site. Also, the current plan is much improved with the addition of porous pavement and slightly enhanced building elevations. For this reason, staff finds that shortfalls in the building design can be addressed through revision changes and increased landscaping. In addition, staff recommends the following revisions to the building elevations: 1. North: This elevation should match the south showroom elevation and be constructed of stucco, cultured stone wainscot, and functioning or false windows. 2. South: The siding and wainscot on the entire south elevation (showroom and warehouse) should be constructed of stucco and cultured stone. Landscapina/Screenina City code requires the replacement of all large trees one for one, but in no case is a developer or owner required to replace more than ten trees per acre. A large tree is a tree with an a-inch diameter at a 4-foot trunk height, excluding boxelders, poplars, cottonwoods, or other nondesirable trees. Mr. Blair submitted verification from a tree specialist that there are no large trees on the site. 6 The landscape plan (Attachment 7) shows the planting of g evergreen trees, 2 maple trees, 17 shrubs, and 50 water tolerant plants within the rainwater garden. The planning commission recommended approval of the building setback variance on the condition that the applicant provides a screening and landscape plan along the west and northwest property line which provide an 80 percent opaque screen from the building to these residential properties. The planting of nine trees along the west property line will not meet this requirement. Therefore, the landscape plan should be revised to include the planting of at least 6-foot high evergreen trees, 15 feet on center, on the entire length of the west and northwest property line. The west property line is 143 feet and the northwest property line is 62 feet. To meet this requirement, approximately 14 evergreen trees would need to be planted (an addition of five evergreen trees). These trees should be planted in this are in a staggered row along the west and northwest property lines. As stated above, as a means of addressing shortfalls in the building design city staff recommends increased landscaping along Larpenteur Avenue and Highway 61. To accomplish this staff recommends the following changes to the landscape plan: 1. Berming and landscaping along the Highway 61 property line: The grade should vary in this location with two or more four-foot-high berms, particularly on the southeast corner of Highway 61 and Larpenteur Avenue. These berms should be heavily landscaped with shrubs and perennials. In addition, at least five deciduous trees (at least 2.5-inches in diameter) should be planted in this area. 2. Landscaping along Larpenteur Avenue: In addition to the two proposed maple trees, at least six more deciduous trees (at least 2.5-inches in diameter) should be planted along Larpenteur Avenue. Liohtino The lighting and photometrics plan (Attachment 8) show two freestanding lights to be installed on the east side of the parking lot and ten recessed building lights to be installed under the entry canopy. City code requires that the light illumination from exterior lights maintain an illumination of .4 foot candles or less at all property lines and that freestanding lights maintain a height of 25 feet or less. The proposed exterior lights maintain the required light illumination; however, no height is specified for the freestanding lights. The applicant should submit a revised lighting plan which reflects the freestanding lights do not exceed 25 feet in height as measured from the ground grade to the top of the luminaries. In addition, the applicant should consider some sort of motion detection light over the west loading dock. Dumpster Enclosure Mr. Blair states that all trash and recycling will be stored inside the building. If storage of these materials is ever proposed outside, city code would require the dumpsters to be enclosed by a six-foot high, 100 percent opaque screen which is architecturally compatible to the building. 7 Other Comments Butch Gervais, Maplewood Fire Marshal: The project requires the following: a 20 foot emergency access road at all times; fire protection system per codes and monitored; fire alarm system per code and monitored; fire department lock box required (paperwork from Fire Marshal). Lieutenant Kevin Rabbett, Maplewood Police Department: I have no significant pUblic safety concerns. I am somewhat concerned that the rear of the building with its service door will be quite isolated from public view. I would recommend, at a minimum, that the door be covered with a motion sensor lighting system. Also, the metal siding will be much easier to penetrate for burglars than a masonry wall. David Fisher, Interim Community Development Director/Building Official, Maplewood Building Department: The city will require a complete building code analysis when the construction plans are submitted for the building permit: the north wall may require a fire rated assembly of one-hour; all exiting must go to a public way; provide adequate fire department access to the buildings; plans submitted must be signed by Minnesota design professionals; the building is required to be fire sprinklered; I would recommend a preconstruction meeting with the contractor, the project manager and the city building inspection department. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Adopt the rezoning resolution attached (Attachment 17). This resolution changes the city's zoning map from single-dwelling residential (R-1) to business commercial (BC) for Lot 5, Block 1, Van Houten's Plat (PIN 17292244001 g). This change is based on the following: 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 properties 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 consistent with the city's comprehensive plan. f. The proposed change will allow the applicant to combine this property to the adjacent property (currently zoned BC) for the development of a retail/warehouse carpet store. 8 2. Adopt the public vacation resolution attached (Attachment 18). This resolution authorizes the vacation of a public right-of-way to include a portion of the Highway 61 service road located on the east side of 1685 Arcade Street as follows: Starting from the Larpenteur Avenue right-of-way 161 feet north and 42 feet east toward Highway 61. The city approves the vacation of the service road right-of-way subject to the following conditions: a. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant or owner must submit the following for staff approval: 1) The location of a 30-foot-wide roadway easement for the west side of the site. The easement documents must be recorded with the county. 2) The relocation of the proposed rainwater garden on the west side of the property to ensure it is not located within the 30-foot-wide roadway easement. 3) A driveway access from the parking lot onto the remaining portion of the service road to the north. 4) A cross easement over the parking lot for ingress and egress from for Larpenteur Avenue to the remaining portion of the service road to the north. The easement documents must be recorded with the county. 3. Adopt the building setback variance resolution attached (Attachment 19). This resolution authorizes a 42.5-foot building setback from a commercial building to a residential lot line for a retail/warehouse carpet store (Carpet Court) to be located at 1684 Arcade Street. This variance is based on the following: a. Strict enforcement of the code would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the property and not created by the property owner. This is because the north lot line is not straight and has a slight angle where the property meets the adjacent northwest residential lot line. The variance is needed only for the northwest corner of the building. The remaining portion of the building maintains the required 50-foot setback. b. The variance would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance for the following reasons: 1) The affected property is actually zoned and guided business commercial in the city's zoning map and comprehensive plan. The property was used as a business in the past, but has been converted back to only residential within the last ten years. 2) The applicant will be required to screen the northwest and west side of the building from the adjacent residential properties. Approval is subject to the applicant or owner doing the following: 9 a. The applicant submitting to the city a screening and landscape plan which ensures there will be an 80 percent opaque screen from the building to the northwest and west residential lot lines. This plan to be approved by the community design review board. 4. Approve the plans date-stamped June 15, 2006, and June 30, 2006, for the Carpet Court development to be located on the northwest corner of Larpenteur Avenue and Highway 61 (1685 Arcade Street). Approval is subject to the following conditions: a. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. b. Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit, the applicant must submit to staff for approval the following items: 1) Revised engineering and grading plans. These plans shall comply with all requirements as specified in the city engineering report dated July 10, 2006. 2) Revised site plan showing the following: a) A hammer-head turnaround to be located on the west side of the loading dock driveway. This turnaround must maintain at least a 20-foot setback to the west property line and at least a 15-foot setback to the Larpenteur Avenue right-of-way. b) A driveway access on the north side of the parking lot onto the remaining portion of the service road. 3) Revised landscape plan showing the following: a) Relocation of the rainwater garden out of the required roadway easement. All plantings proposed in the rainwater garden to be approved by the engineering department. b) Five more evergreen trees, in addition to the nine evergreen trees proposed, to be planted 15 feet on center on the entire length of the west and northwest property line. c) Berming and landscaping along the Highway 61 property line to include two or more four-foot-high berms, particularly on the southeast corner of Highway 61 and Larpenteur Avenue. These berms should be heavily landscaped with shrubs and perennials. In addition, at least five deciduous trees (at least 2.5-inches in diameter) should be planted in this area. 10 d) Landscaping along Larpenteur Avenue to include six more deciduous trees (at least 2.5-inches in diameter), in addition to the two maple trees proposed. 4) A revised lighting plan which reflects the freestanding lights do not exceed 25 feet in height as measured from the ground grade to the top of the luminaries. In addition, the applicant should consider some sort of motion detection light over the west loading dock. 5) Obtain a permit from Minnesota Department of Transportation for any use or work within or affecting the Highway 61 right-of-way. 6) Watershed district approval. 7) Combine the two lots for tax purposes. 8) Submit samples all building materials to staff for approval. 9) 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 and will be used by the city in the event the required exterior improvements are not complete. c. The applicant shall complete the following before occupying the building: 1) Replace any property irons removed because of this construction. 2) Provide continuous concrete curb and gutter around the parking lot and driveways. 3) Install all required landscaping and an in-ground lawn irrigation system for all landscaped areas. 4) Install all required outdoor lighting. d. If any required work is not done, the city may allow temporary occupancy if: 1) The city determines that the work is not essential to the publiC health, safety or welfare. 2) The above-required letter of credit or cash escrow is held by the City of Maplewood for all required exterior improvements. The owner or contractor shall complete any unfinished exterior improvements by June 1 if occupancy of the building is in the fall or winter or within six weeks of occupancy of the building if occupancy is in the spring or summer. e. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 11 CITIZEN COMMENTS I surveyed the owners of the 20 properties within 500 feet of this site. Following are the four comments received: 1. Tom Barrett, Property Director, Lutheran Social Services, 785 Larpenteur Avenue (group home adjacent the Carpet Court site on the west side): Mr. Barrett submitted a letter of opposition for the Carpet Court proposal to the city (Attachment 15). In summary, Mr. Barrett has concerns regarding the rezoning of the property from residential to commercial and the impacts a commercial building will have on their property. 2. Adolph and Mildred Palme, 1684 Arcade Street (single-family home located two lots to the north of the Carpet Court site): Mr. and Mrs. Palme submitted a letter of opposition for the Carpet Court proposal to the city (Attachment 16). In summary, they have concerns with increased traffic, maintenance of proposed site when existing site has not been maintained. 3. Jerome Lucker, 1706 Parkway Drive (single-family house adjacent the Carpet Court site on the northwest side): Mr. Lucker contacted staff via telephone and indicated that he had his property surveyed in 2004. He wants to be assured that the applicant knows where their shared property line is prior to development. In addition, Mr. Lucker is supportive of the Palme's concerns about the development. 4. Randy Bacchus, Bacchus Homes, 1701 Arcade Street (office building adjacent the Carpet Court site on the north side): Mr. Bacchus expressed real concerns over the October 2005 proposed development by Mr. Blair. During a recent telephone conversation with Mr. Bacchus by staff, however, he now states that he appreciates the improvements that Mr. Blair has made in this new proposal, but has some concerns about the design of the building and the possibility of underground contamination from the old gas tanks. 12 REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Site Size (including vacated service road): Existing Land Use: 36,775 square feet (.84 Acres) Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USES Northwest: (BC)) West: Single Family Home (planned and zoned business commercial North: Single Family Home (group home) (planned BC and zoned single dwelling residential (R-1)) Larpenteur Avenue and Gustavus Adolphus Church Across the street Arcade Street (Highway 61) and Phalen Park Across the Street (planned open space and zoned farm residence) Bacchus Homes (planned and zoned BC) South: East: PLANNING Existing Land Use Plan: Existing Zoning: Proposed Zoning: BC 2/3rds BC and 1/3'" R-1 AIIBC CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL Rezoning Section 44-1165 of the zoning code requires that the city council make the following findings to rezone property: 1. The proposed change is consistent with the spirit, purpose and intent of the Zoning Code; 2. The proposed change will not substantially injure or detract from the use of neighboring property or from the character of the neighborhood, and that the use of the property adjacent to the area included in the proposed change or plan is adequately safeguarded; 3. The proposed change will serve the best interests and conveniences of the community, where applicable, and the public welfare; 4. The proposed change would have no negative effect upon the logical, efficient, and economical extension of public services and facilities, such as public water, sewers, police and fire protection and schools. Public Right-of-Way Vacation There are not formal criteria for approval of a public right-of-way vacation. However, the vacation of the road should be in the best interest of the public at large. 13 Variances State law requires that the city council make the following findings to approve a variance from the zoning code: 1. Strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the property under consideration. 2. The variance would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. "Undue hardship" as used in granting of a variance, means the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property, not created by the landowner, and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance. Application Date State law requires that the city take action within 60 days of receiving complete applications for a proposal. Mr. Blair submitted his original proposal on September 9, 2005. During review of the project MNDOT indicated that they would like to study the pOSSibility of vacating the highway frontage road which runs between Mr. Blair's property and Highway 61. To ensure the city and MNDOT have adequate time in which to study the impacts of the frontage road Mr. Blair waived his 60-day rights. Therefore, there is no required timeline for city review and action, however, Mr. Blair would like to begin the project as soon as possible. P:sec17\Carpet Court\7-18-06 pc memorandum Attachments: 1. Development Description/Estimate of Variance Hardship 2. location Map 3. land Use Map 4. Zoning Map 5. Site Plan 6. Grading Pian 7. Landscape Plan 8. Lighting and Photometries Plan 9. Building Elevation 10. 2000 Development Proposal 11. 2006 Development Proposal 12. Future Cul-De-Sac 13. Engineering Review 14. MNDOT E-Mail Response 15. Lutheran Social Service Correspondence 16. Adolph and Mildred Palme Correspondence 17 Rezoning Resolution 18. Vacation Resolution 19. Building Setback Variance Resolution 14 Attachment 1 Mr. Gary Blair Carpet Court 1121 Minnehahah Ave E St. Paul, MN 55106 (651) 774-3321 March 13, 2006 Ms. Shann Finwall, Planner City of Maplewood 1830 County Road BEast Maplewood, MN 55109 Re: Property Located on the Northwest Corner of Arcade Street and Larpenteur Avenue. (1685 Arcade Street & adjacent lot) Dear Ms. Finwall: This letter is for the proposed building (7,848 sf I lot size 36,775 sf) to house my retaillwarehouse carpet store called Carpet Court. The building proposed for this property will vastly improve the property of which I have made application. The property currently is a vacant lot adjoining 2 commercially rated lots. The property to the North is operated with commercial rating by Bacchus Homes. To the South Gustavus Adolphus Lutheran church and its adjoining parking lot. Our building will be an asset to the neighborhood both by the clean lines created in the building itself, and the landscaping (including new trees) surrounding the property, and parking facilities. The building will have siding / stucco and stone facing, the metal roof will be the same as your building (1830 County Road BEast) At the rear of the building we plan to have a water garden to improve the water quality which will help treat the water prior to runoff. This should also qualify us for the needed impervious surface requirements. Our business is a family owned business who has been operating in the middle of a residential neighborhood in St. Paul for over 33 years with no traffic congestion problems. The new location already has some of its residents using there property for commercial use, further use should not be a traffic problem. If you need to contact me for additional information: my work number is (651) 774-3321 and my home number is (651) 774-7021. Feel free to call me with your concerns. Thank you for your consideration of the project being submitted to your department. /) ~;~;e~.el .