HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/13/2000....,,: BOOK
AGENDA
MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
June 13, 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
4. Approval of Agenda
5. Unfinished Business
6. Design Review
a.
b.
C.
d.
3M Building #207 Addition, 3M Center
Amusement City Expansion, 1870 Rice Street
Goodrich Golf Course Clubhouse Addition, 1820 Van Dyke Street
Pineview Estates Apartments, County Road D
Visitor Presentations
Board Presentations
Article from Matt Ledvina for Discussion Regarding House Designs
9. Staff Presentations
a. CDRB Volunteer Needed for June 26 and July 10 City Council Meetings.
10. Adjourn
p:com-dvpt\cdrb.agd
WELCOME TO THIS MEETING OF THE
COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
This outline has been prepared to explain the review process of this meeting. The
review of an item usually follows this format.
1. The chairperson of the meeting will announce the item to be reviewed.
The chairperson will ask the applicant or developer of the project up to the podium
to respond to the staff's recommendation regarding the proposal. The Community
Design Review Board will then discuss the proposed project with the applicant.
The chairperson will then ask the audience if there is anyone present who wishes
to comment on the proposal.
After everyone is the audience wishing to speak has given his or her comments,
the chairperson will close the public discussion portion of the meeting.
5. The Board will then discuss the proposal. No further public comments are allowed.
6. The Board will then make its recommendations or decision.
Most decisions by the Board are final, unless appealed to the City Council. You
must notify the City staff in writing within 15 days to register an appeal.
jw\forms~7,drb.agd
Revised: 11-09-94
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
MEMORANDUM
City Manager
Thomas Ekstrand, Associate Planner
Design Review - 3M Building #207 Addition
June 1, 2000
INTRODUCTION
3M Company is requesting approval of plans to add onto the south side of Building #207. Refer
to pages 2-4. The proposed addition would have an extedor of brick and precast concrete with
the look of cream-colored limestone.
The applicant would use this addition for training space for employees. They do not anticipate
hiring more personnel to occupy this additional space.
DISCUSSION
The building addition would blend in with the existing building. There are no parking issues.
RECOMMENDATION
Approve the plans date-stamped May 30, 2000 for the addition to 3M Building #207, based on
the findings required by the code.
p:sec36-29\3 m#207, mem
Attachments:
1. Location Map
2. Site Plan
3. Building Elevations
4. Plans date-stamped May 30, 2000 (separate attachment)
CONWAY AVENUE ~ I
~09
I I
I I
I
I
I
I I
II
IIIII
II
Attachment 1~..
I
II
II II
PROPOSED ADDITION
TO BUILDING #207
'i j'
;~30
1-94
LOCATION
2
MAP
Attachment 2
!
!
NOTES:
2O7
leT.
I FF£ 308.0
PROPOSED
PAVING
ADDITION
FFE 506.2,5
EXISTING ,,.s
PAVING
sptc. o211o.
vo M~TCH
FFE 510.0 u~[
LEGENO PAVEMENT SECTIONS
SITE PLAN
- Attachment 3 I
I!
n
--B'
_ I
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
LOCATION:
DATE:
City Manager
Tom Ekstrand, Associate Planner
Conditional Use Permit Revision - Amusement City Expansion
1870 Rice Street
June 2, 2000
INTRODUCTION
Dan Betts, owner of Amusement City, 1870 Rice Street, is requesting approval to enlarge his
facility to the south. He is proposing to extend his existing race track, add a new smaller track
and put in a paint-ball field. Mr. Betts is also proposing to remodel the inside of a building
currently used for video games as a pizza restaurant. Refer to the maps on pages 5-7 and the
letter on page 8.
Requests
Mr. Betts is requesting that the city council approve a revision to his conditional use permit (CUP)
to expand his facility and convert an existing building into a pizza restaurant.
BACKGROUND
Refer to the Past Actions on page 4.
DISCUSSION
CUP Revision I Facility Expansion
Staff does not object to the proposed expansion. The property is best suited for a use such as
Mr. Bett's proposal. This land is marginal due to its limited size, limited frontage and constraints
due to the wetland.
Wetland
The wetland on the site is a Class 5 Wetland. This is the least significant wetland described in
the wetland ordinance. The applicant does not have to provide any wetland-protection buffer, but
must not encroach within it with the expansion. The plans show that the expansion would not
encroach.
Vehicle Complaints
One continual problem at Amusement City and the Jerry Anderson Car Sale Lot on the south
side of Roselawn Avenue is the parking of cars on the grass. Staff has given orders to the new
owner of the car lot to remove all cars from the grass by July 1, 2000. Mr. Betts also has some
vehicles parked on his property currently. I have informed him that these must be removed also
by July 1, 2000.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the resolution on pages 9-11 to revise the conditional use permit for Amusement City at
1870 Rice Street. This revised permit is for the proposed facility expansion and the addition of a
pizza restaurant in an existing building. The following revisions are based on the findings
required by the code and subject to the following conditions (additions are underlined and
deletions are crossed out):
, ~,~ ............ th.t they:
The suspension of the ddving range shall be in effect until a public hearing has been held and
the suspension by the city council ended. The conditional use permit for the remainder of the
facility is still in effect. The property owner shall comply with the following revised conditions of
approval:
1. Comply with the approved site plan dated ~ ~' ..... ~-- "" ~'~'" with the
exception of the driving range which is hereby terminated.
