Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/23/1999BOOK AGENDA MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD November 23, 1999 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: September 21, 1999 4. Approval of Agenda 5. Unfinished Business 6. Design Review a. U.S. Bank- Beam Avenue b. Ordinance Review - Dollar Limits Which Determine Staff Review of Plans c. New Member Orientation 7. Visitor Presentations 8. Board Presentations 9. Staff Presentations a. CDRB Volunteers for December 13 and 27 City Council Meetings 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. The chairperson will then ask the audience if there is anyone present who wishes to comment on the proposal. 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. 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. jw\forms~:lrb.agd Revised: 11-09-94 MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA SEPTEMBER 21, 1999 CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Ledvina called the meeting to order at 6:03 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Matt Ledvina Present Ananth Shankar Present Tim Johnson Present Jon LaCasse Present Craig Jorgenson Present II1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES July 27, 19998 Boardmember Johnson moved approval of the minutes of July 27, 1999, as submitted. Boardmember Shankar seconded. Ayes--all The motion passed. IV. APPROVAL OFAGENDA There was no motion for approval of the agenda. V. UNFINISHED BUSINESS There was no unfinished business. VI. DESIGN REVIEW A. U.S. West Monopole--Presentation Church, 1725 Kennard Street Secretary Tom Ekstrand presented the staff report. Ken Nielsen was present representing U.S. West. He said they were replacing a 25-foot light standard in the parking lot. They chose this location because it is large parcel with mature vegetation and the church to block the view from the east. Mr. Nielsen said the correct size of the equipment box is four feet wide by 4 feet long by four feet tall. He said there will be a small cut into the hill so that the concrete pad under the equipment box could be placed level. The existing lights would be reattached to the pole at about 25 or 30 feet. Secretary Ekstrand suggested that Item 3 of the recommendations be changed. He said this is standard language and there will be no occupancy because this is a pole. Mr. Ekstrand did say the main concern is that the landscaping be installed so he recommended that this condition say, "If the landscaping is not installed by completion of the tower, the city shall require a cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit for the required work in the amount of 150 percent of the cost of the plantings." Community Design Review Board Minutes of 09-21-99 -2- Boardmember Ledvina observed that the proposed plantings would screen individuals that park in this area. He said the visual impact will be on cars using the driveway on the west side of where the tower is located. There was some discussion on whether this drive is one- way going down. Mr. Nielsen confirmed that this was a one way drive coming from Kennard Street. He commented that he had a difficult time seeing the existing 25-foot pole as he was driving on the west side of the property on Prosperity Road. Chairperson Ledvina felt the pole was not the issue. He was more concerned with the "site visual impact" as it related to the equipment box. Mr. Nielsen asked to have the second condition of the recommendations deleted. Secretary Ekstrand agreed because this project did not warrant a grading plan. Mr. Ledvina felt that his comment about the visual impact was "not necessarily valid" since he was accessing the site the wrong way. Boardmember Shankar moved the Community Design Review Board: Approve the site and design plans, date-stamped July 23, 1999 for a 73-foot-tall telecommunications monopole and equipment in the parking lot at 1725 Kennard Street. Approval is based on the findings required by code and subject to the applicant doing the following: 1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued permits for this project. If any landscaping is not done by the time of completion of the tower, the city shall receive a cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit for the required work. The amount shall be 150% of the cost of the plantings. 3. All work shall follow the approved plants. The director of community development may approve minor changes. Boardmember Jorgenson seconded. Ayes--all The motion passed. B. Kline Volvo--Highway 61, North of Lexus of Maplewood Secretary Tom Ekstrand summarized the staff report. Chairperson Ledvina asked if the board should act on the portion of the recommendation that referred to the wetland buffer variance. Secretary Ekstrand replied that this was optional since the planning commission considered that portion at its meeting. Chairperson Ledvina decided that the board would not act on Recommendation A or B. Secretary Ekstrand confirmed that the city engineer felt a couple areas of the site were not adequate for semi-trailer movement. Mr. Ekstrand complimented the architect on "doing the best he could with a difficult site." Chairperson Ledvina asked about the possibility of unloading vehicles off-site and bring them to this location. Mr. Ekstrand said a recurring problem with dealerships in Maplewood is that they unload on the right-of-way. Mr. Ledvina suggested that the dealer be allowed to unload transports off-site as long as it was not on public property. Community Design Review Board Minutes of 09-21-99 -3- Secretary Ekstrand said the city does not consider parking bays as parking spaces when determining the required number of spaces for a site. He confirmed that the plan demonstrated the 88 parking spaces necessary with one exception. Mr. Ekstrand said they could call one of the inventory stalls a parking space in order to meet the required number. He also said it may be necessary to use inventory parking spaces for a trash enclosure. Mr. Ledvina also questioned if the visible lathe for setback identification should be required only during construction. Mr. Ekstrand