~ . . Blair / Development Description Carpet Court 1121 E. Minnehaha Avenue, SL Paul, MN 55106 (651) 774-3321 Carpet Court is currently proposing a retail/warehouse building in the city of Maplewood. The building will be constructed on 2 vacant lots located on the northwest comer of Larpenteur Avenue and Arcade Street (Hwy 61). This proposed development requires a setback variance for the west lot to the adjacent northwest property line. A strict setback variance would cause a uudue hardsbip for several reasons: (I) Figuring a strict setback requirements would make 95% of the west lot unusable. (2) The setback problem is due to the unusual shaped property. (3) Our engineers have tried several different site designs and are unable to design a building that would not be restricted by a residential setback requirement for this angled property line. (4) The adjacent northwest property, that requires the setback variance for us is zoned as a Business Commercial (BC). This building was used as a commercial building and maybe used for a business in the future. Our current site plan meets the setback requirements for Business Commercial (BC) of which this adjacent property is zoned. The variance would keep with the spirit and intent of the ordinance for several reasons: (I) The properties located North, East, and Northwest are all zoned as a Business Commercial (BC). Only one adjoining property is zoned as Residential (RI) located to the West and we would have a separation of 60' between the building and the property line. (2) The city staff has recommended a future cul-de-sac to be located near the northwest property line for the future redevelopment of the triangular tract of land. When this occurs, the residential set back would no longer be in effect and thus the variance keeps with the intent of the ordinance. (3) Maplewood's Comprehensive Land Use Plan has scheduled that this complete triangular tract of land will all be zoned as Business Commercial (BC) in the future and thus a variance would not alter the essential character of the area. The setback codes and the comprehensive land use plan were designed to minimize the conflicts between different land uses. We are intending to use the land as Maplewood's plan guided us and a variance would be keeping in the spirit of the ordinance and Maplewood's future plan. Thank you, " I !I Ii , , , " , (/\\\, I '--\ V); ,J Maplewobd 1'1 , ---- ----r----'c:--.-- ---- St. Paul N W+E s Attachment 2 UQ 'i':~' --' -00 J ~ ' ,Ii ;: , Q) Ci i~ Larpenteur Avenue o I~ ' ,;: I.I:: " .2', I E. I _I Q) Q) ~ - " (/.), II~ rl ~ -' k-< J'I I'"'''' 'I I : Gc.uill I I I, I' I' Phalen Park Jo ,-) c-==--=-~-~ I "~- " [Proposed Carpet Courtl Location Map Attachment 3 ;" j'!i II -JIll II 1- 1,11- ,III . , " .... Cl -0 o '0 :;: Q) a. m :::?: ~ <0 >- m :;:1 .r:: C> Ii ~ 'I-I 'I I. Q) I . Q)' i I c75 , II Q) I. -0 "', II ~I 1<( St. Paul - - Larpenteur Avenue I' 1695 Arcade Street t --I R-1 Single Dwelling Residential . R-3 High Multiple Dwelling Residential . Be Business Commercial BCM Business Commercial Modified . Open Space N W*E s Land Use Map Attachment 4 St. Paul ____ I L_~, Larpenteur Avenue 1"1 ~iii I! ~ ,.:'"I.....w... .' III . .',',' ..... " Cl / ' "0 o / ,/ I ~ ! aJl a. I lIll ::2:1 , I ~ co >- lIlc ::1 ..c I, ' 0).. Ii ~I 311 I I c75l I' aJ 'I,II~I 'I ~ I-Prop~dCarpet Courtm~ Ii BCM Business Commercial Modified . BC Business Commercial . R-3 High Multiple Dwelling Residential . PUD Planned Unit Development . Farm Residence --:J R-1 Single Dwelling Residential N W*E s Zoning Map (\\\G\,\ ~~\ Co1'l1tT1e,c.\Q\ i-- ~ r I I C rnJ 1111 0 . IIIII - mL IJiI 0 .:7 ~ " '----1 I I I I I I um '-0 rnJ '" UI , .. , ((., . . ~ ~~R. A'E.NV& J Attachment 5 ---- ~ c ~ ~ i1 t1 1 I -". ~ ...J ,- " < ~ > u r c t s :r- '"" :3 r ..!:> = - <s' . ',. - ~ N ~ w ~J~ L~~ ~~oti~ $(Ni(.( ~C)qd -to be \l D. CA.lU E Site Plan s Attachment 6 .~ . ...:::.::::::::::~=.::::.::::::.~J:!:::::.::1.::.::.::....:......::.:~~...........................,_.:~:1.......................:.:..-:::..::::..:,- .. hi--- ~. ,.' -: ~------ ~ l;> ~i _____-! '11U _~ ---'It:! ,I ~ l~ I- ~I\~ 'I!~'~.- I ~, . "\~ >, !I~' I r=;Fl.' ']11 I ! @~ ii' t. ~ JI . ~ , '~' U UI.!i, I J : 'I, 't .! ,IE I! I I --., I j , ! ~I ~ i I I " . ~ . I 1 I ') I I , i ~ -~ i / /.j-~. 'I~' i " l;> l;o I . . ',." j I I ~! . "\,0!1, ! I ~I~ \, ~ ; \" 'I, ~>>--'- i \ .. .! 'I 'I 'I , Iii \ ,""\... i : . .~, " /'. 'I ' --~_. .-- I ; 9 \~ ~ " . , !! i lr I I i ~ i 11 ~ ~' ,,', , , 1 I , , ~ ----.-.-., i i i i i i i , ~ ~ I, F , , , ~ -t 'E!!ii!~! i ! EEl: i! ~ ~ ! '- - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - -:.;.j:~-; - - - - -'- - - - -- - - _._._._._~-=-==-~.=-.~._,_._,>-.__._._._,_._.__._._._._-_.~.J ~ N w ~J~ =-; ~~ E Grading Plan s Attachment 7 " ~, l. ~ J! k111~ i'" : t! ~ ~l .I l ~ Ie !I, i-,.h----T-- l e j!J !j!j I i ~ "',.1 . ........--~ '0- Tr--------------i--------------------------------------------- ~.~ ~ U,~t --hJ~ , IU i !'jl l~ 1-- 'Ii;ll ~II!j ~l, I] L, ~I ~(" -----'-' i i i i i i i i i i i I I ...---..............--.------------........................------_..........------_.........--.....-.-.----------------................ ....... ~ .., ~ ~ - ! ~~!!ii = I Ii II Ii II ., !, I. I! ii It i i i i i i i i i i i q I -~ I I i I ~ ! ,j L_____~______._._._._._._._,_._____.~.~._._._____.:.....,___._._._._._._____._._._._____.~.~.__________........L._._._----.---.---.-.-.---.---"-.j CONECTW...........,. ....,....,....."... !! . --. . , . . I Maple (Verity TBD) 2 1/2 Wigelia 2' - 4' Space: 5' Rhododendrum 3 - 5' Space: 12' Geranium 15. IBM ...-- Calamagrostis Canadensis 36- 7 Hemerocajli, (~ Retums) 18- C8ltha Pwultrte 4 - 16" N w ~J~ =-; ~~ E Landscape Plan s Attachment 8 Carpet Court Exterior Photometric Light Design REXEL - CAPTIOL LIGHT 270 Locust Street Hartford, CT 06141 Rick Berry - Design Supervisor (888) 999-2560 ext 2312 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ qa qa qa qo qo. qo qo. qo qo qo qo qo. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ;,;> '" ;,;> ~ ~ ~ ~ qa qa qo qo. qa 0 0 00 qo. qo. qo qo ~ ~ ~ '" 6' '0.> '.('0 ':> '" ~ ~ ~ qa qa qo. "'a "'<. 0<. 0 00 "'a "'a "'0 ~ ~ ~ :so '" '<9 '.('S- ':> '" ~ ~ "'a "'a "'a '" "'a "'a "'a i? i? 6' i? qa I?a ~ I?o. I?o. i? ~ '.(' ~ ~ qa I?a qa qa ~ ~ ~ ~ "'a "'0 "'a qa "'a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ "'a "'0 "'a "'a "'a ~ ~ i? i? i? qa "'a '00 '00 '00 i? i? qa I?a qa I?a i? i? i? i? qa I?a qa qa qa i? i? V ~ V "'a I?o qa qa "'a v ~ v v ~ qa qo I?a qa ~ ~ ~ ~ "'a I?o "'a qa v ~ ~ ~ qa I?a "'a "'a I?a v v i? i? i? qa "'a qo. q qa qa qa ~ v Ql '00 '00 '0", ..('''' .<'} 'V'o 'V',9 'V'.> '~o '.('0 '0", '00 '00 I ",- ",- .@b- ~ ",- ",- ",- ",- ",- t@ ",- L- ",- ",- TC2 Series 6" Incandescent Housing Non-Ie Rated r b , Features . 6 N Housing . Medium base porcelain socket with nickel-plated copper screw shell . Drop socket with spring to accommodate certain trim installation . Housing is vertically adjustable to accommodate up to a 2" ceiling thickness . Housing is fully assembled for ease of installation . Real Nair" 3 bar hangers: telescoping system with pre-installed removable nail for easy repositioning of housing in Joist construction' Integral T-bar clip for secure installation in suspended ceilings . Patented breakaway bars for tight joist spacing . Bar hangers may be fe-positioned 900 . Curved foot facilitates alignment with joist bottom . Quick-Lac slot and oversized set screw lock fixture in position . Pre-Wired junction box with (5) 1/2" and (1) 3/4" knockouts with pryout slots, (4) Romex'~ connectors, and ground wire . Shadow-free, knife-edge trim design blends smoothly into the ceiling and allows architectural continuity with Aculux'~ trims . UL Listed. C-UUC5A certified for through-branch wiring, maximum (8) #12 AWG minimum 900 C branch circuit conductors (4 in, 4 out) . Thermally protected against improper use of lamps or insulation . Lamp wattage ratings and apertures based on trim selection on pages 47-52 I) t ~' ".-, '.' "- ;, )' :(::- ..... J ~<',...- ':.t~'.- ,-,.:",,;;:, ", .- ,,,,'~l',:t ", ' ' "'" Description Non-IC rated housing. Designed to be installed in non-insulated areas, or where insulation is spaced at least 3" from housing Listings UL Listed, C-UUCSA certified for through-branch wiring, damp and wet locations. Wet location listed with the 20. 21. 22. 240. 241, 242. 243. and 9900 trims . The listing also includes the 28 and 29 trims, only when used with PAR30/PAR38 outdoor rated lamps . Conforms with City of Chicago IP requirements Ordering Information -- ---- Catalog Number: TC2 Catalog Number: TC25 - TC2 with smaller footprint bar hanger (Real Nail"' 2) Catalog Number: TC2W. TC2 with push-in electrical connectors for fast, secure installation ---_.._-----_._-'~-..,~-_.._-,----~--,--,- '_.._,,-- Dimensions T r 131/2" Will expand to 25' (Reduces to 8 1/2" with breakawey feature) 7314' 1 '.. "'::~:umo:::' ~ , . 1'-101/8"~ I . 13" . r 71/2' iii " 1 I+- 67/8" --+1 6 7/S" Ceiling Cutout www.iunoliahtinaarOUD.cnm juno' . '.1 .JJ' 10 LGHllNG GRCA? lllI-c 4~ '" 1 " "0'" , Quasar'" Parking, Roadway 8( Area Lighting * ./~)..i' 'e' Magnetic Ballast . , - ..C,-, ~~=" _ ~ " -- .. -- ~ ~... ' , " AccuLite . 'J. y" L"';i-'li'i,"Gfl' ,Ul W}~D 856 Description Engineered to provide a rugged, high performance luminaire that is both attractive and affordable. The Quasar' luminaire provides the light control demanded by the specifier, while offering the end user reliability and long term economy. The Quasar"> luminaire is ideal for installation in a wide variety of facilities ranging from large shopping malls to small plazas; business parks, commercial complexes and office buildings; college and university campuses; and high or low rise apartment buildings. Certification UUC-UL Listede CSA Certified Or~..rinSLll'lf()r_lTlation E_x~rnple: CSB4400MH-QT-SF-L Series lamp (WattsITypesl 4llOMH CS84 Features "Dark Sky" Cut-Off Listed with the International Dark Sky Association as a full cut-off luminaire Optics High"performance, segmented reflector. IES Type II, III, IV and forward throw distributions. Clear flat tempered glass lens Construction One piece die cast aluminum housing . Permanently attached hinged door is secured with 4 bolts for maximum weather-proof integrity . Gasketed lens Mounting Square pole bracket, yoke and slipfitter Finish Baked polyester powder coat Lampholder Specification grade porcelain, mogul base Ballasts Cool operating, the ballast is mounted directly to the cast housing for maximum heat dissipation. HPF ballasts are suitable for low temperature starting. Probe Start MH _300 C, Pulse Start MH _40" C, HPS -40" C . Ballast QT Options Accessories Mounting SF l . Max 400W Pulse Start Metal Halide Magnetic Square pole bracket Options CSB2 " IES Type 11 70PS, 100PS, 150PS,200PS, 2S0PS, . OTO - Ouad Tap No suffix" Mal( 400W included See below CSB3 " IES Type III 320PS, 350PS, 400P5*, 450PS, 120V. 208V. 24011, 277V 87S-1000W - Order Separately Accessories C5B4 " IES Type IV 875PS, 1000P5 . IT . Tri Tap - See Accessories below See below FT . Forward Throw 1000W Probe Start Metal Halide 120V, 277V. 347V Round pole bracket CSB3 - IES Type III 175MH, 250MH, 400MH-, 1000MH - R " Indicate pole diameter FT - Forward Throw High Pressure Sodium " 4800 . 480V - SF . Slipfitter 70HP, 100HP, 150Hp, 250Hp, 400HP, " TRN . Yoke 1000HP Dimensions Options EPA l W H Weight 70W 400w 1 ~8 It loVA" 163/8" 7318" Bi>lb f:95W lroow 2/(1h 233W 233W 101/..\- 771/7Ib r- t--+w 'IT H -L Pole DriUitlgPattefn !OW-4r:tJWb,,,cbn ~o,,"' 13'32".'tf Thru n0le~ I", VS' 518- :> " halts 0 " WB-l-Color ,I ,; I, lCSB"WB I Pole Drilling POIlttern .. 3~ 8l'jW & ICXDW 1 112"-1 -) brack!l1 moun! 112'(x4) '. zl- -, -~ ,\ holes 7/16 1",.'" 2" ~ .f>ntf'rhol,,'- -.() , 4" TI "' ,c . li,~J~V r11(.':;;1 halldt;> lIs'~ [D,15 ldn-lf) " (~OltICf\ ?OBV, ldOV & .\801/ \yj',en "~q'"r"d h'r' 10c,1 ~ oj" hm'"n,llm.; "1<.1:1 bl:' lur'lr:;I,,,"! 'Nrlh 'll"mp sar.h:-ll:lr,:W:";tOl ()[.W ,en',l1MI!-...lld;\ C0rl";,~I' bCle,\,' I rJ..jl" w"-"n,Yd"'r"91'on -,t'lnd.l<d",ll"", ,0'-' '''''51 ;)~c,f-,,' If>.. b,], h~ls ""d 3(U~';S0"'" ,...-:Ih 'he 'I'e<:;,,' ,'n;,,, www.junoHghtinggroup.com Description lamp With clear lamp Photocontrollndicate line voltage Available 120/208124Q/277f347V Photocontrol Receptacle 180V Receptacle only. photoc:mtrol supplied by othels Fuse Holder Supplied with fuse On multi-tap ballasts indicate line voltage Single pole. Line to neutral Two pole - Line to tine Colort Bronze (Slandald add suffi. to Ac'~es50riesl Black White Designer Colors Suffix l PC (volts) PCR F1 F2 Bl Bl WH - "1'",'~ f--d""''-'' Accessories Description Mounting Arm l000W. IES Type III l000W. Forward Throw Vandal Shield Ma~ 4QOW Model~ l000w Models Wall Mounting Brackets 51ipfitter mounting. 2" IPS (2 3/8" 00) For bracket nlOunted luminaires Brilcket mOll'll.ng. ~,"'~)( 400W Calalog # CS83_1000AM"c.olor FT_1000AM_color CSB-LS400 CSB-l51000 ~ WB-1<olor CSBWB-color .J r AccuLite I ;. ( ~ <';~~"" ~l,'."" _ .. L - .,,'-." ~ ~~. , , " PoJ.. S9uaFetStre'i@Mt:;St~~L ,.... 3 \ ,,^'~, .,'~ -'.C'Of"" -"""".'".;0,'''$>-''' "'~'~e: )',' '~iI'j.- '!.' , Shaft Pole shafts are supplied in 11 gauge or 7 gauge thickness having a minimum yield strength of 55,000 psi and conforms to ASTM A595 Grade A . Shafts are of one piece construction with a lull length longitudinal high frequency electric resistance weld. Shafts are unjformly square in cross section with flat sides, rounded corners (0.75" per corner) and no taper Hand Hole Reinforcing hand hole rim welded into the pole she._ t . Rectangular shaped tubing or oval shaped pipe. Hand holes are furnished with attachment bar, cover and screws. Hand holes, located 18" above the base Electrical Ground A nut holder is provided near the hand hole and includes a 1/2" - 13 UNC hex head bolt and nut Base Plate Fabricated from structural quality hOl rLdl.;.;d carbon steel plate conforming to ASTM A36 . Circumferentially welded top and bottom, the base plate lelescopes the pole shaft. The pole chart information lists the bolt circle ranges for each POlE Base Cover A full base cover is standard with SSS Series poles Anchor Bolts Fabricated from carbon steel bar conforming to AASHTO M314 Grade 55 or ASTM F 1 55,; Grade~55 . Bolts have an ilL" bend on one end. Bolts are galvanized a minimum of 12" on the threaded end . Four anchor bolts are furnished per pole. Each anchor bolt is furnished with two hex nuts and two flat waslwl S Ordering Information Example: 5554-20-1 E2-BZ-DUP' _u_ .~-- HeightFi"rture------- -- .-.---.----- Series Nom. Mtg. Options 5554 20 1 E2 B2-oUP Specifications SSS4 Anchof BOMPH 90 MPH 100 t,I", Pole Shah Pole B<ls€ Bolts G,,~tbCl{,r - '3 G'-'~l fac.tuI ,.. Gu',lbc:c Base Wall Boh Circle Diameter Ma~ Ma~ Ivlax M" M" kL. aD Thick Weight Di" Square Thickness Length EPA Weiaht EPA Weight EPA 'vV~ li'd (in) (qa) (lbs) (in) (In) (in) Hook (in) (hi (Ib~) (ft) (Ibs) ( hi (1:'01 .10 Colon '0 11 " 85 ~ 0.5 8.25 075 7S X 17 X 3 30.6 765 238 595 189 .n. -12 See . BZ 4U 11 90 B 5::. 0.5 825 O.7S 75 X i7 X 3 244 610 188 4/0 1.:18 .,. below BIQnl€ 40 11 100 8S:t05 O2S 0.75 15 X 1/ X 3 199 498 '51 378 117 .16 -WH 40 " 115 8.5 t 05 825 075 75 X 17 X 3 .59 398 118 295 R9 -18 White 40 11 '" 85", 0.5 825 075 75 X 17 X 3 12.6 315 92 230 67 j/~ .20 . BL 40 11 140 8.5 ~ 0.5 825 07::' 7S X 17 X 3 96 24) 61 167 ,15 : ~)U - 25 Black '10 7 '" 85,0, 8.25 088 7S X 17 X 3 98 246 69 173 48 1 ~il .20 50 11 185 110"t 10 1100 100 75 X 17 X 3 177 4..J3 127 343 94 , . ZS . DUP 5.0 i 360 110-, 10 11.00 1.00 75 X 17 X 3 18 I 4>4 133 333 95 ::'.J,f - 30 P'OI'islon SO 7 380 110:t 10 11.00 I.DO .75 X 17 X 3 10/ 267 67 167 39 " - 30 fa, 60 7 520 120i 1.0 12.50 100 1OOX36X4 i90 475 132 330 90 - 35 JupleA 60 7 540 12.0 ! 1.0 1250 100 ioox36X4 i?.:l 310 76 190 " I'.;', -40 receptacle 60 7 60S 120-, 10 1250 1.00 IOOx36)('\ /.2 180 30 7S 5555 SSS6 Drilling Pattern* Tenon Mounting Brackets* -luminaires Bolt Directly to the Pole Slfpfltter Mounted Luminaires Includes Top Cap Add suffjy to Ndel ITV)unting bracket w.th 2" lumlnime IEflon Alari & Alari+ Quasar Quasar (10CKlW) Description Bracket Suffix {All Lamps) (ma" 400W) Aries{AJllamps; Iluminaire To order pole 0 0 0 Lum,nairo: tenon 2" IPS (23/8" 00) -lU I drilling add suH,,, 2 Luminaire5 1 Luminaire Luminaue tenon 2' IPS (2 3/8' 00) -iI -1E3 -1E2 -1E34 F.PA i 0 ft ?llb in (ine - ZU 4..J 2 luminaires 3 Luminaires ---- .2C3 -2C2 - 2C34 LwninailB tenon 2" IF5(L"J'8" (0) ~ -2l3 -2l2 - 2134 ErA 16 It - 321b ,nlin.. .3U l I J Y 3 luminaires EPA 1.3 It 34 It; @} '20 - 3Y , ~ -3T3 .3T2 .3T34 'J. '1 Luminaires 4 Luminaires LUIl\lnilire tenon 2" IPS (2 31c OD) X ..Jtfl'lOUG"'TI~G;iOLJr X EPA 16 ft 4,j Ib \(."i'O . 4X ",X3 ",X2 .4X34 lDJ_c l J EPA (.'3f: - .1'1Ib 111."-"0:' - 4U 864 , ;'f!€ P"9" B68 for Pal" Se:eCftOr PmCEe.i.' ~nd (.,nct., ,r,o"e'\<";:1 brachn dim"ns'nr~ t De"''1l1IH(:ulor'. are a'v;:!ilabl,' ('nr'.sul! lodrJI,! Attachment 9 c'. ., iloo '::..;.{Sif:';!i/;., '.' .0. 0 "'--..;.:.";-~;::----- :~::.:'''''''';''-'';'- - -......-".,='"..,. -" ---------- '., ." .-, Building Elevation Attachment 10 --. ".-J . .- -- -- ~ - ". -- a --- I -..-... (- ~ , PROPOSED .. , I .. , CARPET COURT , I I il I , ~ @ I I ! , @l i , I Cl , < , it ~ ! I 0 0:: .. I @; I II w t I (!) ~ ~ I ~ II z @I 1% 0 0:: ... LL I ~.... " " I ---- ----------------- I -- -- - - . .- LARPENTEUR AVENUE N W.' S 2000 Development Proposal Attachment 11 \ II i ~ ) ~ / ? Iii I -,._- ~/111 [ ;..-_.---~~-,,/ ;-:-_;.-;:.-_-" 7 ~ ... !11\\\,' / I, \" : I'" /"..::;;'/"- ,/ =1\1 /--- - ;/' I ill' / / t / , 1'1 ; / I tll '""1;~ I il" /'~-/- liil; ; 'II! .' :', I .~ ...a.. ,no ;0 o i z :- ~1 AT >-..... <( ;0 '" " 'i' -~.~._- l'! <( >- Ul ------- .----- p.r__ -<-<-C-~LARPEN~< I AVENUE < --- -- --------- N W+E s 2005 Development Proposal = Larpenteur Avenue St. Paul N W+E Attachment 12 ~ ..: o "8 ~ CD Q. IV ~ Phalen Park .... <0 :>. ~ .s:: OJ :E ....... G) ~ - rn CD "C ~ <( o~ Future Cul-De-Sac s Attachment 13 Enl!:ineerinl!: Plan Review PROJECT: PROJECT NO: REVIEWED BY: DATE: Carpet Court 05-28 Steve Kummer, Civil Engineer II - General Site Review Jon Jarosch, Civil Engineer I - Erosion Control Erin Laheree, Assistant City Engineer July 10,2006 General Site Plan Comments 1. The developer is proposing 2 driveways off of Larpenteur Avenue. Staff met with Mn/Dot last spring to discuss the location of the proposed driveways. Mn/Dot prefers that any the new entrance is located 160 feet from the Highway 61 entrance. The easterly most entrance does not meet this requirement. The developer shall consider reconfiguring the parking lot layout to eliminate the easterly most entrance. 2. The ponding area shown along the west side of the site shall be relocated outside of the new right of way easement. The new right of way will accommodate a future public roadway to serve future development to the north and west. 3. An existing topographic and boundary survey should be included with this plan package. This plan shall include, but not be limited to, existing curb edges, road grades, tree locations, catch basins, flared-end sections, utility poles, etc. Property comers, property lines, dimensions and bearings shall also be shown on all plan sheets. 4. Show existing and proposed concrete curb and gutter on all plans. Concrete curb and gutter shall be shown around the eastern parking lot and west driveway entrance. 