Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/08/2000BOOK AGENDA MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD February 8, 2000 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: January 18, 2000 4. Approval of Agenda 5. Unfinished Business 6. Design Review a. Maplewood Retail Shopping Center, 2271 White Bear Avenue - Reliance Development Company b. North St. Paul Post Office Annex, 1686 Gervais Avenue - U. S. Postal Service c. 1999 Annual Report Reconsideration 7. Visitor Presentations 8. Board Presentations 9. Staff Presentations a. Reminder: CDRB Volunteer for February 14 City Council Meeting is Matt Ledvina. (Item to be reviewed is Woodlynn Heights Townhomes No. 7.) b. CDRB Volunteer Needed fOr February 28 City Council Meeting. (Items to be reviewed are the Maplewood Retail Shopping Center and the North St. Paul Post Office.) 10. Adjoum p:com-dvpt~cdrb.agd WELC~OME TO THIS MEETING OF THE (2OMMUNITY DI=SiON 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. The Board will then discuss the proposal. No further public comments are allowed. 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~7,drb.agd Revised: 11-09-94 MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA JANUARY 18, 2000 CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Ledvina called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Matt Ledvina Ananth Shankar Tim Johnson Jon LaCasse Craig Jorgenson Present Present Present Present Present (arrived at 6:05 p.m.) III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES December 21, 1999 Commissioner Shankar moved approval of the minutes of December 21, 1999 as submitted. Commissioner Johnson seconded. Ayes--all IV. APPROVAL OFAGENDA Commissioner LaCasse moved approval of the agenda as submitted. Commissioner Shankar seconded. Ayes--all V. UNFINISHED BUSINESS There was no unfinished business. VI. DESIGN REVIEW Woodlynn Heights Townhomes, Woodlynn Avenue--PJK Realty Secretary Tom Ekstrand presented the staff report. Patrick Kinney was present to discuss his proposal. Mr. Kinney was agreeable to "beefing up" the landscaping to make it compatible with that of the existing townhouse units in the development. He did not have samples of the materials to be used or the exterior colors but said they would be earth-tone, quality materials "equal or superior" to those used in the previous buildings, i.e. Anderson or Marvin windows, upgraded vinyl siding, etc. Mr. Kinney also said these units would probably be built by a "quality" contractor who has done a lot of building in the northeast metro area. Secretary Ekstrand pointed out that the existing units do not all match. Lap siding, cedar, vinyl, etc. have all been used on the other buildings. Chairperson Ledvina asked how the setback variance request related to possible encroaching into the easement. Mr. Kinney replied that, with the NSP high voltage line in the back of the property and the size of the units, they thought it would be most logical to line these buildings up with the existing units. Secretary Ekstrand said he researched the prior units and they were required to comply with the 15-foot setback ordinance. For some reason, they did not and the error was not caught. Mr. Ekstrand thought it was more important "to go with consistency" and, therefore, recommended approval of this variance to keep the units in line. Community Design Review Board Minutes of 01-18-00 -2- Mr. Kinney said a variegated brown/black, upgraded, asphalt shingle with a 3-dimensional look would be used. Mr. Ekstrand confirmed that there was adequate parking. Chairperson Ledvina wasn't sure that it "made the most sense" to continue the setback variance, especially on a busy street such as Woodlynn. He suggested "stair-stepping" the units back--perhaps putting the first unit back three to four feet and the next one at the proper setback. After observing the difference in setback on the existing units, he thought it was rather "a nice variance." Chairperson Ledvina also thought the front facade of these townhomes could be "dressed up in some way," perhaps with a dormer, to add architectural interest. He referred to the turret- design and bay window on the townhomes to the east. Mr. Kinney said the plan is to build these units in three stages and the color has not been decided upon. Boardmember Shankar indicated that whether the buildings were going to be the same color might affect his view on the setback issue. Mr. Kinney did not see any reason why the buildings would not all be the same color. Mr. Shankar thought, if all the units were the same color, it would help to separate the developments by pushing the new buildings back eight feet to the north. Mr. Shankar thought it was best to move all the buildings in this group back because the lots "are not that huge." Mr. Kinney asked to make a comment. He noted that the units further to the east on McKnight Road are set back more but they tend to be more lineal. They are two-story units with living space over the garage. The new units have the garage more to the front of the street. Mr. Shankar said that since the garage is so prominent in front, pushing the units back would "downplay" the garage. Secretary Ekstrand pointed out that the stairways from the decks on the back extend straight out to the north. If the units were set back, these stairways would go inside the NSP easement. According to Mr. Ekstrand, this should technically not Occur. Mr. Ekstrand spoke about the bay area bump-outs on the adjacent units. He said the problem with the proposed three-plexes is that they have to be twenty feet apart between buildings. This could be an encroachment problem. Mr. Ledvina said he was not specifically suggesting that bump-outs be added. He was using the bay window as an example of a nice architectural detail that could be used. Secretary Ekstrand said it is seven or eight feet to the easement line from the back of the buildings as they are now proposed. Mr. Ledvina suggested that the steps on the back could run from east to west. It was also mentioned that a small landing with the stairs running along the wall of the house might work. Mr. Ekstrand suggested no stairs on the back of the deck or obtaining written permission from NSP to encroach into the easement. Mr. Shankar could easily see the steps being worked into the covered portion of the deck without having to protrude out by "going on the side." According to Mr. Ekstrand, the city engineer indicated there were no drainage issues with this proposal. It is a standard condition to ask the applicant for provide a drainage plan for city approval. Boardmember Shankar said he was having difficulty understanding the number of steps shown in the elevation and in the plan. Mr. Ekstrand thought the grade issues could be fine- tuned with the city engineer and building official's review Of the plans. Mr. Shankar was of the opinion that the back steps should be worked into the deck and the units moved back to the easement line. Another boardmember agreed with Mr. Shankar. Mr. Ledvina said the accent trim on the garages was "a step in the right direction" but the garages were really significant. Mr. Shankar felt that staff should have an opportunity to review the color of these units before approval, especially since there are a variety of colors on the existing buildings. Community Design Review Board Minutes of 01-18-00 -3- Mr. Kinney requested that if the variance was not going to be approved, since part of the recommendation was to approve a variance subject to the applicant revising the landscape plan, the landscape plan be lessened to basically meet the city code but not necessarily be as aggressive as that to the east. Mr. Ekstrand said he would still make the same recommendation for additional landscaping because the existing six buildings have essentially the same landscaping scheme. He would not care to see less on these proposed buildings. Boardmember Shankar moved the Community Design Review Board recommend: A. Denial of a resolution that would approve a seven-foot front setback variance for Woodlynn Heights Townhomes Number 7. Approval of the plans date-stamped December 3, 1999 for Woodlynn Heights No. 7 Townhomes, based on the findings required by the code. The developer, Patrick Kinney, shall do the following: 1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. Before getting a building permit the applicant shall: a. Submit a grading, drainage, utility and erosion control plan to the city engineer for approval. b. Submit a revised landscape plan to staff for approval which incorporates the following details: (1) Seven spruce trees, two clumps of birch trees and six Iow-growing shrubs in the front yards on each side of the entrance driveways for each three-plex. (2) The spruce trees must be at least six feet tall and the birch at least 2 Y2 inches in caliper, balled and burlapped. (3) The plantings proposed around the front of the units shown on the landscape plan date-stamped December 3, 1999 shall remain on the plan. (4) In addition to the above, all front side and rear yard areas shall be sodded (except for mulched and edged planting beds and the area within the NSP easement) and an in-ground lawn irrigation system shall be installed for all landscape areas (code requirement). (5) No landscaping shall take place in the boulevard and the boulevard shall be restored with sod. c. Stake the NSP easement line and the front and side lot lines with survey irons. d. Revise the site plan to increase the driveway turnaround setback from the east lot line to five feet (code requirement). e. Present a color scheme for each building to staff for approval. 