agreed with this. Jack Grotkin of R.J. Ryan Construction was present representing the applicant. Mr. Grotkin said, "after the planning commission meeting last night," they are now going to take the display area off the north end of the building which will allow the driveway to come straight in. They are also going to take 5-feet off the back of the east building line which is the service area. This will pull the building in and allow for approximately a 25-foot, two-way drive. He said they thought the circulation around the front might be a little tight on the southwest corner so that area will be pulled in a few feet as well. These changes will allow for better truck access. Mr. Grotkin said they would also consider eliminating the three parking stalls in the southwest corner to make truck maneuvering easier. It would then be necessary to designate three inventory stalls as parking stalls. Mr. Grotkin clarified that the display area being eliminated would be the outside area, not the showroom. Boardmember Shankar asked why the applicant had chosen to go with such a "conservative look on the elevations." Mr. Grotkin showed and described a design concept drawing from Volvo on how they would like to see the dealership look. Mr. Ekstrand said he anticipated that the fire chief would be satisfied with the revised plan since it incorporated changes that the chief wanted. He said staff did not recommend any changes to the plans based on the police department comments. Chairperson Ledvina had a concern that the plan did not show the trash enclosure. He felt that, because the site is so tight, the applicant should identify what his intentions are in this regard. Mr. Ekstrand said it would be okay to move the trash dumpster outside on trash day and then move it back when empty but it could not be moved out on a daily basis. Mr. Ekstrand said, even if the enclosure is outside, the code has a provision to allow the board to waive the screening requirement if the dumpster is hidden. Mr. Ledvina stated that was not being recommended in this case. Boardmember Shankar felt the wall to the right of the glass wall on the south elevation was quite prominent. He thought it needed something to break it up so that it did not look so massive. Mr. Grotkin offered that some scoring could be added. Mr. Shankar suggested that the shadow line for the glass portion could be continued to break up the wall. Mr. Grotkin felt a couple rows of single-score block might accomplish this. Mr. Shankar mentioned block below and EIFS on top. It was agreed that the cornice should be carried through as well. Mr. Grotkin said they would paint the block to match the EIFS so the building looks uniform. Boardmember Johnson moved the Community Design Review Board: Approve the civil drawings date-stamped August 27, 1999 and the site, landscaping and building elevations date-stamped September 20, 1999 for the proposed Kiine Volvo automobile dealership north of 3000 N. Highway 61, based on the findings required by the code. Approval is subject to the following conditions: Community Design Review Board Minutes of 09-21-99 -4- 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: Dedicate and record a 25-foot-wide wetland-buffer easement. This easement shall describe the boundary of the buffer and prohibit any building, mowing, cutting, filling or dumping within the buffer. Submit a revised landscape plan for the restoration of the 25-foot-wide wetland- protection buffer, subject to staff and watershed district approval. This plan must also show sod in all areas other than in the wetland buffer. The right-of-way shall also be sodded unless MnDOT requires something different. The right-of-way shall have an in-ground lawn irrigation system unless prohibited by MnDOT. c. Revise the site plan for staff approval showing the following revisions: (1) A right-turn-lane into the site, subject to MnDOT's approval. (2) A trash enclosure that matches the building in material. This enclosure shall not be place in required parking spaces. It must have a 100 percent opaque closeable gate. If the trash dumpster is kept inside the building, an outdoor enclosure is not required. d. Have the site and wetland buffer staked with survey irons and visible lathe for clear setback identification during construction. 3. The applicant shall complete the following before occupying the building: a. Replace any property irons removed because of this construction. b. Install a reflectorized stop sign at the exit and a handicap-parking sign for each handicap parking space. c. Construct a trash dumpster enclosure to meet code requirements. Install an in-ground lawn irrigation system for the parking lot islands and the sodded areas between the highway and the parking lot. Lawn irrigation in the right-of-way may be waived if MnDOT will not allow it. It is also waived in the wetland buffer area. e. Post signs designating at least 88 customer and employee parking spaces. Install signs at the edge of the wetland-protection buffer which prohibit any building, mowing, cutting, filling or dumping within the buffer. 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. Community Design Review Board Minutes of 09-21-99 -5- 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 I if the building is occupied in the fall or winter or within six weeks if the building is occupied in the spring or summer. 5. This approval does not include the signs. Signage will be reviewed by staff through the sign permit process. 6. