Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/22/2000BOOK AGENDA MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD February 22, 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: February 8, 2000 4. Approval of Agenda 5. Unfinished Business a. Maplewood Retail Shopping Center, 2271 White Bear Avenue b. 1999 Annual Report Reconsideration 6. Design Review a. Maplewood Fire Station No. 2 Gladstone Neighborhood (Clarence Street) b. Fresh Paint Office/Warehouse, 1055 Gervais Avenue 7. Visitor Presentations 8. Board Presentations 9. Staff Presentations a. Reminder: CDRB Volunteer for February 28 City Council Meeting is Tim Johnson. Items to be reviewed are the Maplewood Retail Shopping Center and the North St. Paul Post Office. b. CDRB Volunteer Needed for March 13 City Council Meeting. Item to be reviewed will likely be the Maplewood Fire Station. 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. o 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\cdrb.agd Revised: 11-09-94 MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA FEBRUARY 8, 2000 CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Ledvina called the meeting to order at 6:03 p.m. II. ROLL CALL III. IV. Matt Ledvina Present Ananth Shankar Present Tim Johnson Present Jon LaCasse Present Craig Jorgenson Absent APPROVAL OF MINUTES Boardmember Shankar moved approval of the minutes of January 18, 2000, as submitted. Boardmember Johnson seconded. The motion passed. Ayes--all APPROVAL OF AGENDA Boardmember Johnson moved approval of the agenda as submitted. Boardmember LaCasse seconded. The motion passed. Ayes--all V. UNFINISHED BUSINESS VI. There was no unfinished business. DESIGN REVIEW A. Maplewood Retail Shopping Center, 2271 White Bear Avenue--Reliance Development Company Secretary Tom Ekstrand presented the staff report. Mr. Ekstrand asked the board to act on the sign plan if they felt it was adequate. He said the building elevations show possible sign locations on the north, west and east elevations. Mr. Ekstrand said he hoped to establish where the signs would be allowed, not what they would say. On the north elevation there is a possibility of continual signage shown across the whole elevation, at the north end of the west elevation there are spots for three signage areas, and there are areas designated on the prominent towers on the east elevation. Chairperson Ledvina questioned how the 5-foot letters were going to work on the shown sign area and noted that the signage would cover different color materials. He said this raised a concern about signs not being within a "one-colored area." Mr. Ekstrand agreed but thought the applicant was indicating, in the dashed area, "what would encompass 20 percent Community Design Review Board Minutes of 02-08-00 -2- coverage" that the sign code allows. He said he would prefer to see the signs confined to the tan area on the sketch and not cross the material on the columns. Boardmember Shankar asked why so many signs were needed for only four tenants. Mr. Ekstrand said sometimes centers start out with four tenants and then, in the future, get divided into eight units. He felt it was difficult to approve a plan based on the maximum amount of coverage that the sign code would allow. Mr. Ekstrand said pylon signs are shown on the site plan located near Highway 36 and by Cope and White Bear Avenue. According to code, these pylon signs can be 28-feetotall at the 10-foot-setback line and have one additional foot of height for each additional three feet of setback up to a maximum of 50-feet-tall. Another variable with a highway frontage sign, according to Mr. Ekstrand, is the option of measuring from the grade elevation where the sign is placed or from the nearest road grade. He read from a section of the code on how this is measured. Dan O'Mara, of Portfolio Design, was present representing the applicant. He said the towers were created to make the center inviting. The materials will be in keeping within the context of the neighborhood, but the towers were added for an exciting, contemporary look. Mr. O'Mara said the building was laid out in 20-foot bays to allow anywhere from four to eight tenants. Reliance Development Company, the owner of the center, has decided to leave the area between the towers a cream color. Mr. O'Mara said the foundation of the building and the edges of the towers up to the main building height will be rock-face block, the main sign area will be cream stucco, and the portion to the top of the building will be coated in an EIFS material. On the south, west and north elevations, a field of brick will be in between the rock-face block. All of the windows will be typical storefront windows with bronze anodized frames and clear glass. According to Mr. O'Mara, the red used on the building awning will be a "warm, classical red." The blue and green colors used will also be "rich" hues. The truss and pipes on the towers will be steel and colored the same as the corresponding awning. The pin dots and the line band that follows the awnings on the north, west and south elevations will be typical 8- x 8- x 16-inch block with a center grove to make them look like 8 x 8 x 8. The metal will be a scratch-resistive material. Peter Hilger, also of Portfolio Design said every tenant does not necessarily get a tower. They were added to "develop a rhythm and to provide each end cap with its own identity." Mr. Hilger said the end caps can be subdivided further. He also stated that the corner pilasters will remain dark tan because they are projecti~)ns and there is no way to run signage across them. However the owner does prefer to have the flexibility to run the signage across more than one bay. Mr. Hilger asserted that they need to be able to locate the doors within anyone of the openings to suit the tenant. Boardmember Shankar didn't feel there was the same rhythm with the door placement as there was with the towers. Secretary Ekstrand thought the doors "should be looked at in terms of as the design that the applicant will put in the facility as opposed to the exact placement of the doors." Mr. Shankar liked the looks of the doors centered in the bay. This was too limiting for Mr. Hilger. Mr. Shankar also had a problem with the narrow sidelight and preferred that the door be mullion to mullion. Mr. Hilger said this would be a nonstandard door. Mr. Hilger explained that they design shopping centers on a four-foot module because it allows a demising wall to occur at anyone of the breaks (four-feet on center) at any one of the glass points or any spot within four feet on any of the piers. If the Community Design Review Board -3- Minutes of 02-08-00 sidelight were eliminated, the door would be larger and heavier and thus more difficult for the handicapped to operate. Mr. Hilger said the building is 19'4" and there is a 1½-2 foot parapet along the front of the building and up to a 4 foot parapet along the rear. The roof elevation varies because it pitches but the joist elevations have not been worked out at this level. There will be packaged rooftop units. Mr. Hilger said they will be going with a three-color scheme because "Kinko's loves blue," Starbucks is green, and Davanni's is red. Using multiple color schemes helps to enhance the identify of each of the tenants. Dan O'Mara answered questions about the pylon sign. He said Reliance requested six panels and a smaller center-name panel below it. The same architectural theme, with the arched roof, would be used. It would have light-weight metal boxes with a back-lit capability. The 150-foot-height was based on the elevation of Highway 36, not the off-ramp. The height of the smaller pylon was based on the elevation of White Bear Avenue. He said three ourses of rock-face block will be the base of the sign. The colors would match the building. Mr. Hilger said the sign box would be die-cut metal and have a dark-face material with the letters cut out of the face material and be internally illuminated. Boardmember Shankar asked why there wouldn't be glass on four bays of the north elevation since it was so exposed to Highway 36. He didn't think it was necessary to glass the center bay. Mr. Hilger answered that tenants hate glass. There was concern expressed as to whether the fence on the dumpster area was high enough. Mr. Hilger said the walls are ten feet high. He felt it was important to note that the dumpster was placed in the notch of the building. Mr. Hilger said they neglected to note it but the end caps would have a sign. Secretary Ekstrand said if the boardmembers did not feel comfortable with the sign plan, they could table that aspect and wait to see redrawn elevations that included the changes discussed at this meeting. He did not feel the sign plan was bad--just that not enough information was given. Chairperson Ledvina asked for information on the criteria that is used for the pylon sign. He thought a 50-foot sign was too tall. Chairperson Ledvina didn't have a problem with the towers but found it difficult to picture how the building would look. Overall, he said good quality materials were being used. Mr. Ledvina thought the towers were going to provide the "distinct feature of this site," but he did have a concern with the multiple colors. He felt the awnings, as well as the colored metal work, should be uniform in color Secretary Ekstrand made a few comments on the landscape plan. He said there are some assets to the site, especially the screening on the boulevard at the north end which "waives the need for much on the north side." He would like to see the four ash trees on the south side preserved. Mr. Ekstrand hoped to see "something better done along the White Bear Avenue frontage." He suggested that the board might want to see a revised landscape plan at the same time as the sign plan. Mr. Ekstrand advised the board to delete C.2. b. that refers to the color scheme if they thought it was acceptable. He recommended that C.2. c. (submittal of a comprehensive sign plan) and C.2. e. (submittal of a landscape plan for approval) be retained. Mr. Ekstrand also did not want to see a "hodgepodge" of color over a period of time through a change of tenants. Community Design Review Board Minutes of 02-08-00 -4- Chairperson Ledvina suggested that the applicant choose one color for the awnings and metal work and stick to that color. He thought C.2. b. could be changed to read, "the color scheme submitted to the Community Design Review Board is acceptable with the exception of the use of multiple colors in the awnings and metal work. The applicant shall submit or maintain a uniform color which is subject to staff approval." Mr. Ekstrand said the board could look at a revised color scheme with the landscaping and sign plan review. Since there were different opinions among the board members on the color scheme, Mr. Ledvina felt the motion could be left as written by staff and the color, sign and landscape be reconsidered at a future meeting. Boardmember Johnson moved the Community Design Review Board recommend: Adoption of the resolution which approves 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. Co Approval of 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. Community Design Review Board Minutes of 02-08-00 -5- do Revise the site plan for staff approval substituting the hardwood chips next to the southerly parking row with landscape rock mulch. 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) eo Construct the trash dumpster enclosure using the same materials and color as the building. This enclosure shall have a 100 percent opaque gate. Install an in-ground lawn irrigation system for all landscaped areas except for the planted areas by the wetland behind the building. (code requirement) 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 work is not essential to the public health, safety or welfare. 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. The director of community development may approve minor changes. Boardmember LaCasse seconded. Ayes--all The motion passed. B. North St. Paul Post Office, 1686 Gervais AvenuemU.S. Postal Service Secretary Tom Ekstrand presented the staff report. He said the barbed wire fencing is a permitted use. Chairperson Ledvina thought some of the trees in the front of the building were "too mature." Mr. Ekstrand felt it was desirable to retain the trees, however, they could be trimmed. Community Design Review Board -6- Minutes of 02-08-00 Chip Lindeke of Rafferty, Rafferty, Tollefson, Architects was present. He had no comments on the recommended conditions. Mr. Lindeke said the post office decided not to install the barb wire fence but instead will have a 6-foot-high fence around the parking lot. The proposed fencing extends to the end of the screen wall and will have a sliding gate to secure the area. For the most part, they will keep the existing color scheme. There will not be a trash enclosure. Boardmember LaCasse moved the Community Design Review Board C. Approve the plans (stamped November 13, 1998) for the proposed Ramsey County Family Service Center, based on the findings required by the code. The property owner, Ramsey County, 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 the following for staff approval: a. A grading, drainage, utility and erosion control plan. b. A sidewalk/trail plan for the extension and connection to the Gateway Trail. c. A revised site plan showing the handicap parking next to the front sidewalk. 