Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/26/1998BOOK AGENDA MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD May 26, 1998 6:00 P.M. City Council Chambers Maplewood City Hall 1830 East County Road B 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes- May 12, 1997 4. Approval of Agenda 5. Unfinished Business a. Billboard Request, 1255 E. Highway 36 (Metcalf Mayflower)- Universal Outdoor, Inc. and Alan Metcalf 6. Design Review a. First Financial Office Building - East of 2025 E. County Road D, Tony Sampair 7. Visitor Presentations 8. Board Presentations 9. Staff Presentations a. CDRB Representative for Council Meetings: Monday, June 8-Ananth Shankar Monday, June 22-Volunteer Needed b. Next CDRB Meeting is June 9 10. Adjourn p:com-dvpt\cdrb.agd WELCOME TO THIS MEETING OF THE COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD This outline has been prepared to explain the review process of this meeting. The review of an item usually follows this format, 1. The chairperson of the meeting will announce the item to be reviewed. The chairperson will ask the applicant or developer of the project up to the podium to respond to the staff's recommendation regarding the proposal. The Community Design' Review Board will then discuss the proposed project with the applicant. 3. The chairperson will then ask the audience if there is anyone present who wishes to comment on the proposal. 4. After everyone is the audience wishing to speak has given his or her comments, the chairperson will close the public discussion portion of the meeting. 5. The Board will then discuss the proposal. No further public comments are allowed. 6. The Board will then make its recommendations or decision. 7. Most decisions by the Board are final, unless appealed to the City Council. You must notify the City staff in writing within 15 days to register an appeal. kd/mise\cclrb.agd Revised: 6-18-93 MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA MAY t 2, t998 CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Erickson called the meeting to order at 6 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Marvin Erickson Present Marie Robinson Present Ananth Shankar Present Tim Johnson Present Matt Ledvina Present III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES IV. April 28, 1998 Boardmember Johnson moved approval of the minutes of April 28, 1998, as submitted. Boardmember Robinson seconded. Ayes--all The motion passed. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Boardmember Shankar moved approval of the agenda as submitted. Boardmember Johnson seconded. Ayes--all The motion passed. V. UNFINISHED BUSINESS VI. There was no unfinished business. DESIGN REVIEW A. Comprehensive Sign Plan Revision, 1845 E. County Road D - Mattress Giant at Maplewood Town Center Dennis Mellem, representing Signcrafters, and David Walkendorfer, representing Mattress Giant, were present. Mr. Mellem said that Mattress Giant wanted to put up a sign that would match the size of the previous tenant's (Total Bedroom) sign. Secretary Tom Ekstrand said that the sign criteria for the Maplewood Town Center requires a maximum of 36 inches. Frank's and Best Buy have larger signs because they are anchor stores. Community Design Review Board -4- Minutes of 05-12-98 3. The property owner shall maintain the existing trees and vegetative screening north of the proposed parking lot. 4. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. Boardmember Shankar seconded. Ayes--all Do The motion passed. Telecommunications Monopole, 1905 E. County Road D (Aamco Transmissions) - AT&T Wireless Services Peter Beck and Ron Mielke, both representing AT & T Wireless Services, were present. Mr. Beck said that they could paint the pole any color the Board wanted but it would be hard to change the color of the existing building because of its surface material is exposed aggregate and won't take paint very well. Boardmember Robinson asked the applicant if they had searched to see if there was a collocation already in the area that they could use instead of installing their own pole. Mr. Beck said they had because it was one of the requirements of the city's new ordinance. Boardmember Robinson asked the applicant that if someone collocates with them where would their equipment go in this space. Mr. Beck said there were two different types of providers. Another cellular provider like AT & T would have to install a similar equipment building to theirs. A PCS provider would be able to install a 6-foot square to 10-foot square equipment cabinet which would be located somewhere appropriate on the leased propertY. Boardmember Erickson asked the applicant if there was a fence proposed around this site. Mr. Mielke said that they were not worried about vandalism. The building is a totally secured building. The landscaping around the building it will help keep the building from view. Mr. Mielke said that they would be maintaining the property with services that would replace shrubs and water the grass. Boardmember Shankar moved that the Community Design Review Board approve the site and tower design plans date-stamped April 3, 1998 and the landscaping and building elevations date-stamped May 5, 1998, for a 125-foot-tall telecommunications monopole and a 10- by 20-foot building for ground equipment on the north side of Aamco Transmissions at 1905 E. County Road D. Approval is based on the findings required by code and subject to the applicant doing the following: 1. Repeating this review in two years if the city has not issued permits for this project. Community Design Review Board Minutes of 05-12-98 -5- Substituting the brown color on the tower with light blue or grey as the code requires. 3. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. Boardmember Robinson seconded. The motion passed. VII, VISITOR PRESENTATIONS Them were no visitor presentations. VIII. BOARD PRESENTATIONS Ayesmall Boardmember Robinson reported on the May 11, 1998 City Council Meeting. Xl. STAFF PRESENTATIONS Representative for May 21 City Council Meeting: Mr. Erickson will attend this meeting. Representative for June 1 City Council Special Meeting for the Metcalf/Mayflower billboard conditional use permit: Mr. Shankar will attend this meeting. Representative for June 8 City Council Meeting: Mr. Shankar will attend this meeting. B. The next Community Design Review Board meeting will be on May 26. X. ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 7:29. p:com-dvpt\cdrb, min TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: DATE: MEMORANDUM City Manager Thomas Ekstrand, Associate Planner Conditional Use Permit - Billboard Relocation at Metcalf Mayflower 1255 E. Highway 36 May 20, 1998 INTRODUCTION Mr. Metcalf requested that the community design review board review this proposal again with him in attendance. He wanted to give verbal justification for his billboard request. At the time of this writing, we had no additional information to present. I am, therefore, enclosing the previous memorandum. TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: DATE: MEMORANDUM City Manager Thomas Ekstrand, Associate Planner Conditional Use Permit- Billboard Relocation at Metcalf Mayflower 1255 E. Highway 36 April 16, 1998 INTRODUCTION Request Mr. Chris McCarver, of Universal Outdoor, Inc., is requesting approval of a conditional use permit (CUP) to relocate a billboard on the Metcalf Mayflower property, 1255 E. Highway 36. Refer to the maps on pages 4-6 and the applicant's letter on page 7. The billboard is currently placed along Metcalf Mayflower's Highway 36 frontage near the site of their recently approved multi-tenant building. Refer to the site plan on page 6. The applicant is requesting a CUP to move the billboard to a new location on the site with a pole placement 20 feet to the west of the existing Metcalf Mayflower building. The leading edge of the billboard would be 11 feet from the building. The proposed billboard would be a 35-foot-tall, two-sided sign and could be viewed from the east over the top of the building. Each face would measure 10.5- by 36-feet--378 square feet. Reason for the Request/Code Requirements The billboard ordinance requires a CUP if the required setbacks would not be met. As stated, the proposed billboard would have an 11-foot setback from the buildingw 89 feet less than required. The sign code requires the following billboard setbacks: From an intersection - 300 feet From a building or on-site sign - 100 feet From a lot line - 10 feet BACKGROUND Metcalf Mayflower Property February 23, 1998: The city council approved building plans for Metcalf Mayflower to build a 55,000 square-foot, one-story multi-tenant office/warehouse building east of their present building. The building would be used for office, warehouse, manufacturing and retail purposes. The council also approved a parking reduction to have 38 fewer parking spaces than code requires. The code requires 176 and the applicant would provide 138. March 30, 1998: The city council revised Condition Three of their previous approval to state that before getting the first certificate of occupancy for the building, the applicant shall remove the billboard from the site or obtain a CUP for relocating it on the property. Previously, the condition had required the billboard removal or the applicants obtaining a CUP for relocation before the issuance of a building permit. Other Billboard Actions December 10, 1984: The city council denied a CUP request for 3M National Advertising to install a 360-square-foot, two-sided billboard on the south side of Highway 36 on the present site of the MDG Properties building, 1387 Cope Avenue. 3M was requesting the CUP because their proposed billboard would have been 440 feet from the nearest dwelling to the south. The code requires a 500 foot separation. The council gave no findings for denial. DISCUSSION The city council should deny this request. In reviewing the standards for CUP approval, it is clear that the billboard would not be located to be in conformity with the code because of its substantially reduced setback. With an 11-foot setback, the proposed billboard would be too close to the building. The required 100-foot setback is needed to avoid an appearance of crowding and clutter. In the past, billboards have not been perceived by former Maplewood City Councils to be a land use they wish to promote and encourage. The last time the city reviewed such a request, the council denied the billboard installation along Highway 36. This billboard would have met all spacing requirements along the highway but would have been too close to the residences to the south. RECOMMENDATION Deny the conditional use permit for the relocation of the billboard on the Metcalf Mayflower property, 1255 E. Highway 36. Denial is based on the following reasons: 1. The proposed billboard would not be located to be in conformity with the city code of ordinances because of its substantially reduced setback from the Metcalf Mayflower building. The applicant proposed an 11-foot setbackmthe code requires 100 feet. 2. The proposed billboard would appear to crowd the building and, therefore, give a cluttered appearance. 