3. Complete the following before occupying the building: a. Replace property irons that are removed because of this construction. Community Design Review Board Minutes of 01-18-00 -4- b. Restore and sod damaged boulevards. Sod all landscaped areas except for the area within the NSP easement which may be seeded. c. Install an automatic in-ground irrigation system. d. Extension of the five-foot-wide concrete sidewalk to the west lot line of this development. 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 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. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. Boardmember LaCasse seconded. Chairperson Ledvina said, as the discussion related to denial of the variance, the potential design issues related to the buildings not aligning were not sufficient to offset the negative aspects of the reduced setback of those buildings. Ayes--all The motion passed. B. 1999 Annual Report Secretary Tom Ekstrand presented the staff report. Chairperson Ledvina asked if there were any issues that the board wanted to address. He was satisfied with the report as submitted. Mr. Ekstrand thought there would be a good opportunity to consider new issues once the report is in from the consultant regarding the moratorium on development in the Maplewood Mall area. He felt there might be some specific design issues related to this and also the White Bear Avenue corridor study. Mr. Ekstrand also suggested tabling this annual report until after the White Bear Avenue discussion at the January 19, 2000, planning commission meeting. It was the consensus of the board that this item be continued until the next meeting to see what issues evolve from the White Bear Avenue study presentation at the planning commission meeting. C. Election of Chair and Vice Chair Chairperson Matt Ledvina presented the staff report. Boardmember Shankar nominated Mr. Ledvina as chair. Mr. Shankar asked to be removed from the vice-chair position because of VIII. Community Design Review Board -5- Minutes of 01-18-00 other committments. Mr. Ledvina accepted the nomination. Boardmember Ledvina nominated Mr. Johnson as vice-chair. Mr. Johnson accepted. Chairperson Ledvina moved that Matt Ledvina continue as chairperson of the Community Design Review Board with Tim Johnson as the vice-chair. Boardmember Jorgenson seconded. Ayes--all The motion passed. VII, VISITOR PRESENTATIONS There were no visitor presentations. BOARD PRESENTATIONS There were no board presentations. IX. STAFF PRESENTATIONS A. CDRB Volunteer Needed for February 14 City Council Meeting: Mr. Ledvina will attend. B. Reminder: January 25 meeting is canceled. C. January 19 Planning Commission Meeting: White Bear Avenue Corridor Study Secretary Tom Ekstrand said a consulting team has been put together to do a study on the White Bear Avenue corridor. Bob Close of Close Landscape Architecture, the team leader, is trying to devise a beautification scheme for White Bear Avenue. Mr. Ekstrand invited the board members to the meeting. X. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 7:06 p.m. MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: DATE: City Manager Thomas Ekstrand, Associate Planner Maplewood Retail (former Bali Hal site) 2271 White Bear Avenue February 1, 2000 INTRODUCTION Project Description Vince Driessen, of Reliance Development Company, is proposing to build a 16,367-square-foot restaurant/retail center on the former Bali Hal Restaurant site, 2271 White Bear Avenue. The proposed building would have an extedor of decorative concrete block, bdck, stucco and EIFS (exterior insolation finish system--a stucco-look material). Refer to pages 8-11. Requests The applicant is requesting that the city approve: 1. A ten-foot parking lot setback variance from the Highway 36 right-of-way. The code requires a 15-foot setback; the applicant is proposing five feet. Refer to the letter on pages 12-13. A conditional use permit (CUP) because the proposed building would be 200 feet from a residential distdct (the center line of White Bear Avenue). The code requires a CUP for buildings in an M1 (light manufacturing) distdct if they would be closer than 350 feet to a residential zone. Refer to the letter on pages 14-15. 3. The architectural, site, signage and landscape plans. DISCUSSION Parking Lot Setback Variance Staff feels that the city council should approve this variance since: The highway fight-of-way ranges in width from 52 feet to 100 feet adjacent to the proposed north/northeast lot line. With the proposed five feet of setback, there would be 57 feet to 105 feet of green space to the shoulder of the highway off ramp. This is well over the typical green strip width between a parking lot and a street which is usually 25 to 30 feet (15 feet of on-site setback and 10 to 15 feet of boulevard). The green strip in this case would be substantial and would easily meet the spirit and intent of the ordinance. The parking lot setbacks proposed are substantially better than the existing ones. Currently the Bali Hal parking lot is at the lot line, and in areas, extends into the fight-of-way. The applicant's plan would improve this current situation. 3. The site is somewhat difficult to fit a development since it has three street frontages and has an irregular shape. Conditional Use Permit The code is intended to give the city an opportunity to require additional buffering, if needed, when reviewing plans for a building in an M1 zone that would be closer than 350 feet to a residential district. In this case, the proposed building would have a 200-foot setback from the residential zoning district line, which is the center of White Bear Avenue. The proposed development would not adversely impact the nursing home and assisted-living facility to the east which are the closest residential buildings. The nursing home would be 910 feet from the proposed building; the assisted-living facility would be 720 feet away. Staff feels that there would be no negative impact visually or by the activity generated by this building. The existing traffic on White Bear Avenue would be a greater cause of disturbance than the proposed development. The Bali Hai restaurant, in fact, would have a greater potential for disturbance due to late night activity than this proposal. To soften the view of the proposed building and site complex from the east, though, the applicant should provide trees on the White Bear Avenue side. The landscape plan does not show any plantings in this strip which encompasses a 160-foot stretch of site. Design Considerations Building Aesthetics The proposed building would be attractive and the materials compatible with the surrounding development. The applicant is currently working on the color scheme for the building and will have it available for presentation to the design review board. Landscaping The applicant proposes to relocate two large pine trees to the southeast lot line and preserve four mature ash trees along the south lot line. The additional trees proposed would largely be acceptable. Except as stated above, staff recommends that the applicant plant additional trees along the White Bear Avenue frontage. Parking The applicant would meet the parking code with the proposed 117 spaces. The code requires 117. They are proposing a row of 15.5-foot-deep parking stalls on the south side of the site. This is permitted as long as there is a 2.5-foot-wide