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 7. The window mullions shall be clear, anodized aluminum frames. The south elevation shall be revised per staff approval to show that portion of the southerly elevation from the windowed area back to the break in the building facade to be EIFS to align with the EIFS shown above the glass and block down below. The cornice shall also be continued across this fascia to the break in the elevation. Boardmember Jorgenson seconded. It was agreeable to both the motioner and seconder to indicate that the revised plans are date-stamped September 20, 1999. Ayes--all The motion passed. C. Resolution of Appreciation for Marie Robinson Chairperson Ledvina thanked Marie Robinson for the capable and wonderful service she provided to the community design review board for nine years. Boardmember Johnson moved adoption of the resolution of appreciation for Marie Robinson. Boardmember Shankar seconded. Ayes--all The motion passed. VII. VIII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS There were no visitor presentations. BOARD PRESENTATIONS Boardmember Shankar reported on the August 9 city council meeting. Boardmember Johnson reported on the August 23 city council meeting. Community Design Review Board Minutes of 09-21-99 -6- IX. STAFF PRESENTATIONS A. CDRB volunteer for the September 28 council meeting will be Boardmember Ledvina. CDRB volunteer for the October 11 council meeting will be Boardmember Shankar. Secretary Ekstrand said that the city code allows staff to review applications with a value of under $150,000 that are considered minor construction, i.e. a small addition on a building. He then sends a brief memo to the board and the city council. If there is any disagreement, the decision may be appealed within fifteen days. Mr. Ekstrand is working on a code amendment to review the dollar limit. The proposal is to allow staff review on valuations under $200,000 on buildings that have previously been reviewed by the board. If the building is old and predates the CDRB, the dollar figure would be $20,000. Chairperson Ledvina welcomed the two new members of the board--Jon LaCasse and Craig Jorgenson. Secretary Ekstrand gave the new members various materials and offered to give some type of orientation for new and existing members. This will be discussed at a future meeting. The members discussed the annual city tour that was held in August. X. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 7:12 p.m. MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: DATE: City Manager Thomas Ekstrand, Associate Planner Design Review- U,S, Bank West of 1770 Beam Avenue (Outback Steakhouse) November 9, 1999 INTRODUCTION Proposal Jeff Sandberg, of U.S. Bank, is proposing to build a 3,000-square-foot, one-story U.S. Bank office west of the Outback Steakhouse. Refer to pages 6-8. The proposed building would be bdck with a standing-seam metal roof. The bank would have three outdoor drive-up teller lanes on the back (south side) of the building. U.S. Bank would lease the site from Richard Schreier, the property owner. The applicant has shown a future driveway connection to the property to the west, as was proposed by the Outback Steakhouse. This drive would connect to the lot to the west when it develops. MalI-Araa Development Moratorium On October 25, 1999, the city council passed an interim ordinance establishing a six-month development moratorium for the Maplewood Mall area. The purpose of the moratorium is to give the city time to study development issues in this area. These include (but are not limited to) a retail market analysis, traffic and parking needs, lighting, landscaping and design standards. U.S. Bank's application came in before the moratorium ordinance came into effect and should be reviewed by the community design review board. BACKGROUND June 9, 1997: The city council approved the plans for the Outback Steakhouse east of the proposed U.S. Bank. DISCUSSION Site and Landscaping Issues The proposed building would be attractive and compatible with the development in this area. Staff has several suggestions, however, about the plans: The front (northerly) east-west drive aisle should line up with the Outback Steakhouse's drive aisle. In essence, the proposed northernmost curb should line up with the end of the parking stripes on the Outback site. The large landscaped islands proposed on the bank site should also line up with the three smaller islands on the Outback site to define this drive aisle. t · The proposed trees near the street should be placed to line up with the Outback's trees. · The landscape plan should provide for the restoration of the ground on the west side of the parking lot curb. · All green areas should be indicated as sod on the landscape plan. · The applicant should extend the sidewalk that is in front of the Outback to the westerly edge of their site. The proposed evergreen screening on the south side of the site should be increased to match that south of the Outback Steakhouse. The site plan approved for the Outback shows evergreen trees spaced at 12 foot intervals--the applicant's plan shows the trees spaced 15 to 18 feet on center. This would amount to three additional trees along the south side of the site. · Site Lighting: The applicant must submit a site-lighting plan as required by the code. The code requires site-lighting plans when a site abuts residential property. Parking and Curbing Parking is not a problem. The code requires 15 spaces---the applicant is proposing 31. Since this site shares access with the Outback Steakhouse, and has adjoined parking lots, it is also important to note that the Outback has 121 spaces---code requires 70. Roof-Equipment Screening The code requires that any visible roof-mounted mechanical equipment be screened from residential properties. The south and east sides of any visible roof-mounted equipment, therefore, must be screened from the neighbor's view. Sides facing commercial development must be painted to match the building. The CDRB may require screening all around the units for continuity. City Engineer's Comments The parking lot runoff is proposed to be routed to a catch basin in Beam Avenue. This is Ramsey County's catch basin. The applicant should contact the county about permission to hook up to their system. Watershed District Permit The applicant will need a permit from the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed Distdct since the site is over one acre in size. This review is independent of the city's review. The applicant should contact Rob Langer of the watershed distdct about their requirements and review process. Fire Marshal's Comments Butch Gervais, the Maplewood Fire Marshal, recommended that the applicant install "no