3. Complete the following before occupying the building: a. 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. b. Install all required landscaping. An in-ground lawn irrigation system is not required since there are county maintenance personnel on site to water landscaped areas. c. Construct the sidewalk/trail extension and connection along White Bear Avenue. d. Screen any roof-top mechanical equipment that would be visible from the Ramsey Nursing Home. Any other roof-top units that are visible from any other direction must be painted to match the building. e. The screening mentioned in 3.a. and d. shall be subject to staff 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% of the cost of the unfinished work. c. The city receives an agreement that will allow the city to complete any unfinished work. Community Design Review Board Minutes of 02-08-00 -7- 5. All work shall follow the approved plans. approve minor changes. Boardmember Johnson seconded. The director of community development may Ayes--all The motion passed. C. 1999 Annual Report Reconsideration After discussion, the board directed staff to revise the annual report. VII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS There were no visitor presentations. VIII. BOARD PRESENTATIONS There were no board presentations. IX. STAFF PRESENTATIONS A. CDRB Volunteer for February 14 City Council Meeting; Mr. Ledvina will attend this meeting. B. CDRB Volunteer for February 28 City Council Meeting: Mr. Johnson will attend this meeting. X. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 7:55 p.m. MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: DATE: City Manager Thomas Ekstrand, Associate Planner Maplewood Retail (former Bali Hai site) 2271 White Bear Avenue February 17, 2000 INTRODUCTION On February 8, 2000, the community design review board (CDRB) reviewed the proposed Maplewood Retail shopping center on the former Bali Hai site. The CDRB recommended approval of this project, but required that the applicant resubmit revised plans regarding the building elevations, landscaping and comprehensive sign plan. I enclosed the previous report as background information. DISCUSSION Building Elevations The CDRB tabled their approval of the building colors because of building material and color changes that were not shown on the plans. Another reason for tabling was because they did not like the color variations of the awnings and of the tubular steel details on the building. The board felt that it would be a problem with tenant changes--a new tenant may wish to have their own awning colors that differ from the established color scheme. One option the CDRB discussed was to display awnings and steel work of same color. The applicant has presented two alternatives to depict both scenarios. Refer to the plans. Staff does not object to either color scheme. If the CDRB approves the three-color design, staff recommends that the board require that these colors not change. Revised Landscape Plan The revised landscape plan presented at the last meeting did not propose enough trees along the White Bear Avenue frontage. The trees the applicant added were, in fact, taken from other locations shown on the original landscape plan. This latest revision adds three trees and still relocates two trees from previous locations. Refer to the three plans on pages 6-8. Staff feels that this latest proposal would be acceptable since it would preserve the existing Ash Trees on the south and the existing boulevard trees on the north/northeast. As conditions of this approval, the applicant should be required to replace the four Ash Trees on the south side if they cannot be saved and to replace the two relocated evergreens on the White Bear Avenue side if they do not survive. Comprehensive Sign Plan The CDRB tabled the sign plan for the following reasons: The dashed areas on the building elevations that indicated sign locations were confusing. They indicated signs crossing over different building materials. For example, signs were shown crossing from EIFS to brick. It was unclear how many signs tenants would have. The sign plan text described the maximum sizes of signs the applicant was proposing, but did not identify where a tenant could place their signs. It was clear that each tenant would have a sign on their store front. The proposed criteria did not account for other sign placements, though, on the back of the building and on end caps where there were no entrances. · The 50-foot-tall pylon sign was too tall and overwhelming. The applicant's proposed sign plan is utilizing all of the exterior wall surface area that would total 20 percent coverage. The sign code allows 20 percent coverage for a stand-alone business. Comprehensive sign plans, however, are intended to create "tailor-made" sign criteria for shopping centers. This does not necessarily result in allowing the maximum sign coverage allowed for other buildings. Since the proposed sign plan does not cover all necessary aspects of a comprehensive sign plan, staff is proposing the following criteria for the CDRB's consideration (this criteria incorporates some of the applicant's proposed criteria with staff's suggestions): Tenant wall signs shall be placed as follows: Front Elevation Signs shall be placed on the cream-colored stucco fascia between the awnings and the EIFS cornice. Signs on this stucco fascia shall be centered top to bottom and side to side within this fascia. If a tenant's entrance door is in a tower area, it shall be placed in line with the other fascia signs. If two tenants have entry doors in a tower area, they may share the space on the tower fascia but the total sign size shall be as stated below. Side Elevations Signs on the sides of the building shall only be placed over entrance doors or windows. Signs are not allowed on the side elevations of the building except for a tenant with store exposure on that side. In this case, signs must be placed on the cream-colored stucco fascia between the awnings and the EIFS cornice as on the front elevation. Rear Elevations Identification signs shall not be allowed on the back of the building, except for small signs above the service doors to identify a space for deliveries. Number of Wall Signs Each tenant shall be allowed one wall sign on the stucco fascia as stated above, except that tenants on the corners of the building may have a wall sign on both their front and side exposure. Tenants with only exposure on the side elevation shall only be allowed a sign on the stucco fascia above their entrance. Sign Size (length and height of sian) Fascia Signs: The horizontal measurement shall not exceed 80 percent of the tenant store front. Tenant's signage on the sign band (including the towers) shall not exceed 36 inches in letter height. The tops of capitol letters and the descenders on lower case letters may extend above and below the 36 inch limit. Signs with stacked lines of sign copy shall be limited to the 36 inch height maximum for the total height of the sign. Service Entrance Signs: Non-illuminated signs on or over the service doors shall not exceed four inches in letter height. Permitted Style of Wall Sign Other than the service entrance signs on the back of the building, all tenant wall signs shall be composed of individual, internally-illuminated channel letters. These signs must be mounted on a raceway. Pylon Signs Two pylon signs shall be allowed, subject to the size, height and spacing requirements stated in the sign code. Window Signs Window signs shall be regulated by city code. RECOMMENDATION Approve the revised building elevations and landscaping plan dated February 14, 2000 for the Maplewood Retail Shopping Center at 2271 White Bear Avenue. The comprehensive sign plan is approved as stated below. These approvals are subject to the following conditions: 1. Compliance with all community design review board conditions from their previous review on February 8, 2000. 2. if the community design review board approves the three-color design, staff recommends that the board require that these colors not change. 3. The landscape plan shall be subject to the following conditions: The applicant shall replace the four Ash Trees on the south side if they cannot be saved and replace the two relocated evergreens on the White Bear Avenue side if they do not survive. Tree sizes shall comply with the code. The applicant shall not remove any tree or plant growth on public right-of-way since these trees were shown as plantings on the approved landscape plan. b The applicant shall resod any disturbed right-of-way. c. The applicant shall install an in-ground lawn irrigation system in all landscaped areas. 4. The comprehensive sign plan is approved subject to the following cdteda: a. Tenant wall signs shall be placed as follows: Front Elevation Signs shall be placed on the cream-colored stucco fascia between the awnings and the EIFS cornice. Signs on this stucco fascia shall be centered top to bottom and side to side within this fascia. If a tenant's entrance door is in a tower area, it shall be placed in line with the other fascia signs. If two tenants have entry doors in a tower area, they may share the space on the tower fascia but the total sign size shall be as stated below. Side Elevations Signs on the sides of the building shall only be placed over entrance doors or windows. Signs are not allowed on the side elevations of the building except for a tenant with store exposure on that side. In this case, signs must be placed on the cream-colored stucco fascia between the awnings and the EIFS cornice as on the front elevation. Rear Elevations Identification signs shall not be allowed on the back of the building, except for small signs above the service doors to identify a space for deliveries. Number of Wall Signs Each tenant shall be allowed one wall sign on the stucco fascia as stated above, except. that tenants on the corners of the building may have a wall sign on both their front and side exposure. Tenants with only exposure on the side elevation shall only be allowed a sign on the stucco fascia above their entrance. Sign Size (length and height of sign) Fascia Signs: The horizontal measurement shall not exceed 80 percent of the tenant store front. Tenant's signage on the sign band (including the towers) shall not exceed 36 inches in letter height. The tops of capitol letters and the descenders on lower case letters may extend above and below the 36 inch limit. Signs with stacked lines of sign copy shall be limited to the 36 inch height maximum for the total height of the sign. Service Entrance Signs: Non-illuminated signs on or over the service doors shall not exceed four inches in letter height. Permitted Style of Wall Sign Other than the service entrance signs on the back of the building, all tenant wall signs shall be composed of individual, internally-illuminated channel letters. These signs must be mounted on a raceway. b. Pylon Signs Two pylon signs shall be allowed, subject to the size, height and spacing requirements stated in the sign code. c. Window Signs Window signs shall be regulated by city code. p:secl l\balisite.sgn Attachments: 1. Original Landscape Plan dated January 7, 2000 2. Revised Landscape Plan Presented to the CDRB dated February 8, 2000 3. Revised Landscape Plan dated February 14, 2000 4. Proposed Sign Criteria Presented to the CDRB dated February 7, 2000 5. Proposed Pylon Sign 6. February 9, 2000 Staff Report 7. Colored Building Elevations date-stamped February 14, 2000 (separate attachments showing two alternatives) Attachment 1 COPE AVE. ORIGINAL LANDSCAPE PLAN (1-7.