bumper overhang strip next to the parking lot curb. This strip is shown on the landscape plan as a four-inch-deep bedding of hardwood chips. The code requires that this stdp be hard surfaced or crushed rock. To meet this requirement, the applicant must substitute this strip with rock mulch. Rock is preferred to cement since it would qualify as landscaping within the required 15-foot green strip. Signage The sign code requires that the applicant submit a comprehensive sign plan "for 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 applicant has submitted the start of a sign plan by indicating possible wall and pylon sign locations. The sign plan needs to be further developed, however, to include the following details: the proposed number of signs for each tenant, the proposed sign style (would wall signs be cabinet or individual channel-letter signs?), the maximum sign height or letter height and the length of wall signs for tenants. We would also need details on what the pylon signs would look like. If the applicant wishes to attain approval of a sign plan they must provide this information for design review board approval. RECOMMENDATIONS Adopt the resolution on pages 16-17, approving a ten-foot parking lot setback variance for the proposed Maplewood Retail Site at 2271 White Bear Avenue. Approval is based on the following findings: The proposed five-foot-wide green strip would meet the spirit and intent of the ordinance in combination with the wide highway boulevard. The highway right-of-way ranges in width from 52 feet to 100 feet adjacent to the proposed north/northeast lot line. With the proposed five feet of setback, there would be 57 feet to 105 feet of green space to the shoulder of the highway off ramp. This is well over the typical green strip width between a parking lot and a street which is 25 to 30 feet (15 feet of setback and 10 to 15 feet of boulevard). The parking lot setbacks proposed are substantially better than the existing ones. Currently the Bali Hal parking lot is at the lot line, and in areas, extends into the right-of- way. The applicant's plan would improve this current situation. Complying with the code would cause the developer undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the property. The site is difficult to fit a development since it has three street frontages and has an irregular shape. Adopt the resolution on pages 18-19 approving a conditional use permit for a building in an M-1 (light manufacturing) district to be closer than 350 feet to a residential district. The proposed building would be 200 feet from the nearest residential district. The city bases the approval on the findings required by code and is subject to the following conditions: 1. All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city. The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the permit shall become null and void. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 3. The city council shall review this permit in one year. 4. The applicant shall revise the landscape plan, for community design review board approval, providing trees on their site along the White Bear Avenue frontage. Co Approve the plans, date-stamped January 7, 2000, for the proposed Maplewood Retail Site at 2271 White Bear Avenue, based on the findings required by the code. Approval is subject to the applicant complying with 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. Submit grading, drainage, utility and erosion control plans to the city engineer for approval. b. Submit a building color scheme to the community design review board for approval. c. Submit a comprehensive sign plan to the community design review board for approval. d. Revise the site plan for staff approval substituting the hardwood chips next to the southerly parking row with landscape rock mulch. e. Submit a revised landscape plan for community design review board approval providing trees on site along the White Bear Avenue frontage. 3. The applicant shall complete the following before occupying the building: a. Install a handicap-parking sign for each handicap-parking space. b. Provide continuous concrete curb and gutter all around the parking lot and driveways. c. Paint the rooftop mechanical equipment to match the building color if the units are visible. (code requirement) d. Construct the trash dumpster enclosure using the same materials and color as the building. This enclosure shall have a 100 percent opaque gate. e. Install an in-ground lawn irrigation system for all landscaped areas except for the planted areas by the wetland behind the building. (code requirement) f. Provide site-security lighting as required by the code. The light source, including the lens covering the bulb, shall be concealed so not to cause any nuisance to drivers or neighbors. 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. All work shall follow the approved plans. approve minor changes. The director of community development may CITIZENS' COMMENTS I surveyed the 24 property owners within 350 feet of this site and received the following eight replies: 1. No gas or convenience store should be constructed on the site. Will the curb cut along with McDonald's support the amount of traffic the site will generate with only one access point? Does the city have restrictions on adult book stores etc. to protect adjoining properties into the future should this developer fail? (Burr Nordstrand, 512 Second Street, Hudson, WI) 2. The management of this building has no objection to these development plans. (1890 Sherren Avenue) 3. We welcome the developmentl (Specialty Engineering, 1766 Viking Drive) 4. My opinion is to allow Reliance to proceed with their proposal. Bear in mind high traffic in this area. (Arthur Engstom, 2525 Highwood Avenue) Traffic on White Bear Avenue has doubled in the last year--More congestion, traffic problems with a few more businesses on White Bear Avenue. (Edward Elsola, 2260 Van Dyke Street) I think developing the Bali Hai as it is suggested would be a welcome addition for Maplewood. That corner has been empty long enough. (Katie Vener, 2271 White Bear Avenue) This should give us revenue to make up for losses at Builder's Square site. I am in favor of this plan. (Joseph Fleming, 2271 White Bear Avenue) The area could use this type of improvement. The Bali Hai is in poor condition and is an eye sore to the immediate area. (Owner/Occupant, 2251 Van Dyke Street) 5 REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Site size: Two acres Existing land use: The vacant Bali Hai Restaurant SURROUNDING LAND USES NoAh: Highway 36 South: Cope Avenue and Bear/36 fuel station, convenience and repair garage West: McDonald's Restaurant East: White Bear Avenue and the Volunteer's of America Assisted Care Living Facility PLANNING Land Use Plan designation: M1 Zoning: M1 Ordinance Requirements Section 36-28(c)(5)(a) requires that parking lots be set back 15 feet from public right-of-way. 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. 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 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. Criteria for Conditional Use Permit Approval Section 36-442(a) states that the city council may approve a CUP, based on nine standards. the findings 1-9 in the resolution on pages 18-19. Refer to Application Date We received these applications on January 7, 2000. State law requires that the city take action within 60 days of receiving complete applications for a proposal. City council action is required on this proposal by March 7, 2000. p:secl l~balisite.cup Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Property Line/Zoning Map 3. Site Plan 4. Building Elevations 5. Letter of Variance Justification dated January 7, 2000 6. Letter of Conditional Use Permit Justification dated January 7, 2000 7. Variance Resolution 8. Conditional Use Permit Resolution 9. Plans date-stamped January 7, 2000 (separate attachments) Attachment 1 LOCATION 8 MAP Attachment 2 I SPECIALITY 1~ I ENGINEERING BALI HAl- PROPOSED VOA ASSISTED .,. ...... ~ LIVING FACILITY . ¢_. _ ~ .