3. The city previously denied a conditional use permit for a billboard that would have had less aesthetic impact along Highway 36 than the proposed billboard. 2 REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Site size: 5.47 acres Existing land use: Metcalf Mayflower SURROUNDING LAND USES North: Gervais Avenue and undeveloped M1 (light manufacturing) property South: Highway 36, Northern Hydraulics, Oasis Market and Handy Hitch West: Asphalt Driveway Company and U-haul Self Storage East: English Street, Vomela Specialty Company and Truck Utilities PLANNING Land Use Plan designation: M1 Zoning: M1 p:sec9\billbord.cup Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Property Line/Zoning Map 3. Site Plan 4. Applicant's Letter date-stamped April 6, 1998 3 Attachment A~ (~) ~ ~ && Attachment 2 ~~ ...~~=~=-~~.-~ ......... '; ~'"'~[": -~"": ~::' ?'~ "' '"' '" ""' '"'2o'=' ~Z'...~, ' ~ ~:: ,,,:,.,~ ~ -,.~ -: .. ~"..?'~J '-'~-I ~;~ ,,,- ..._ .... ~ ~= ~.~, ~ ~.,~- .~ ~,,~ U1:.1SELF II ~, '1 ~--~ IW. ~;,~~,EI~.~ '" ~ ,,~ ~~-- ~~' METOALF MAYFLOWER , . m ~ - ' ~ ~ I ~ ~ BUILDING ...,.,.~ ]~. ~7~ I ,.,.__.~ i~ ~ . i E~~"'~ i ._ - . _1I~ / Attachment 3 _1 EXISTING METCALF MAYFLOWER BUlL APPROVED BUILDING EXISTING BILLBOARD LOCATION PROPOSED BILLBOARD LOCATION SITE PLAN Attachment 4 3225 Spring Street Northeast Minneapolis, MN 55413 612 / 869-1900 phone 612 / 869-7082 fax City of Maplewood 1830 County Road B East Maplewood, MN 55109 Attention:' Building and Zoning To whom it may concern: Universal Outdoor, Inc. currently has a billboard on the Metcalf Moving & Storage property at 1255 E. Highway 36 in Maplewood. A few months ago, we had gotten a call from Al Metcalf Jr. saying that he was planning to expand his building on the above referenced property. .. Since we were a long term tenant with a long term lease, he was willing to work with us to relocate the existing sign from the cast end of his property to the west end of the property. I have been told that our relocating on the same parcel still needs to have a conditional use permit approved because it would be in a different location on the property. I have also been told that the expansion plans that Metcalf Moving & Storage have been put on hold until the sign issue gets resolved. I believe that we meet the City's requirements for a conditional use permit for the following reasons: 1. The sign shall conform with a applicable building codes with regard to wind loads, height, square footage, illumination, front yard setbacks, side and rear yard setbacks, distance from other signs, distance from residential zones and dwellings, distance from interchanges and distances from parks. We are, however, asking for relief to be closer to a commercial building than is allowed by code (150 feet). The building we will be closer to is the Metcalfmoving & Storage building currently on site. We have tried to fred another alternate site on the property, but have been unsuccessful. We can meet all other criteria, but we cannot fred a practical site on the property other than the one applied for. 2. The approved site wouldn't change thc surrounding area because the sign already exists on the property. . 3. It wouldn't depreciate property values for a couple of reasons; the sig~ is already on the property and this is a commercial and industrial area. This is exactly where signs should be located. 4. The sign wouldn't have any dangerous or haTardous materials on the structure, displays, illumination facilities, etc. 5. No vehicular traffic would be generated as a result of the sign because we aren't directing traffic to the property. 6. The sign wouldn't require water hook up, sewer use, schools, or other public facilities so numbers 6 & 7 are not applicable. 7. Relocating the sign would maintain the existing character of the property as well as the future use of the property. 8. The sign would have no adverse environmental effects. I will be happy to provide you with any other information as you request. Thank you for your . consideration on this matter. TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: DATE: MEMORANDUM city Manager Thomas Ekstrand, Associate Planner Side Yard Setback Variances and Design Review - First Financial East of 2025 E. County Road D May 20, 1998 INTRODUCTION Project Description Tony Sampair is proposing to build an 11,595-square-foot, two-story office building east of the Emerald Inn, 2025 E. County Road D. Refer to the maps on pages 6-8. The proposed building would have an exterior of brick and stucco with an asphalt-shingle roof. Colors are noted to be earth tones. Refer to the building elevations (separate attachment). Requests Mr. Sampair is requesting approval of the following: 1. A 20-foot building setback variance from the east lot line. The applicant is proposing an 80-foot setback. The code requires 100 feet because the abutting property is zoned and used residentially. 