parking" signs along the ddve aisles west and south of the building. RECOMMENDATION Approve the plans, date-stamped November 5, 1999, for the proposed U.S. Bank west of 1770 Beam Avenue, based on the findings required by the code. Approval is 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: a. Revise the plans for staff approval showing: The front (northerly) east-west drive aisle shall line up with the Outback Steakhouse's drive aisle. In essence, the proposed northernmost curb must line up with the end of the parking stripes on the Outback site. The large islands proposed on the bank site must also line up with the three smaller islands on the Outback site to define this drive aisle. (2) The proposed trees near the street shall be placed to line up with the Outback's trees. (3) The landscape plan shall provide for the restoration of the ground on the west side of the parking lot curb. (4) All green areas shall be shown as sod on the landscape plan. (5) The applicant shall extend the sidewalk that is in front of the Outback to the westerly edge of their site. (6) The proposed evergreen screening on the south side of the site shall be increased to match that south of the Outback steakhouse. The applicant shall plant a staggered row of 12 six-foot-tall spruce trees placed 12 feet apart. (7) (8) The applicant must submit a site-lighting plan as required by the code which gives special attention to the residential side of the property. Roof-equipment screening if there would be any roof-top equipment visible from the residential sides of the property. b. Submit grading, drainage, utility and erosion control plans to the city engineer for approval. In addition to completion of the items listed above, the applicant shall also do the following before occupying the building: a. Install a handicap parking sign for each handicap parking space. One space must be van accessible. b. Paint the roof-top mechanical equipment to match the color of the upper part of the building unless the units are hidden or screened by enclosures. 3 c. Construct a bdck trash dumpster enclosure to match the building with a 100 percent opaque gate if trash is stored outside. The trash dumpster is subject to staff review and approval. d. Install an in-ground lawn irrigation system for all landscaped areas. (code requirement) e. Install "no parking" signs west and south of the building along the ddve aisles. The number and placement of these signs shall be subject to the fire marshal's approval. 4. If any required work is not done, the city may allow temporary occupancy if: a. The city determines that the work is not essential to the public health, safety or welfare. b. The 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. 5. This approval does not include the signs. Signage will be reviewed by staff through the sign permit process. 6. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION site size: acres: 1.14 acres Existing land use: Undeveloped SURROUNDING LAND USES North: Beam Avenue, Olive Garden and Birch Run Station South: Undeveloped property zoned R3-C (multiple dwelling-townhouses) West: Undeveloped property zoned BC(M) East: Outback Steakhouse Restaurant PLANNING Land Use Plan designation: BC(M) (business commercial-modified) Zoning: BC(M) Ordinance Requirements Section 25-70 of the city code requires that the CDRB make the following findings to approve plans: 1. That the design and location of the proposed development and its relationship to neighboring; existing or proposed developments and traffic is such that it will not impair the desirability of investment or occupation in the neighborhood; that it will not unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring, existing or proposed developments; and that it will not create traffic hazards or congestion. 2. That the design and location of the proposed development is in keeping with the character of the surrounding neighborhood and is not detrimental to the harmonious, orderly and attractive development contemplated by this article and the city's comprehensive municipal plan. 3. That the design and location of the proposed development would provide a desirable environment for its occupants, as well as for its neighbors, and that it is aesthetically of good composition, materials, textures and colors. p:sec3\usbank.des Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Property Line/Zoning Map 3. Site Plan 4. Plans date-stamped November 5, 1999 (separate attachment) 5 Attachment 1 VADNAIS HEIGHTS COUNIY COUNTY EXTANT AVE. 1. SUMMIT CT. 2. COUNTRYV1EW CIR. ,3. DULUTH CT. 4. LYDIA ST. B~ KOHLMAN GERVA~3 AVE. SHERREN AVE. 'B RAMSEY COUNTY COURT K~HI..MAN D£MONT £D~EHlU. RD. AVE. z z v Lake AVE. CT. AVE. COPE AVE. LAUI ROSEWOOO AVE. N. RAMSEY COUNTY _ LOCATION MAP Attachment 2 BIRCH RUN STATION · SHOPPING CENTER B C~ MAPLEWOOD MALL L0'11'-8 I · I ,. OLIVE m mnmHunmmLAVE. MAPLEWOOD II MOVIE THEATRES ~ ~0J .? Attachment 3 BEAM AVENUE PROPOSED BANK PROPOSED U.S. BANK SITE PLAN 8 C~ OUTBACK STEAKHOUSE OUTBACK STEAKHOUSE TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: MEMORANDUM City Manager Thomas Ekstrand, Associate Planner Plan Review Procedure for Minor Construction Projects October 4, 1999 INTRODUCTION Staff is requesting that the city council increase the dollar limits for "minor construction" projects. Presently, the code allows the staff to approve the following types of "minor construction" projects: 1. Construction projects where the dollar amount of the proposed construction does not exceed $15,000. This type of construction project pertains to multi-family, commercial and industrial building-alteration proposals to structures that were never reviewed by the community design review board (CDRB). 