~~ [9 LEARNING Attachment 3 Tola] Area = 4.84 Acres SITE PLAN 10 Attachment 4 11 Attachment 5 Reli ce Development Company L.L.P. Janua~ 7,2000 Mr. Tom Ekstrand Associate Planner Community Development Departn~ent City of Map!ewood 1830 East County Road B Maplewood. MN 55109 (651) 770-4563 RE: Application for Variance to Parking Setback Proposed Commercial Development 2303 White Bear Avenue Dear Mr. Ekstrand, In support of the request for a parking setback variance at the above referenced location, i offer the following findings: BACKROUND The property ~s currently occupied by the vacant Bali Hal Restaurant. The site is surrounded Uy McDonalds to the immediate west, Highway 36 to the North, White Bear Avenue to the east, and Cope Avenue to the south. Cope Avenue is the only side with direct access to the subject property via an access easement over the McDonalds driveway. The site has three front yards per the definition in the ordinance. Currently, the existing asphalt parking lot is on or slightly beyond the property line on the east and north frontages, and is approximately 7' setback from the Cope Avenue frontage. DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUEST Rehance Development Company respectfully requests approval of a 5 foot parking setback on the north property line fronting Highway 36. in lieu of the required 15 foot setback. All other setbacks would be maintained per ordinance requirements. Please note that the 5' requested setback on the north frontage and the standard 15 foot setback on the other frontages is a substantia~ improveme~t over the exisbng zero setback condition described above. FINDINGS The request for a single parking lot setback variance is consistent with the findings required by the City for the following reasons: · Three frontages on one property is unique. The existence of three frontages causes additional setback restrictions, above and beyond that which would be enjoyed by most property owners in the City. The applicant cannot develop the property to the same standards as a comparable property with only one or two frontages. · The issuar',ce of the variance will not alter the character of the area. In fact, the creation of at least the minimal setbacks is a substantial improvement over the Rand Tower · 527 Marquette Avenue South · Minneapolis, MN 55402-1301 (612) 338-1000 · Fax (612! 338-8971 12 existing condition. Further, the requested frontage is that of Highway 36, and due to topography and use, there are no neighbors that would be affected by the change in the setback. Highway 36 provides a substantial, permanent buffer between this project and uses north of Highway 36. This buffer will be expanded by 5' from the existing condition if the variance as requested is approved. The i~LJnnce of the vnrinnce is in k. eepino with the spirit nnd intent of the ordinnnce. The proposed development creates the buffers sought by the ordinance provisions. In all other respects, the development meets or exceeds the requirements of the ordinance without detriment. Further, we have been informed by staff that the City has approved similar variances under similar circumstances. Given the above findings, Reliance Development Company respectfully requests approval of a 10' variance to the 15' setback on the north property frontage. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please feel free to call. Sincerely, RELIANCE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, L.L.P. Vin ce~D~sse~~'~'/'~ Attachment 6 , YReliance Development Company, L.L.E January 7, 2000 Mr. Tom Ekstrand Associate Planner Community Development Department City of Maplewood 1830 East County Road B Maplewood, MN 55109 (651) 770-4563 RE: Application for Conditional Use Permit Proposed Commercial Development 2303 White Bear Avenue Dear Mr. Ekstrand, In support of the request for a conditional use permit at the above referenced location, I offer the following findings: BACKROUND The property is currently occupied by the vacant Bali Hal Restaurant. The site is surrounded by McDonalds to the immediate west, Highway 36 to the North, White Bear Avenue to the east, and Cope Avenue to the south. Cope Avenue is the only side with direct access to the subject property. Our property would be located within 350' of a residential zoning district line located approximately down the center line of White Bear Avenue. The nearest residential structure is located well beyond 350'. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST The applicant proposes to demolish the existing Bali Hi restaurant structure and the existing parking lot The proposal calls for construction of a new retail/commercial neighborhood center. While not firm at this time, the proposed uses include a Kinko's Copy Center, Starbucks Coffeehouse, Sprint Customer Center and a Davannrs Restaurant. The development proposal calls for all new parking and service areas, landscaping, and building improvements. The proposed design of the center incorporates a variety of masonry materials, glass, decorative steel, and backlit awnings. FINDINGS Per the published application materials, the project meets certain findings summarized as follows: The use has been designed and located in. conformance with the City's comprehensive plan and ordinances. Further, the development will be constructed, maintained and operated in accordance with all applicable municipal codes and ordinances. · Rand Tower · 527 Marquette Avenue South · Minneapolis, MN 55402-1301 (612) 338-1000 · Fax (612) 338-8971 14 2. The use will not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area. In fact, the applicant believes the development will improve the existing character with having quality national tenants. 3. The proposed development is expected to improve existing property values. 4. As the use proposed is a traditional neighborhood commercial center, there will not be activities, processes, materials, equipment or methods of operation that would be dangerous, hazardous, detrimental, disturbing, or cause a nuisance to any person or property due to noise, glare, smoke, dust, odor, fumes, water or air pollution, drainage water run-off, vibration, general unsightliness, electrical interference or other nuisances. 5. The proposed development relies on existing access points without modification. The proposed uses would generate the same amount of traffic that was enjoyed by the existing use during its operation. The access will not adversely affect the existing traffic patterns on Cope Avenue and White Bear Avenue. 6. The proposed development is adequately served by public facilities, roadways, infrastructure, and services such as police, fire, parks, and schools. 7. The proposed development does not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services. 8. The proposed development incorporates several mature, existing trees into the new development, primarily existing Ash trees along Cope and White Bear Avenue. There are no significant natural or scenic features to preserve. 9. The use will not cause adverse environmental effects. 10. The proposed development is neither a public building nor a utility structure. Based on the above findings, Reliance Development Company respectfully requests approval of the Conditional Use Permit. If you have any questions, please call. Sincerely, RELIANCE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, L.L.P. Vince Driessen Vice President 15 VARIANCE RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Reliance Development Company LLP applied for a parking lot setback vadance from the zoning code. WHEREAS, this variance applies to property at 2271 White Bear Avenue. The legal description is: Parcel 1: Tract E, except the West 263 feet, as measured at dght angles to the West line of said Tract E, and except that part of Tract E contained in the following described tract: Beginning at a point on the West line of said Tract E, distant 104.81 feet South of the Northwest comer thereof; thence South 00°00'00" East, assumed beadng, along said West line, 21.33 feet; thence South 84°23'47" East, 245.55 feet; thence South 80058'04'', 122.63 feet, to the dght of way line of Trunk Highway No. 36 as now located and established; thence North 47°29'01" West, along said right of way line, 102.02 feet; thence South 89008'00'' West, along said dght of way line 290.31 feet to the point of beginning; in Registered Land Survey No. 258. Parcel 2: That part of the Northwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 11, Township 29, Range 22, Ramsey County, Minnesota, described as: Commencing at a point 295.90 feet North of the South line of the Northwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 11, Township 29, Range 22 and 289.28 feet East of the West line of said Northwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of said Section; thence North parallel with the West line of the said Northwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of said Section 261.71 feet; thence East