-00) Attachmen~ 2 CONIFEROUS TREES OR~AME,~TAL TREES ,/ / ',; / / / /// ~ // // .' /// . ' /// / / '~Y 6507 FFE= 9~0. O0 A~tachment 3 RET.41L 1200 RETAIL RESTA URA NT DECIDUOUS TREES CONIFEROUS TREES ORNAMENTAL TREES · ~,-/~ ] REVISED LANDSCAPE PLAN 1111~ (SECOND REVISION-2-14-00) ~ N Attachment 4 LANDLORD'S SIGN CRITERIA MAPLEWOOD RETAIL PROJECT February 7, 2000 Tenant shall, prior to the Commencement Date of the Lease, erect multiple wall signs as approved by the local ordinance and Landlord's criteria as set forth herein. General Requirements A. All wall signs shall conform to city ordinance as well as the criteria provided herein. B. All sign transformers, raceways and ballast boxes and decals shall be concealed behind sign band wall. Manufacturer's names, stamps and decals shall not be exposed. Do Fo No exposed neon or incandescent bulbs or flashing, blinking, rotating or moving signs or makers shall be permitted. No Store Front Sign or other signing on the Premises shall be of a type wherein the signing is housed or contained within an illuminated or non- illuminated sign can or box mounted on the exterior of the sign area, unless expressly approved by the Landlord in writing. Small-scale signs stating store hours, which are neatly lettered on the glass of the storefront, shall be permitted subject to the Landlord's approval. Any non-customer door for receiving merchandise may have the name of the Tenant in two inch (2") block letters. Address signs shall be composed of four-inch (4") high (maximum) Helvetica style white letters centered on the transom glass above the door. No sign shall be painted on the exterior of the walls, doors, windows or any other surface of the Demised Premises, nor erected, maintained or suffered to remain on the roof or parapet of the Premises. G° No sign shall be erected until written specifications and drawings of such sign are first approved in writing by Landlord. Such specifications and drawings shall show the size, construction, materials, colors, script, name of sign manufacturer and proposed location of such sign in conformity with the requirements stated herein and shall include a cross section drawing. Each party's customary signature or logo, hallmark, insignia or other trade identification will be allowed within the guidelines set forth. II. All signs erected by Tenant pursuant to the provisions hereof shall be erected at Tenant's own risk and expense (including final electrical connections and time clock), shall be in accordance with applicable law, and shall concern only the business of the Tenant. Tenant shall secure and pay any necessary permits and fees. Tenant shall maintain said signs in a good state of repair and save the Landlord harmless from anY loss, cost or damage as a result of the erection, maintenance, existence and removal of the same, and Tenant shall repair any damage which may have been caused by the erection, existence, maintenance or removal of such signs. Upon vacating the Premises, Tenant shall remove all such signs and repair all damage cause by such removal. The contractor, materials and methods for repair must be approved in writing by the Landlord in advance of the work. All electrical hook-ups Shall be performed by a licensed electrician, approved by Landlord and installed in accordance with all governmental requirements. Any damage caused to Landlord's work by signage installation shall be repaired by the Landlord and charged to the Tenant. Lo Public safety decals or art work on glass in minimum sizes to comply with applicable code, subject to the approval of Landlord, may be used, as required by building codes or other governmental regulations. M. Paper signs, stickers, banners or flags are prohibited. Window Painted Sign - need to be professional and pre-approved by Landlord. Time limit of no more than 60 days. Specific Requirements A. Type - Individually lighted channel letters with translucent front. .Size - Subject to city ordinance and Landlord approval. City ordinance notwithstanding, the horizontal measurement shall not exceed 80% of the tenant store front. Tenant's signage located on standard sign band (excluding tower entrance sign area) would be allowed up to two 24" rows of lighted channel letters with a four to six inch separation for stacking or one row of 36" lighted channel letters. Tenant's signage located on tower entrance sign area would be allowed up to one row of 60" lighted channel letters or two rows of 36" lighted channel letters with a four to six inch separation for stacking. Minimum indentation of two feet from demising wall. No one tenant will exceed 20% of the signage area allowed on their specific tenant elevation per City code. Base line and center line of sign to be located by Landlord's Architect and Landlord. D. Pylon/Monument Signs: Please see Exhibit A/Drawing l0 E. Colors and Materials Rohm & Haas plex faces: #2146 Ivory, 2108 Green, 2048 Red, 3016 Yellow, 2119 Orange or other colors with Landlord's pre- approval with black trim caps and matt black returns. Double neon tubing in color to match plex face, individually gas filled to ten (10) MM of pressure. Sign letter shall be aluminum channel frame (minimum .090) with flat or molded plastic face and mounted with concealed fasteners. Channel frame shall be painted to matt black. All letters shall be illuminated with neon tubes powered by normal factory transformers installed in the letter. A conduit for electric will be provided by Landlord's contractor. All letters shall be approved by Underwriter Laboratories and carry a seal of approval. 4. Signs shall be attached to building with stainless steel bolts. As part of Tenant's electrical work, Tenant shall install a seven- day timing device to control the canopy sign so that hours of illumination can be controlled in accordance with the overall shopping center policy. F. Three (3) completed set of sign drawings must be submitted to the Landlord for approval before fabrication. Tenant's sign drawings must include the following: Provide a complete listing and verbal description of every sign to be erected on the Premises. Provide elevation views of storefront showing all signs (drawn to accurate scale) with dimensions of heights of letters and length of signs. Provide a cross section view through sign letter and sign panel showing location of sign relative to the storefront line, mounting height, and the dimensioned projection of the face of the letter from the face of the sign panel. Landlord shall not be responsible for the cost of refabrication of signs fabricated, ordered or constructed that do not conform to the sign criteria and the local sign ordinances. This sign criteria may be amended from time to time by Landlord. 11 EXHIBIT A - Sign ._ .................... Attachment 5 - _, ' -". ': · - v ..' ALL~)T~D 51~, AREA = 450 5.F. BO'iH Fh'LOI, E 'AP, E/N'I_AP~E 51~N) = 221 5.F. AI;~A('SHALL 51~N) = 55.25 5.F. TOTAL AP, E~TH 51~N5) = 2-/6.25 5.1=. 51~N A~A CENTEP, NAME I I ~,, .OOF TO HATCH BLD~, HETAL PAINTED TO HATCH T/P..I=. CI-'IU~,, / 10.2'-O"'''m JPIN. bP. APE_ ioo,_o,,t BOX TO MATCH 13UILDIN~ 12" DIAN..~TEEL PIPE PAINTED TO HATCH BLDg. POOP TO HATCH DLD~ r~T/P-OOP ~'EL, 125'-0" METAL PAIN'rED TO HATCH PIPE BELOIN METAL BOX-- TO MATCH NEI/,I. 1901LDIN~ C. OLOP--5 6" DIAM. STEEL PIPE PAINTED TO MATCH BLDg. ,,.~TA~.F:. CNU ~'~EL, 102'-0" r~FIN. '~100'-0" '-- P, OGKF~E CHU BASE- _t. Attachment 6 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: DATE: City Manager Thomas Ekstrand, Associate Planner Maplewood Retail (former Bali Hal site) 2271 White Bear Avenue February 9, 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 insulation 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 district (the center line of White Bear Avenue). The code requires a CUP for buildings in an M1 (light manufacturing) district 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 vadance since: The highway right-of-way ranges in width from 52 feet to 100 feet adjacent to the proposed north/nodheast 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 stdp 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 Hai 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. 13 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 Hal 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. LandscapinO 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 2 14 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. COMMITTEE ACTIONS February 7, 2000: The planning commission recommended approval of the parking lot setback variance and conditional use permit. February 8, 2000: The community design review board recommended approval of the parking lot setback variance and design plans. RECOMMENDATIONS Ao Adopt the resolution on pages 16-17, approving a ten-foot parking lot setback vadance 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 Hai 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 15 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. 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 work is not essential to the public health, safety or welfare. 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. The director of community development may approve minor changes. CITIZENS' COMMENTS I surveyed the 24 property owners within 350 feet of this site and received the following eight replies: 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? (Burt 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 development! (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 yearmMore 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 comer has been empty long enough. (Katie Vener, 2271 White Bear Avenue) 7. 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) 8. The area could use this type of improvement. The Bali Hal is in poor condition and is an eye sore to the immediate area. (Owner/Occupant, 2251 Van Dyke Street) 5 17 REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Site size: Two acres Existing land use: The vacant Bali Hal Restaurant SURROUNDING LANDUSES North: 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 Amedca 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. 6 2. The vadance would be in keeping with the spidt 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. Refer to the findings 1-9 in the resolution on pages 18-19. 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 Conditonal Use Permit Justification dated January 7, 2000 7. Variance Resolution 8. Conditional Use Permit Resolution 9. Plans date-stamped January 7, 2000 (separate attachments) 7 19 Attachment 1 ~ C C) LOCATION 8 20 MAP Attachment 2 I~ ' * '~ ~ . .~.i ';.~;;~-..:::,~.':::.':.~/":t,';y:;:~i :,.m"' .':~,':'::-~lt'; ':'. '"?:::.-~ ',1 ,,~ ~,,- ' I '~.~*"I ~'''~'''--, /. ~ k_ ..... ~: ........... ~e ...... i'....'.. .. . '. ~' : ~ HIGHWAY 36 ' . ~ ' ~ -, '' .. ...'.~. ~' ~ ~BZ _ P-B .... : ........... "-? '. · ~ '' ~ . · z · aL' I ' ~ / I I MCUU~LU'~ ~~ ,, ~' ' '~ -'~ ='~ :' · ' ,o,~~ ' ~LIVINGFACILI~I ~m-~ ................. ~-'- ~': ~ ~ ~ ! /'.. c~/.~ ~f~, ' · ~ ( ~' ~1~ I "~ ~, X ~, 'il~/.: x ___~~ ~ . - ~=e, ; x,, I I. :u.. ~ ~ I. - ~S~l ,,~ ~1 o,,- ~ .,, GOODWILL Uo) q~' ~0 ~ ~ ~,, ~ ._ ~ m - m oo~.,.. ~ ~" ~ ~ F ,.1 ~ ~:. / ) ~ ~ . ; ~ ' ' ,,'~c .,.:. 14 COPE AVE. Attachment 3 Tolal Area = 4.84 Acres SITE PLAN 10 22 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: MEMORANDUM City Manager Thomas Ekstrand, Associate Planner 1999 Community Design Review Board Annual Report February 15, 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. On February 8, 2000, the board again reviewed the annual report and recommended some text changes. Staff has made the changes as directed. RECOMMENDATION Approve the community design review board's 1999 annual report. p:~misscell\drbanrep.99 (6.2) Attachment: 1999 Community Design Review Board Annual Report and Cover Memo TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: MEMORANDUM City Manager Matt Ledvina, Chairman 1999 Community Design Review Board Annual Report February 15, 2000 INTRODUCTION In 1999, the community design review board New Development Proposals 12 Expansions and Remodeling 6 Sign Reviews 1 Code Changes 2 Variances 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 Erickson (resigned April 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 relatively high number of new development proposals. These were: Acorn Mini Storage, Pep Boys, Office Depot & Pier 1 Imports, Pineview Estates Condominiums, the Bruentrup 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 Marie 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 is receptive to the desires of the council relating to unifying design criteda for the undeveloped land west of the Maplewood Mall that is currently under the development moratorium. There may also be a desire to evaluate the building and design criteria as it relates to the White Bear Avenue Corridor Study. The board is dedicated to promoting attractive development in Maplewood and will continue to require quality building designs in the year 2000. p:\misscell\drbanrep.99 (6.2) 2 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: DATE: MEMORANDUM City Manager Thomas Ekstrand, Associate Planner Land Use Plan Amendment, Wetland Variance, Parking Lot Setback Variance, Curbing Variance, Conditional Use Permit and Design Review - Maplewood Fire Station No, 2 Gladstone Neighborhood Frost Avenue and Clarence Street February 15, 2000 INTRODUCTION Project Description The Maplewood Fire Department is proposing to build a 12,744-square-foot, one-story fire station north of R&M Family Meats and Maplewood Bakery. The building extedor would be brick with a standing-seam metal roof. Refer to pages 11-16. The site plan shows a possible future trail head for the Gateway Trail. This is not part of the fire station project. If built, it would be a joint effort between the City of Maplewood, Ramsey County and the State of Minnesota. Requests The applicant is requesting that the city council approve: 1. A comprehensive land use plan amendment from R3H (residential high density) to G (government facility). The code requires that, to approve a conditional use permit (CUP), the land use plan designation for a property must be in conformance with the proposed use. 2. A wetland variance to build the proposed fire station and paved surface on a Class 5 Wetland. Class 5 Wetlands are the poorest quality wetland denoted by the Maplewood Wetland Ordinance. There is no setback required from a Class 5 Wetland, but the code does not allow their disturbance. Refer to the wetland location on page 14. 3. A parking lot setback variance for the proposed 10 parking spaces that would front on Clarence Street. The code requires a 15-foot setback. These would be perpendicular spaces accessed directly from Clarence Street. 4. A parking lot curbing variance for sections of the parking lot and entrance drive that are not proposed for curbing. The code requires continuous concrete curbing for parking lots with more than 12 spaces. The applicant is not proposing curbing in these areas for more effective drainage. 