5. The use of porous pavement is a highly positive aspect of this design. A pavement detail has been provided in this plan set. 6. It appears that with the site layout that larger trucks would have to pull up and back into the 12xl4 overhead door directly from Larpenteur Avenue. It is suggested that a different site and building layout is contemplated such that there is one entry from Larpenteur Avenue and that trucks can back into the loading areas from the parking lot versus directly from Larpenteur Avenue. 7. Plans must be signed by a professional engineer licensed in the State of Minnesota. 8. The developer shall enter into a Developer's Agreement with the City for the dedication of the new right-of-way on the west side of the site. Site Demolition 1. The site appears to be a former location of a gas station. Have the existing underground storage tanks been removed? 2. A demolition plan and demolition plan notes should be provided for the proposed removal of existing pavement and other items related to the former gas station. Demolition items should include tree removals. Erosion Control 1. The detail of the Rock Construction Entrance shall conform to Maplewood Standard Plate 350 which shows a minimum length of75 feet, and a MnlDOT Type V geotextile fabric beneath and 2 feet beyond the pad. Rock construction entrance pad locations shall be shown on plans. 2. Silt fence installation detail shall conform to Maplewood Standard Plate 350. Show height dimensions and other pertinent dimensions in compliance with the standard plate. 3. Install Heavy-Duty Silt Fence along the northwest corner of the lot in place of the silt fence currently shown on the plans between the points where the 178' -0" contour exits the property. Provide detail for Heavy-Duty Silt Fence on plans. 4. There are four existing stormwater inlets adjacent to the site that must be protected prior to construction. These include the one existing catch-basin shown on the plans, as well as the catch basin directly south of that catch basin, a flared-end on the east-end of the property that is not shown on the plans, and a catch basin directly east of this flared- end. Catch-basin inlet protection shall consist of a Wimco catch-basin insert, a Dandy Silt-Sac, or an engineering department approved equivalent. The simple placement of geotextile fabric over the grate is not an acceptable alternative. The flared-end section shall be protected with a ring of heavy-duty silt fence. Grading and Drainage Patterns I. Provide a building finished-floor elevation (FFE) on the plan and elevation views. Based on the proposed elevation of the parking area to the east of the building, one may assume an FFE of 182'-6" or 183'-0", for example, but this needs to be stated on both the plan and elevation views. 2. Based on the building elevation views, it appears that the building is to be a single- elevation slab-on-grade construction. Assuming an FFE of 182'-6" or 183'-0", there appears to be a 5-foot grade differential between the northwest part of the building and adjoining property. Either show no more than a 3H: I V proposed slope to the north property line or provide a retaining wall to mitigate this grade differential. 2 3. Show elevations on your elevation views. Include existing and proposed exterior grade profiles on all elevation views. 4. Revisit the grading and drainage near the southwest corner of the building. If one is to assume a building FFE of 182'-6" or 183'-0", then the grade along the southwest corner of the building may be somewhat flat and drainage may not flow away from the building. 5. Show grading and drainage patterns on the proposed western driveway into the building. Drainage from the western driveway should be directed into the proposed ponding area and not into the street. 6. More grading information is needed at the driveway entries onto Larpenteur Avenue. Existing Larpenteur A venue grades as well as proposed match-in elevations at the street should be shown. 7. It appears that the proposed grade for the porous pavement parking lot is going to be predominately flat. This may become an issue during winter months. It is suggested that the parking lot be graded to drain toward low points so patches of ice have a place to drain during thaw periods. Show how the parking lot grades will tie into the existing grades along the north and east sides of the property. 8. Based on the elevation views, it appears that the two overhead door entries are to be drive-in docks and not the traditional 4-foot deep loading dock entries. A ramp or elevating device may be required to transfer items from the building floor to a truck. Is a drive-in dock desirable considering that a 4-foot loading dock provides a more level transfer surface from a truck to the building floor? 9. Show positive drainage away from the east side of the building toward the proposed parking lot. Show that the proposed sidewalk cross-slope does not exceed 2%. 10. Show a ramp for the handicapped leading from the parking lot. Show details on the proposed handicapped ramp. Standard detail plates for reference are available at http://www.ci.maplewood.mn.us. Utilities I. Include a separate utility plan in this package. 2. The water and sanitary sewer connections are not shown. Show existing as-built information on proposed plan including existing water and sanitary sewer connections stubbed to the site. Show existing and proposed pipe sizes, materials and slopes. 3. Storm sewer is schematically shown on the plans with no inverts, pipe sizes, or materials used. Manholes and outlets are shown schematically, but types and sizes are not specified. Provide storm sewer information on plan sheet. 3 4. Show the intent with the proposed storm sewer going into the east parking lot. For example, will the stub connect to a draintile system or to a special manhole structure which drains the water from the stone base of the parking lot? If so, the layout of a proposed draintile system, or a detail showing this special structure is needed with the plan. 5. Although the porous parking area will be the primary drainage way for the eastern portion of the site, a secondary system for the parking lot surface should be in place. For example, this could be a low-point catch basin in the parking area or the parking area could be tipped east toward a rain water garden or swale along the east side of the parking lot. 6. Show relevant utility details, such as manholes, pipe bedding, water and Sewer connections, etc. All standard detail plates are available in PDF form at http://www.ci.maplewood.mn.us. 7. An existing flared-end section and catch basin at the east end of the site are not shown on the drawings. These are to be shown on a utility plan and property addressed. Storm Water Management I. A storm water BMP maintenance agreement will be required for the porous pavement parking lot and the proposed infiltration/ponding area. The City will be responsible for preparing the agreement. 2. Provide a sump manhole upstream of the discharge point into the infiltration pond. 3. Show HydroCAD computations for existing runofffrom site. 4. The l-year/24-hour rainfall event for the City of Maple wood is 2.4 inches. Revise accordingly. 5. The water quality treatment (WQT) volume for the infiltration basin is based on I inch of runoff from the proposed impervious surfaces of the site (including the porous pavement). The WQT volume ofthe basin is the infiltration or "dead" storage volume below the secondary basin outlet. Revisit the basin design, as it appears from the enclosed computations that the pond may be oversized. 6. The summary computations and the high-water elevations (HWL's) of the storm water computations do not appear to be consistent with the subsequent HydroCAD summaries enclosed. For example the HWL for the I DO-year rainfall event is shown to be 179.84 while the HydroCAD summary sheet for the I DO-year rainfall shows a 177 .90. The runoff summary totals should also be consistent with the summaries as well. Revise computations as necessary. 4 7. It appears that the infiltration pond and the porous pavement parking lot on the summary sheet are indicated as one pond, but on the subsequent summary sheets, they are shown as two ponds. The two areas should be indicated as separate ponding areas. The porous pavement parking lot "pond" should be routed to the infiltration basin. Revise the storm water computations as necessary. Geometrics and Lavout I. Show the extents of the B6 curb section in plan view with a double-line. 2. Show gravel base extending under curb and gutter. 3. Show parking lot curve and driveway entry radii and dimension as necessary. 4. Detail the pavement design for the entry into the 12xl4 overhead door. 5. What types of vehicles will be utilizing the 9x 1 0 overhead door? Backing for a larger truck may be an issue if a vehicle is parked in the northwestern end spot. 5 Attachment 14 J\)\~ \~I 2-0~ Hi Shawn, For your planning commission meeting tonight our comments concerning Carpet Court would be that one access be provided from Larpenteur Avenue with at least 200-300 feet of spacing between highway 61 and the entrance. The proposed western entrance provides this spacing, however the eastern entrance is too close. It appears possible to close that east entrance and allow a connection along the south side of the site between the west entrance and the parking lot. There is approximately 50-feet between the curb and proposed building, which would be plenty of space for a connection. I believe this would require a variance from the city. We would encourage the city to grant this to provide for one entrance. Mn/DOT is releasing the commissioner's orders on the frontage road in front of this site. The city should receive a notice in August. The deeds will be processed in September. Our review letter should be sent by next some time. have any questions. Thanks Let me know if you Brigid Gombold Program Management 1500 CR B2 Roseville, MN 55113 651-582-1378 Have a Great Day! (I Lutheran Social Servin' of Minnesota State Cl'ntcr 2-1-t:'iC'llllpA\'l'Tl\1l' :;[.I'.ILII,M,\S,'i]iIN h,'iI.h-1-2.'i'NIl 1}11){1_::;S2_'i2111) 1,1\ h"1_'Jh9_2,'h{) \\'I\'W,I~~I1lI1_(ll'h ~ ~ Attachment 15 Lutheran Social Service for changing liz)('s ~---... ::><;, 2...... ~ Octob Shann Finwall Planner City of Maplewood 1830 East County Rd B Maplewood, Mn. 55109 Dear Mr. Finwall, This letter is response to the recent Neighborhood Survey that was sent to me on behalf of Lutheran Social Service of MN, LSS, regarding Conditional Use Permit for a structure located at 1685 Arcade St. Lutheran Social Service owns the adjacent property located at 785 Larpenteur East. This location is home to four developmentally disabled adults that LSS provides support and services to this population. We respectfully wish for this application not to proceed based on the following concerns and issues that most certainly will affect the lives these individuals have come to expect. In reviewing the information that was sent, I sense that the location for this structure should be located in a more business type atmosphere of commercial zoning. Residential abuts this location and this would have an adverse factor of a large percent to valuation of the existing dwelling. We cannot afford to lose equity of this home. Traffic patterns as well are much of a concern due to the large tractor trailers that will be needed to make deliveries to this location. I am assuming that there would be significant "walk in" and drive traffic as well, that will be disruptive as well. The overall size of the structure will be obstructing to views and enjoyment of our clients. They surely enjoy the peace and quite serenity of their backyard and all it has to offer. As stated the use would be for wholesale carpet sales. We all have seen carpet companies as such come and go frequently. This site would not offer much hope as to a business that would have longevity due to its location. A CUP may not be in the best interst of all. What would become of the structure at that point? More surveys? More hearings? I would hope that sincere effective plarming would take place as for proper locations to address this issue. LSS does not think this is a suitable location based on the above needed conditional use permit. Sincerely ~ ! J..... - ):~- Tom Barrett Property Director Lutheran Social Service ofMN. Attachment 16 Adolph and Mildred Palme 1721 Arcade St N Maplewood, MN 55109-4204 RE: Plans to develop 1685 Arcade Street iR1EClErl\\i'iEilll JUL 1 1 2DD6 July 9,2006 Dear Neighbor, Gary Blair is the owner of the property at 1685 Arcade Street, and recently it has come to our attention that he plans to develop this property as a 7,848 square foot carpet retail/warehouse store caned "Carpet Court." This is an issue of much concern to us. Not only would this project require major rezoning, it would also greatly increase traffic and require the building of a new service road. The most troubling aspect ofthis project is that we cannot see how someone who does not currently take care of his property can be expected to do a better job with a retail/warehouse store. We are Mr. Blair's neighbors and we rarely see him. He does not even keep up with basic yard work on his land, letting grass and weeds grow two feet high. There is also a lot of garbage that he just lets blow around his yard. Is this someone we can really trust with a major project that will have long-term effects on the value of our property, and the kind of community that we live in? We disagree with changing the zoning and the proposed construction of this building on the above mentioned property. As Mr. Blair's neighbors, this affects all of us. We should make sure we have a say in what happens in our community. We cannot just let someone who does not even take care of his current property rezone our area, put in new roads, and start a major building project. The Maplewood Planning Commission win hold a public hearing for this land use proposal on Tuesday, July 18, at 7 pm. Please make your concerns known by appearing at the hearing and stating your views, or by submitting written comments before the meeting. You can also contact the city planner to ask questions or express concerns about the proposal: Shann Finwall, Planner Telephone: (651) 249-2304 E-mail: shann.finwall@ci.maplewood.mn.us The public hearing will be held at: Office of Community Development City of Maple wood 1830 East County Road B Maplewood, MN 55109 Sincerely, Adolph and Mildred Palme CC: Office of Community Development Attachment 17 ZONING MAP CHANGE RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Gary Blair of the Carpet Court has proposed the following change to the City of Maplewood's zoning map: single dwelling residential (R-1) to business commercial (BC). WHEREAS, this change applies to: Lot 5, Block 1, Van Houten's Plat (PIN 172922440019) WHEREAS, the history of this change is as follows: 1. On July 18, 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 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 consistent with the city's comprehensive plan. 6. The proposed change will allow the applicant to combine this property to the adjacent property (currently zoned BC) for a commercial business. The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on Attachment 18 STREET VACATION RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Gary Blair of Carpet Court applied for the vacation of the following-described right-of-way: A portion of the Highway 61 frontage road located on the east side of 1684 Arcade Street as follows: Starting from the Larpenteur Avenue right-of-way, 161 feet north and 42 feet east toward Highway 61. WHEREAS, the history of this vacation is as follows: 1. On July 18, 2006, the planning commission held a public hearing about this proposed vacation. The city staff published a notice in the Maplewood Review and sent a notice to the abutting property owners. The planning commission gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The planning commission also considered reports and recommendations of the city staff. The planning commission recommended that the city council approve the vacation. 2. On the city council reviewed this proposal. The city council also considered reports and recommendations of the city staff and planning commission. WHEREAS, after the city approves this vacation, public interest in the property will go to the following abutting property: 1684 Arcade Street (Legal Description: Lots 3 and 4, Block 1, Van Houten's Plat, Subject to STH 61 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above-described right-of-way vacation for the following reasons: 1. The Minnesota Department of Transportation has authorized turning back the service road to the City of Maplewood. 2. The two remaining properties that gain access to their properties via the service road will still be able to utilize the road. 3. It is in the public interest. 4. The city has a concept plan for a future cul-de-sac road to be located to the west of the service road to allow for future redevelopment of the land. 5. It will allow the applicant to construct a business on the property. The vacation of the above-described right-of-way is based on the following condition: 1. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant or owner must submit the following for staff approval: a. The location of a 30-foot-wide right-of-way easement for the west side of the site. The easement documents must be recorded with the county. b. The relocation of the proposed rainwater garden on the west side of the property to ensure it is not located within the 30-foot-wide right-of-way easement. c. A driveway access from the parking lot onto the remaining portion of the service road to the north. d. A cross easement over the parking lot for ingress and egress from for Larpenteur Avenue to the remaining portion of the service road to the north. This easement must be approved by city staff and recorded with the county. The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on ,2006. -2- Attachment 19 VARIANCE RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Gary Blair of Carpet Court applied for a variance from the zoning ordinance in order to construct a retail/warehouse carpet store closer to a residential lot line than allowed by code. WHEREAS, this variance applies to the property at 1685 Arcade Street and the adjacent property to the west. The property identification numbers are 17-29-22-44-0019 and 17-29-22- 44-0018. The legal descriptions are: Lots 3, 4, and 5, Block 1, Van Houten's Plat, Subject to STH 61. WHEREAS, Section 44-20(c)(6)(b) of the Maplewood Zoning Code requires a 50 foot setback from a commercial building to a residential lot line. WHEREAS, the applicant is proposing a 7.5-foot setback to the residential lot line located to the northwest of the proposed building. WHEREAS, this requires a 42.5-foot building setback variance. WHEREAS, the history of this variance is as follows: 1. On July 18, 2006, the planning commission held a public hearing. City staff published a notice in the Maplewood Review and sent notices to the surrounding property owners as required by law. The planning commission council gave everyone at the hearing an opportunity to speak and present written statements. The planning commission also considered reports and recommendations from the city staff. The planning commission recommended approval of the variance. 