2. In instances where the CDRB a0_oroved the original building desi0n plans, the code allows staff to approve building alterations or additions if the construction amount does not exceed $150,000. BACKGROUND January 23, 1979: The city council established the ordinance allowing staff to approve "minor construction" projects. This allowed staff to approve minor construction projects under the amounts of $10,000 if the CDRB had not approved the odginal building plans and under $100,000 if the CDRB had approved the odginal plans. February 18, 1982: The city council amended the code to increase these dollar limits to $12,000 and $120,000. January 28, 1991: The city council amended the code to increase these dollar limits to $15,000 and $150,000. The council also revised the code to allow future changes by resolution instead of by code change each time. RECENT EXAMPLES OF STAFF APPROVALS 1. Minnesota Motors building addition to add office space. 2. Acorn Mini Storage building design change. 3. Caribou Coffee store front remodel at Maple Ridge Shopping Center. 4. Dege Garden Center outdoor plant storage addition. 5. Godfather's Pizza remodeling as Wedding Day Jewelers. 6. Perkin's Restaurant addition (County Road D facility) and front facade remodel. 7. St. John's Hospital addition. DISCUSSION The ordinance is beneficialmlt permits a quicker review of small projects that are generally not controversial. This saves the applicant, staff, CDRB and city council time. The code, furthermore, still gives the CDRB and city council 15 days to appeal staff's decision if they disagree or propose a change. The city council has not revised these construction-cost limits since 1991. The construction-cost limits for minor construction projects should be adjusted to reflect the increase in inflation since the last increase. According to Dan Faust, the Maplewood Finance Director, inflation has increased an average of three percent each year in the last five years. It is reasonable to assume that it has increased about this amount each year since the last revision in 1991. At three percent per year, inflation would have increased 24 percent since 1991. An increase of 24 percent in each of the two valuation categories, would translate to increases from $15,000 to $19,000 and $150,000 to $190,000. Staff is proposing rounding these limits to $20,000 and $200,000. RECOMMENDATION Adopt the resolution on page 3, increasing the dollar limits for "minor construction" projects that staff can approve. The amount of increase is from $15,000 to $20,000 for older developments that were not previously reviewed by the community design review board and from $150,000 to $200,000 for renovations to developments previously approved by the board. p:ord~$-Iimits.ord Attachment: Resolution RESOLUTION INCREASING DOLLAR LIMITS OF MINOR BUILDING PROJECTS WHEREAS, Section 25-65(a) of the Maplewood Code of Ordinances requires that the city council define minor building projects by dollar limits; WHEREAS, construction costs have increased enough to warrant that the city council increase the previous dollar limits of $15,000 and $150,000; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that a minor building project is any extedor construction under $20,000 in value, except additions to buildings that the community design review board previously approved. In this case, a minor construction project must be less than $200,000 in value and similar in design to the existing building. Adopted ,1999. TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: MEMORANDUM City Manager Thomas Ekstrand, Associate Planner New Community Design Review Board Member Orientation October 22, 1999 INTRODUCTION On September 21, 1999, community design review board (CDRB) Chairperson Ledvina asked staff to hold an orientation session for the new design review board members. There are several items staff wishes to discuss. Origination of the CDRB Purpose and Ob!ective The CDRB was established by the city council in 1972. As the ordinance states, the board was established to "encourage the orderly and harmonious growth of the city." The objective of the board is to "provide for the orderly and harmonious appearance of structures and property, maintain the public health, safety and welfare, maintain property values and encourage the physical development of the city as intended by the comprehensive plan." I have enclosed a copy of the CDRB ordinance for your reference and information. Approval Authority and Appeals The CDRB has the authority to approve development proposals when there are no zoning or land use issues (variances, conditional use permits, right-of-way vacations, rezoning, etc). Zoning and land use issues are reviewed by the planning commission who forward a recommendation to the city council. Development reviews take into account issues like building aesthetics (including design and materials), grading and drainage, landscaping, parking lot layouts and on-site traffic circulation. The CDRB also reviews sign plans for commercial buildings with five or more tenants. Appeals of the CDRB's Decisions Anybody can appeal a CDRB decision. An appellant has 15 days from the CDRB action to lodge an appeal. The city council reviews all appeals. The code allows staff to approve minor construction proposals. Minor construction projects are those that do not exceed $15,000 for changes to buildings not previously approved by the CDRB and those that do not exceed $150,000 for changes to buildings that were approved by the CDRB. When staff does an administrative review of a minor construction proposal, we submit a copy of the report to the CDRB and city council for review. If a member of the board or council has questions or concerns with the proposal or staff decision, they must contact the staff within the 15-day appeal period. Agenda Packets City staff prepares the agenda packets the week before the scheduled meeting. These packets contain the staff report and plans for each item to be reviewed. We mail the packets to the CDRB member's homes so they receive them the Friday or Saturday before the meeting. CDRB Member's Responsibility Each board member should review the staff reports and visit the properties in question to form an opinion of the project and become familiar with the proposal before the meeting. Meeting Dates, Starting Time, Meeting Location, Quorum, Meeting Cancellations and Officers Meeting days: The 2nd & 4th Tuesdays of each month. Starting time: 6:00 p.m. Meeting Location: City council chambers at Maplewood City Hall, 1830 County Road B East. Quorum: Three members must be present to vote and take action on a proposal. Cancellations/ Rescheduling: Staff will inform the CDRB members of meeting cancellations. Meetings are canceled when we cannot get a quorum or if there are no new proposals to review. Sometimes we reschedule instead of cancel meetings based on urgencies of the developer in the event they cannot wait another two weeks. On occasion, we combine the two meetings into one meeting a month based on work load. In any event, staff will contact the membership. Officers: Each January, the CDRB elects a chairperson and vice chairperson. Rules of Procedure I have touched on many of the provisions in the Rules of Procedure in this report. Refer to the attachment, however, for the complete rules. 