5. 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 17. 6. Building, site and landscape plans. BACKGROUND November 2, 1999 (election day): The Maplewood voters approved the expenditure of $1.8 million for the construction of a new Gladstone Fire Station as part of the fire-safety referendum. DISCUSSION Comprehensive Plan Amendment The city council must approve the proposed land use plan change to G if they wish to approve the CUP. Staff recommends approval of this change since the proposed use complies with the general development policies in the comprehensive plan. Refer to pages 18-19. Wetland Variance ! Watershed District Comments The applicant must get a variance from the wetland ordinance to remove the small wetland on the site. The wetland is the Iow area shown on the grading plan west of the garage doors and also on the reduced site plan on page 14. Rob Langer, of the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District, said that Class 5 wetlands may be mitigated subject to specific constraints--mitigation is the relocation of the wetland. Mitigation is done at a two to one ratio. Mr. Langer said that disturbance of wetlands is regulated by the Wetland Conservation Act which the watershed district regulates. The applicant must work with the district regarding the disturbance of this wetland. Mr. Langer confirmed that they have denoted this Iow area as a wetland in their data, but field verification should be made in the spring. The wetland ordinance lists the following exemptions from the ordinance. · Section 9-196(d)(d) waives the wetland requirements for the construction of public and semi- public utilities or trails. Section 9-196(d)(e) waives the wetland requirements when this ordinance would deny all reasonable use of a lot of record. This exemption states that the owner shall construct buildings to maximize the setback from a buffer. There would be no buffer in this instance. The first exemption addresses the need for necessary public utilities. Though the proposed fire station is not a utility, it is a necessary facility for the health, safety and welfare of the public. The second exemption waives the need for a variance, but requires that any construction maximize the setback from a wetland buffer. Staff feels that this proposal warrants approval of a vadance for the public welfare. The applicant should contact the watershed district right away, however, to begin processing a request to mitigate this wetland. Parking Lot Setback and Parking Lot Curbing Variances Parking in General The applicant has proposed three parking areas. The 26-space parking lot south of the building is intended for fire fighters, the 10 spaces along Clarence Street are primarily for convenient handicap 2 parking spaces plus six regular stalls and the 48 spaces east of Clarence Street are for trail and fire station banquet-room use. There is no parking formula for a fire station. The proposed 84 spaces should be enough. More can be added east of Clarence Street at a later time if needed. Setback Variance The code requires that parking lots be set back 15 feet from a street right-of-way line. The proposed 10 spaces along Clarence would be in the right-of-way. The architect designed the site this way for two reasons: first to provide the handicap-accessible spaces close to the front entrance, and second, because the odd shape of the site did not offer any better options. One option would have been to shift the building to the west and provide on-site parking at a 15-foot setback. This would have crowded the building too close to the west lot line, however, and consequently hinder fire-truck access into the west doors. The city has allowed on-street parking before. This was for road-side parking in front of the commercial building at the northeast corner of Kohlman Avenue and the Highway 61 frontage road. Two other instances of parking within the right-of-way are the Vomella Companies parking in the highway right-of-way at the northeast corner of Highway 36 and English Street and at Champps Restaurant at 1-35E and Roselawn Avenue in the freeway right-of-way. Curbing Variance The applicant did not propose curbing around the parking lot east of Clarence Street, along the southerly edge of the south parking lot or along the long driveway from Frost Avenue. The city typically requires curbing in such areas. The applicant did not propose curbing in these areas so as not to impede drainage to the adjacent holding ponds. Their plan is to sheet drain these paved areas across the grass to avoid the channelization of runoff and to avoid potential erosion. Sheet drainage is becoming a preferred method from the standpoint of water quality. It allows nutrients and sediments in runoff to disperse into the grass rather than being channelized and concentrated by hard surfaces and curbing. The benefit of curbing is to create a neat edge between the parking lot and the grass. Curbing also helps to keep cars on the pavement by providing a wheel stop. The applicant could provide curbing along the higher-grade sides of the east parking lot, but did not do so for design consistency. Staff agrees with the proposed sheet-drainage concept but would prefer to see concrete curbs or concrete edges provided wherever possible. Staff recommends that the applicant add curbing in the areas shown in the sketch on page 20. This sketch shows where curbing is proposed and also where staff would like to see it added. One variation in curbing design that staff is recommending is that the applicant provide a fiat concrete edge, perhaps one foot wide, along the east edge of this driveway. This edge would be no taller than the pavement and would allow runoff over the top. The intent is to create a neat curb-like edge while allowing surface runoff. The applicant is proposing to provide a parking barrier on the south edge of the southerly parking lot. They have not designed this barrier yet, but should provide the design to staff for approval before getting a building permit. Conditional Use Permit The proposed fire station would be compatible with this neighborhood and the majority of the neighbors liked the proposal. Two neighbors expressed concerns, however, about traffic, noise, reduction in privacy and parking lot visibility due to tree loss. 3 Traffic Traffic will increase, but a fire station is not a high traffic generating use. The proposed fire station will, in fact, create much less traffic than if this land were developed as currently zoned and planned. The current land use plan designation (R3H-high density residential), would allow 35 apartment units. This would have a far greater impact on this neighborhood than the proposed fire station. Noise Noise associated with the fire station would be the occasional fire call with siren and vehicle noise associated with it. Tree Loss, Reduction in Privacy and Visual Impact Tree loss is unfortunate but unavoidable when developing a site. The neighbor north of the proposed site is concerned about loss of privacy and negative visual impact. Fortunately, however, the areas of most activity would be on the south and east, away from this neighbor's property. There will also be a substantial amount of trees left on the Gateway Trail property that will provide a heavy screening for this neighbor of the fire station and the proposed parking lot east of Clarence Street. The applicant would also plant trees on the north side of the building adding to the buffer. Comment from the owner of the R&M Family Meats Property The owner of the abutting property offered a suggestion that perhaps the city would consider swapping the southerly point of the fire station site with the northerly point of his property. Staff will pursue this idea with the Fire Chief to discuss it's medt. Lieutenant Banick's Comments Lieutenant John Banick points out that fire stations have not been a source for complaint from neighbors. Refer to the memorandum on page 21. Building, Site and Landscaping Design The proposed building would be attractive. However, staff has the following recommendations for the site and landscape plan: 1. The applicant should submit a site lighting plan indicating fixture design and illumination intensity. The code requires such a plan for developments adjacent to residential property. The landscape plan should be further developed to provide a six-foot-tall and 80 percent opaque buffer south of the proposed east parking lot. Some of the proposed tree sizes on the landscape plan are smaller than the code allows. The Red Maple and Red Oak trees must be at least 2 % inches in caliper, balled and budapped. The Amur Maple trees must be at least 1% inches in caliper, balled and budapped. The applicant has not shown limits to which areas would be sodded and which would be prairie grass. The plan should show these limits in conjunction with the holding pond layout. 3. The grading/drainage plan should be revised to show even sheet drainage across the grass from paved areas. The applicant should submit a design proposal for parking barriers and the curbing changes as discussed above. 5. Clarence Street Right-of-Way Dedication Clarence Street is not shown on the county half-section property line map as it crosses this site (see page 12). It was presumably not dedicated as right-of-way since this land was publicly owned. The right-of-way, therefore, was not secured. This is a good opportunity to clean up the map and show the Clarence Street alignment. The applicant should have their surveyor describe the Clarence Street right-of-way for incorporation into a right-of-way dedication document. Park Director's Comments Bruce Anderson, the Maplewood Director of Parks and Recreation, suggests that this proposed fire station have public bathrooms available for trail users and also that the easterly parking lot be regarded as trail-use parking. Refer to Mr. Anderson's letter on page 22. These building and parking lot use issues have merit. These should, however, be worked out later among city staff and city council since they do not specifically affect the applications. RECOMMENDATIONS Adopt the resolution on page 23 amending the comprehensive land use plan from R3H (residential high density) to G (government facility) for the property north and northwest of 1347 and 1351 Frost Avenue. This approval is for the construction of the proposed Maplewood Fire Station No. 2 Gladstone Neighborhood. Approval is because the proposed fire station would comply with the general development policies in the Maplewood Comprehensive Plan. Adopt the resolution on pages 24-25, approving a wetland variance for the proposed Maplewood Fire Station No. 2 Gladstone Neighborhood north and northwest of 1347 and 1351 Frost Avenue. This variance would permit the construction of the proposed fire station and driveway pavement on a Class 5 Wetland. Approval is because: 1. Building on the wetland meets the intent of the ordinance. The ordinance provides exemptions from the wetland requirements for public benefit. Allowing the construction of the proposed fire station is a necessary facility for the health, safety and welfare of the public. 2. There is sufficient area available on the site to mitigate the small Class 5 Wetland. Approval is subject to the applicant submitting a wetland mitigation plan to the Ramsey- Washington Metro Watershed District and to the city engineer for their approvals. Adopt the resolution on pages 26-27, approving a 15-foot parking lot setback variance for the proposed Maplewood Fire Station No. 2 Gladstone Neighborhood north and northwest of 1347 and 1351 Frost Avenue. This variance would allow a parking lot within the Clarence Street right- of-way. Approval is based on the following findings: 5 Compliance with the setback requirements would cause the applicant undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the property. The site is oddly shaped making meeting all parking lot setback requirements difficult. The applicant would meet the spirit and intent of the code by providing handicap- accessible parking spaces closer to the front entrance than if the spaces were moved to a different location. 3. The city has allowed parking in the right-of-way before when the situation warranted it. This variance is subject to the applicant submitting a curbing plan which indicates continuous concrete curbing, concrete edging and parking barriers as shown on the curbing diagram in the staff report. This plan must be submitted to staff for approval before the issuance of a building permit. Adopt the resolution on pages 28-29, approving a variance from the parking lot curbing requirements for the proposed Maplewood Fire Station No. 2 Gladstone Neighborhood north and northwest of 1347 and 1351 Frost Avenue. This variance would waive the curbing requirement in specific areas on the site. Approval is because sheet drainage from the two larger parking lots is preferred for water quality in this instance. This vadance is subject to the applicant submitting a curbing plan which indicates continuous concrete curbing, concrete edging and parking barriers as shown on the curbing diagram in the staff report. This plan must be submitted to staff for approval before the issuance of a building permit. Adopt the resolution on pages 30-31 approving a conditional use permit for the proposed Maplewood Fire Station No. 2 Gladstone Neighborhood north and northwest of 1347 and 1351 Frost Avenue. Approval is based on the findings required by the code and subject to the following conditions: 1. 