2. On the city council reviewed this proposal. The city council also considered reports and recommendations of the city staff and planning commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above-described variance for the following reasons: 1. Strict enforcement of the code would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the property and not created by the property owner. This is because the north lot line is not straight and has a slight angle where the property meets the adjacent northwest residential lot line. The variance is needed only for the northwest corner of the building. The remaining portion of the building maintains the required 50-foot setback. 2. The variance would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance as follows: a. The affected property is actually zoned and guided business commercial in the city's zoning map and comprehensive plan. The property was used as a business in the past, but has been converted back to only residential within the last ten years. b. The applicant will be required to screen the northwest and west side of the building from the adjacent residential properties. Approval is subject to the applicant doing the following: 1. The applicant submitting to the city a screening and landscape plan which ensures there will be an 80 percent opaque screen from the building to the northwest and west residential lot lines. This plan to be approved by the community design review board. The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on -2- MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: Greg Copeland, Interim City Manager Shann Finwall, AICP, Planner Draft Sign Code - Outdoor Television Sign Definition July 6, 2006 for the July 11, 2006, CDRB Meeting INTRODUCTION In April 2006 city staff requested that the community design review board (CDRB) give an interpretation of the city's sign code in regard to electronic message board signs. The interpretation was requested based on two sign proposals received by staff. The first proposal was by Plaza TV at 1918 Beam Avenue. They requested the addition of a 34 square foot electronic message board sign to be installed on their existing freestanding sign. The city's existing and proposed sign code prohibits signs which blink or flash. Electronic message board signs have the capability of blinking and flashing. Plaza TV requested the sign on the condition that it remains constant and steady. The second proposal was by the Myth Nightclub at 3090 Southlawn Drive. They requested and have installed a 230 square foot light-emitting diode (LED) sign. This type of sign is similar to an outdoor television and has the capability of displaying millions of colors and video displays on the screen. During the CDRB's review, and based on the city attorney's comments, it was determined that the new style of electronic message board signs (LED signs - outdoor televisions) was different enough from anything that has come before that it needed its own category in the sign code. DISCUSSION Draft Sign Code Language The draft sign code was created by the CDRB over a two-year period. The CDRB recommended approval of this code on March 1, 2006. The city council will review the code for possible adoption in the summer 2006. The following pertinent language regarding electronic message board signs is found in the draft sign code. Definitions: Public Service Sign: Any sign primarily intended to promote items of general interest to the community. Time and temperature signs are considered a publiC service sign. Time and Temperature Sign: A sign that contain an electronic message board portion that only displays the time and temperature. Electronic Message Board: A sign with a fixed or changing display message composed of a series of electronic illuminated segments. Flashing Sign: An illuminated sign which contains flashing lights or exhibits with noticeable changes in light intensity. Changeable Copy Message Board: A sign or portion of a sign which is characterized by interchangeable letters and figures. This definition shall not include electronic message boards. Prohibited Sians: Signs that have blinking, flashing, fluttering lights, make noise, or change in brightness or color except for electronic message boards that display only time and temperature or similar public service messages according to the requirements specifically outlined in this chapter. Signs that by reason of location, color, or intensity create a hazard to the safe, efficient movement of vehicles or pedestrian traffic. No private sign shall contain words which might be construed as traffic controls such as "stop," "caution," "warning," etc., unless such sign is intended to direct traffic on the premises. Signs that advertise a product or service not sold on the property, except for billboards or other off-site signs where specifically permitted in this chapter. Proposed Draft Sign Code Language The city attorney's office suggested the following definition for LED or outdoor television signs: Video Board: A video board is any device desianed for outdoor use which is capable of displayina a video sianal. includina. but not limited to. cathode-rav tubes (CRTs). Iiaht-emittina diode (LED) displavs. plasma displays. liauid-crvstal displavs (LCDs). or other technoloaies used in commerciallv available televisions or computer monitors. The CDRB recommended that language be included in the draft sign code to ensure these types of signs are prohibited. Staff recommends the following revision to the prohibited signs section of the draft code: Signs that have blinking, flashing, fluttering lights, make noise, or change in brightness or color includina. but not limited to. electronic messaae board sians. flashina sians. and video board sians as defined in this chapter: except for electronic message boards that display only time and temperature or similar public service messages according to the requirements specifically outlined in this chapter. RECOMMENDATIONS Approve an amendment to the March 1, 2006, draft sign code pertaining to LED or outdoor television signs as follows (language added is underlined): Definitions: Video Board: A video board is any device desianed for outdoor use which is capable of displayina a video siana!. includina. but not limited to. cathode-rav tubes (CRTs). liaht-emittina diode (LED) displavs. plasma displays. liauid-crvstal 2 displavs (LCDs). or other technoloaies used in commerciallv available televisions or computer monitors. Prohibited Signs: Signs that have blinking, flashing, fluttering lights, make noise, or change in brightness or color includina. but not limited to. electronic messaae board sians. flashina sians. and video board sians as defined in this chapter: except for electronic message boards that display only time and temperature or similar publiC service messages according to the requirements specifically outlined in this chapter. p:ordlsign codeloutdoor television definition 3 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: Greg Copeland, Interim City Manager Shann Finwall, AICP, Planner Draft Tree Ordinance July 20, 2006 INTRODUCTION The city council created the environmental committee in the summer of 2004. The environmental committee was created to examine and deal with environmental issues within the city. An area of particular concern with the city council was the examination of the city's existing environmental ordinances by the environmental committee. BACKGROUND To date the environmental committee has dealt with several environmental issues including the creation of a new recycling ordinance which the city council adopted last winter, creation of educational materials and hosting of seminars on low impact lawn care, native vegetation, wetland buffers, and storm water. The environmental committee is currently reviewing the city's environmental protection and critical area ordinance (Attachment 1). This ordinance deals with wetlands and trees. The environmental committee decided to create two separate ordinances for wetlands and trees, rather than lump both items into one ordinance. Two task forces were created from the environmental committee members. The first task force has been dealing with the tree component of the ordinance and includes the city forester, Mandy Musielewicz. The second task force has been dealing with the wetland component and includes two employees of the Ramsey Washington Metro Watershed District. On May 22, 2006, the environmental committee presented the work to date on these issues to the city council during a workshop. The city council seemed pleased with the environmental committee's progress and looked forward to reviewing the final draft ordinances. The wetland task force is still in the process of creating a draft wetland ordinance. This task force has been working with the Ramsey Washington Metro Watershed District in reviewing the watershed district's new wetland classification system and rules. The watershed district's new wetland classification system, and possibly the new rules, will have an impact on the wetland task force's final draft ordinance. On July 10, 2006, the tree task force finalized a draft tree ordinance (Attachment 2). This ordinance has been reviewed by the city attorney's office (Attachment 3), with oversight from the environmental committee. DISCUSSION Comparison of Other Tree Ordinances One of the first areas of review was to compare the city's existing tree ordinance with other similar city's ordinances. The tree task force compared Maplewood's ordinance with six other cities including Blaine, Eagan, Oakdale, St. Paul, White Bear Lake, and Woodbury (Attachment 4). The comparison found that Maplewood's tree ordinance is far less restrictive than these six cities, particularly in regard to the number of replacement trees required. Major Changes Proposed Mandy Musielewicz, city forester, created the following list of major changes proposed with the draft tree ordinance: 1. Tree Protection: Current ordinance limits the amount of information on tree protection measures. Proposed ordinance gives more detail on protection measures and applicability. 2. Responsible City Staff: Current ordinance is vague as to responsible city staff. Proposed ordinance identifies responsible city staff principally as environmental manager and city forester. 3. Significant Tree Definition: Current ordinance defines trees required to be replaced as large trees. A large tree is a tree with an a-inch diameter excluding box elder, cottonwood, poplar and any other undesirable tree. Proposed ordinance defines trees required to be replaced as significant trees. A significant tree is a hardwood tree with a 6-inch diameter, softwood tree with a 12-inch diameter, conifer tree with an a-inch diameter, and further defines a landmark/specimen tree as any tree with a diameter over 28 inches. No tree species is excluded from tree replacement. 4. Applicability: Current ordinance has broad application to any person or use that would alter a significant natural feature. Proposed ordinance better defines application to any individual, business, or entity that engages in a building or development activity which requires issuance of a grading permit or new building permit. This includes all sites of new development that contain significant trees or woodlots. Applications for minor 2 home additions, general home improvements, construction of accessory buildings (i.e. garage, shed) are excluded from the requirements of the proposed tree ordinance. 5. Project Inclusion and Notification: Current ordinance requires public and semipublic projects such as street, utilities and parks to be bound by the ordinance, except if waived by council. In addition, all property owners within 350 feet of the affected tree removal site (for large developments or woodlot alterations) are required to be notified prior to tree removal. Proposed ordinance requires public and semipublic projects to be bound by ordinance, except when reviewed and approved by the environmental committee and accepted by the city council. In addition, all property owners within 500 feet of the affected tree removal site (for large developments or woodlot alterations) to be notified. 6. Woodlot Definition: Current ordinance defines a woodlot as at least one-half acre, of which 25 percent of the area includes large trees. Proposed ordinance defines a woodlot as a treed area on a vacant lot which includes a significant tree(s). 7. Noncompliance: Current ordinance does not contain penalty for non-compliance. Proposed ordinance penalizes non-compliance. Failure to submit an approved woodlot alteration permit before land clearing will result in a two-year moratorium for attainment of grading permit or building permit in addition to total tree replacement for the parcel. 8. Number of Replacement Trees: Current ordinance requires tree replacement of one tree replaced for one tree removed, but in no case does an applicant have to replace more than ten trees per acre. Proposed ordinance requires one tree replaced per one tree lost, up to 20 percent of significant tree diameter inches lost. Once the threshold of 20 percent of total diameter inches is reached, additional tree replacement is required based on a tree replacement formula of total diameter inches on the site and number of diameter inches lost. The formula increases the amount of inches replaced based on additional tree inches removed. There is no maximum replacement threshold. 3 g. Size of Replacement Trees: Current ordinance requires replacement trees to be at least 2.5 caliper inches for deciduous trees and 8 feet high for coniferous trees. Proposed ordinance requires tree replacement trees to be at least 2.5 caliper inches for deciduous and 6 feet high for coniferous trees. 10. Tree Species and Guarantee: Current ordinance recommends tree species diversity for replacement and a one year planting guarantee. Proposed ordinance requires tree species diversity if more than ten trees are planted and a two year planting guarantee. 11. Surety for Replacement Trees: Current ordinance does not require letter of credit or cash escrow for tree replacement and does not allow for payment to city in lieu of tree replacement. Proposed ordinance requires a 150 percent letter of credit or cash escrow for tree replacement. In addition, tree replacement on site considered first option, but payment to city in lieu of tree replacement allowed if there is not enough space on site for tree replacement. Tree Replacement Comparisons By far the biggest change to the city's current tree ordinance would be the number of replacement trees. The current ordinance allows large trees to be removed without consideration of their overall size. The proposed ordinance requires that the overall size of all significant trees be calculated in the tree replacement formula. Following is a comparison of the existing ordinances tree replacement requirement to the draft ordinance. These comparisons are based on two recent developments proposed in the city including Comforts of Home (42 unit assisted living facility on the southeast corner of Highway 36 and Hazelwood Street) and Maplewood Imports (four new automobile dealers located at 2450 Maplewood Drive). The comparison is not exact as the tree plans submitted for these projects were based on the city's current definition of a large tree. However, the comparison will give an approximate real-life example of the two codes. Comforts of Home: There were 1,048 diameter inches of trees on the site (70 "large" trees). There were 409 diameter inches of trees removed from the site (26 "large" trees removed). Current ordinance required 26 replacement trees (2.5 inches in diameter for deciduous trees and 8 feet high for coniferous trees). Proposed ordinance would require 116 diameter inches of replacement trees (46 replacement trees based on 2.5-inch diameter trees). 4 Maplewood Imports: There were 2,921 diameter inches of trees on the site (unknown number of "large" trees). There were 1,512 diameter inches of trees removed from the site (135 "large" trees removed). Current ordinance required 135 replacement trees (2.5 inches in diameter for deciduous trees and 8 feet high for coniferous trees). Proposed ordinance would require 720 diameter inches of replacement trees (288 replacement trees based on 2.5-inch diameter trees). Proposed Schedule 1. The tree task force will present the draft tree ordinance to the planning commission and community design review board for comment. These comments will be reviewed by the environmental committee for possible changes to the draft ordinances. 2. The environmental committee will conduct public education on the draft ordinance. The public will be introduced to the draft ordinance through articles, mailings, and possibly an open house. Comments received by the public will be reviewed by the environmental committee for possible changes to the draft ordinances. 3. The environmental committee will begin the public hearing process for the draft ordinance and hold a public hearing with the planning commission, review and recommendation by the community design review board, and final review and approval by the city council. Staff estimates that this process could be accomplished by mid October at a minimum. RECOMMENDATION Review the draft tree ordinance (Attachment 2) and give comment and feedback on the ordinance for review by the environmental committee. P\com-dev\ordlenvironmental protection\trees\7-18-06 pc memorandum Attachments: 1. Maplewood's Current Environmental Protection and Critical Area Ordinance 2. July 10, 2006. Draft Tree Ordinance 3. City Attorney's Review of Draft Tree Ordinance 4. Comparison of Other Tree Ordinances 5 JOBNAME: No Job Name PAGE: 171 lfirstJpubdocs/mcc/3/11217 _full ~~ 8~E~003c.m; Attachment 1 BUILDINGS AND BUILDING REGULATIONS (2) A surety bond shall be provided in the currently required amount, ring to the city, approved by the city council. The bond shall be conditioned that t city will be saved harmless from any loss, damage, cost or expense by reason any work performed under this Code or by reason of improper or inadequate p ormance or compliance 'th the tJ'rms of this Code by the holder of the license, s agent or employees. (3) Ace ificate of insurance or copies of public liability d property damage insurance policie as provided for in section 12-207, shall be rovided. (b) The city co eil may revoke any license issued nder this section at any time, if the licensee shall violate ny city ordinance. (c) No licensee shall ow his name to be used y any other person for the purpose of doing any sewer installation wo within the city. (Code 1982, * 9-170) the business of installing, erecting, constructing or removing signs within the city wit t t obtaining a license. Such license shall be issued by the city manager upon applicati therefor. uch license shall be for one calendar year, and the annual fee for such license sh be establish by resolution of the city council. A separate fee schedule shall be establish for temporary si (b) Every person lice ed under subsection (a) this section and regnlarly engaged in the business of erecting vertising and business sign in the city shall, before permits are granted, file with t city clerk a continuing bond in th currently required amount executed by the applicant d a surety company approved by the C1 attorney and conditioned for the faithful observ ce ofthe requirements of this Code, which s11 indemnify and save harmless the city fro any and all damages, costs or expenses which t city may incur or suffer by reason of anting such permit. A liability insurance policy issue y an insurance company authori d to do business in this state, conforming to this section, sh be permitted in lieu of the b d. Any person lawfully maintaining sign structures regulated by apter 36, article III, at e time of its original enactment (July 14, 1977), shall comply with t de 1982, * 9-171) Secs. 12-21S-12-246. Reserved. ARTICLE VII. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AND CRITICAL AREA DIVISION 1. GENERALLY Sec. 12-247. Purpose. The purpose of this article is to protect significant natural features which: (1) Preserve the natural character of neighborhoods. CD12:29 JOBNAME: No Job Name PAGE: 172 SESS: 2 OUTPUT: Tue Apr 8 12:31:10 2003 IfirstJpubdocs/mcc/3/11217 _full ~ 12-247 MAPLEWOOD CODE (2) Protect the health and safety of residents. (3) Protect water quality. (4) Prevent erosion or flooding. (5) Manage the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area in accordance with the Critical Areas Act of 1973; the Minnesota Policy Act of 1973; and the governor's critical area designation order, Executive Order 130, dated November 23, 1976. (Code 1982, ~ 9-186) Sec. 12-248. Applicability. (a) This article shall apply to any person or use that would alter a significant natural feature. (b) Public and semipublic projects, such as streets, utilities and parks, whether built by a public agency or private developer, shall be subject to this article, except that the city council may waive these requirements where there would be a greater public need for the project than to meet the requirements of this article. A public hearing shall be held before declaring such a waiver. The property owners within 350 feet of the site shall be notified at least ten days before the hearing. (Code 1982, ~ 9-187) Sec. 12-249. Definitions. The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this article, shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this section, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning: Bluffline means a line delineating a top of a slope with direct drainage to a protected water, connecting the points at which the slope becomes less than 18 percent. More than one blufiline may be encountered proceeding landward from a protected water. Critical area means the Mississippi River Corridor Area bounded by Carver Avenue, 1-494 and the city limits. Direct drainage means drainage into a protected water without an intervening pond or wetland. r--;riP line means the farthest distance around and away from the trunk of a tree that rain ~ dew will fall directly to the ground from the leaves or branches of that tree. Erosion means the general process by which soils are removed by flowing surface or subsurface water or wind. Gross soil lass means the average annual total amount of soil material carried from one acre ofland by erosion. Large tree means any healthy tree that has a trunk diameter, four feet above the ground, of at least eight inches, other than a box elder, cottonwood, poplar, or any other undesirable tree, as determined by the director of community development. CD12:30 JOBNAME: No Job Name PAGE: 173 SESS: 2 OUTPUT: Tue Apr 812:31:10 2003 Ifirst/pubdocs/mcc/3/11217 _ full BUILDINGS AND BUILDING REGULATIONS ~ 12- 249 Pipeline means an underground line of pipe including associated pumps, valves, control devices and other structures utilized for conveying liquids, gases, sewage or other finely divided solids from one point to another. Protected water, formerly referred to as llpublic waters, II means any water defined in Minn. Stats. ~ 105.37, subd. 14. Retaining wall means a structure utilized to hold a slope in a position in which it would not naturally remain. Sediment means suspended matter carried by water, sewage or other liquids. Significant natural feature means a significant water body, a large tree, a woodlot, a significant slope or a site of historical or archeological significance that has been recorded with the state. Significant slope means a natural slope of25 percent or more grade over an area at least 200 feet in length (top to bottom) and 500 feet in width (side to side). Significant water body means a water body shown on the city drainage plan or a water body over one acre in area. Slope means the inclination ofthe natural surface of the land from the horizontal; commonly described as a ratio of the length to the height. Structure means any thing manufactured, constructed or erected which is normally attached to or positioned on land, including portable structures. Substation means any utility structure, other than lines, pipelines, poles or towers. Terrace means a relatively level area bordered on one or more sides by a retaining wall. Utility means electric, telephone, telegraph, cable television, water, sanitary or storm sewer, solid waste, gas or similar service operations. r V;'etation means all plant growth, especially trees, shrubs, mosses or grasses. Water body means any lake, stream, pond, wetland or river. Wetland means an area of the city inundated or saturated by groundwater or surface water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support and that under normal circumstances does support a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs and similar areas (Army Corps of Engineers Regnlation 33 CFR 328.3 1988). Where a person has removed or mostly changed the vegetation, one shall determine a wetland by the presence or evidence of hydric or organic soil and other documentation of the previous existence of wetland vegetation such as aerial photographs. GOOdlot means a treed area of at least one-halfacre, of which at least 25 percent of the area includes large trees. (Code 1982, ~ 9-188) CD12:31 JOBNAME: No Job Name PAGE: 174 SESS: 2 OUTPUT: Tue Apr 8 12:31:10 2003 IfirstJpubdocs/mcc/3/11217 ~full ~ 12-250 MAPLEWOOD CODE Sec. 12-250. Effect on density. The city may reduce the maximum allowed density on that part only of the development that has a significant natural feature, where such reduction would save all or part of a significant natural feature. However, regardless of the requirements in this article, the maximum allowed density shall not be reduced below 67 percent of the allowed density in the city's land use plan for multiple dwellings. The minimum lot size shall not be increased above 15,000 square feet for single dwellings. Any required density reduction or increase in lot size must save a significant natural feature. The city council may require the clustering of dwellings in the form of townhouses, quads, apartments or similar uses, where it is necessary to preserve significant natural features. (Code 1982, * 9-189) Sees. 12-251-12-276. Reserved. DMSION 2. ADMINISTRATION Sec. 12-277. Tree plan required. A tree plan shall be required with any city application which would result in the loss oflarge trees or all or part of a woodlot. This plan shall show the existing woodlot, identifY the sizes and species of any large trees and indicate which trees are to be removed. The applicant shall show on the tree plan and on the site the limits of proposed grading activity near a large tree or woodlot to be preserved. These grading limits shall not encroach upon the drip lines of the trees to be preserved in the woodlot. City staff mav submit the plan to a tree expert for a recommendation. Any costs shall be paid by the developer. (Code 1982, ~ 9-190) Sec. 12-278. Woodlot alteration permit. (a) A woodlot alteration application shall be submitted to the director of community of development for any alteration of a woodlot that is not reviewed in another application. The applicant shall submit a tree plan and any other information needed to determine compliance with this article. Specific requirements shall be stated on an application form in the office of the director of community development. An application fee shall be established by the city council by resolution from time to time. (b) The director of community development may approve a woodlot alteration permit which complies with this article. The director's decision may be appealed to the city council in writing by any affected party within ten days of the director's written decision. (Code 1982, * 9-191) Gee. 12-279. Conditions of approval. The city may require conditions of approval to ensure compliance with this article. (Code 1982, * 9-192) CD12:32 JOBNAME: No Job Name PAGE: 175 SESS: 2 OUTPUT: Tue Apr 8 12:31:102003 /firstlpubdocs/mcc/3/11217 Jull BUILDINGS AND BUILDING REGULATIONS ~ 12-308 Sees. 12-280-12.306. Reserved. DIVISION 3. APPROVAL STANDARDS Sec. 12-307. Scope. (a) Under this article all plans and the conduct of all grading, landscaping, structure placement, and street routing shall be consistent with the city's comprehensive plan. and for development in the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area, the Maplewood Critical Area Plan. (b) The proposed development shall not lessen existing public access to and along a protected water. (c) The proposed development shall be designed, constructed and maintained to avoid causing: (1) Erosion. (2) Pollution, contamination or siltation of water bodies or storm sewers. (3) Flooding. (4) Groundwater contamination. (5) Alteration of significant natural features. [3d) Development shall not substantially diminish the scientific, historical, educational, recreational or aesthetic value of unique natural areas, plants and animals, which are registered with the state as such, and shall not substantially alter their reproductive cycles. (e) Views of protected waters from buildings or public streets shall not be impaired by the placement of advertising signs. (f) Where feasible, all new stormwater detention ponds shall be designed and constructed to meet the Nationwide Urban Runoff Program (NURP) design criteria of removing at least 60 percent of the phosphorous. The engineer or designer may use the Walker pondnet model or the Pitt pond model when designing stormwater ponds, as noted by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas manual. The applicant or applicant's engineer shall provide the city engineer with the necessary calculations to verify the pond design. (Code 1982, ~ 9-193; Ord. No. 811, * 1, 3-26-2001) Sec. 12-308. Slopes. (a) No development shall be permitted on existing slopes of 18 percent or greater which are in direct drainage to a protected water. (b) In areas not in direct drainage to a protected water, no development shall be allowed on existing slopes greater than 40 percent. CD12:33 JOBNAME: No Job Name PAGE: 176 SESS: 2 OUTPUT: Tue Apr 8 12:31:10 2003 /first/pubdocs/mcc/3/ 1121 7_ full ~ 12-308 MAPLEWOOD CODE (c) No development, whether or not in direct drainage to a protected water, shall be permitted on land having an existing slope in excess of 12 percent, unless the applicant proves the following conditions are met: (1) Controls and protections exist uphill from the proposed development such that there is no danger of structures or streets being struck by falling rock, mud, sediment from erosion, uprooted trees or other materials. (2) The proposed development presents no danger of falling rock, mud, sediment from erosion, uprooted trees or other materials to structures downhill. (3) The view of a developed slope within the critical area from the Mississippi River and opposite river bank is consistent with the natural appearance of the undeveloped slope, consistent with any state-registered historic areas nearby, compatible with the view from historic areas, and compatible with surrounding architectural features. (4) The city engineer may require the developer to provide a soils engineer to certify the stability of potentially unstable slopes. (d) The basic character of natural slopes of25 percent or more in grade shall not be altered without approval from the city council. The council shall base its decision on the following: (1) The degree of alteration of the slope; and (2) The importance of the slope to the character of the area. (e) All new structures and roads shall be placed no closer than 40 feet from a bluffiine. Exceptions shall be as follows: (1) Public recreation facilities, scenic overlooks, public observation platforms or public trail systems. (2) The construction of aboveground pumping stations. (3) Other development, when the applicant can conclusively demonstrate that construc- tion or final development will not negatively impact slopes with a grade of 18 percent or greater. (4) All other structures, other than buildings and roadway surfaces, but including retaining walls, shall meet the following design requirements: a. Retaining walls or terrace contours in excess of four feet in height shall have a fence. b. Construction materials shall be subject to community design review board approval. CD The requirements of this section shall not apply in the following situations: (1) Where a slope has been substantially altered by prior excavation or filling. (2) Where a slope is less than 200 feet in length (top to bottom) or 500 feet in width (side to side). CD12:34 JOBNAME: No Job Name PAGE: 177 SESS: 2 OUTPUT: Tue Apr 812:31:102003 ifirstJpubdocs/mcc/3/11217 _full BUILDINGS AND BUILDING REGULATIONS @ 12-310 (3) Where earth-sheltered homes are proposed. (Code 1982, @ 9-194) Sec. 12-309. Erosion control and soils. (a) All erosion control, stormwater runoff, utility and similar structures shall be designed to be maintained and operated without requiring the crossing or operation of heavy mainte- nance vehicles and equipment, such as bulldozers, trucks and backhoes, on slopes in excess of eight percent. This requirement may be waived by the city council where there is no other alternative. (b) Construction shall not be allowed where there are soil problems, including but not limited to soil-bearing strength, shrink/swell potential or excessive frost movement, unless effective soil correction measures or building construction methods are approved by the building official. (c) Development shall be accomplished only in such a manner that on-site gross soil loss levels shall not exceed five tons per acre per year during construction, but only two tons per acre per year when the site is adjacent to a water body, watercourse or storm sewer inlet, and one-half ton per acre per year after construction activities are completed. (d) A development shall be located to minimize the removal of vegetation and alteration of the natural topography. (e) Erosion protection measures shall make maximum use of natural, in-place vegetation, rather than the placing of new vegetation on the site. (Code 1982, @ 9-195) Sec. 12-310. Wetlands and streams. (a) Findings and purposes. The fmdings and purposes of this section are as follows: (1) Wetlands serve a variety of beneficial functions. Wetlands maintain water quality, reduce flooding and erosion, provide food and habitat for wildlife, provide open space and are an integral part of the city's environment. Wetlands are an important physical, educational, ecological, aesthetic, recreational and economic asset to the city. They are critical to the city's health, safety, and general welfare. Surrounding development may degrade, pollute, accelerate the aging of or eliminate wetlands. Regulating land use around wetlands is therefore in the public interest. (2) Streams are also significant elements ofthe city's hydrologic system. Streams flow into wetlands and lakes, provide food and habitat for wildlife, provide open space, and are an integral part of the city's environment. Like wetlands, streams are an important physical, educational, ecological, aesthetic, recreational and economic asset. Surround- ing development may degrade, pollute or damage streams and, in turn, degrade other surface waters downstream. Requiring buffers recognizes that the surrounding up- lands relate to the woodland and stream quality and function and, therefore, are in the public interest. CD12:35 JOBNAME: No Job Name PAGE: ]78 SESS: 2 OUTPUT: Tue Apr 812:31:10 2003 lfirstJpubdocs/mcc/3/11217 _full ~ 12-310 MAPLEWOOD CODE (3) Buffers are the lands that surround wetlands and streams. They are integral to nlaintaining the valuable functions many wetlands perform. Buffers reduce the impacts of surrounding land use on wetlands and streams by stabilizing soil to prevent erosion by stormwater; filtering suspended solids, nutrients and harmful substances; and moderating water level fluctuations during storms. Buffers also provide essential wildlife habitat. Finally, buffers reduce the adverse impacts of human activities on wetlands and streams. Requiring wetland buffers recognizes that the surrounding uplands relate to the wetland and stream's quality and function and, therefore, are in the public interest. (4) The purposes of this section are to: a. Preserve the beneficial functions of wetlands and streams by regulating the surrounding land use. b. Stabilize the soil around wetlands to prevent stormwater erosion. c. Filter suspended solids, nutrients and harmful substances from reaching wetlands, streams and public waters. d. Reduce human disturbances of wetlands and streams by visually separating wetlands from yards. e. Prevent flooding and the costs of reclaiming water quality. f. Protect beneficia] plant and wildlife habitat. g. Educate the public, including appraisers, owners, potential buyers or developers, to the development limitations of wetlands, streams and associated buffers. (b) Definitions. The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this section, shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this subsection, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning: Alteration means any human action that adversely affects a buffer. Alterations include but are not limited to the following: grading, filling, dumping, dredging, draining, cutting, pruning, topping, clearing, relocating or removing vegetation, applying herbicides or pesticides or any hazardous or toxic substance, discharging pollutants except stormwater, paving, construction, application of gravel or any other human activity that adversely affects the vegetation, hydrology, wildlife or wildlife habitat. Alteration does not include the following: (1) Walking, passive recreation, fishing or other similar activities. (2) Planting that enhances native vegetation. (3) The selective clearing or pruning aftrees or vegetation that are dead, diseased, noxious weeds or hazards. Average buffer width means the average width of a buffer within a single development, lot or phase. Buffer means a stream or wetland buffer or protective zone. CD12:36 JOBNAME: No Job Name PAGE: 179 SESS: 2 OUTPUT: Tue Apr 812:31:102003 /firstlpubdocs/mcc/3111217 _full BUILDINGS AND BUILDING REGULATIONS ~ 12-310 Clearing means the cutting or removal of vegetation. Enhancement means an action that increases the functions and values of a wetland, stream or wetland buffer. Mitigation means an action that reduces, rectifies, eliminates or compensates for the alteration of a buffer, wetland or stream. ~ative vegetation means tree, shrub, grass or other plant species that are indigenous to the Twin Cities metropolitan area that could have been expected to naturally occur on the site. Native vegetation does not include noxious weeds. Ordinary high water mark (OHWM) means a mark delineating the highest water level maintained for enough time to leave evidence upon the landscape. The ordinary high water mark is commonly that point where the natural vegetation changes from predominantly aquatic to predominantly terrestrial. Restoration means returning a wetland, stream or buffer to a condition that is similar