2 Design Requirements I have attached a handout titled Standard Site Design Requirements which is attached to the CDRB application for developers information. This handout includes many of the site-design elements we require or often recommend. Community Development Staff The department of community development consists of three city planners (the director of community development and two associate planners), two full time building-department personnel (also three part time), one environmental health official, four cledcal staff personnel (two full time and two part time) and one geographic information systems (GIS) person. Telephone numbers for staff members that you may need are: Melinda Coleman, Director of Community Development Tom Ekstrand, Associate Planner Ken Roberts, Associate Planner Judy Wegwerth, Department Secretary (651) 770-4562 (651) 770-4563 (651) 770-4566 (651) 770-4569 SUMMARY This information is intended to give new CDRB members a bdefing of the board's review process and meeting schedule. Please feel free to call me at anytime. pcom_dvpt~cdrbmem.1 (6.2) Attachments: 1. CDRB Ordinance 2. Rules of Procedure 3. Standard Site Design Requirements Handout 4. Telephone numbers for City Council, Planning Commission and CDRB 3 Attachment 1 PLANNING AND ZONING AGENCIES ARTICLE III. RESERVED* Secs. 25-41--25-60. Reserved. § 25-62 ARTICLE IV. COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARDt Sec. 25-61. 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. (Ord. No. 334, § 1 (202.110), 10-19-72) Sec. 25-62. Purposes of article. It is the purpose of this article to: (1) Recognize the interdependence of land values and aesthet- ics, and provide a method by which the city may implement this interdependence to its benefit. - *Editor's note~Ch. 25, Art. III, §§ 25-41--25-45, formerly concerned the board of appeals and derived from Code 1965, §§ 202.110--202.113, 202.115; Ord. No. 208, §§ 1---4, 6, adopted Dec. 30, 1965; Ord. No. 238, § 2, adopted April 18, 1968 and Ord. No. 285, § 1, adopted June 3, 1971. Said provisions have been deleted inasmuch as an amendment to the 1965 Code sections, enacted by Ord. No. 518, § 1, adopted July 12, 1982, provided that the board of appeals and adjustments be replaced by the city council. The user's attention is directed to § 2-26 of this Code for provisions concerning the council's authority to hear and decide appeals and variances. ~Cross references--Administration, Ch. 2; boards, committees and commis- sions generally, § 2-61 et seq. Supp. No. 11 1543 PLANNING AND ZONING AGENCIES § 25-70 Sec. 25-70. Review of application and accompanying ma- terials; required findings for recommended approval; recommended conditions for ap- proval; etc. (a) The community design review board shall review the written materials submitted with the application under section 25-68 of this article with respect to the following aspects of the proposal: (1) Generalsite utilization. (2) General architectural considerations, including a review of: a. The height, bulk and area of all buildings on the site. The colors and materials to be used. c. The physical and architectural relationship of the pro- posed 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 arti- cie III of chapter 36 of this Code, 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) That the design and location of the proposed development and its relationship to neighboring, existing or proposed de- velopments 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 en- joyment of neighboring, existing or proposed developments; and that it will not create traffic hazards or congestion. (2) That the design and location of the proposed development is in keeping with the character of the surrounding neighbor- hood and is not detrimental to the harmonious, orderly and 1551 § 25-70 MAPLEWOOD CODE attractive development contemplated by this article and the city comprehensive municipal plan. (3) That the design and location of the proposed development would provide a desirable environment for its occupants, as well as for its neighbors, and that it is aesthetically of good composition, materials, textures and colors. (c) The board, in its recommended actions for approval, may: (1) Recommend any conditions that it deems reasonable to its action of approval. (2) Recommend that the applicant, as a condition, provide guar- antees that the conditions of approval will be complied with. (Ord. No. 334, § $, 10-19-72; Ord. No. 427, § 18, 7-14-77) Sec. 25-71. Recommendations for the establishment of special community design review areas and specific development criteria in relation thereto. 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 said areas, be established. The planning commission shall review such recommendations and shall recommend approval, modification or denial of same to the city council. The city council shall take the final action on all such recommendations and may designate said areas by resolution. (Ord. No. 334, § 10, 10-19-72) Sec. 25-72. Final inspections and occupancy permits for developments reviewed by board. 