parallel with the South line of the said Northwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of said Section 141.37 feet; thence South parallel with the West line of the said Northwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of said Section 107.61 feet; thence East parallel with the South line of the said Northwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of said Section 530.45 feet to the Westerly line of the White Bear Road; thence Southwesterly along the Westerly line of the White Bear Road to a point which is 295.90 feet North (measured at right angles) from the South line of the said Northwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of said Section; thence West parallel with the South line of the Northwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of said Section 510.60 feet to the place of beginning. EXCEPT that part thereof lying within the following described tract: Beginning at a point on the West line of Tract E, Registered Land Survey No. 258, distant 104.81 feet South of the Northwest comer of said Tract E; thence South 00°00'00" East, assumed beadng, along the West line of said Tract E, 21.33 feet; thence South 84023'47'. East, 245.55 feet; thence South 80°58'04", 122.63 feet, to the right of way line of Trunk Highway No. 36 as now located and established; thence North 47°29'01'' West along said right of way line, 102.02 feet; thence South 89008'00.' West along said right of way line, 290.31 feet to the point of beginning. WHEREAS, Section 36-28(c)(5)(a) of the zoning code requires a 15-foot parking lot setback from street right-of-way. WHEREAS, the applicant is proposing a five-foot parking lot setback. WHEREAS, this requires a variance of 10 feet. WHEREAS, the history of this variance is as follows: 1. On, vadance. ,2000, the planning commission recommended that the city council approve this The city council held a public hearing on ,2000. 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 planning commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above-described variance as recommended by the city staff that would allow a ten-foot parking lot encroachment into the normally- required 15-foot setback area for the following reasons: The proposed five-foot-wide green strip would meet the spirit and intent of the ordinance in combination with the wide highway boulevard. The highway right-of-way ranges in width from 52 feet to 100 feet adjacent to the proposed north/northeast lot line. With the proposed five feet of setback, there would be 57 feet to 105 feet of green space to the shoulder of the highway off ramp. This is well over the typical green strip width between a parking lot and a street which is 25 to 30 feet (15 feet of setback and 10 to 15 feet of boulevard). The parking lot setbacks proposed are substantially better than the existing ones. Currently the Bali Hal parking lot is at the lot line, and in areas, extends into the right-of- way. The applicant's plan would improve this current situation. Complying with the code would cause the developer undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the property. The site is difficult to fit a development since it has three street frontages and has an irregular shape. The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on ,2000. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Reliance Development Company LLP applied for a conditional use permit to construct a building closer than 350 feet to a residential zoning district. WHEREAS, this permit applies to property at 2271 White Bear Avenue. The legal description is: Parcel 1: Tract E, except the West 263 feet, as measured at right angles to the West line of said Tract E, and except that part of Tract E contained in the following described tract: Beginning at a point on the West line of said Tract E, distant 104.81 feet South of the Northwest comer thereof; thence South 00000'00'' East, assumed bearing, along said West line, 21.33 feet; thence South 84023'47'' East, 245.55 feet; thence South 80058'04'', 122.63 feet, to the right of way line of Trunk Highway No. 36 as now located and established; thence North 47°29'01.' West, along said right of way line, 102.02 feet; thence South 89008'00'' West, along said right of way line 290.31 feet to the point of beginning; in Registered Land Survey No. 258. Parcel 2: That part of the Northwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 11, Township 29, Range 22, Ramsay County, Minnesota, described as: Commencing at a point 295.90 feet North of the South line of the Northwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 11, Township 29, Range 22 and 289.28 feet East of the West line of said Northwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of said Section; thence North parallel with the West line of the said Northwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of said Section 261.71 feet; thence East parallel with the South line of the said Northwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of said Section 141.37 feet; thence South parallel with the West line of the said Northwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of said Section 107.61 feet; thence East parallel with the South line of the said Northwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of said Section 530.45 feet to the Westerly line of the White Bear Road; thence Southwesterly along the Westerly line of the White Bear Road to a point which is 295.90 feet North (measured at right angles) from the South line of the said Northwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of said Section; thence West parallel with the South line of the Northwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of said Section 510.60 feet to the place of 15eginning. EXCEPT that part thereof lying within the following described tract: Beginning at a point on the West line of Tract E, Registered Land Survey No. 258, distant 104.81 feet South of the Northwest comer of said Tract E; thence South 00°00'00" East, assumed bearing, along the West line of said Tract E, 21.33 feet; thence South 84°23'47" East, 245.55 feet; thence South 80o58'04'', 122.63 feet, to the dght of way line of Trunk Highway No. 36 as now located and established; thence North 47°29'01" West along said right of way line, 102.02 feet; thence South 89008'00'. West along said right of way line, 290.31 feet to the point of beginning. WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: 1. On permit. ,2000, the planning commission recommended that the city council approve this On ,2000, the city council held a public hearing. The city staff published a notice in the paper and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The council gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present wdtten statements. The 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 conditional use permit based on the building and site plans. The city approves this permit because: The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be in conformity with the city's comprehensive plan and code of ordinances. 2. The use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area. 3. The use would not depreciate property values. The use would not involve any activity, process, materials, equipment or methods of operation that would be dangerous, hazardous, detrimental, disturbing or cause a nuisance to any person or property, because of excessive noise, glare, smoke, dust, odor, fumes, water or air pollution, drainage, water runoff, vibration, general unsightliness, electrical interference or other nuisances. The use would generate only minimal vehicular traffic on local streets and would not create traffic congestion or unsafe access on existing or proposed streets. The use would be served by adequate public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, water and sewer systems, schools and parks. 7. The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services. 8. The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and scenic features into the development design. 9. The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city. 2. The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the permit shall become null and void. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 3. The city council shall review this permit in one year. 4. The applicant shall revise the landscape plan, for community design review board approval, providing trees on their site along the White Bear Avenue frontage. The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on ,2000. 