to that before development of the surrounding area. Stream means those areas where surface waters produce a defined channel or bed. A defined channel or bed is land that clearly contains the constant passage of water under normal summer conditions. This definition does not include drainage swales or ditches that channel intermittent stormwater runoff. Stream buffer means land that is in direct drainage to a stream and within the boundary described by this article. A person shall measure all buffers from the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) as identified in the field. If a person cannot determine the OHWM, the stream buffer shall be from the top of the stream banlc Variance means a deviation from the standards of this section that are not specifically allowed. Vegetation means any organic plant life growing at, below or above the soil surface. Wetland buffer means land that is in direct drainage to a wetland within the boundary described by this section. All buffers shall be measured outward from the wetland edge. Wetland classes. The city defines the wetland classes used in this section as follows: (1) Class 1 wetlands means wetlands assigned the unique/outstanding rating in the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District Wetlands Inventory, 1995. Class 1 wetlands are those with conditions and functions most susceptible to human impacts, are most unique, have the highest community resource significance and similar characteristics. (2) Class 2 wetlands means high value (definition based on Watershed wetlands inventory results). (3) Class 3 wetlands means wildlife habitat value. (4) Class 4 wetlands means moderate value impacts. CD12:37 JOBNAME: No Job Name PAGE: 180 SESS: 2 OUTPUT: Tue Apr 8 12:31:10 2003 lfirstJpubdocs/mcc/3/11217 ~full ~ 12-310 MAPLEWOOD CODE (5) Class 5 wetlands means wetlands assigned the highly impacted rating in the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District Wetlands Inventory, 1995. Class 5 wetlands are those with conditions and functions most affected by human activities, with the least diverse vegetation communities, least community resource significance and similar characteristics. For the purposes of this section, the U.s. Fish and Wildlife Service's Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States, FWS/OBS-79/31 (Cowardin et aI, 1979) contains the descriptions and photographs of wetland classes and subclasses. Wetland easement means a designated area that includes the wetland or buffer where disturbance from mowing, cutting or similar activities is excluded. Wetland edge means the line delineating the outer edge of a wetland. One shall establish this line by using the Federal Manual for IdentifYing and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands dated January 10, 1989, and jointly published by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the U.s. Soil Conservation Service. The applicable watershed board must verifY this line. Wetland functions means the natural processes performed by wetlands, such as helping food chain production, providing wildlife habitat, maintaining the availability and quality of water such as purifYing water, acting as a recharge and discharge area for groundwater aquifers and moderating surface water and stormwater flows and performing other functions, including but not limited to those set out in U.S. Army Corps of Engineers regulations at 33 CFR 320.4(b)(2)(1988). Wetlands means those areas of the city inundated or saturated by groundwater or surface water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support and that under normal circumstances do support a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs and similar areas (Army Corps of Engineers Regulation 33 CFR 328.3 1988). Where a person has removed or mostly changed the vegetation, one shall determine a wetland by the presence or evidence of hydric or organic soil and other documentation of the previous existence of wetland vegetation such as aerial photographs. (c) Applicability. This section shall apply as follows: (1) This section shall apply to any person or use that would alter a wetland, stream or wetland buffer after April 24, 1995. (2) When any provision of any ordinance conflicts with this section, the provision that provides more protection for buffers, wetlands or streams shall apply unless specifi- cally provided otherwise in this section. (3) Public and semipublic streets, utilities or trails, whether built by a public agency or private developer, shall be subject to this section. CD12:38 JOBNAME: No Job Name PAGE: ]81 SESS: 2 OUTPUT: Tue Apr 8 12:31:10 2003 /firstJpubdocs/mcc/3/11217 _full BUILDINGS AND BUILDING REGULATIONS ~ 12-310 (d) General exemptions. This seetion shall not apply to the following; (1) Structures, vegetation and maintenance activities and practices in existence on the effeetive date of the ordinance from which this seetion derives. A contractor or owner may remodel, reconstruct or replace affected structures if the new construction does not take up more buffer land than the structure used before the remodeling, reconstruction or replacement. (2) The construction or maintenance of public drainage facilities, sedimentation ponds or erosion control facilities. (3) The maintenance of public or semipublic facilities including streets, utilities and trails. (4) Where the city council waives these requirements for the construetion of public and semipublic utilities or trails, whether built by a public agency or private developer. The city council may waive the requirements where there would be a greater public need for the project than to meet the requirement of this seetion. In waiving these requirements, the city council shall follow the standards in subsection (e) of this section. Tbe city council shall hold a public hearing before declaring such a waiver. The city shall notify the property owners within 350 feet of the buffer at least ten days before the hearing. (5) Where this section would deny all reasonable use of a lot of record. In such case, the owner or contractor shall construct any building to maximize the setback from a buffer. Federal, state or watershed distriet rules and regulations shall apply. Alterations to a buffer shall be the minimum necessary to allow for the reasonable use of the property. Where feasible, the city may require the mitigation of any alteration of a buffer. (6) Where the watershed district has approved a wetland filling permit. The city shall require mitigation for any disturbed buffer land. (e) Standards for utility and trail exemptions. Standards for utility and trail exemptions are as follows: (1) The city may only allow the construction of utilities through buffers where there is no other practical alternative and the following requirements are met: a. Utility corridors shall not be allowed when a buffer is used by species listed as endangered or threatened by the federal or state government. b. Utility corridors, including any allowed maintenance roads, shall be as far from the wetland or stream as possible. c. Utility corridor construetion and maintenance shall protect the wetland, stream or buffer and avoid large trees as much as possible. The city shall not allow the use of pesticides, herbicides or other hazardous or toxic substances in buffers, streams or wetlands. d. The owner or contractor shall replant utility corridors witb appropriate native vegetation, except trees, at preconstruction densities or greater after construction ends. CD12:39 JOBNAME: No Job Name PAGE: 182 SESS: 2 OUTPUT: Tue Apr 8 12:31:10 2003 /first/pubdocs/mcc/3/11217 _full ~ 12-310 MAPLEWOOD CODE e. Any additional corridor access for maintenance shall be provided as much as possible at specific points rather than by parallel roads. If parallel roads are necessary they shall he no greater than 15 feet wide. (2) The city may allow public or private trails in buffers, subject to the following guidelines: a. The trail shall not be of impervious materials. An elevated boardwalk shall not be considered an impervious surface. b. Buffers shall be expanded, where possible, equal to the width of the trail corridor. c. The owner or contractor shall replant all disturbed areas next to the trail after completing the trail. (f) Variances. Procedures for granting variances from this section are as follows: (1) The city council may approve variances to the requirements in this section. Before the city council acts on a variance, the planning commission shall make a recommendation to the city council. The city council shall hold a public hearing before approving a variance. The city staff shall notify the property owners within 350 feet of the buffer at least ten days before the hearing. The city may require the applicant to mitigate any buffer alteration. (2) Th approve a variance, the council must make the following findings: a. Strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the property under consideration. The term "undue hardship" as used in granting a variance means the owner of the property in question cannot put it to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls; the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property, not created by the landowner; and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Economic considerations alone are not an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of this section. b. The variance would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of this section. (g) Wetland or stream easement required. The property owner of any property affected by this section shall record wetland or stream easements with the county. The easements shall cover any wetlands, streams or wetland buffers. These easements shall describe the bound- aries of the buffer and prohibit any building, mowing, cutting, filling or dumping within the buffer, stream or wetland. The owner or developer shall record such easements with a final plat, with deeds from a lot division or before the city issues a building permit for an affected property. The applicant shall submit proof that the owner or developer has filed the notice. (h) Buffer standards. Standards for buffers are as follows: (1) An affected property owner shall maintain a buffer. Any planting in a buffer shall be from native vegetation. CD12:40 JOBNAME: No Job Name PAGE: 183 SESS: 2 OUTPUT: Tue Apr 8 12:31:102003 /first/pubdocs/mcc/3/11217 _full BUILDINGS AND BUILDING REGULATIONS ~ 12-310 (2) The city prohibits the alteration of buffers. The city may waive this requirement where the watershed district has approved a permit for filling all or part of a wetland. (3) The following are the minimum required buffer widths and building foundation setbacks: Wetland Classes Class 2 & Class 1 Streams Class 3 Class 4 Class 5 Average buffer width Minimum buffer width Building foundation set- back from outer edge of buffer 100 ft. 100 ft. 10 ft. 100 ft. 50 ft. 10 ft. 50 ft. 25 ft. 10 ft. 25 ft. 20 ft. 10 ft. Oft. Oft. 10 ft. ** * See the definitions of buffer, wetland buffer and stream buffer. Setback measured from a wetland or stream boundary. ** (4) The minimum buffer widths shall apply to all wetlands, including those created, restored, relocated, replaced or enhanced. (5) The city may require a variable buffer width to protect adjacent habitat that the city determines is valuable to the wetland, stream, wildlife or vegetation. (i) Fencing and signs. Standards for fencing and signs are as follows: (1) Before grading or construction, the owner or contractor shall place snow fencing and erosion control fencing around the borders of buffers. Such fencing must remain in place until the owner and contractors have finished all development activities that may affect the buffer. (2) Before starting construction, the boundary between a buffer and adjacent land shall be identified using permanent signs. These signs shall mark the edge of the buffer and shall state there shall be no mowing, cutting, filling or dumping beyond this point. (3) When platting or subdividing property, the plat or subdivision must show the wetland boundaries as approved by the watershed district. (j) Mitigation and restoration of buffers. The city requires mitigation when a property owner or contractor has or will alter a buffer. The property owner or contractor shall submit a mitigation plan to the city staff for their approval. In reviewing the plan, the city may require the following actions in descending order of preference: (1) Reducing or avoiding the impact by limiting the degree or amount ofthe action, such as by using appropriate technology. (2) Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating or restoring the woodland buffer. CD12:41 JOBNAME: No Job Name PAGE: 184 SESS: 2 OUTPUT: Tue Apr 8 12:31:102003 /firstlpubdocs/mcc/3/11217 _full II 'I ~ :1 L ~ 12-310 MAPLEWOOD CODE (3) Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by prevention and maintenance operations during the life of the actions. (4) Compensating for the impact by replacing, enhancing or providing substitute buffer land at up to a one-to-one ratio. (5) Monitoring the impact and taking appropriate corrective measures. Where the city requires restoration or replacement, the owner or contractor shall replant the buffer with native vegetation at a similar density to the amount before alteration. (Code 1982, ~ 9-196) Sec. 12-311. Trees. (a) Development shall be designed to preserve large trees and woodlots, where such preservation would not affect the public health, safety or welfare. The city may prohibit removal of all or a part of a woodlot or large tree, subject to the limitations in section 12-249. In addition, nothing in this article shall prevent building on an existing lot of record, provided that such building shall be designed to save as many trees as possible. This decision shall be based on but not limited to the following criteria: (1) Size. (2) Species, health and attractiveness of the trees, including: a. Sensitivity to disease. b. Life span. c. Nuisance characteristics. d. Sensitivity to site grading. (3) Potential for transplanting. (4) Need for thinning a woodlot. (5) Effect on the functioning of a development. (6) The public health, safety and welfare. @ If large trees are cut, the density of trees shall be restored to that which existed before development, but in no case shall the annlicant be reouirpn to T::llse the density above ten trees per acre, unless part of a required planting screen. i I II 'I I: (c) If any large tree in a woodlot is cut, damaged or the area within the tree's drip line has been encroached upon by grading equipment without city authorization, the city may require planting of two new trees. In addition, ifthe city determines that a damaged tree will probably not survive, it shall be removed by the developer. (d) Any trees required to be planted shall be varied in species, shall maximize the use of species native to the area, shall not include any species under disease epidemic and shall be hardy under local conditions. Trees shall be at least 2'h inches in diameter for deciduous trees and eight feet tall for coniferous trees. - CD12:42 JOBNAME: No Job Name PAGE: 185 SESS: 2 OUTPUT: Tue Apr 8 12:3]:10 2003 Ifirst/pubdocs/mcc/3/l1217 _full BUILDINGS AND BUILDING REGULATIONS ~ 12-337 (e) Any trees required to be planted shall be replaced if they die or appear to be dying within one year of planting by the person responsible for the planting. The determination of whether a tree is dying or storm-damaged may only be made under the direction of the director of community development. (f) Before any construction or grading takes place, snow fencing or erosion control fencing shall be placed around the borders of woodlots or the drip lines oflarge trees to be preserved. Signs shall be placed along this fence line prohibiting grading beyond the fence line. (Code 1982, ~ 9-197) Sees. 12-312-12-336. Reserved. DIVISION 4. UTILITIES AND STREETS Sec. 12-337. Utilities. (a) Underground placing of utilities shall be required unless economic, technological or land characteristic factors make underground placement unfeasible. Economic considerations alone shall not be the major determinant regarding feasibility. (b) Overhead crossings of protected waters, if required, shall meet the following criteria: (1) The crossings shall be adjacent to or part of an existing utility corridor, including bridge or overhead utility lines, whenever possible. (2) All structures utilized shall be as compatible as practical with land use and scenic views. (3) Right-of-way clearance shall be kept to a minimum. (4) Vegetative screening shall be utilized to the maximum extent that would be consistent with safety requirements. (5) Routing shall avoid unstable soils, blufllines or high ridges. The alteration of the natural environment, including grading, shall be minimized. (6) The crossings shall be subject to the site planning requirements set forth in this article. (c) Utility substations shall be in accordance with the following: (1) All substations shall be subject to the site planning requirements set forth in this article. (2) New substations or refurbishment of existing substations shall be compatible in height, scale, building materials, landscaping and signing with surrounding natural environment or land uses. Screening by natural means is encouraged. (d) Pipelines shall be in accordance with the following: (1) All proposed pipelines and underground facilities shall be subject to the site planning requirements set forth in this article. CD12:43 Attachment 2 City of Maplewood Draft Ordinance ENVIRONMENTAL PRESERVATION AND PROTECTION OF TREES AND WOODLANDS Revised: July 10,2006 Purpose. The city desires to protect the integrity of the trees and woodlands in the City of Maplewood. Trees and woodlands provide better air quality, scenic beauty, protection against wind and water erosion, natural insulation for energy conservation, an e beneficial in watershed management. Trees and woodlands also provide wildlife privacy as screening, act as natural sound and visual buffers, and increase pr y values. It is therefore the city's intent to protect, preserve, and enhance the natural e 0 t of Maplewood and to encourage a resourceful and prudent approach to developme the c ere by, promoting and protecting public health, safety, and welfare for the' n f Map d. The purpose of this article is to establish a tree preservation and prote n or nance to ass e continuance of significant natural features for present and futur neration which: 2. Protect the health and safety of r 1. Preserve the natural character of neighborhood 3. Protect water quality. 4. 5. 6. rvation and mitigation of environmental impacts 1. Thl develo This incl Minor home (i.e. garage, sh any individual, business, or entity that engage in a building or . ch requires issuance of a grading permit or new building permit. 1 site f new development that contain significant trees or woodlots. s, general home improvements, construction of accessory buildings applications are excluded from the requirements of this article. 