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. 3. The city council shall review this permit in one year. The applicant shall have their surveyor provide the legal description for the Clarence Street right-of-way and have the city attorney prepare documentation for the dedication and recording of this right-of-way. Approve the plans (stamped Januar7 28, 2000) for the proposed Maplewood Fire Station No. 2 Gladstone Neighborhood, 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 the following for staff approval: a. A grading, drainage, utility and erosion control plan. b. A revised landscape plan showing the following: (1) Red Maple and Red Oak trees that are at least 2 ~ inches in caliper, balled and burlapped. (2) Amur Maple trees that are at least 1 ~ inches in caliper, balled and burlapped. (3) A six-foot-tall, 80 percent opaque buffer on the south side of the east parking lot. (4) Areas that will be sodded and those that would have prairie grass. (5) Any additional tree, shrub or turf requirements of the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District. (6) In-ground lawn irrigation around the site on the west side of Clarence Street. c. A revised site plan showing the following: (1) The design of the parking barriers. There must be a parking barrier on the south sides of both larger parking lots. (2) A site lighting plan which indicates the fixture designs and illumination intensity. (3) Concrete curbing and concrete edges as shown on the curbing diagram in the staff report. (4) The driveway from Frost Avenue moved to the west five feet to meet the required five-foot side yard setback from the easterly lot corner. 3. Complete the following before occupying the building: a. Construct a trash dumpster enclosure for any outside trash containers. The enclosure must be 100 percent opaque, match the material of the building and have a closeable gate that extends to the ground. (code requirement) b. Install all landscaping as shown on the approved plan. c. Screen roof-top mechanical equipment that would be visible from the homes along Clarence Street. All other 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 and signs as required by the ADA (American's with Disabilities Act). 4. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. CITIZENS' COMMENTS I surveyed the 34 property owners within 350 feet of this site for their comments. Of the ten replies, three had no comment or objection and seven written replies were received. 1. The fire station is fine with us. (Woodbury Mechanical, Clarence Street) At some time will there be a way for trail pedestrian to use the bathroom or get a drink of water? At times we have such requests. Parking space looks like a great plan. (Maplewood Moose Lodge No. 963) 3. Looks pretty good. (Leonard and Evely Jablonski, 1763 Maryknoll Avenue) The only concern I have is the increase in traffic especially on English Street. No one does the speed limit. Would this mean more speeders? There are already enough close calls with the gateway trail crossing on English. (Nancy Kuffel and Donald LaValle, 1986 English Street) The newly proposed fire station plans look great! I think it has been much needed for years and look forward to having the increased traffic in the neighborhood. Additionally, I would like to be informed of any future meetings on the new site as well as the existing site plans. Thank you. (Oakstreet Furniture, 1375 Frost Avenue) 6. I do not object to this plan, but I don't believe it will increase my property value. Where will the funds come from to build this fire station? (Gladys Olson, 1999 Clarence Street) As the home owner at 1991 Clarence Street, I believe this will negatively impact my privacy and, therefore, my property value in a negative way. I want to see that plenty of noise prevention landscape and sight-line landscape will be provided between your side of the trail and mine. The traffic is a negative to me, my neighbors and the trail users. I would like to see a decrease in my property taxes to make up for the negative impact. I will now see a parking lot instead of trees. (April Brake, 1991 Clarence Street) REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Site size: 3.72 acres (1.72 acres from the original two parcels plus 2 acres from the former railroad right-of-way) Existing land use: Undeveloped SURROUNDING LAND USES North: South: West: East: Gateway pedestrian/bike trail and single dwellings R&M Family Meats, Maplewood Bakery and Frost Avenue Ramsey County pedestrian/bike trail Clarence Street and single dwellings PLANNING Land Use Plan designation: Existing - R3H (residential high density); Proposed - G (government facility) Zoning: R3 (high density residential) Ordinance Requirements Section 36-437(1) requires a CUP for public utility, public service or public building uses. Section 36-28(c)(5)(a) requires that parking lots have a 15-foot setback from street right-of-way. Section 36-22 (c) requires that parking lots have continuous concrete curbing. Section 9-196(h)(3) prohibits construction on wetlands. 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 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 pages 18-19. 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. Findings for CUP Approval Section 36-442 states that the city council must base approval of a CUP on the nine findings stipulated in the resolution on pages 30-31. Application Date We received this application on January 28, 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 28, 2000. p:sec 15\firestat. cup Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Property Line/Zoning Map 3. Gladstone Neighborhood Land Use Plan 4. Site Plan 5. Building Elevation Reductions 6. Applicant's Letter of Justification 7. General Development Policies 8. Curbing Diagram 9. Memorandum from Lieutenant Banick dated February 4, 2000 10. Memorandum from Bruce Anderson dated February 7, 2000 11. Land Use Plan Change Resolution 12. Wetland Vadance Resolution 13. Parking Lot Setback Variance Resolution 14. Parking Lot Curbing Variance Resolution 15. Conditional Use Permit Resolution 16. Plans date-stamped January 28, 2000 (separate attachments) l0 Attachment PALM AVE. SHERREN AVE. DEMONT AVE. AVE. K~u/~.~od Loke AVE. RD. COPE AVE. :OOO JUNCTION (1) CHAMBE. RS ST ~,.~.~, GOU: coURSe' SKILL FROST hq'ON AVE. AVE. ROSEWOOD AVl[. NURSING HOME AND FAIR GROUNDS GOODRICH GOLF COURSE RIPLEY AVE. KINGSTON PRICE AV~.. LOCATION 11 MAP Attachment 2 z~ · ~ · - PARK EbGE · '-- - APARTMENTS- 17 20~0 t ,o 2000-20 ,- (~ 17 ~ J~YAN ',~ '~' __ · /~ 1960' . ~ , ~ ,~ .' i~38-i~40 R&M FAMILY MEATS AND ~ OAK STREET ~ FURNITURE BAKERY ,~ ~ ~1, J.~ ,~ ~ ''-~ MARKET ~_.1~l, I~ I zi 11~b~_ -- , - ~~, , --_ , ,~ -, , --MIKESLP WEBSTER, I~ A, j "~ PROPOSED LAND USE PLAN CHANGE TO G (government facility) OS Attachment 3 I I, II II II 8&lnl P/w1 ~_ =~nijor,lcollect<~r,, ~, major arterial GLADSTONE NEIGHBORHOOD LAND USE PLAN 13 Attachment 4 CLASS 5 WETLAND PROPOSED FIRE STATION LANDSCAPE -' ,.L.. Pr. AN SITE PLAN 14 Attachment 5 t 16 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT LETTER OF REQUEST JANUARY 20, 2000 Attachment 6 The station is located one block north from the existing station on Clarence. It is essential in our response time to have the station located in close proximity to our firefighters' homes. The station has been designed to fit into the area. The administrative (north side) section, is a one-story gabled roof design to fit with the residential neighbors. The apparatus bays are located (south end) facing toward the commercial building. The station is designed as a 50-year building with one function, being a fire station. The station is again designed to fit into the neighborhood. Its design hints at the past with a train station flair resembling the Gloster Train Station which was located near our station site. The fire department administration conducted a meeting to introduce the design to the immediate neighbors. Thirty people, of about 200 invited, attended this meeting which resulted in positive feedback for the design. Five open houses were conducted for fire prevention at each station with the design on display. This also resulted in a positive result. The station being designed to fit into the area as a transition from residential to commercial is a good fit for the site. The station bay area will have glass overhead doors fi'ont and rear to give the building a transparent look. o The building, in the writers opinion, would positively impact the neighborhood as existing homes to the north are newer as well as several new homes being built on Ide Street. This positive impact would, again in my opinion, only increase property valves. Prior to the referendum, I received several calls from area residents expressing their hope the building would be built to rejuvenate the neighborhood. ° The facility would not bring any processes into the neighborhood. With the station will come increased activity. In addition to the current use, there will be increased activity in meetings, therefore increased apparatus and firefighter traffic. This traffic would enter and egress for the most part to and from the south. ° Traffic would increase in the area as it now exists for the current site. The outbound emergency vehicle traffic generally will depart from the site to the south to Frost. Upon return to the station, apparatus will use the access located on Frost Avenue, west of the market building, east of the Trail. The design and site would create little effect on city services as we are a city service. Additionally, having a fire station one block to the south, the area should be accustom to our operation. However, with this station being essentially our headquarters/or central station, department wide meetings and activities will become more frequent. However, this activity generally occurs Tuesday mornings and evenings, and an occasional Saturday morning. This facility would not create additional costs for services. As a replacement facility, the costs to services may be the same or slightly higher for lawn care and snow removal. Again, the building design, colors and glass doors are to become and blend in as an integral part of the neighborhood. 9. In my opinion, the environmental effects are minimal. 17 Attachment 7 Prevent premature use, overcrowding or overuse of land, especially when supportive services and facilities, such as utilities, drainage systems or streets, are not available. Provide a wide variety of housing types. Provide safe and attractive neighborhoods 'and commercial areas. Integrate developments with open space areas, community facilities and significant natural features. Maintain and upgrade environmental quality and, where needed, reclassify land uses. GENERAL DEVELOPMENT POLICIES The following general development policies are intended to implement the previous goals: The City will not approve new development without providing for adequate facilities and services, such as streets, utilities, drainage, parks and open space. Safe and adequate access will be provided for all properties. Transitions between distinctly differing types of land uses should not create a negative economic, social or physical impact on adjoining developments. · Whenever possible, changes in types of land use should occur so that similar uses front on the same street or at borders of areas separated by major man-made or natural barriers. · The City requires all development to meet state and federal laws, including Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) regulations, unless a variance is obtained from the regulating agency. · The City may require that a developer do sound tests to verify compliance with MPCA regulations. · Grading and site plans should preserve as many significant natural features as practical. The City requires drainage and erosion control plans with new developments. Such plans shall not increase the rate of runoff and shall prevent erosion. The city will use the National Urban Runoff Program (NURP) standards for the design of new storm water ponds. 20 18 Maplewood will use the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency's (MPCA's) urban best management practices when reviewing any proposed development to reduce nonpoint source pollution in storm water. The City will not remove land from the tax rolls unless it is in the public interest. The City supports the improvement, replacement or redevelopment of substandard or incompatible development. · The City coordinates its planning with neighboring communities. The City applies its development policies and ordinances consistently and uniformly. The City coordinates land use changes with the character of each neighborhood. The City regulates development near or the alteration of natural drainage systems to manage storm water runoff. The City uses the Ramsey County Soil Survey to identify areas with soils that are not suitable for building sites. The City may reqUire the developer to furnish evidence from a registered soil engineer that areas with problems can be developed as proposed. The City considers the recommendations of the area Watershed organizations in the review of development requests. RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT POLICIES The following are the City's residential development policies: Plan residential neighborhoods, with schools and parks as the hub. Natural or man-made physical barriers should not traverse, but set the boundaries of the neighborhood. Include a variety of housing types for all types of residents, regardless of age, ethnic, racial, cultural or socioeconomic background. A diversity of housing types should include apartments, townhouses, manufactured homes, single-family housing, public-assisted housing and Iow- and moderate-income housing, and rental and owner-occupied housing. 