3_9 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: DATE: City Manager Thomas Ekstrand, Associate Planner Land Use Plan Amendment, Conditional Use Permit and Design Review - North St. Paul Post Office Annex 1686 Gervais Avenue February 1, 2000 INTRODUCTION Project Description The North St. Paul Post Office is proposing to use the building at 1686 Gervais Avenue, the former Meader Distributing building, as a mail distribution facility. Refer to pages 8-12. This facility would be for mail distribution only, but there would be a mail drop box on site. This would not be a retail post office facility for walk-in service or the pick-up of mail. There would be approximately 33 employees. The hours of operation would be 5 a.m. to 5 p.m. The applicant is proposing to make several door/window changes on the east, west and south sides of the building and various parking lot/driveway changes. Security is an issue--the applicant would provide chain link security fencing with barbed wire on top and a concrete screening wall in front facing the street. Refer to the building elevations and site plan. Requests The applicant is requesting that the city council approve: 1. A comprel3ensive lancl use plan amenclment trom .M. 1. (,!!g.13.t manut, ac.tun, ngl .to ? (,govemmen.t facility). ~he c~)de' rec~uires that, to apl~rove'~ conditional use permit (CUP), the land use plan designation for a property must be in conformance with the proposed use. 2. A CUP for a public building. The city code requires a CUP for "public utility, public service or public building uses." Refer to the CUP justification on page 13. 3. Building, site and landscape plans. DISCUSSION Comprehensive Plan Amendment The classification of G (government facility), is a broad designation, which covers any type of public facility. The city council would need to approve this land use plan change to comply with the ordinance if they wish to approve the applicant's CUP. The proposed use complies with the commercial/industrial development policies noted in the comprehensive plan. Refer to page 15. The proposed use, furthermore, is similar to the previous use by Meader Distributing since it essentially involves shipping and receiving goods. Conditional Use Permit The survey replies from the neighbors have mostly been favorable. One neighbor, however, (see the letter on page 14) expressed the following comments and concerns: 1. The facility looks like it will be used for pubic servico if so, shouldn't the neighbors be notified. The applicant said they do not intend this facility for use as a walk-in retail center. 2. There would be excessive parking on the site. There would be 33 employees and 41 parking spaces are proposed. Staff does not feel that this is excessive for this size of building. The 41 spaces would accommodate additional persons that may visit the site. There is no specific code requirement for the proposed post office use. The applicant has provided enough parking for this facility. One typical concern is that a parking shortage may develop. In this instance there is sufficient site area to add more parking spaces. 3. Traffic will increase from November through January and again at April 15. These are increased mail times due to Christmas and the income-tax season. This may or may not result in the need for an additional truck tdp (or tdps). This is an industrially-zoned area and truck traffic is a typical activity. Staff recommends that, as a condition of this permit, delivery trucks to this facility be required to access the site from White Bear Avenue and also exit to the east, toward White Bear Avenue, as well. This is to limit the truck traffic that would go past the homes to the west/northwest. Small mail delivery trucks would be exempt if they are delivering to this neighborhood. There are no vehicle-direction options to keep cars or trucks from going past Flandrau Street (this neighbor's street). 4. The city should reduce the speed limit on Gervais Avenue to 30 miles per hour because of the increased pedestrian traffic on this street. The applicant would have to petition the city council with this request. 5. Late night semi trailer traffic would be disruptive in the summer. The applicant said that there would be five mail deliveries to this facility. They are anticipated to be 3, 5 and 7:30 a.m. and 1 and 6 p.m. 6. Victory in Christ Church has had a portable sign up for a long time. Staff has notified the church of the sign requirements and required the removal of the sign. CUP Conclusion The majority of the neighbors favored this proposal. Staff also feels that the proposed post office annex would be a compatible use in this area. The proposed use would likely be much less disruptive than a private business. A private business would also not receive any city council review as this one is. Building and Site Design The proposed changes to the building would not affect it's appearance to any degree. It would be essentially the same after the window and door changes. The most noticeable changes would be the chain link fence and the concrete block screening wall. The screening wall would match the concrete block of the building. The building colors would remain the same. landscaping The proposed landscaping would be attractive. RECOMMENDATIONS Adopt the resolution on page 16 amending the comprehensive land use plan from M1 (light manufacturing) to G (government facility) for the proposed North St. Paul Post Office Annex at 1686 Gervais Avenue. Approval is because the proposed post office annex would comply with the commercial and industrial development policies in the Maplewood Comprehensive Plan. Adopt the resolution on pages 17-18 approving a conditional use permit for the North St. Paul Post Office Annex at 1686 Gervais Avenue. Approval is based on the findings required by the code and subject to the following conditions: All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city. The director of community development may approve minor changes. The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of c°uncil approval or the permit shall become null and void. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 3. The city council shall review this permit in one year. The applicant shall instruct all drivers to access and exit this site via White Bear Avenue to avoid the residential neighborhood to the west. Mail deliveries to that neighborhood are exempted from this. Approve the plans (stamped January 12, 2000) for the proposed North St. Paul Post Office Annex, based on the findings required by the code. The property owner shall do the following: 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 provide a grading, drainage, utility and erosion control plan for the city engineer's approval. 3. Complete the following before occupying the building: Construct a trash dumpster enclosure for any outside trash containers. The enclosures must be 100 percent opaque, match the color of the building and have a closeable gate that extends to the ground. If the trash container is not visible to the public it does not have to be screened. (code requirement) b. Install all landscaping as shown on the approved plan. c, Screen any new roof-top mechanical equipment that would be visible from the homes along Gervais Avenue. All other new roof-top units that are visible from non residential areas must be painted to match the building. (code requirement) d. Provide handicap-accessible parking spaces as required by the ADA, (American's with Disabilities Act). The director of community development may All work shall follow the approved plans. approve minor changes. CITIZENS' COMMENTS I surveyed the 24 property owners within 350 feet of this site for their comments. Of the eight replies, three had no comment and six replied as follows: As owners of the building, we are obviously in favor of the Postal Service's application. The proposed use of the property by the Postal Service will be almost exactly the same as that when it was used for our book distributing business in terms of hours, traffic and the like and will serve the community's needs. Thus, them will be no negative impact on the neighborhood. (Eugene and Elaine Meader, North Oaks) 2. It's fine with me. (Occupant, 1730 Gervais Avenue) I think this would be a wonderful idea. I would always go to the Mpls/St. Paul airport to mail packages if I couldn't make it before closing time. A post office close by would be nice. (name not given) 4. This would be great! (Donna Anderst, 1700 Gervais Avenue) I would much rather have postal trucks then any more semis in the area! (Or factory employees teadng down our streets!) Many near accidents. Our mail delivery will be earlier-Great idea! (Daniel and Debra Prowoll, 1631 Gervais Avenue) 6. Refer to the letter on page 14 from Justin Mallmann. REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Site size: 3.8 acres Existing land use: The former Meader Distributing building SURROUNDING LAND USES North: Northwest: Northeast: South: West: East: Four Seasons Park Single dwellings Victory in Christ Church Highway 36 Maplewood 2 Business Center SCS CoSines PLANNING Land Use Plan designation: Existing - M1 (light manufacturing); Proposed - G (government facility) Zoning: M1 Ordinance Requirements Section 36-437(1) requires a CUP for public utility, public service or public building uses. 