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 article, unless the completed work complies with the plans approved and the conditions required by the city council pursuant to the provisions of this article. (Ord. No. 334, § 11, 10-19-72) 1552 [The next page is 1603] Attachment 2 COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RULES OF PROCEDURE We, the members of the Community Design Review Board of the City of Maplewood, Minnesota, created pursuant to Article IV, Section 25 of the Code of Ordinances, hereby adopt the following "Rules of Procedure," subject to the provisions of said Article, which is hereby made a part of these Rules: I. MEETINGS All meetings shall be held in the council chambers in Maplewood City Hall, 1830 E. County Road B, unless otherwise directed by the chairperson or staff, in which case at least 24 hours notice will be given to all members. Regular meetings shall be held at 6 p.m. on the second and fourth Tuesdays of each calendar month, provided that when the meeting falls on a legal holiday or voting day, such meeting shall be rescheduled. Special meetings may be held upon call by the chairperson, or in his/her absence, by the vice chairperson, or by any other member with the concurrence of two other members of the board with at least 48 hours notice to all members. I1. QUORUM A. Three members of the board shall constitute a quorum. Any member who abstains from voting on a particular question because of possible conflict of interest shall not be considered to be a member of the board for the purpose of determining a quorum for the consideration of the issue. C. Any action by the board shall require a majodty vote of the members present. II1. DUTIES OF THE CHAIRMAN In addition to presiding at all meetings of the board, the chairperson shall appoint such standing committees and temporary committees as may be required, and such committees will be charged with the duties, examinations, investigations, and inquiries relative to subjects assigned by the chairperson. B. No standing or temporary committee shall have the power to commit the board to the endorsement of any plan or program without the express approval of the board. IV. ELECTION OF OFFICERS The chairperson, vice chairperson and such officers as the board may decide are needed, shall be appointed at the second meeting of each calendar year and will serve until their successors have been duly elected and qualified. 10 Bo In the absence of the chairperson, the vice chairperson shall perform the duties of the chairperson. In the event that both are absent, the members present shall elect a chairperson pro tern. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD VACANCIES A. The following are grounds for recommending to the city council the dismissal of a community design review board member: 1. Failure to serve, as shown by failure to attend six meetings in any calendar year, without good cause. 2. Resignation in writing. 3. Taking public office in Maplewood. 4. Moving out of Maplewood. VI. DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT A. In addition to carrying out the duties prescribed in city ordinance, the director or a designated replacement, shall: 1. Prepare the agenda for each meeting. 2. Act as technical advisor to the board on any matter which comes before the board. 3. Make written recommendations to the board on matters such as, but not limited to, architectural plans, site plans, signage and landscaping proposals. 4. Inspect the construction of all projects approved by the board for plan compliance. 5. Schedule any matter with the city council that has been reviewed by the board that requires city council approval. VII. AGENDA A. Copies of the agenda, together with pertinent staff reports and copies of the minutes of the previous meeting, shall be made available to each member of the board not later than three days prior to the next scheduled meeting. B. The agenda format shall read as follows: 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes 4. Approval of Agenda 5. Unfinished Business 6. Design Review 7. Visitor Presentations 8. Board Presentations 9. Staff Presentations 10. Adjournment C. The board shall only consider items on the agenda. D. The board's review shall include, but shall not be limited to, the following items: 1. Site Considerations: a. Utilities b. Drainage c. Landscaping - fence, screening d. Traffic flow, parking and driveway access e. Trash receptacle enclosure f. Building setbacks g. Secudty lighting h. Access for emergency vehicles 2. Architectural Considerations: Co Materials - compatible with neighboring buildings; such as block, metal, brick, etc., including colors. Building aesthetics - compatible with neighboring buildings, scale of building, size in relation to surroundings, fiat roof vs. pitched roof, etc. Location and concealment of outside equipment, e.g. air conditioning, and outside storage yards. VIII. AMENDMENT OR SUSPENSION OF RULES A. Any of the foregoing rules may be temporarily suspended by a majority vote of the members present. B. The "Rules of Procedure" may be amended at any regular meeting by a majority vote. IX. RULES OF ORDER Except as herein provided, Robert's Rules of Order, shall be followed. p:miscell~rules, drb(6.2) Revised: March 24, 1997 Attachment 3 STANDARD SITE DESIGN REQUIREMENTS City of Maplewood 1830 East County Road B Maplewood, MN 55109 770-4560 All developments shall be required to meet the following design standards: Parking lots 1. Minimum parking lot dimensions: 90 Degree Parking (in feet) Use Stall width Stall length Aisle width Customer, high turnover Customer, Iow turnover Employee only 10 18 24 9.5 18 24 9.0 18 24 Customer, high turnover Customer, Iow turnover Employee only 60 Degree Parking (in feet) 10 15.6 22 9.5 15.6 22 9.0 15.6 22 45 Degree Parking (in feet) Customer, high turnover Customer, Iow turnover Employee only 10 12.6 22.6 9.5 12.6 22.6 9.0 12.6 22.6 "Customer, high turnover" uses include shopping centers, retail sales, fast food restaurants, convenience centers and similar uses. "Customer, Iow turnover" uses include offices, industrial, schools, churches, research, multiple-dwellings, motels, sit-down restaurants and similar uses. bo You may reduce the parking stall length by 2.5 feet for 90 degree parking and two feet for angle parking if the parking space abuts a curb, sidewalk or landscaped area. Handicap-accessible parking spaces shall meet ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) requirements. These spaces shall be adjacent to the building whenever possible. 