21 19 Attachment 8 Z APPLICANT'S PROPOSED UPRIGHT CURB STAFF'S PROPOSED ADDITIONAL UPRIGHT CURB STAFF'S PROPOSED ONE FOOT WIDE CONCRETE EDGE CURBING DIAGRAM2o Attachment 9 interoffice MEMORANDUM to.' f~om: subjeot: d~te: Tom Ekstrand John Banick, Police Lieutenant PROJECT REVIEW February 4, 2000 I have reviewed the plans for the proposed Maplewood Fire Station on Clarence Street north of Frost Avenue. I agree with Fire Chief Hewitt's assessment about the increase in traffic to the area and it's minimal impact on the neighborhood. I believe most residents in the area are familiar with the operation of a fire department in their neighborhood and the impact on their dally lives. Over the years I do not recall one complaint relating to the arrival or egress of firefighters or firefighting equipment to one of our fire stations. The apartment building on Clarence at Skillman generates considerably more traffic in the immediate neighborhood than the proposed fire station would. Currently, my only concern with this proposal is the exterior lighting. I did not see an exterior lighting plan included in this proposal. Should a lighting plan become available I would be interested in reviewing it. I believe a new fire station on this property would improve the area and be an asset to the community. Should you have questions please contact me at extension 4502. cc: Chief Winger 21 Attachment 10 Together We Can MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Tom Ekstran(~ it~PI~~ Bruce K. Ahd~ onL,/~l/ // I Director, Parka February 7, 20 Fire Station Review The proposed fire station is located at the intersection of the Gateway Trail and Ramsey County/ Burlington Northern Trail. This is the only point that these two highly used trails are crossed. I have had some informal discussion with both the State DNR, owner and manager of the Gateway Trail, and Ramsey County, owner and manager of the Burlington Northern Trail, to discuss the feasibility of constructing a trailhead. This land was originally purchased with the thought of creating a rest area, and the concept of constructing a trailhead on a shared three-way basis has some merit. The proposed trailhead would include (at a minimum) a rest area, a paved area including a drinking fountain, kiosk, benches, and possibly some picnic tables. In my discussions with DNIL there are two issues that were raised regarding the parking lot on the east side of Clarence. The first being is there merit to have that identified as an official parking lot for the State DNR trail. I have spoken with the fire department and there are pros and cons to use of that eastern parking lot. The second item is public bathrooms. I have shared both of these issues with Joel Hewitt, and believe that with the increased usage of traffic on the trails the fire department could have a number of requests to utilize the bathrooms. I wonder if it makes any sense to have public bathrooms, possibly as a service with an outside access. I realize there would be some cleaning and possibly vandalism issues, but I raise this item for your consideration. Should you have any questions regarding these issues, feel free to contact myself directly at 651- 770-4573. Cc: Joel Hewitt, Fire Chief 22 PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT 612- 770-4570 CiTY OF MAPLEWOOD 1830 EAST COUNTY ROAD B MAPLEWOOD, MN 55109 Attachment 11 LAND USE PLAN CHANGE RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the Maplewood Fire Department applied for a change to the city's land use plan from R3H (high density residential) to G (government facility) to bring the land use plan into conformance with their proposed use as a fire station. WHEREAS, this change applies to the property north and northwest of 1347 and 1351 Frost Avenue. The legal description is: That part of a 100.00 foot wide railroad right of way lying east of the east right of way line of Ramsey County LRT right of way (formerly the Burlington Northern Railroad right of way), lying south of the south right of way line of the State of Minnesota D.N.R. right of way (formerly the St. Paul and St. Croix Falls R.R. right of way) and lying north of the north right of way line of Frost Avenue; the centerline of said 100.00 foot right-of-way is described as follows: Commencing at the southwest corner of the northwest quarter of Section 15, Township 29, Range 22; thence South 89 degrees 48 minutes 54 seconds East along the south line of said northwest quarter a distance of 377.35 feet to the beginning of the centedine to be described; thence northeasterly a distance of 1,064.80 feet along a nontangential curve concave to the southeast having a radius of 1,146.27 feet, a central angle of 53 degrees 13 minutes 24 seconds and a chord bearing of North 42 degrees 34 minutes 25 seconds East; thence North 69 degrees 11 minutes 07 seconds East a distance of 300.00 feet and said centedine there terminating. That part of Block 8, GLADSTONE, lying northeasterly of a line run from the northwest corner of said Block 8 to a point on the southeasterly line of said Block 8 distant 352.20 feet southwesterly from the most easterly corner thereof. WHEREAS, the history of this change is as follows: On February 23, 2000, the planning commission held a public hearing. The city staff published a hearing notice in the Maplewood Review and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The planning commission gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The planning commission recommended that the city council 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 fire station would comply with the general development policies in the Maplewood Comprehensive Plan. The Maplewood City Council approved this resolution on ,2000. 23 Attachment 12 WETLAND VARIANCE RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the Maplewood Fire Department applied for a vadance from the Maplewood Wetland Ordinance. WHEREAS, this variance applies to property north and northwest of 1347 and 1351 Frost Avenue. The legal description is: That part of a 100.00 foot wide railroad right of way lying east of the east right of way line of Ramsey County LRT dght of way (formerly the Burlington Northern Railroad right of way), lying south of the south dght of way line of the State of Minnesota D.N.R. right of way (formerly the St. Paul and St. Croix Falls R.R. right of way) and lying north of the north right of way line of Frost Avenue; the centerline of said 100.00 foot right-of-way is described as follows: Commencing at the southwest corner of the northwest quarter of Section 15, Township 29, Range 22; thence South 89 degrees 48 minutes 54 seconds East along the south line of said northwest quarter a distance of 377.35 feet to the beginning of the centedine to be described; thence northeasterly a distance of 1,064.80 feet along a nontangential curve concave to the southeast having a radius of 1,146.27 feet, a central angle of 53 degrees 13 minutes 24 seconds and a chord bearing of North 42 degrees 34 minutes 25 seconds East; thence North 69 degrees 11 minutes 07 seconds East a distance of 300.00 feet and said centerline there terminating. That part of Block 8, GLADSTONE, lying northeasterly of a line run from the northwest comer of said Block 8 to a point on the southeasterly line of said Block 8 distant 352.20 feet southwesterly from the most eastedy corner thereof. WHEREAS, Section 9-196(h)(3) of the wetland protection code prohibits construction on wetlands. WHEREAS, the applicant is proposing to build a new fire station and site paving on the wetland. WHEREAS, the history of this variance is as follows: 1. On ,2000 the planning commission recommended that the city council approve this variance. 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 the construction of a fire station and driveway paving on a Class 5 Wetland for the following reasons: 24 Building on the wetland meets the intent of the ordinance. The ordinance provides exemptions from the wetland requirements for public benefit. Allowing the construction of the proposed fire station is a necessary facility for the health, safety and welfare of the public. 2. There is sufficient area available on the site to mitigate the small Class 5 Wetland. Approval is subject to the applicant submitting a wetland mitigation plan to the Ramsey- Washington Metro Watershed District and to the city engineer for their approvals. The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on ,2000. 25 Attachment 13 PARKING LOT SETBACK VARIANCE RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the Maplewood Fire Department applied for a parking lot setback variance from the zoning code. WHEREAS, this variance applies to property north and northwest of 1347 and 1351 Frost Avenue. The legal description is: That part of a 100.00 foot wide railroad right of way lying east of the east fight of way line of Ramsey County LRT right of way (formerly the Burlington Northern Railroad right of way), lying south of the south right of way line of the State of Minnesota D.N.R. right of way (formerly the St. Paul and St. Croix Falls R.R. fight of way) and lying north of the north fight of way line of Frost Avenue; the centerline of said 100.00 foot right-of-way is described as follows: Commencing at the southwest corner of the northwest quarter of Section 15, Township 29, Range 22; thence South 89 degrees 48 minutes 54 seconds East along the south line of said northwest quarter a distance of 377.35 feet to the beginning of the centerline to be described; thence northeasterly a distance of 1,064.80 feet along a nontangential curve concave to the southeast having a radius of 1,146.27 feet, a central angle of 53 degrees 13 minutes 24 seconds and a chord bearing of North 42 degrees 34 minutes 25 seconds East; thence North 69 degrees 11 minutes 07 seconds East a distance of 300.00 feet and said centerline there terminating. That part of Block 8, GLADSTONE, lying northeasterly of a line run from the northwest comer of said Block 8 to a point on the southeasterly line of said Block 8 distant 352.20 feet southwesterly from the most easterly corner thereof. 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 to build a parking lot in the Clarence Street right-of- way. WHEREAS, this requires a variance of 15 feet. WHEREAS, the history of this variance is as follows: 1. On ,2000 the planning commission recommended that the city council approve this variance. 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. 26 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above-described vadance as recommended by the city staff that would allow a parking lot to be built within the Clarence Street right-of-way for the following reasons: Compliance with the setback requirements would cause the applicant undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the property. The site is oddly shaped making meeting all parking lot setback requirements difficult. The applicant would meet the spirit and intent of the code by providing handicap-accessible parking spaces closer to the front entrance than if the spaces were moved to a different location. 3. The city has allowed parking in the right-of-way before when the situation warranted it. This variance is subject to the applicant submitting a curbing plan which indicates continuous concrete curbing, concrete edging and parking barriers as shown on the curbing diagram in the staff report. This plan must be submitted to staff for approval before the issuance of a building permit. The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on ,2000. 