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, ordedy 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 esthetically of good composition, materials, textures and colors. Findings for Land Use Plan Changes There is no specific criteria for a land use plan change. Any land use plan change should be consistent with the goals and policies in the city's comprehensive plan. Refer to the policies on page 15. Findings for CUP Approval Section 36-442 states that the city council must base approval of CUPs on the nine findings stipulated in the resolution on pages 17-18. Application Date We received this application on January 12, 2000. State law requires that the city take action within 60 days of receiving complete applications for a proposal. City council action is required on this proposal by March 12, 2000. p:se~14 Attachments: ) 1. Location Map 2. Property Line/Zoning Map 3. Hazelwood Neighborhood Land Use Plan 4. Site Plan 5. Building Elevation Reduction 6. Applicant's CUP Letter of Justification dated January 12, 2000 7. Letter from Justin Mallmann dated January 26, 2000 8. Commercial and Industrial Development Policies 9. Land Use Plan Change Resolution 10. Conditional Use Permit Resolution 11. Plans date-stamped January 12, 2000 (separate attachments) Attachment 1 m VADNAIS HEIGHTS COUNTY RD. D COUNTY . 1. SUMMIT CT. 2. COUNTRY~EW CIR. ~. DULUTH CT. 4. LYDIA AVE. GERVAIS BEA~ bJ KOHl.MAN ROAD u~ RON~ COUNTY COURT KOHLMAN DEWONT BROOKS :DGEHILL RD. SHERREN AVE. AV~. Lok$ AVE. COPE AVE. JUNCTION (1) CHNvIB£RS STi cOO~$~ t~ GOLF SKILL AVE. ROSEWOOD AVE. LOCATION 8 MAP I Attachment 2 ,~,.,, ,~., ~, _ ~:.~, - . . ._-, ~ ~ ~ ,-'t~-- ,~ ..~--- ~ ::'N c~) '~""~ ~I ~ '~"~ .... ~ ..... ' fZ~ I ,- I · S~X TAN'T ~VE. ,,,,'3 ~1 SEASONS ~b~ il ~ I' 4~)i''ilil Z ~ / VICTORY IN CHRIST I ~~~= ~ ~ .~ GERvAIs ~NuE / BUSINESS CENTER' ~ NORTH ST. PAUL POST OFFICE 11 I ~lll~ 'm I I, 2.~$ ac. SCS COSINES Attachment 3 interchange REVISED 07/06/93 7-20-95 12/06/94 10-13-95 12/12/94 11-01-96 1/19/95 t/'prmclPal arterial 694 interchenge Vadnais Heights I I I I mi n,,o r arterial Co:--Rd. C --~ ~ major collect CO ~ BC maior M-1 me:or c olfe c'ro~--'- R-3 )r - PROPOSED G (government facility) CLASSIFICATION NEIGHBORHOOD LAND USE PLAN PLANNING AREA NUMBER 4 30 ,[ GERVAIS'AVENUE Attachment 4 PROPOSED NORTH ST. PAUL POST OFFICE ANNEX SITE PLAN ll Attachment 5 ! ! 12 ~'g¥ Attachment 6 PROJECT TO FROM SUBJECT DATE PRESENT USP$ North St. Paul - RRT Project ~9862.01 City of Maplewood Albert W. (Chip) Undeke, III CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 12 January 2000 MEMO The intended use of the property is as a United States Postal Service Cartier Annex. This will be a facility out of which mail carriers will operate. Mail will be delivered to this facility, sorted and taken out for delivery to customers. The mail delivery vehicles will be stored inside the building. There will be a large workroom for processing mail, and additional support space - i.e. office storage, lockers, toilets and lunchrooms. There will also be a loading dock facility. The USPS will be using the existing building on the property. They will be remodeling it extensively, but will not be building any additions. The existing parking lot will be remodeled, adding only a minor amount of additional pavement. The City should approve this conditional use permit because the proposed development and use is essentially the same use that already exists on the property. Also, the facility and property will be upgraded to cun'ent building standards. END This summary is part of the permanent record for this project. If there are concerns or discrepancies, please notify RRT within 7 days. AWl_/jmg XC: Enclosures 13 RAFFERTY RAFFERTY TOLLEFSON ARCHITECTS 253 EAST 4TH STREET SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA 55101-1632 TEL: 651 224-4831 FAX: 651 228-0264 O:\9862-01\CorrespondenceVno011200awl.doc I An Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer Attachment 7 January 26, 2000 Justin & Joan Mallmann 2400 Flandrau Street Maplewood, MN 55109-2100 651-773-9720 Thomas Eksrand Office of Community Development 1830 East County Road C Maplewood. MN 55109 Dear Mr. Ekstrand In regard to the letter we received from you concerning the use of the old Meader Distributing building. The statement you put in the letter for use of this facility has nothing to do with the general public use of this annex station. The plan diagram shows an extreme amount of parking also the driveway for mail drop off by the public. The view of the building shows an entrance for possible general public use. If the intended use is going to expand to public use should we not be notified now instead of it just happening and we are left out of our say as the neighbors who have to live by this increased traffic flow during November through January, plus also around April 15th. The increase in traffic should entice the city to reduce the speed to 30 miles per hour from White Bear Avenue to Kennard. I see a park across the street plus the increase of mature citizens that have in fluxed the neighborhood. The foot traffic during the summer has increased immensely since we have moved into our house on Gervais and Flandrau. The next subject is how much late night semi trailer traffic per night will this cause. The present has two Semi's coming in at or around eleven PM and three AM. The winter isn't that bad but the summer is worse because of the noise. The business's now that run 24 hours have breaks during the night and these people go out and start there cars in the winter and play the radio's loud in summer and winter late night or early morning. Sometimes they have shouting matches to see who can be the most rowdy. The final problem will be signs. The church has had that temporary sign out front for eight years now. Will the postal annex also have a temporary sign out that long. I can see a sign for special occasions, but what occasion lasts eight years. ~Justin Mallmann 14 I I ! ! I ! ! ! II ! II ! ! II Attachment 8 Disperse Iow- and moderate.income developments throughout the City, rather than concentrating them in one area or neighborhood. Such housing should be near bus lines or have access to other public transportation. · Support innovative subdivision and housing design. Support the use of planned unit developments for sites with development challenges to allow for creative design solutions. Protect neighborhoods from activities that produce excessive noise, dirt, odors or which generate heavy traffic. Protect neighborhoods from encroachment or intrusion of incompatible land uses by adequate buffering and separation. COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT POLICIES The following are the City's commercial and industrial development policies: · Group compatible businesses in suitable areas. · Provide attractive surroundings in which to shop and work. · Require adequate off-street parking and loading facilities. Promote the joint use of parking areas, drives and trash containers. · Avoid disruption of adjacent or nearby residential areas. Use planned unit developments wherever practical. Maintain orderly transitions between commercial and residential areas. Require commercial and industrial developers to make all necessary improvements to ensure compatibility with surrounding residential uses. Require adequate screening or buffering of new or expanded commercial areas from any adjacent existing or planned residential development. Plan land uses and streets to route non-residential traffic around residential neighborhoods. Restrict commercial development that would result in traffic volumes which are beyond the capacity of the road systems or generate excessive noise or pollution as defined by state standards. 