13 3. In shopping centers and other large developments, you must orient the parking drives closest to the building, perpendicular to the building whenever practical. 4. Do not put a parking stall in front of a building entrance, if there is no sidewalk there. 5. Do not use interlocking or herringbone designs for parking stalls. 6. The City may require a ten-foot-wide planter or median strip every three or four parking rows. The purpose is to prevent high-speed movement diagonally across the parking lot and to improve esthetics. 7. Provide continuous concrete curb around all parking lots and drives having 13 or more parking spaces. Curbing may be required around smaller lots if it is needed for drainage control. 8. You must pave all parking lots and drives. 9. Curb cuts shall be thirty feet in width. 10. Collect all parking lot drainage and pipe it to a storm sewer when available. 11. Minimum number of parking stalls required: a. Retail and office--one space/200 square feet of gross floor area. b. Warehouse and manufacturing--one space/each two employees or one space/I,000 square feet of warehousing and one space/400 square feet for manufacturing, whichever is more. c. Restaurant--one space/each 50 square feet of floor area devoted to patron use. Patron areas include everything but "employee only" areas. d. Theaters, auditoriums, churches, or other places of public assemblage--one space/four seats. Schools--one space/4 auditorium seats. Minimum setbacks The following minimum setbacks are required: 1. A 15-foot landscaped yard between a parking lot and a public right-of-way. 2. ^ 30-foot front building setback for commercial, industrial and multi-family developments. 3. A 50-foot building setback when abutting property that is used or shown on the City's land use plan for residential use. This setback shall be increased up to one hundred (100) feet based on the more restrictive of the following requirements: 14 ao Building height: The building setbacks shall be increased two (2) feet for each one foot the building exceeds twenty-five (25) feet in height. Exterior wall area: Where an exterior wall faces a residentially zoned property, the wall setback from the residential lot line shall be as follows: o Wall Area (square feet) Minimum Setback (feet) 0 -1999 50 2000-2999 75 3000 or more 100 You must provide a landscaped area of not less than twenty feet in width where: a. A nonresidential use abuts residentially-zoned property. b. A multiple dwelling abuts property zoned for single or double dwellings. Screening o The City may require the screening of outdoor storage where such storage would be visible from residential areas or roadways. The City may also require screening where the storage is unsightly to adjacent commercial development. Roof-top equipment shall be screened when it can be viewed from residential properties. Screen parking lots where the light from automobile headlights and other sources would shine onto residential windows. To meet the screening requirement, you must use a decorative wood fence, berming, evergreen plantings or a combination of these. Screening must be at least six-feet-tall and 80% opaque upon installation. You must provide trash container enclosures for any outdoor trash storage. Provide concrete-filled steel posts, or the equivalent, anchored in the ground at the front corners of the enclosure. If the enclosure is masonry, you may omit the protective posts. You must have a 100% opaque wooden gate installed on the enclosure. Landscaping Landscape design and materials should help to relate the architecture to the site and to the surrounding environment. Landscaping and grading plans must maximize the preservation of desirable existing vegetation and the use of native plants. 3. Try to use maple trees when appropriate. 15 4. Minimum tree sizes: 2 ~ inch B & B minimum for large deciduous trees, 1 ~ inch B & B minimum for ornamental deciduous trees and 6-foot height minimum for evergreen trees. 5. Try not to space trees more than thirty feet apart. 6. Maplewood does not allow Russian olive trees. Lighting 1. Provide security lighting. 2. Have all exterior lighting directed on-site so there is no glare onto adjacent property or streets. Please contact the Planning Office for specific requirements concerning your site. FOR CITY USE ONLY Attachment 4 George Rossbach, Mayor 1406 County Road C E 55109 484-3081 - home PLANNING COMMISSION Lorraine B. Fischer, Chair 1812 Fumess St 55109 777-5037 - home 215-2245 - work (Tue & Thu p.m.) Marv Koppen 1646 Demont Av 55109 770-5391 - home 770-1447 - city use only Sherry Allenspach 1893 Birmingham St 55109 779-8470 - home 771-3578 - city use only Dale Carlson 1513 Gervais Av 55109 779-9529 - home Kevin Kittridge 2399 Linwood Ct 55119 739-4234 - home 779-5914 - work COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD Matt Ledvina, Chair 1173 Lakewood Dr S 55119 578-1658 - home 559-1423 - work Ananth Shankar 2460 King Av E 55119 730-5966 - home 290-1938 - work Tim Johnson 1649 Lakewood Dr N 55119 770-5547 - home 770-9600 - work (ask for Bldg. Supplies) Craig Jorgenson 1639 Sandhurst Av E 55109 779-8742 - home (612) 827-5656 - work Jon LaCasse 2108 Atlantic St N 55109 486-7860 - home 642-9200 - work William Rossbach 1386 County Road C E 55109 484-5427 - home 779-0218 - work 363-6832 - pager & mobile Gary A. Pearson 1209 Antelope Way 55119 777-9197 - home 454-8128 - work (not on Monday) 777-1341 - work (not on Monday) 643-9796 - pager Jack Frost 2324 Maple Lane E 55109 777-8019 - home 602-1078 - work Milo Thompson 1794 Onacrest Curve 55117 488-8068 Matt Ledvina 1173 Lakewood Dr S 55119 578-1658 - home 559-1423 - work Michael Seeber 415 E Belmont Lane 55117 778-8807 - home 227-9520 - work Dale Trippler 1201 Junction AvenueE 55109-3433 490-1485 - home 297-8483 - work Paul Mueller 1820 Onacrest Court 55117 487-5514 - home 641-8830 - work p:\com_dvpt\office\commpri.dir Rev. 9-30-99 17