27 Attachment 14 PARKING LOT CURB VARIANCE RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the Maplewood Fire Department applied for a parking lot curbing variance from the zoning code. WHEREAS, this variance applies to property north and northwest of 1347 and 1351 Frost Avenue. The legal description is: That part of a 100.00 foot wide railroad fight of way lying east of the east fight of way line of Ramsey County LRT dght of way (formerly the Burlington Northern Railroad dght of way), lying south of the south right of way line of the State of Minnesota D.N.R. dght of way (formerly the St: Paul and St. Croix Falls R.R. right of way) and lying north of the north right of way line of Frost Avenue; the centerline of said 100.00 foot fight-of-way is described as follows: Commencing at the southwest corner of the northwest quarter of Section 15, Township 29, Range 22; thence South 89 degrees 48 minutes 54 seconds East along the south line of said northwest quarter a distance of 377.35 feet to the beginning of the centerline to be described; thence northeasterly a distance of 1,064.80 feet along a nontangential curve concave to the southeast having a radius of 1,146.27 feet, a central angle of 53 degrees 13 minutes 24 seconds and a chord bearing of North 42 degrees 34 minutes 25 seconds East; thence North 69 degrees 11 minutes 07 seconds East a distance of 300.00 feet and said centerline there terminating. That part of Block 8, GLADSTONE, lying northeasterly of a line run from the northwest comer of said Block 8 to a point on the southeasterly line of said Block 8 distant 352.20 feet southwesterly from the most easterly comer thereof. WHEREAS, Section 36-22(c) of the zoning code requires that all parking lots have continuous concrete curbing. WHEREAS, the applicant is proposing to leave some of their parking lot edges uncurbed. WHEREAS, the history of this variance is as follows: 1. On this variance. ,2000 the planning commission recommended that the city council approve 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. 28 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above-described vadance as recommended by the city staff that would waive the curbing requirement in specific areas on the site plan. ,Approval is because sheet drainage from the two larger parking lots is preferred for water quality in this instance. This variance is subject to the applicant submitting a curbing plan which indicates continuous concrete curbing, concrete edging and parking barriers as shown on the curbing diagram in the staff report. This plan must be submitted to staff for approval before the issuance of a building permit. The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on ,2000. Attachment 15 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the Maplewood Fire Department applied for a conditional use permit for a fire station. WHEREAS, this permit applies to the property north and northwest of 1347 and 1351 Frost Avenue. The legal description is: That part of a 100.00 foot wide railroad right of way lying east of the east right of way line of Ramsey County LRT right of way (formerly the Burlington Northern Railroad right of way), lying south of the south right of way line of the State of Minnesota D.N.R. right of way (formerly the St. Paul and St. Croix Falls R.R. right of way) and lying north of the north right of way line of Frost Avenue; the centedine of said 100.00 foot right-of-way is described as follows: Commencing at the southwest comer of the northwest quarter of Section 15, Township 29, Range 22; thence South 89 degrees 48 minutes 54 seconds East along the south line of said northwest quarter a distance of 377.35 feet to the beginning of the centedine to be described; thence northeasterly a distance of 1,064.80 feet along a nontangential curve concave to the southeast having a radius of 1,146.27 feet, a central angle of 53 degrees 13 minutes 24 seconds and a chord beadng of North 42 degrees 34 minutes 25 seconds East; thence North 69 degrees 11 minutes 07 seconds East a distance of 300.00 feet and said centerline there terminating. That part of Block 8, GLADSTONE, lying northeasterly of a line run from the northwest comer of said Block 8 to a point on the southeasterly line of said Block 8 distant 352.20 feet southwesterly from the most easterly corner thereof. WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: 1. On February 23, 2000, the planning commission recommended that the city council this permit. On ,2000 the city council held a public hearing. City staff published a notice in the paper and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The council gave everyone at the headng 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. 3O 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. 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. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 2. The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the permit shall 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 have their surveyor provide the legal description for the Clarence Street right-of-way and have the city attorney prepare documentation for the dedication and recording of this right-of-way. The Maplewood City Council approved this resolution on ,2000. 31 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: DATE: City Manager Ken Roberts, Associate Planner Conditional Use Permit and Design Review - Fresh Paint 1055 Gervais Avenue February 8, 2000 INTRODUCTION Project Description Mr. Thomas Schaffhausen, of Sanas Capital Investments, is proposing to build a 5,300 square- foot office/warehouse facility at 1055 Gervais Avenue. Refer to the maps and drawings on pages 9-12 and 14-16. Mr. Schaffhausen has submitted a narrative explaining this proposal. Refer to the letter on page 13. This facility would consist of a building for Fresh Paint, a commercial painting contractor. This building would have office and storage space and a garage for the indoor storage of company equipment and vehicles. Refer to the enclosed project plans (separate attachment). The proposed building would have an exterior of prefinished horizontal steel siding, brick, steel doors, windows for the offices and standing-seam roof panels. Requests Approval of a conditional use permit (CUP) because the proposed building would be about 64 feet from the residential property to the rear (north). Code requires a CUP for buildings in an M-1 (light manufacturing) district that would be closer than 350 feet to a residential district. 2. Approval of building design, site and landscape plans. DISCUSSION Conditional Use Permit Mr. Schaffhausen wants the city to allow him to keep the existing house on the property for an employee to live as a site caretaker. Section 36-151(a)(1) of the city code says "A dwelling unit for one family in combination with a business use" is a permitted use in this zoning district. However, there is some question about the city's intention by adopting this code. That is, did the city intend the dwelling unit to be in or connected to the business building or did the city intend for the dwelling unit to just be on the same property as the business? It is staff's interpretation that the city did not intend the code to allow an existing single family home to remain when there is new development. It would be possible for the applicant to include living quarters in the new building, if they so choose. This development proposal gives the city an opportunity to change a nonconforming land use (the single dwelling and garage) to a commercial property that fits the standards and policies of the zoning ordinance and comprehensive plan. As such, the city should require the property owner to remove the house and the garage from the site before building the new office/warehouse. Having a new office/warehouse on this site would meet the requirements for a CUP. This project should have little effect on the adjacent single-family homes to the north due to the 64- foot setback to the building and the existing vegetation south of the existing houses. This facility also would screen and buffer the houses from the businesses on the south side of Gervais Avenue. The proposal would be compatible with the existing single-family homes to the north and the warehouses across Gervais Avenue and should not cause any problems for the city or for the neighbors. Staff does not have any concern with this proposal and operation. Traffic should only increase slightly over its present level. As for the effect on property values, city staff cannot . make the determination that there would be any negative impact on property values with this request. Building Design The proposed building would be attractive. The project architect told me they have not yet picked the building colors, but expects that they will be neutral and attractive. Landscaping and Screening There are trees on the north side of the site that would provide screening between the existing houses and the proposed building. It would be advantageous to preserve these trees for screening purposes if the grading limits allow. The applicant proposes to leave some of the existing trees on the site, but proposes to add several new trees around the site and landscaping in front of the new building. The city code requires that the applicant replace quality trees that are eight inches or more in caliper. Poor-quality trees such as box elders, cottonwoods and poplar are exempt. The code requires that these trees be replaced up to a density of 10 trees per acre. The property to the west of this site has an occupied single-dwelling. Because of his house, there is a need for screening on the west side of the proposed parking lot between the proposed building and the existing house. This screening is necessary because Sections 36-27(b)(1) and (4) of the code requires screening where: - The light from vehicle headlights and other sources would be directed into residential windows. A parking lot is constructed next to a property that is used or shown on the city's land use plan for single- or double-dwelling use. This screening must be at least 80 percent opaque and at least six feet tall. The screening requirement may be met with a berm, a fence, plantings or a combination of design and materials. The community design review board (CDRB) should review this plan before the city approves a building permit for the project. The city code also requires in-ground lawn irrigation. The applicant should provide this in the front and on sides of the new building and around all sides of the existing house. Parking The proposed site plan shows 13 parking spaces. Based on the proposed use of the building, these should adequately serve their needs. In the event a shortage develops, however, the city could require that the applicant add more spaces on the west side of the driveway. Drainage Considerations The applicant's plans show much of the site being graded to create the building pad, the driveway and the parking area. The proposed grading plan shows the storm water running off the parking lot to Gervais Avenue and possibly the loss of an infiltration area on the northwest corner of the site. Because of the proposed grades, the city engineer is suggesting that the developer direct all impervious surfaces (roofs, driveway and parking areas) to the south and into a storm sewer that they connect to the existing city system to the west of the site. The final plans for the storm sewer and utilities will be reviewed by and subject to the city engineer's approval upon building permit submittal. RECOMMENDATIONS Adopt the resolution on pages 18 and 19. This resolution approves a conditional use permit for Thomas Schaffhausen of Sanas Capital Investments to construct an office/warehouse building on the property at 1055 Gervais Avenue. This request needs this permit because the new building would be closer than 350 feet to a 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 date-stamped January 20, 2000, except that the owner shall remove the existing house and garage from the site. 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 city council may require additional parking in the future if the council determines that there is a need for additional parking on the site. There shall be no outdoor storage of vehicles, equipment, materials or supplies, except the personal vehicles of the employees, permitted on the site. All commercial traffic to and from this site shall use Gervais Avenue and the Highway 61 frontage road for access to this site. The applicant or owner shall prohibit commercial vehicles going to or from this site from using Cypress Street. 7. The hours of operation shall be from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m., Monday through Saturday. 8. The lighting on the site shall be wall or post-mounted and shall shine toward the site. 9. Clean the site by removing all vehicles, unused and inoperable equipment, debris and all other unused/unusable items. Bo Approve the project plans date-stamped January 20, 2000, for the Fresh Paint facility at 1055 Gervais Avenue, based on the findings required by the code. The property owner or applicant shall: 1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. 