15 Attachment 9 LAND USE PLAN CHANGE RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the United States Post Office North St. Paul applied for a change to the city's land use plan from M1 (light manufacturing) to G (government facility) to bring the land use plan into conformance with their proposed use as a mail distribution facility. WHEREAS, this change applies to the property at 1686 Gervais Avenue. The legal description is: LOTS I TO 24 INCLUSIVE, BRIGHTON PARK, RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA, TOGETHER WITH THE VACATED ALLEY, AND VACATED NEWBURY STREET, ACCRUING THERETO BY REASON OF THE VACATION THEREOF, TOGETHER WITH LOT 6, BRONSONS SUBDIVISION, RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA, SUBJECT TO HIGHWAY. WHEREAS, the history of this change is as follows: On February 7, 2000, the planning commission held a public headng. The city staff published a hearing notice in the Maplewood Review and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The planning commission gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The planning commission recommended that the city council the land use plan change. 2. On ,2000, the city council discussed the land use plan change. They considered reports and recommendations from the planning commission and city staff. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above-described change because the proposed post office annex would comply with the commercial and industrial development policies in the Maplewood Comprehensive Plan. The Maplewood City Council approved this resolution on ,2000. 16 Attachment 10 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the United States Post Office North St. Paul applied for a conditional use permit to operate a mail distribution facility in an existing industrial/warehouse building. WHEREAS, this permit applies to the site located at 1686 Gervais Avenue. The legal description is: LOTS 1 TO 24 INCLUSIVE, BRIGHTON PARK, RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA, TOGETHER WITH THE VACATED ALLEY, AND VACATED NEWBURY STREET, ACCRUING THERETO BY REASON OF THE VACATION THEREOF, TOGETHER WITH LOT 6, BRONSONS SUBDIVISION, RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA, SUBJECT TO HIGHWAY. WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: 1. On February 7, 2000, the planning commission recommended that the city council this permit. On ,2000 the city council held a public headng. City staff published a notice in the paper and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The council gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The council also considered reports and recommendations from the city staff and planning commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above-described conditional use permit, because: 1. The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be in conformity with the city's comprehensive plan and code of ordinances. 2. The use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area. 3. The use would not depreciate property values. The use would not involve any activity, process, materials, equipment or methods of operation that would be dangerous, hazardous, detrimental, disturbing or cause a nuisance to any person or property, because of excessive noise, glare, smoke, dust, odor, fumes, water or air pollution, drainage, water runoff, vibration, general unsightliness, electrical interference or other nuisances. 5. The use would generate only minimal vehicular traffic on local streets and would not create traffic congestion or unsafe access on existing or proposed streets. 6. The use would be served by adequate public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, water and sewer systems, schools and parks. 7. The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services. 8. The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and scenic features into the development design. 17 9. The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. The Maplewood City Council approved this resolution on All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city. The director of community development may approve minor changes. The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the permit shall become null and void. The council may extend this deadline for one year. The city council shall review this permit in one year. The applicant shall instruct all drivers to access and exit this site via White Bear Avenue to avoid the residential neighborhood to the west. Mail deliveries to that neighborhood are exempted from this. ,2000. 3.8 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: City Manager Thomas Ekstrand, Associate Planner 1999 Community Design Review Board Annual Report February 1, 2000 INTRODUCTION On January 18, 2000, the community design review board reviewed their 1999 annual report and took no action. They wanted to wait until the presentation before the planning commission on January 19 by Bob Close, the consultant for the White Bear Avenue Corridor Study. The board wanted to see what Mr. Close had to say that might affect design issues. p:~nisscell\drban rep. 99 (6.2) Attachment: 1999 Community Design Review Board Annual Report and Cover Memo MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: City Manager Thomas Ekstrand, Associate Planner 1999 Community Design Review Board Annual Report January 6, 2000 INTRODUCTION The city code requires that the community design review board (CDRB) prepare an annual report for the city council. I have attached the 1999 annual report for review. RECOMMENDATION Approve'the community design review board's 1999 annual report. p:~isscell~drbanrep.99 (6.2) Attachment: 1999 Community Design Review Board Annual Report TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: MEMORANDUM City Manager Matt Ledvina, Chairman 1999 Community Design Review Board Annual Repo~ Janua~ 6,2000 INTRODUCTION In 1999, the community design review board New Development Proposals 12 Expansions and Remodeling 6 Sign Reviews 1 Code Changes 2 Vadances 1 Miscellaneous 6 Total 28 (CDRB) reviewed 28 items: COMPARATIVE TABLE 1993-1998 Year Number of Items 1993 49 1994 54 1995 57 1996 31 1997 53 1998 35 Reviewed ATTENDANCE Board Member Meetings Attended (there were 11 meetings) Mary Edckson (resigned Apdl 13, 1999) Marie Robinson (resigned July 27, 1999) Ananth Shankar Tim Johnson Matt Ledvina Craig Jorgenson (appointed August 23, 1999) Jon LaCasse (appointed August 23, 1999) 3 6 8 11 11 3 3 DISCUSSION In 1999, there was a drop in the number of meetings held by the CDRB. Development requests were more prevalent in the first half of the year than the second, when many meetings were canceled due to a lack of development requests. In spite of this, though, the CDRB reviewed a 1 relatively high number of new development proposals. These were: Acorn Mini Storage, Pep Boys, Office Depot & Pier I Imports, Pineview Estates Condominiums, the Bruentrop Farm Relocation site, Goodrich Golf Course Miniature Golf, First Financial office building, Waldorf School, U.S. West Monopole at Presentation Church, Kline Volvo and U.S. Bank. Building addition requests included: Maplewood Auto Service, Carver Elementary School, Hill-Murray High School, Schroeder Milk, Menard's and Excel Air Systems. The board also studied the site- lighting ordinance and recommended changes to the city council which amended the code based on their recommendation. This past year, the CDRB experienced the loss of two long-standing members who contributed substantially to the review board and the City of Maplewood. These were Mary Erickson and Made Robinson. Mary served on the board for 12 years and Marie nine. We are pleased to welcome, however, our two new members, Jon LaCasse and Craig Jorgenson. In the upcoming year, the board anticipates possible changes that may result from the development moratorium now in effect for the undeveloped land west of the Maplewood Mall between Southlawn Drive and Highway 61. There may also be special attention focused on the White Bear Avenue corridor due to the currently ongoing White Bear Avenue Corddor Study. This study is a joint effort by the White Bear Avenue Business Association, the City of St. Paul and the City of Maplewood. The board is dedicated to promoting attractive development in Maplewood and will continue to require quality building designs in the year 2000. p:~isscell~drbanrep.99 (6.2) 2