2. A five-foot parking lot setback variance from the east lot line. The applicant is proposing a 15-foot setback. The code requires 20 feet because the abutting property is zoned and used residentially. 3. Approval of building, site and landscape plans. DISCUSSION Variances Staff supports the proposed variances. The lot to the east, though developed with a single dwelling and zoned F (farm residential), is planned for BC (business commercial) by the city. The applicant could revise his site plan to meet all setback requirements, but it would result in crowding the building toward the west lot line. This alternative would result in an unappealing layout. It is better to work toward a sensible site layout by granting variances than to require a site plan that looks ill-conceived. The abutting lot is also heavily wooded so the adjacent house would be buffered from the proposed site. In addition to the screening, the house is 225 feet away which provides a sufficient buffer. Building Design and Materials The proposed building is attractive and would complement the area. Parking The applicant is proposing 57 parking spaces--the code requires 58. The applicant should revise the site plan to add one more parking space. There must also be three handicap spaces according to the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act)--two are proposed. The additional space should be a handicap-accessible space. There is a driveway connection proposed to the adjacent lot. Though this is often a good practice because it reduces the number of driveways to a street, it is premature in this case since there is no proposal yet to develop the abutting lot. A driveway connection at this point may not be in the best location for the future development of this neighboring site. This site plan can be revised in the future to provide a driveway connection once the abutting lot is proposed for development. Landscaping The landscape plan does not state the type of ground cover. The applicant should sod all areas except for planting beds. RECOMMENDATIONS Adopt the resolution on pages 9-10 approving a 20-foot side yard building setback variance and a five-foot parking side yard setback parking lot variance for the proposed office building project east of 2025 E. County Road D. Approval is based on the following reasons: Requiring side yard parking and building setbacks to meet code would result in an unattractive and ill-conceived site plan because the building would be crowded toward the west lot line. 2. The adjacent lot to the east is planned for BC (business commercial) and will be considered for a land use plan change to BC in the near future by the city staff. 3. Complying with the code would cause the applicant undue hardship because of the inconsistency of the zoning and land use designation for the lot to the east. 4. The proposed variances would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance because the house on the abutting lot is 225 feet away and is screened by mature trees. Approve the plans date-stamped May 13, 1998, for the proposed First Financial building east of 2025 E. County Road D. Approval is based on the findings required by the code and subject to the following conditions: 1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. 2. Before getting a building permit the applicant shall: 2 a. Submit grading, drainage, utility and erosion control plans for city engineer approval. b. Revise the site plan for staff approval by: (1) Omitting the driveway connection to the adjacent lot. (2) Adding one more handicap-accessible parking space for a total of 58 parking spaces. (3) Providing a 15-foot parking-lot setback from the north lot line. 3. The applicant shall complete the following before occupying the building: a. Install a handicap parking sign for each handicap parking space. Handicap spaces must comply with ADA requirements. One space must be van accessible. b. Paint any rooftop mechanical equipment to match the color of the upper part of the building. (code requirement) c. Construct a trash dumpster enclosure to match the building with a 100 percent opaque gate.. (code requirement) d. 'Install an in-ground lawn irrigation system for all landscaped areas. (code requirement) e. Direct or shield the site lights so they do not shine in driver's eyes. f. Provide continuous concrete curbing around all parking lots and drives. g. Post the nine-foot-wide parking spaces for employees only. (code requirement) Parking spaces for visitors or customers must be at least 9 ~ feet wide. h. Sod all turf areas, including the boulevard, except planting beds if a different ground cover or mulch is to be used. 4. If any required work is not done, the city may allow temporary occupancy if: a. The city determines that the work is not essential to the public health, safety or welfare. b. The city receives a cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit for the required work. The amount shall be 200 percent of the cost of the unfinished work. Any unfinished landscaping shall be completed by June 1 if the building is occupied in the fall or winter or within six weeks if the building is occupied in the spring or summer. c. The city receives an agreement that will allow the city to complete any unfinished work. Signs are not approved in this review. The applicant must submit the sign plans to staff for approval and obtain the necessary sign permits. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Site size: 1.2 Acres Existing land use: Undeveloped SURROUNDING LAND USES North: 1-694 South: County Road D and Learning Tree Day Care Center West: Emerald Inn Motel East: Two single family dwellings on large lots PLANNING Land Use Plan designation: BC(M) Zoning: BC(M) Ordinance Requirement Section 25-70 of the city code requires that the CDRB make the following findings to approve plans: That the design and location of the proposed development and its relationship to neighboring, existing or proposed developments, and traffic is such that it will not impair the desirability of investment or occupation in the neighborhood; that it will not unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring, existing or proposed developments; and that it will not create traffic hazards or congestion. That the design and location of the proposed development is in keeping with the character of the surrounding neighborhood and is not detrimental to the harmonious, orderly and attractive development contemplated by this article and the city's comprehensive municipal plan. That the design and location of the proposed development would provide a desirable environment for its occupants, as well as for its neighbors, and that it is aesthetically of good composition, materials, textures and colors. Section 36-28(c)(6) requires that commercial buildings with over 3000 square feet of wall surface area, that are adjacent to a residential lot, have a 100 foot setback from the adjoining lot line. Section 36-28(c)(5)(b) requires that commercial parking lots be set back 20 feet from property that is zoned for residential. Findings for Variance Approval State law requires that the City Council make the following findings to approve a variance from the zoning code: 1. Strict enf~)rcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the property under consideration. 2. The vadance 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. p:sec35\sampair.des Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Property Line/Zoning Map 3. Site Plan 4. Vadance Resolution 5. Plans date-stamped May 13, 1998 (separate attachment) Attachment I WHITE B~AR LAKE MUIT CT. UNTRY~EW CIR. LUTH CT. )lA AVE. SH£RR£N AVE. I D£MONT z z v IK~.~:zd Lake AvF.' ~ EDGI:'HILL RD. CT. RA/,tSEY COUNTY ~ COURT '.' KOHLMAN A'~.. COmE AVE. NORTH SAINT PAUL LOCATION MAP Attachment 2 :~ PERKINS ,,~ i EMERALD ~,~,,,,, &,o SO - · 6,~"! -,' , · -==.~-..n ~ ~1; ~1/ ._ - COUNTY RoAD D ~.~r. . . '- ~ ,,..o~,;e.~23~.. .a~I ~ ~ea ~ , , , }" ~ ~1 ~ I a.4~. 1~ L~RNING ~ ~ ~~NEKE MUFFLER : ~.z3~ .TREE (~) ,.o~. (o) 0~) ' PROPERTY LINE I ZONING MAP Attachment 3 SITE PLAN 8 Attachment 4 VARIANCE RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Mr. Tony Sampair applied for setback variances from the zoning ordinance. WHEREAS, these variances apply to the parcel east of 2025 E. County Road D. The legal description is: THE EASTERLY 156.01 FEET OF THE WESTERLY 354.01 FEET OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 35, TOWNSHIP 30 NORTH, RANGE 22 WEST, LYING SOUTHERLY OF THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF INTERSTATE HIGHWAY NO. 694. WHEREAS, Section 36-28(c)(6) of the Maplewood code requires that commercial buildings with over 3000 square feet of wall surface area be set back 100 feet from property that is zoned residential. WHEREAS, Section 36-28(c)(5)(b) of the Maplewood code requires that commercial parking lots be set back 20 feet from property that is zoned residential.. WHEREAS, the applicant is proposing a building setback of 80 feet and a parking lot setback of 15 feet. WHEREAS, this requires variances of 20 feet and five feet. WHEREAS, the history of these variances is as follows: 1. On May 26, 1998, the community design review board recommended that the city council this variance. The city council held a public hearing on ., 1998. City staff, published a notice in the Maplewood Review and sent notices to the surrounding property owners as required by law. The council gave everyone at the hearing an opportunity to speak and present written statements. The council also considered reports and recommendations from the city staff and review board. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above-described variance for the following reasons: Requiring side parking and building setbacks to meet code would result in an unattractive and ill-conceived site plan because the building would be crowded toward the west lot line. 2. The adjacent lot to the east is planned for BC (business commercial) and will be considered for a land use plan change to BC in the near future by the city staff. 3. Complying with the code would cause the applicant undue hardship because of the inconsistency of the zoning and land use designation for the lot to the east. 9 4. The proposed variances would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance because the house on the abutting lot is 225 feet away and is screened by mature trees. Adopted on ,1998. l0