2. Before the city issues a building permit for the new office/warehouse, complete the following: ao Have the community design review board (CDRB) approve a screening plan for the area on the west side of the proposed parking lot between the proposed building and the existing house. This screening must be at least 80 percent opaque and at least six feet tall. The screening requirement may be met with a berm, a fence, plantings or a combination of design and materials. bo Submit a grading, drainage, utility and erosion control plan to the city engineer for approval. The erosion control plan shall meet all ordinance requirements. The grading and storm water plans shall direct all impervious surfaces (roofs, driveway and parking areas) to the south and into a storm sewer that the developer connects to the existing city system to the west of the site. c. Submit a building-color scheme of neutral colors to city staff for approval. d. Get a demolition permit from the city and remove the existing garage and house. Complete the following before occupying the new office/warehouse building: a. Replace property irons that are removed because of this construction. bo Restore and sod damaged boulevards. Restore and seed or sod any and all disturbed ground such as the areas of driveway or blacktop removal. Remove all old driveway entrances and restore with sod. Co do Provide handicap-accessible parking spaces as the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) requires. Install a handicap-parking sign for each handicap-parking space. Screen all roof-mounted equipment visible from adjacent residential properties. Such equipment visible on non-residential sides must be painted to match the building color. (code requirement) e° Construct a trash dumpster enclosure if there will be any outdoor storage of refuse. The enclosure must match the building in color and materials and shall have a closeable gate that is 100 percent opaque. fo go ho Install an in-ground sprinkler system for all lawn areas on the front and on the sides of the new office/warehouse building and on all sides of the existing house Provide site-security lighting as required by the city code. The light source, including the lens covering the bulb, shall be concealed or shielded so not to cause any nuisance to vehicle drivers or to adjacent property owners. There shall be no lighting on the back of the building unless required by the building code. Post the west side of the new driveway and the west side of the parking area for "no parking." i. Install continuous concrete curb and gutter around all parking areas and the driveway. 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. bo The city receives cash escrow 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 of occupancy if the building is occupied in the spring or summer. c. The city receives an agreement that will allow the city to complete any unfinished work. 5. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. CITIZENS' COMMENTS We had sent surveys to the 23 property owners within 350 feet of this site. We received four replies. 1. I have no problem with (this). (Northernaire Motel, Inc.) 2. Absolutely not! We don't know what would go there in the future. Too much trucks in area and noise now. Do not want paint and truck fumes, either. (Karl - 1008 Sextant Avenue) Absolutely no! This firm originally stated intended use was office only in existing building. Now they want to add a building that will add to the truck and noise and traffic that is already too loud in the area. No way - do not let them expand into a truck and equipment storage facility. (Karl - 2440 Cypress Street) 4. See the letter dated January 24, 2000 from Sherrill Benjamin on page 17. REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Site size: 0.99 acres Existing land use: A single-family home and detached garage SURROUNDING LAND USES North: Single dwellings South: businesses across Gervais Avenue West: A single dwelling that the city has zoned and planned M-1 (light manufacturing) East: Undeveloped property and Sunset Realty PLANNING Land Use Plan designation: M-1 (light manufacturing) Zoning: M-1 Ordinance Requirements Section 36-187(b) states that no building or exterior use, except parking, may be erected, altered or constructed within 350 feet of a residential district without a CUP. Section 36-151(b)(4) requires a CUP for the outdoor storage or display of goods or materials. The city may require screening of such uses provided at least 80 percent of materials are screened. Section 36-22(a) requires one parking space for every 200 square feet of office space and one parking space for every 1,000 square feet of warehouse space. Findings for Approval Section 36-442(a) states that the city council must base approval of a CUP on nine standards for approval. Refer to the resolution on pages 18 and 19 for the findings. Section 25-70 of the city code requires that the community design review board 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. o 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. Application Date The city received the application materials for this request on January 20, 2000. State law requires the city to take action on this request by March 19, 2000, unless the applicant agrees to a time extension. p:sec9\freshpnt, mem Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Property Line/Zoning Map 3. Site Plan 4. Grading, Utility and Landscape Plans 5. Applicant's Letter dated 1-19-00 6. Building Elevation Reductions 7. Building Elevation Reductions 8. Building Floor Plan 9. 1-24-00 letter from Sherrill Benjamin 10. CUP Resolution (2 pages) 11. Project Plans date-stamped January 20, 2000 (separate attachment) Attachment 1 L.t..I Loke BENd AVE. COUNTY GERVAIS 1. SUMMIT CT. 2. COUNTRWIEW CIR. 3. DULUTH CT. 4. LYDIA AVE. BF. AId KOHLMAN AVE. ROAD C 'V1KINO SNERREN AVE. AVE. VIKING DR. ~3 CT. r~ JUNCTION (1) CHAMBEES STi SKILL ~ [LDR~ LOCATION~MAP 1~ 15. Attachment 2 1.5,0 , 3 POND AVE '~ (a~ / " REALTY, HERMAN$ON DENTAL ~ (8) 1055 I1' II *"JI 14r " 1081 ¢i) ~______~__ mmmmm'mmjm · PROPERTY LINE I ZONING MAP 10 Attachment 3 SITE PLAN 11 Attachment 4 GERVAIS .... AVENUE UTILITY NOT~S GERVAIS AVENUE [AHD$C~e'E PLAN PLANT LIST SANAS CAPITAL INVESTMENTS, LLC 850 Hamline Ave. St. Paul, MN 55104 Attachment 5 January 19, 2000 City of Maplewood Community Development Attn: Kenneth Roberts 1830 E. County Road B Maplewood, MN 55109 JAN 2. 0 2000 On behalf of Sanas Capital Investments, I am requesting your consideration in issuing a conditional use permit to allow us to construct up to a 6,000 sq fl building on the commercially zoned lot located at 1055 Gervais Ave. The building will be leased to Fresh Paint, a 15 year old, independently owned commercial painting contractor, currently located in the Midway area. Fresh Paint employs approximately 35 painters, and six office employees. On a daily basis, only the six office employees will be utilizing the building - the remaining staff will be working in the field. The building will be designed to adequately provide offices and indoor storage for trailers and equipment. There will be no painting work done at the site. The building design is both modem and efficient. It's exterior design was carefully chosen to be attractive, yet unobtrusive. Considerable time was given to the interior to ensure that it would be a multiple use building in the event of a tenant change, as well as to allow for growth within the leasing company without further expansion. I am also requesting your approval to leave the existing house on the property. Fresh Paint's top supervisor is currently renting the home, acting as a caretaker of the grounds. He is prepared to accept the responsibility of acting as caretaker for both buildings and the grounds, keeping both clean and attractive to the community. We have updated the home's decorating, and this spring, plan to seal and paint the exterior, replace window sills and deteriorating wood when the weather permits. Few companies the size of Fresh Paint are fortunate enough to have a 24 hour security guard/caretaker on site. As a result, properties can deteriorate, and they can become victim to vandalism. We would appreciate the ability to avoid such problems. Thank you for your consideration. I'll be happy to discuss plans in further detail, and answer any questions you may have. Sincerely, Thomas R. Scha$'fhausen President/CFO 13 'poo~eldOPl 'enue^¥ s~D,,de~ ~S'O [' J. NlVd H$:I~I:I ~0~ Du!plfng e~o ~',eN V Attachment 6 14 Attachment 7 .l _J / ! 15 Attachment 8 Attachment January 24, 2000 Kenneth Roberts, Associate Planner City of Maplewood 1830 E County Road B Maplewood, MN 55109-2797 RE: Fresh Paint Office/warehouse Conditional Use Permit - 1055 Gervais Avenue Dear Mr. Roberts: I wish to submit comments concerning the noted CUP under consideration by the City of Maplewood. Originally, I received a letter from Fresh Paint noticing their intent to purchase the property at 1055 Gervais and offering to answer any questions or concerns. I phoned the number provided and left a message that I would like to talk with them concerning their plan. Not receiving a return call, I placed two additional calls, leaving messages each time. To Date Fresh Paint has not returned my calls. Next I spoke with several neighbors and determined that most had not received notice of the pend!ng plans for 1055 Gervais. Lastly, I contacted City Hall by telephone and in person to find out what was occurnng and get information about the company's plans. City staff said they had not applied for a CUP and expressed concern that Fresh Paint was "getting the cart before the horse" by completing the purchase without knowing if the City would grant a CUP. To date questions have neither been answered nor has adequate information been provided. Questions concerning Fresh Paint's use of property at 1055 Gervais; 1 It appears that with the remova of the existing garage, the plans could be altered slightly without · losing effective use of the property, thus moving the building forward and perhaps avo dng the need for a CUP. Has this issue been addressed? 2. When Fresh Paint refers to trailers and equipment, what does this include? 3. Following up on #3, does Fresh Pa nt intend to store paints, solvents thinners, etc. on this property? 4. If the answer to ~4 is yes, then what types of paints, solvents, thinners, etc., will be stored on this property, in what quantity, how will waste be disposed and how will the City monitor these materials and operations? 5. If the answer to ~4 is no, then what are the Cities provisions to ensure compliance with no storage of hazardous or flammable products? 6. The plan reflects a garage with a "flammable waste trap," please explain the need for this and how this may or may not effect the ,,wet lands in close proximity to this property. 7. The plan reveals a "repair' area, please explain the type, extent, and hours such repairs will be in progress. 8. The plan reveals stairs leading up between the garage and the storage room, why is that area missing from the plans provided to neighbors? 9. What is the purpose of this unknown area and how will this unknown area be used? 10. According to the letter provided, Fresh Paint is currently located somewhere in the Midway area. What is their current address? 11. Has the City been to the Midway property to find out what kind of residents or neighbors Fresh Paint currently is for the Midway community? 12. How much traffic what type and what hours may we expect this traffic in our neighbor? 13. I really must repeat City staff's quest on, why would this company complete the purchase of property for which they wi need a CUP to use as planned before applying for or getting CUP approval? 14. Why do we have City Ordinances if variances and CUP are rout nely granted? Please provide answers to the above questions and notification of the hearing date before approving this CUP. Sincer~y, . .,~ , Maplewood, MN 55109 651/481-8708 cc: Mayor and City Council 17 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Tom Schaffhausen, of Sanas Capital Investments, applied for a conditional use permit to build an office/warehouse facility in an M-1 (light manufacturing) district closer than 350 feet to a residential district. WHEREAS, this permit applies to the property at 1055 Gervais Avenue. The legal description is: Subject to Bedell Road (Gervais Avenue), the East 150 feet of the South 290 4/10 feet of the Southeast 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of Section 9, Township 29, Range 22, Maplewood, Ramsey County, Minnesota. WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: 1. On February 23, 2000, the planning commission recommended that the city council approve this permit. The city council held a public hearing on ,2000. City staff published a notice in the paper and sent notices to the surrounding property owners as required by law. The council gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written 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, 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 run-off, 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. o 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. 3.8 o 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: All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city date-stamped Janua~j 20, 2000, except that the owner shall remove the existing house and garage from the site. o 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 city council may require additional parking in the future if the council determines that there is a need for additional parking on the site. 5. There shall be no outdoor storage of vehicles, equipment, materials or supplies, except the personal vehicles of the employees, permitted on the site. All commercial traffic to and from this site shall use Gervais Avenue and the Highway 61 frontage road for access to this site. The applicant or owner shall prohibit commercial vehicles going to or from this site from using Cypress Street. 7. The hours of operation shall be from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m., Monday through Saturday. 8. The lighting on the site shall be wall or post-mounted and shall shine toward the site. 9. Clean the site by removing all vehicles, unused and inoperable equipment, debris and all other unused/unusable items. The Maplewood City Council approved this resolution on 2000.