2. Public and semipublic projects, such as streets, utilities and parks, whether built by a public agency or private developer, shall be subject to this article, except that the City Council after review and recommendation from the environmental committee may waive these requirements where there would be a greater public need for the project than to meet the requirements of this article. A public hearing shall be held before declaring such a waiver. The property owners within (500 feet) of the site shall be notified at least ten (l0) days before the hearing. Page 1 of 10 Definitions. The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this article, shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this section, except where the context clearly indicates a different mearung: Applicant means developer, builder, contractor or homeowner who applies for a building or grading permit. Caliper means a tree trunk measurement of nursery stock as stated by the American Nursery and Landscape Association standards of six (6) inches above ground for tre s up to four (4) inches caliper. of Science degree in stitution or is forester. Certified Forester means a person whom holds a minimum of arboriculture, urban forestry, or similar field from an accredi registered with the International Society of Arboricultur City Forester means a certified tree inspector/for appropriate agent designated by the city. wood, or Coniferous/Evergreen Tree means a woody plant having branches year-round which at maturity i least twelve (I2 and Larch are included as coniferous tree . urro ng the tree trunk with a .g., a sixteen (I 6) inch diameter ea es annually, having a defined crown and tance ound and away from the trunk of a tree that rain or dew om the leaves or branches of that tree. Environmental programs, or appro s an employee of the city who manages city-wide environmental nt designated by the city. Hardwood Deciduou ree means the following tree species: ash, basswood, birch, black cherry, catalpa, hackberry, hickory, ironwood, hard maples (sugar maple or red maple), locust, oak, and walnut. Landmark Tree is a healthy tree of any species twenty-eight (28) inches in diameter or greater. These trees are considered significant trees. Page 2 of 10 Major Home Addition means an addition or accessory building on a single or double dwelling lot of which addition or accessory building is more than a sixty (60) percent increase in the footprint ofthe single or double dwelling structure on said lot. Minor Home Addition means an addition or accessory building on a single or double dwelling lot of which addition or accessory building is less than a sixty (60) percent increase in the footprint of the single or double dwelling structure on said lot. Retaining Wall means a structure utilized to hold a slope in a position i naturally remain. Structure means an positioned on land, inclu ,0 erected which is normally attached to or Specimen Tree is a healthy tree of any species twenty-eight (2 These trees are considered Significant Trees. Significant Natural Feature means a significant water of historical or archeological significance that has box elder, cottonwood, elm, Tree Pr clearly sho also include c forestation lands plan pared with the assistance of a certified forester, which preserved and measures taken to preserve them. The plan will rmine the number of replacement trees required and proposed re- Utility means electric, waste, gas or similar phone, telegraph, cable television, water, sanitary or storm sewer, solid rvice operations. Vegetation means all plant growth, especially trees, shrubs, mosses or grasses. Wetland as defined in the wetland ordinance (Section ). Wilding Tree means a tree that was not grown or maintained by a nursery. Page 3 of 10 Woodlot means a treed area on a vacant lot, of which includes significant tree(s). Woodlot alteration permit. A woodlot alteration application shall be submitted to the environmental manager for review by the city forester for any alteration of a woodlot that is not reviewed in another application. The applicant shall submit a tree plan and any other information needed to determine compliance with this article. Specific requirements shall be stated on an application form in the office of the environmental manager. An application fee shall be established by the city council by resolution yearly. Failure to submit an approved woodlot alteration permit before land clearing will result a two year ratorium for attainment of grading permit or building permit in addition to total tree repl for the parcel. Tree replacement as outlined in Tree MitigationlReplacement Sched 'th assumption all trees are significant. I. complies with this qualified agent ra . on. The in writing en decision. The environmental manager may approve a woodlot article and receive recommendations from the city designated by the environmental manager conce environmental manager's decision may be app by any affected party within fifteen (15) days ofthe en Tree preservation plan. A tree prese land use permit, grading permit, or bui removal of dead, diseased, or dying trees applicant's best effort to determine the mo eaSl lots, driveways, streets, stora e and other pH ic are destroyed or damage tree replacements wil request a waiver fr shall included preservation graphic and ta plat that shows size, species, general health, and location . in the area to be developed or within the parcel of ups 0 tanding dead or diseased significant trees shall be noted II tree inventories shall be preformed by a certified forester and the engineer's grading plan contours. All significant trees e tree ventory must be tagged in the field for reference on the tree ese significant trees should be identified on the plan sheet(s) in both form. 2. A certified forester must approve the tree preservation plan. 3. The tree preservation plan must be drawn at the same scale as the other site plan submittals. Page 4 of 10 4. A tree preservation plan which coincides with necessary engineering documents such as topography, wetland information, grading plans, road, and building locations must include: a. A list of total diameter inches of all healthy significant trees inventoried. b. Listing of the total diameter inches of healthy significant trees removed. The name(s), telephone number(s), and addresses) of the per (s) responsible for tree preservation during the course of the development project. 7. Locations of the proposed buildings, structures, 10. Signature 0 5. Outer boundaries of all contiguous wooded areas, wit meeting the significant tree size threshold and any in tree diseases. 6. Delineation of all limits of land disturbance 8. Location of trees protected delineation of tree protection fen parking, debris storage, and wash 0 9. s proposed to be planted on the ent schedule. These pi forester reV1S writmg. the enVl ental manager, with advisement from the city ordinance and will either be approved or returned for ed on the tree preservation plan, or otherwise stated in I. designed to preserve significant trees and woodlots, where such preservation w not affect the public health, safety or welfare. The city may prohibit removal of all r a part of a woodlot or significant tree subject to the limitations as defined in this chapter. This decision shall be based on but not limited to the following criteria: a. Size. b. Species, health, and attractiveness of the trees, including: Page 5 of 10 2. Safeguarding preserved trees: the tree preservation plan s (existing) significant trees that are to be preserved wit a fencing. 1) Sensitivity to disease. 2) Life span. 3) Nuisance characteristics. 4) Sensitivity to site grading. 5) Potential for transplanting. 6) Need for thinning a woodlot. 7) Effects on the functioning of a development. 8) Fragmentation of wooded area and effects on wildlife corridors. 9) The public health, safety and welfare. a. b. c. work II begin until tree protection fencing has been installed, proved by the city forester. At least three (3) working days ion or grading, applicant shall be required to request inspection te pro tive measures by the city forester. Once the tree protection ices are approved by the city forester, it must not be altered or lthout prior from the city forester. e. Tree protection fencing shall be maintained and repaired by the applicant for the duration of construction. No grade change, construction activity, storage or staging of materials shall occur within this fenced area. f. Minimize tree wounding by felling or removing trees away from trees remaining on site. Page 6 of 10 g. Layout of the project site utility and grading plans should accommodate the tree preservation areas. Utilities recommended along corridors between tree preservation areas and use of common trenches or tunnel installation if possible. h. Construction site activities such as parking, material storage, concrete washout, placement of holes, etc., shall be arranged so as not to encroach on tree protection areas. 1. Identify and prevent oak wilt infection. Treat all kno with current accepted guidelines including root cutti pruning oaks is required between April 1 and July nontoxic tree wound sealant or latex paint. J. Use of wood chip mulch to a depth of six protection areas to minimize soil comll moisture) recommended. k. No concrete washout, leakage or spilla paints, is prohibited in tree preservation ar change in soil chemistry. I. Installation of retaining wa trees. isting grade for preserve m. 1) d/or irrigation systems. with 8 to 10 inches of wood chips. . ng with deep tillage or other similar methods. IOn of organic matter to existing soil. 3) o. Transplant existing trees to a protected area for future transplanting onto permanent sites within the construction area. Page 7 of 10 3. If any significant tree stated as preserved (protected) in the approved tree preservation plan is cut, damaged, or encroached upon by grading equipment or during the construction process without city authorization and is determined by the environmental manager, that the damaged tree(s) will probably not survive, the said damaged tree(s) shall be removed by the applicant at their expense and replacement tree(s) required. Tree MitigationlReplacement Schedule. If less than 20 (20%) percent of significant tree diameter inches is lost, the applicant shall replace one two and one-half diameter tree per significant tree removed. Once the threshold of twenty (20%) percent total diameter inches is reached, additional tree mitigation/reforestation is required. Any de t where more than twenty (20%) percent of the existing significant diameter inches moved shall mitigate tree loss in accordance with the following formula: A = Total Diameter Inches of Significant Trees I B = Total Diameter Inches of Significant Tree C = Tree Replacement Constant (I.5) D = Replacement Trees (Number of Cali ((AlB -.20) x C) x A = D Examole A = 379 B = 943 C =1.5 D=160 ((379/943 hapter shall be in addition to any other trees lsion of City code. ent trees are determined the applicant shall mitigate 1. es in appropriate areas within the development in accordance nt schedule. 2. on city property under the direction of the environmental 3. Paying the city a sum per diameter inch calculated from the total number of diameter inches required for replacement trees in accordance with the tree replacement schedule. The fee per diameter inch shall be set forth in the city fee schedule, and the payment shall be deposited into an account designated specifically for tree planting on public property within Maplewood. Page 8 of 10 4. The form of mitigation to be provided by the applicants shall be determined by the City. 5. The applicant shall be required to maintain trees for two (2) year after planting. Should any tree require replacement during this two (2) year period, the replacement period shall start at the date of replacement. The replacement period shall not exceed two (2) years from the original planting date. 6. Species requirements: Where ten (10) or more replacement trees area required, not more than thirty (30) percent shall be of the same type of tree w' ut the approval of the environmental manager. Native tree species to the Maplewo e preferred. 8. The lowest bran ground more must have not be a height above the surface of the ight of the tree (e.g., a fourteen (I4) foot tree urface ofthe surrounding ground). 7. Sources of trees: Replacement trees shall consist of c Minnesota Statutes, Section 18.46 hardy for this US or 4 hardiness rated trees) or other trees includi '1 trees comply with the following standards ar manager or city forester. All replacement es shall e healthy and disease infestation. A wilding tree m in cah maximum height as shown on the table below: than two and one-half (2.5) caliper inches evergreen ree unless pre-approved by the environmental ous tree height convert to caliper measurement as follows: uals two and one-half (2.5) caliper inches for each equals one (I) additional caliper inch. 9. Tree r landscape estimated co until success responsibility deposit required. The applicant shall post with the City a dell t or letter of credit of one hundred and fifty (150) percent of e replacement for proposed planting. Funds will be held by the city ompletion of final planting inspection. It shall be the applicant's o call for such inspection. 10. The city reserves the right to inspect the construction site at any time for compliance with the tree preservation plan. Should the city find the site in violation of the approved tree preservation plan, they may issue a stop work order until conditions are corrected and approved by the environmental manager. Page 9 of 10 Effect on density. The city may reduce the maximum allowed density on that part of a development that has a significant natural feature, where such reduction would save all or part of a significant natural feature. However, regardless of the requirements in this article, the maximum allowed density shall not be reduced below 67 percent of the allowed density in the city's land use plan for multiple dwellings. The minimurn lot size shall not be increased above 15,000 square feet for single dwellings. Any required density reduction or increase in lot size must save a significant natural feature. The city council may require the clustering of dwellings in the form of townhouses, quads, apartments, or similar uses where it is necessary to preserve significant natural features. Page 10 of 10 Attachment 3 MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: FROM: CLIENT: RE: June 15, 2006 Dave Ramberg Sam Maplewood New Tree and Woodlands Preservation and Protection Ordinance This is very new and different to anything that Maplewood has ever enacted. Permissibilitv Under MN law Under Minn. Stat. 412.221, subd. 8, "The council shall have power to provide for, and by ordinance regulate, the setting out and protection of trees, shrubs, and flowers in the city or upon its property." How this statute is enforced on private lands in the city The city of Maplewood has decided to try to more effectively protect its trees and woodlands on private lands in the city by conditioning the issuance of grading and building permits upon compliance with this ordinance. This seems to be a reasonable condition, and to be within the power ofthe municipality. How this statute is enforced on public lands in the citv Under Minn. Stat. 448.56, the city of Maplewood is able to regulate the trees and woodlands in public lands under this ordinance. .-..-- Puroose of this ordinance In talking to Dwayne Kinercko, I found that the purpose of this ordinance is to more aggressively protect and preserve the trees and woodlands in Maplewood. Also, they want to get the city to take a leadership role in preservation of its trees. There is also more of a focus upon science, which will require the city to employ a city forester with a background in the area. Chad believes that the last section of the ordinance on natural features be added to subdivision ordinance as well. Although he does think this is a good provision. Also, under the section labeled "Tree Preservation Measures," I would suggest an insertion of "written approval" in the last sentence of 2.( d) so that it reads: "... removed without prior written approval from the city forester." '" '" U a C ~ o C .S - '" c; '" '" '" ... p.. '" '" ... f- '- o C o '" .~ 0.. S o U .e- .. ... - = = ... '" '" lOll 5 rn.5 '" ...- ... e C .$"'CI,S c.ec. '" e '" i:I:=i:I: '" _ .!:l ern "'-0 5-- '" e ~ ~ -= ~ = Vi .... - '" = c....C" Q! ~ ::: - = e '" .S: 5 - ::: ... ~.; - E: go ~i:I: '" ::: f- - e .. ... l.: .. e lOll [;j '" - e - -0 e e ~ ~ :c; .. ... .. - c. c. -< c .. C = 5 5 e u '" "t;; '" ;::l [;l-::: :if '" ;:; ... >>S ~ - Q) ~]19 _00.. p..,D~ o - >> - .. '" C '" "" ~ ~ ~ o - S Oil;:l .S S - .. .:!l ~ ~ E q:; 00 ... ... 0 di 8. 00 5-0'- ;::::I - 0 ......~ ctI ;::1 '-< __ u "'0 ~."'. ~ ~'o ~ ~r:::i~8 Oil =,- ..900.0 "d '" "'.S u ~.S ~ o Cl:I .. ';; en !3 ~.~ E ~ ~ 'C;:; "'0 ~;:: gf .. ="" .. ;:l ...-u '" >< tij '" '" ... ... '" Oil- ... '" o ~ Oo:.s >> - '2 .s ;:l ~ ~ .. 0 Oilu "E C,- '" .S 0 S ~ $-; 0.. (,) .9 0 :'=UQ) 0.. ~ > 0..- Q) <00 = .S '- _ 0 ~ '" .. '" - 0 0..- g< .S >>Oil .~ = u .~ >>"3 C '" -< ~ '" """" o 0 oU ~ - '" C - '" g<t:: ~8 ...:' '" -0 " >< o ,D '" ... '" '" '" - ... 0..- o '" 0..;0 . '" -0 ... O'in o '" ~-o S S t:-o 8 a '" '- o ~ 0.. ... o '" ~o ~::a Oil 0 l;! 0 - ~ - :.e _ ..Q~ ~ ~ u u ()... "" .<I)!::: ~ ~ E '000 ro ;:l 0 on S r:::r 0..-'- ~Q)~1ij "-00'" - l;! !3 '" S >>'" N 2il ",,- C 0.. '" ~ ... "" '" Q) -:5 J-.~ ~ .&q:: 6 .~ 0 '" Ol \0 e~ o.t:: ~Ul-< ::f!.. tU ro ~ ~ .... "'t:i Q) 0 o ;,..,;$ CIJtr.ltEQ)ENOO ~~~a~~cQ)~5 ~ '" ~ 8 .):l.-:::..:;! g [;l ;::l iJ ~ oS M U 0..- "'0 "'0 ~ .E ~,.., ;>....... ~ c '0 '2 - Q) _M ro 0 ~ ~ v 0 <:r:::.a -:S ~.....:. 0.. = ~ Vi "'tj to) - o ~ e ~ ~Ol () '" () c: c '':= Q) .~'C .... '" () M aJ" -" ....] ~....... 00'" ~:a~ \0.......5 N -00 - o lZ.l ~ o ,,+-' ~ ~~ai~ "'0 <<i .... .- l;! '" Oil S ::r: 50 8 u C "'0 ca .9 a .~ ~ <<1).~ 0 c-o<+< ~ --g.5 00 .5 N ...:' '" '" - '" ",.. '" U ... '" Oil 0.. ... '" o >> .E a Oil . .. '" ",.. ..c:-o -'- - o 0 C .s c:.~ ~ "'C Q) !3 .,sa~~5 >........ Q) 3 Q) ~ '5h S ~ 0.,._ ~ ~ = c.- l-; 1-0 ctI _ oQ)~tE..8o..~ ..g8....:OD~OQ) ~" c: ~ c: 0 .... Q) .~ e ~.- Cl.t:: ,tj -a'> a ~ ~ a Ol <Jj~g<N8.E '" C OJ) .9 .c. _ Oil'. -0 Oil =-0 ~ c.. -0 OJJ'- ""0 ro c...:9..2lU 0'. () 8 ",.E >< 0 U "'..c: a ~.-::: ... ;:l 1:1 a g en .... 0'_ ~ 0 0.. S -0 o ~] ~ 0 Q) ~ g.-o '" ... 0 "",p..U - ",..s "'-0 o 0 S 0 '- ~ 0,- Ol 0 >~ 00 S~ ~ a .....c: 0_ l;! '" >> '" C o C .. Attachment 4 c.9ca~ ~ CI:l ;.> Q) CI:l t::~~5~~ '" ..... '" U d 0 ~ Oil.....:;! aJ S = l-< 0.. C,,) l;!'- 0 '" '" 00 Q) >~ l-<........ r.n >.:.::: ;>.. "'0 0.. OJ I ~ ro C ~ ~ N 0 0.. cd ~....... ... o cd C)"'tj,,:g""d - .- - 0 0 .... .=.' '"0 Q) 0 .... g -= !::j ~ > ~ ~ ~.. .. ~ 0 -0 'S -0 ~-o "",Sl;!o[;l"gg ~ ~..c: ()..c: () ~ ...9]~~C:.s"'O :::l OOO~ e-l;! .........._("<")("<")'+:l......s= - o <<i e ~ ~Ol () '" U = = '.e Q) .::floc .... '" U C -o"iilo a.~ .~ Q).t:: 0 c-o<+< ~ --g.5 ...:'+ "'0 ~ fl.) ~ ... 0 .c. ~ <<i 0 CI.l 00 _(\)("<") < "....c... '" ~ . ;> Q) 0 00 Q) 'u \Oet::<<iUl-<l-oQ) "'0 0 Q) 0.... ~ ~ ~ ~ i.~ ~ f' ;>i8~-o"ol ] ~;: a ~5'~ cd ::r: 5O~:a00~:a '" '" '" - <I) ..s .):l _ '$, ao =' .~ .... 0'- 0 "E 0.. ('fj ;.>..c: Q) Q) .- - "'0 u B ~.~ 'en ~ 0.. 0 ~ ~ "'0 :::s d U "Q) ~ ;.> ::o.t::-g ~ ~ 0.. a-u ""'" <I)... C '" >< ..... 0 0.. '" "iil > o S ~ . ~ .~ .):l '" C 0.. <I) '" S ~ 'u'S <I) 0- 0..", '" ... Oil C :.a 0.0 00 ~ s:: c: OJ)'- :.a ,-:9;:l0 0'3 u"" Q) ~.5 ~ g ~.<;::: 0 ~ 1:1 a ~ ~ s ~--g '" '" OilU .S .g :s! 3 t> .- en <<i " '" '" ,D ;:l ... eaoOD .~.~ s e g.~ 8.5 s o ... >> () O,D '" -0 ~8 .n"E "" '" o t:: o ;:l ~u -'. "" ~ -, = '- '- '" 0"'" 0..... '" '" '" Cl.l...9~.sa ~ """' """' 1-< """' Cl.l """' Cl.l ~a)~a) 0.. ~.. ~ .. C - 0 ~:.au:.a -0 o o ~-o q:; '" o g "'0': o " C ... C .;:: - = = ... '" '" lOll 5 rn.S ",...- '" e C .. -0 .. "Q.cc. '" e '" i:I:=i:I: '" _ .!:l crn "'''CI ~Q-o C",l..Cl t (1:1 ~..... - '" = c....C" Q!~::: - c = '" e e : ~ '" .. '" = oC" ~Q! '" '" ... f- - = .. ... l.: .. C lOll [;j '" - e :a e e ~ .f' - :E .. '" .. i5. c. < c 'a = e e e U <+... ~ 0..= <r) ...~~ ~U~ '" ... 0 - 0 ~ ..o.~ 8 = -0 .- o '" ~ co t) ~ <Ii '" ~ "E '" '- S o '" '" g ;:l_ ta 0.. > ~ <I:; ~V)"EI 0....... aJ ~ e; B a lo-; ;> "'C 8 c.S g '" '" $:< c..- Q) ~bDfr~ = ... ~.- ............... 0"" ;:l . -:;::003 :<.E~-;S N~ ...r ""N '" ' >00 0- 8~ ~ '" 00 ~ -./:l 1;; . "d = '" _n '" . 0 '" ......, = Q) '.;j lo-; .5:.:;: ~ ~ ::s ~ Q.; s::: ..... ~ OJ'S::: 0.0 8: OJ "'" '1:I':;j 0.. S ... '" tij ~ Oil ... o ... '" Nt) :; ~ ~;a ~ .5 = o =<1:; 0< .. ... tij ~ C; 0 i'A....l ~ ' 0.."0 Q).t::~ C1) t:i 0 ':::.a~ '" -0 o U - ] s::: p.. ~ _ ;:l rnU ... <8 '" '" "'-d ./:l '" M 6 .",S ~ ~ e+ ~~ ] <I:; '" '-0 '" '" ~ Ti ;... 0 .= ~ 8. 00 tU VJ._ :l g!a~~~ 0..:;:: ~ .- 1=: '" S v: II 0 ~ ':;j N -0 u '" u a E <8 ... '" 0.. o Z ... >>... tE::: 0 '" S ta aJ tS '';::: -a ' = '" '" - -0 ~ Oil.. 3 = '" OlJ'tij e - = ;.... ....... 00 ~:E 0l)"'C ~ r.f:I Q) ..... ........s::: c 0 8 ..: ~ ~ >.'~;.a Cd Q::: N s::: .......ctf:j-..t::or.t::: ~ (l) Q) "'C "'0 Q) 'S g ~ V) o e 2 Q) 2 .::: ..c._ ::s......... OQ)8~t:.$g~;ngs::: ...... ~ ttI ;... tU ::s.- 0 N .- "'O-_~rJlQ .q::V7-a...c: 'ca 0 fr ;:S ~ "i ~ l.I) ~" +::i .t::: o..~ lo-; U 0.. u ~....... ~ B ~ 8 o <./:l o ~(1)"'" =-ta i:d 0.0._ l-;.5 d ~ '" '" ..9~:-g -0'" <N~ - _ 0 "d '" :::-0 ~ta a Q) ~ 0 ~~ g s::: '.p a OJ .~.t:: 0 ~ tr.l Q N B'~ e;'+:l '0 - ... ;:l ~ S o u ~ o M ...ta ~'.e ,0 = 0' '" V):-E . '" r- '" ..r ... = ta.S = - .,g @ :.ac.S ~ .S MS:::lZIbD . -;S '- 0 '" = >::.- 0 "'C'o'- ._ ~.$ Q) Q) "0 S _ . '" 0...2 = ~ '" '" u CdQ)~..c = 'u " t: '" "d.. ." lo-; ~ ~.~ ~] -g 5 ~ u >< 0 ._ > 0 S ".!:l.t: Oil '" 0 ~._ S fr tij %i ~ S <I:; .5 8~8u./:l~~8 ... ~]gj "'0 ie = '8 - g '"" 0.5 ~ 1-0 Q) 8"'8 OJ) o i:2 .. 0 S. 0'';:: ~ .... """ s::: ..... .- 0 > = '-O<I:;~uo"=ll<r)~o "'0 0"'" OJ) c.. lo-; 1=: Q o r./J ~ .."'Q) CZI 0 tiS ~ o "Ol)(l)..s:::: ,,<<IuO :> lo-; lo-; - s::: "",,.- ~ """ ;> 2 0 Q.)~ .- 2 ~ .- 2 "8~~ <1:;""='" Cl:S a... N ._ N e 0 .~ ..:! ::C:bD-"'t:l-bDMOOU Oil = = 0 :.a bD 'Ci) '" = = '""' .- Cd Cd U -0 0.... ~:-;::::: ~ u o ::s ..., l-o a:l ... '" '" 0 S g ~.-::: S gl Z E 8 rn """ l1) e.,..... ~O~O '" -0 o U - a !3 Oilt:: '" ;:l wu a 0.. - ;:l ..8 - .~ Oil .5 '" :9;:= .. ;:l = ,D 0 '" [;l ... ;:l..= 0 g".~ N t) g~-~ I-l V) OJ I N (1) 0I.l;"" "'T '1""""4 ;> ..... 0 rJl I O.s"'..r ~ "~ ~ ~ ~ o S tt) ~"8 ~ g ~:os 8 ~ N '" _ = o . = <8 [;l 0 ......0 (1) rJl;!J" >>..c: i!!' c--q '1""""4 1:: .- - 0- ",,-0 "a @)]tj'O. - '" '" ~ "~ $-oj ",..:o! '" - -0 '" = =..= '" <0 u S _.5 '" '" g ~u c; -am <) ~""';'r -0 a >> ;>,D E; 0;.> tI}"O~ ~ '" '""' ~ t1) o.~ e u >. s::: $...0 C r.. tI} .- .- 0 ::::s 0" ~8E~~" ~ ~ ~.= 0 G U~-oOUO c- o - '" ~] ~~~ a-. f1) .9 ::: s <288 '" '" '" 00..(1) ~ ~ ~ - 1a g Oil'" c- .- '" u u s::: ',= ",.- ""' tl ... '" tij '" ... Oil ... o ... ~ '" ~ <~ 00 '" '" .<) '" 0.. '" '" ~ - ...... oi '" - "',2 ~ - !;) 00 Oil Qf ~ ...- al ... ~tB ~ ~ -:S ~ '" ~~ s::: ';:: Oil u '" '00 B ~ . 0 '" ;g 6. ~ i:l "d S ;>; :iA o S 00~~8t= , '" '" ... c " Q) (lj 0 s::::; ~ ~ s::: ~ ~~<<J NQ.l--"'O >Q).~fr~ 6 e l'l ;:'S =:cdC....O'" .....:::: '" '" "' ......... ..... 0."::: ~ Oil C ;.a0l) E.5 0"" ~ '3 ",a:l u ;> _ 8 ;>.- ;:l Z E '" ... '" ~O~ - .5 ~ '" !:: _ ;:l a:lU '" -0 o U '" '" ~ <I:; - ~ E to-. S '" '" '" S.& ;:l fl.) ca 0 ~ C,) ::s _ -0 0..'" .- 2V,&l8 ""","N"'OU ",-0 ~ ~ .:::~ V) ooo-u Q) N .,.J'''O.... t1) ~ <<J O.......!:::l s:::;; s::: <l.) ..... 0 a t1) W t1) t1) ~ 8 ~ l'l~~OilSOJSOilo.." t:: c -.5 8 > 8.5 ..., e.@~.J::EcdO<<J-~Q) g.~ oj -a S -a.:!l ] g ~Ol}:s-a~~~~~~ ... <2 >>-0 .-:= 2 u 8 10'0. ~ 0.._0 "",'" 0 ("f) ~ :;; ~ ",..s ~:;z ;:: .S - u OilC C - .~ ~ -0 8 "E~ Cds:::~~ .g..!:!'I)S .- "'0 s::: rJ'.l 5h 0.9 s::: ';I ~.~ 0 ca "'0 0.. >S"g:S o '" "~-;S'E ~ (1)'- CQ ~ .t: ~.J:: M = .... 4-1 0 rn OJ) ';:l 0 .~ s:: '..-l "'0 C,).- ~"'''''''-o - rJ'.l 0....2 E S 2 rn u C 8 r:: '" "d.S . ~ .9. c.S (l) Q) "'0 "'0 _ 8 'r:: N ~ 8 " "'... cd :< 0._ ,....- :> s::::; _ 'C I:lD rJ'.l 0 ....._ ~ fr ~ .s t1) 8 4:: .5 :ec:.::s~~~~s - ~ g Oil'" c- .. '" C,).~ c _ "'.. ""' tl ...:' '" tij ~ Oil ... ... 1-0 0 .s 2"0 (l) '" 0 ~ ~ ~.- :e'E~ . '" N 00"=_ Oil c :.a Ol) '" c c:J32 ~ 'S ",a:l g ~ ;:l z'~ '" ... '" ~O~ '" ~ OJ c ~ ~ 08 '" ~~ = .. CD t) rJ:l 'Vj .s ~ . 0 ;:l '" ... '" s::: 0.. ~ i:l "d S '" ... ;:l ~ g..rs -0 .. ... u 0 '" - "" 0 '" ] c.S 5 ~~~ <I:; -0 '2 ~ @ 8 '" "" o U - '" '" ~ .~ [;l ~ "'-..= E "0 ~ '" 8'. e_~ '" '" '" ~ "u C,) "A Vi Vi '" . ...-N c >.~ '" C::d ,De"8~-o '" 1l:300~ Q) s:::..........o t ~ ~l;l "E'S gf "0 '" 0 ::s ~._ $=l ~ 1-0 ::s 0 ~ s::: t:: 'U:l ~ 0~.g~<2~..!:! -"E Q) "0 v.i ~ @ ~ u -0 - '" '" -0 - - '" e- 8 c; ...- '" ... 0.. '" '" ... '" '" 0 ... >>"'" 0.. "E = "'..= 0 s.~ -0 ... Cl) :s Q) .s al-o ~ ~'" _",,D fr ~ ..:g.- 1-1_ ::s"'d ~gE3 ~]c.S.8 '" ... -ao "'0'" t: '';::~. (l)s:::c-+=. -\.Ot1) > 0 M ::s \.0 t1) o ._ MeN .J;:: ~fj6 .=,~;.. a-.:.:::: 0 ~ (l) 0 ~ '" 0....... S ..."8 ] :E .s e .<) .s 0 u ::s C,) Q) Q) U U .5 e ~ 6. 5f ~ ~ t;i ",' "d ~ '" 00 ..... Q).- J-i C.:= Oil t) ~ .- "'7 ~ (]) CIl u 0.. = _ '" 5.t: 0.0 e (]) ""' ",,'1jl 0.. S ... <l) tij ~ Oil!;) ... "0 ~ ~ ~ ~ 0'- ;:l-O -0' ;.a '0 \0 Oo.g"d ... Oil '" C '" ~;.a(]) ::l (]) ::l [i ~ bD].S a ~ ... ","=:3 "d '" o '-:" u._ "' _ E CI:l ~ 1-<"' 8 rS g l:d (]) (]) a ~ 5 I-< u""'I:::i ",,1-<""'0 Q) d ~ t;:i ,,- c H.;: .-.S I -. 0 tij u c Oil >< Sua '" 0._ 0 _ Q) 0.. u V'J. ~ Q) V'J. 0 CIl 1-<] I "'-"" OD.~~CQ) c:"' '" >< '8 Q) ~""'O.- ~ 0il'1jl e 'a - CIl Q) ~ I-< ~ I-< "'2"' o 0 0 CIl U ~ .~ a .~ ~ ..9 .;; - Q) '" -0 .. M S uo-o8s l;l~.g..=o~ P-.;>CIl_O::l '" l;l -g '" U a:l "E '" '" .~ (]) t:: ~J8 MEMORANDUM DATE: Greg Copeland, Interim City Manager Ken Roberts and Shann Finwall, Planners Planning Commission and Community Design Review Board Duties July 20, 2006 for the July 24 CORB Meeting TO: FROM: SUBJECT: INTRODUCTION The planning commission (PC) and community design review board (CORB) recently asked staff to review the duties and responsibilities of the PC and the CORBo 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 CORB (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 CORB (Attachment 2). Based on the ordinances and past experience with development proposals it was determined that there are areas of development requests which impact both group's decision making process. The PC requested that the item go to the CORB for comment. On June 27, 2006, the CORB reviewed and discussed this subject. They indicated that they wanted to do an in-depth review of the city's parking ordinance with the help and comments of the planning commission. They also agreed with staff that there sometimes IS overlap in responsibilities and that is necessary and probably could be a good thing. Finally, they requested to have their chairperson, Linda Olson, attend a planning commission meeting to discuss this topic with the planning commission. July 7, 2006, CORB Chair Olson attended the planning commission to discuss the overlapping responsibilities between the PC and the CORB (Attachment 3). DISCUSSION Attached find the two city ordinances that have the duties and responsibilities of the PC (Section 2-252 - Attachment 4) and those of the CORB (Section 2-286 - Attachment 5). 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 CORB deals with all of the exterior improvements of commercial or multi-family housing and some variances. 1 Some of the exterior improvements on a development may affect how the PC views 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 (including the size of spaces and parking lot layout) 2. Screening 3. Lighting 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. PC Member Dale Trippler will be in attendance at the CDRB meeting to discuss these issues with the CDRB. 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 screening for a conditional use permit. 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 received 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. 2 RECOMMENDATION Provide staff with direction as to any changes the planning commission wants to see with the duties and responsibilities of the PC and the CORB 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. July 7, 2006. PC Minutes 4. Division 4 of City Code (PC) 5. Division 5 of City Code (CDRB) 3 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 CORBo If it doesn't need to go to the CORB 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 CORB 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 CORB 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 CORBo Years ago the PC used to discuss the location and screening of the mechanical equipment on rooftops and now the CORB 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 CORB so the PC could get a report on items that were discussed and covered by the CORBo 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 Oierich 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 CORB meetings. Then the PC and the CORB 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 staffs 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 DRAFT MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA THURSDAY, JULY 6, 2006 VII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Roles and Responsibilities of PC and CDRB - Linda Olson (Chairperson for CDRB) Mr. Roberts said the planning commission and community design review board 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. On June 27, 2006, the CORB reviewed and discussed this subject. They indicated that they wanted to do an in-depth review ofthe city's parking ordinance with the help and comments ofthe planning commission. They also agreed with staff that there sometimes is overlap in responsibilities and that is necessary and probably could be a good thing. Finally, they requested to have their chairperson, Linda Olson, attend a planning commission meeting to discuss this topic with the commission. Linda Olson is here to discuss the overlapping of duties. Mr. Roberts invited Linda Olson to come forward and speak to the planning commission. Linda Olson, Chairperson for the Community Design Review Board, addressed the commission. Staff had recommended the CORB look at parking stall width and size because some ofthe same issues have been coming up at the PC and CORB meetings it was thought it may be a good idea to discuss review items that overlap. It sounds like it's agreeable with the CORB and the PC that items are being discussed more than once and that it's better to have both groups give their opinions and comments to ensure that nothing gets missed along the way. Generally the PC receives and reviews the plans first and then the CORB reviews it the following week. It's rare that the CORB reviews a proposal before it goes to the PC. It's nice to know what the concerns of the planning commission were and staff usually informs the board of the planning commissions' concerns via the staff report or when introducing the item during the board meeting. Mr. Roberts said both the CORB and PC minutes are on the website sorted by date and can be downloaded by anyone that would like to know what was reviewed and the comments said. Commissioner Trippler commented that many times when he serves as the PC representative at the city council meeting that is when he hears the concerns that the Community Design Review Board had when the CORB representative speaks. Board member Olson said she would agree with the comments made by Commissioner Trippler regarding the parking space size and the difficulty cars have when they are parked too closely or the difficulty drivers have pulling in and out of the parking stalls especially because of the large size of vehicles. Even with the high cost of gas these days, people require larger vehicles which require larger parking spaces. The board would strongly recommend that developers use more pervious paver systems for parking. Planning Commission Minutes of 07-06-06 -2- Commissioner Trippler thanked Linda Olson for coming and speaking. He wondered if the PC and the CORB were spending time reviewing issues that one or the other group should not be spending time on? He knows the board reviews things like lighting, landscaping, screening, and parking. The planning commission looks at how those things affect the surrounding area and the neighborhood and he asked if the CORB was looking at these things for the same reasons. Board member Olson said she is here to talk about parking and how the CORB and PC should approach review of these issues. The CORB looks at screening, lighting, landscaping, signage, rainwater gardens, drainage, and grading. Most of these items are also areas of review for the PC. The CORB is a group of volunteers with a wide range of backgrounds such as an architect, an environmental consultant, a city planner, and she herself has a civil background. This experience helps with reviewing proposals and brings a different aspect to the table so to speak. With the experience of both the planning commission hopefully things don't get missed during the review process but it is better to have as many different sets of eyes reviewing the proposals as possible. The CORB reviews the lighting on the site, the style, the height, the number of lights, and the impact the light would have on the neighboring area and this is probably something the planning commission does not need to review. The CORB prefers the dark sky at night policy. The CORB looks at roof-top screening on a consistent basis. The board reviews grading and drainage but it can't hurt to have both the PC and CORB reviewing things. Commissioner Pearson said the PC discusses noise concerns from mechanical units and the location of the units which is really the scope of the CORB but they still discuss it. The PC also discusses the location of trash dumpsters and the screening of the dumpsters. He feels as long as the CORB is okay with it the PC and CORB reviewing the same items we should continue to look at the items rather than taking a chance of missing it during the review process. Board member Olson agreed. Many times projects are on a tight time schedule and things can get missed. She said many times one ofthe board members sees something thatthe other board members didn't see or think of and people wonder did they miss seeing that. The over coverage of the review process is a benefit to the city having the different groups offering a system of checks and balances especially because each group looks at proposals from a slightly different angle. When she reviews proposals she looks at them as a Maplewood resident and as someone who would be walking down the street and how the development would impact the neighborhood. Commissioner Pearson said lately he has noticed attention to detail in things like the garbage receptacle at the drive thru at Caribou Coffee on White Bear Avenue. Little details like that get missed and those are the small things that make a difference for a development and help keep the site maintained. Board member Olson said the CORB didn't review that particular detail for Caribou Coffee and the board cannot take the credit for that. Mr. Roberts said in the next few weeks there will be discussion regarding ordinance amendments for the tree ordinance and the wetland ordinance and he asked if both the CORB and the PC wanted to be included in the review and discussion of the ordinance amendments coming up? Board member Olson said she knows the CORB will want to be included in the review process of those ordinances and environmental concerns. Planning Commission Minutes of 07-06-06 -3- The planning commission agreed that they too wanted to be included in on the discussion and review of the proposed code amendments. Commissioner Trippler said as a member of the Environmental Committee they have been working on those ordinances internally and the tree ordinance revisions have gone to the city attorney to check for any legal issues there may be. When that information has been returned from the city attorney's office and the revisions have been made the next step is to give a presentation to the other commissions, boards and committees for their input before the revisions to the ordinances are brought to the city council. Board member Olson said she appreciated the opportunity to have an open dialogue with the planning commission. She would appreciate having a representative from the PC come and speak to the CORB as well. Chairperson Fischer recommended Commissioner Trippler be the speaker because of his serving on the Environmental Committee and the upcoming ordinance amendments that will be coming in the near future. Commissioner Trippler said the Environmental Committee will be meeting again Tuesday, July 18, 2006, and hopefully there will be information back from the city attorney before that time. Board member Olson thanked the planning commission for allowing her to speak tonight and for the good work the planning commission does and their time serving on the commission. The planning commission thanked board member Olson for her time and service on the CORBo Attachment 4 ~ 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 of recommendations 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 ofthe 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 othenvise 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 councilll ha5 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 of the 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 oflhe city shall cooperate with the planning commission and make themselves available and attend meetings when requested to do so. (Code 1982, ~ 25-26) Secs. 2-256-2-280. Reserved. CD2:18 Attachment 5 ADMINISTRATION ~ 2~283 DIVISION 5. COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD Sec. 2-281. Established; objectives. The city council does hereby establish a community design review board 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 ofland 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 offive 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) '!\vo architects shall be appointed, if available to serve. (2) '!\vo members shall be from a related design or construction field, Le., 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)(l) or (2) ofthis 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 notif'y 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 of the 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 ~ 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, ~ 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, ~ 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 director's 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 adj acent 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 ADMIl\rSTRATION ~ 2-290 c. Perspectives, models or other suitable graphic materials, at the option of the b"ard. (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) To recommend approval of an application, the board shall make the following findings: (1) The design and location ofthe 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 reco=ended actions for approval, may: (1) Reco=end 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 reo 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 desiguate 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) Sees. 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