2. Maintain the following site improvements:
a. A refiectodzed stop sign at the Rice Street driveway.
A striped parking lot with at least 94 parking spaces as shown on the approved plan.
The applicant shall have four handicap parking stalls and handicap-parking signs for
each stall. There shall be at least one van-accessible space. (Americans with
Disabilities Act requirement)
c. A trash dumpster enclosure for any outside trash dumpsters.
d. Direct or shield the lights so the bulbs are not directly visible from any public street.
(code requirement)
2
3. All cars shall be removed from the non-oaved areas. S_oecificallv. all cars _oarked on the
old driving range site must be removed by July 1. 2000.
4_. Future revisions to the approved site plan must come before the city council for their review
and a_o_oroval.
5_. The applicant must not encroach into the wetland with this exoansion.
6. The 45 "new" parking spaces shown on the plan must be _oaved, striped and have
continuous concrete curbing around the entire _oarkincl lot, unless breaks are re(~uired bv
the city engineer for drainaae reasons.
PAST ACTIONS
November 17, 1977: The city council approved the CUP for the amusement facility.
October 22, 1981: Staff approved a racetrack addition.
March 9, 1982: The design board approved the bumper boats, mini-golf and batting cages.
April 25, 1994: The council revised the CUP to include the driving range.
October 11, 1994: Staff approved a siding change for the equipment building.
May 22, 1995: The council extended the CUP for one year.
May 20, 1996: The council extended the CUP for another year.
October 29, 1996: Ms. Carolyn Wilkerson submitted a petition, signed by 128 people, requesting
that the city council close Amusement City's driving range.
November 25, 1996: The city council "moved to set a public headng to formally review the CUP
to determine whether there are valid safety issues which should result in amending or revoking
the permit.'
March 10, 1997: The city council held a public hearing to review Ms. Wilkerson's request. The
council renewed the CUP, but required the owners of the driving range to do the following:
1. Increase the height of the netting to 65 feet along the north side of the ddving range.
2. Aim the tee boxes, where practical, toward the southeast comer of the driving range.
3. Cease storing vehicles on the driving range.
4. Provide verification that the business is using only Iow trajectory golf balls.
5. Submit a statement indicating how they will process claims for damages.
The council also moved to review this permit again in one year.
June 23, 1997: The city council amended the CUP to suspend the operation of the ddving range
portion of this amusement facility because of complaints about golf ball damage, the storing of
vehicles on the site without the proper approvals and violation of CUP requirements that
pertained to the driving range. The CUP for the rest of the amusement facility is still in effect.
March 30, 1998: The city council reviewed the CUP and authorized review again in one year.
p:sec18~amucity5.cup
Attachments:
1. Location Map
2. Property Line/Zoning Map
3. Site Plan
4. Applicant's Letter of Request
5. CUP Resolution
Attachment 1
AV~..
I~1'. VI~RNON
DOWNS AV~-
BI~.LWOOD AV~.
S1JMM E~R AV~.
s~J~
PAUL
5
Attachment 4
L.B. AMUSEMENT CITY, INC.
1870 RICE ST.
ST. PAUL, MN 55113
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
Amusement City, Inc. located at 1870 Rice St., Maplewood, MN is expanding its operation.
Which would include a Pizza Restaurant located in the front building. Also in addition to this we
will be adding a third go cart track and a splat tag field.
Sincerely,
Dan Betts
8
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION
Attachment 5
WHEREAS, the city council approved a conditional use permit for an amusement facility at
1870 Rice Street on November 17, 1977 and amended it several times since.
WHEREAS, the property owner is requesting approval of a conditional use permit amendment
to expand his amusement facility to the south onto vacant property and to convert an existing
building into a pizza restaurant.
WHEREAS, this permit applies to the following described property:
EISENMENGER AND ZASPEL'S LAKE PARK, RAMSEY CO., MINN., SUBJECT TO ST AND
AVE AND VAC STS AND ALLEYS ACCRUING, THE FOL A TRACT LYING NWLY OF SOO
LINE RY R/W OF THE FOL; LOTS 4 THRU 10 BLK 1, LOT 7 BLK2, LOTS 5 THRU 32
BLK 4, LOTS 12 THRU 25 BLK 6 AND ALL OF BLK 3.
AND
EISENMENGER AND ZASPEL'S LAKE PARK, RAMSEY CO., MINN., SUBJECT TO HWY
THE FOL VAC ALLEY ACCRUING AND LOTS 33 THRU LOT 39 BLK 4.
AND
EISENMENGER AND ZASPEL'S LAKE PARK, RAMSEY CO., MINN. VAC ST AND ALLEY
ACCRUING AND LOTS 1 THRU 4 BLK 4.
WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit revision is as follows:
1. On ,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 revise the above-described
conditional use permit revision, based on the following reasons:
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.
9
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.
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:
The suspension of the driving range shall be in effect until a public hearing has been held and
the suspension by the city council ended. The conditional use permit for the remainder of the
facility is still in effect. The property owner shall comply with the following revised conditions of
approval:
1. Comply with the approved site plan dated May 16, 2000, with the exception of the driving
range which is hereby terminated.
2. Maintain the following site improvements:
a. A refiectorized stop sign at the Rice Street driveway.
b. A stdped parking lot with at least 94 parking spaces as shown on the approved plan.
The applicant shall have four handicap parking stalls and handicap-parking signs for
each stall. There shall be at least one van-accessible space. (Americans with
Disabilities Act requirement)
c. A trash dumpster enclosure for any outside trash dumpsters.
d. Direct or shield the lights so the bulbs are not directly visible from any public street.
(code requirement)
3. All cars shall be removed from the non-paved areas. Specifically, all cars parked on the
old driving range site must be removed by July 1, 2000.
4. Revisions to the approved site plan must come before the city council for their review.
5. The applicant must not encroach into the wetland with this expansion.
10
o
The 45 'new' parking spaces shown on the plan must be paved, striped and have
continuous concrete curbing around the entire parking lot, unless breaks are required by
the city engineer for drainage reasons.
The Maplewood City Council approved this resolution on
,2000.
11
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
LOCATION:
DATE:
City Manager
Tom Ekstrand, Associate Planner
Conditional Use Permit and Design Review - Goodrich Golf Course
Clubhouse
1820 Van Dyke Street
May 31, 2000
INTRODUCTION
Project Description
Kevin Finley, of Ramsey County Parks and Recreation, is proposing to build a 1,700 square-foot
addition onto the Gooddch Golf Course Clubhouse. Refer to the maps on pages 4-7 and the
letter on page 8. The extedor of the clubhouse would be cultured stone, board & batten siding,
horizontal lap siding and dark green asphalt shingles. The building would be green, beige and
natural wood color. Refer to the plans.
The proposed, enlarged clubhouse would have locker rooms, a banquet room, snack bar, and
outdoor patio.
Requests
Mr. Finley is requesting the following:
1. A conditional use permit (CUP) to expand a public building. Section 36-437 of the city code
requires a CUP for a public service or public building uses in any zoning district.
2. The building design, site and landscape plans.
DISCUSSION
Conditional Use Permit
The city council should approve this permit. The proposed, enlarged building would be attractive
and would improve the appearance of the clubhouse. This would benefit the county by improving
their golf facility and the neighborhood as well. There is a substantial amount of parking
available so parking would not be a problem.
Landscaping
The applicant proposes to add landscaping around the proposed building expansion in the future.
None has been shown on the plans yet, however. The applicant should submit a landscape plan
to staff for approval.
Code requires that the developer or owner install an in-greund sprinkler system for any new
landscaped areas. The sprinklering requirement can be waived if there is an alternative method
for watering plantings. The golf course is essentially a lawn and landscaping maintenance
operation. An in-ground lawn irrigation system is not needed since the grounds would be
properly maintained as they always have been.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Approve the resolution on pages 8-9. This resolution approves a conditional use permit for
the Goodrich Golf Course and clubhouse expansion at 1820 Van Dyke Street. The council
bases the permit on the findings required by code and it is subject to the following
conditions:
All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city. The director of
community development may approve minor changes.
The applicant must begin construction within one year after the council approves this
permit or the permit shall end. The city council may extend this deadline for one year.
3. The city council shall review this permit in one year.
Approve the plans (date-stamped May 26, 2000) for the Goodrich Golf Course Clubhouse
addition, subject to the findings required by the city code. The developer shall do the
following:
1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this
project.
2. Submit a grading, drainage and erosion control plan to the city engineer for approval
pri~r to getting a building permit.
3. Subn;tit the landScape plan for plantings around the building to staff for approval.
All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may
approve minor changes.
REFERENCE INFORMATION
SITE DESCRIPTION
Site size: 40,000 square feet
Existing land use: Existing Goodrich Golf Course Clubhouse
SURROUNDING LAND USES
North:
East:
South:
West:
Goodrich Golf Course
Goodrich Golf Course
North St. Paul Road and the future Woodland Hills Church
Goodrich Golf Dome
PLANNING
Land Use Plan designation: P (park)
Zoning: F (farm residence)
CUP Findings
Section 36-442(a) states that the city council shall base approval of a CUP on the findings listed
in the resolution on pages 8-9.
p:sec14~gooddch.cup
Attachments:
1. Location Map
2. Property Line/Zoning Map
3. Site Plan
4. Applicant's letter dated May 26, 2000
5. Conditional Use Permit Resolution
6. Plans date-stamped May 26, 2000 (separate attachment)
3
Attachment 1
NORTH SAINT PAUl
LOCATION MAP ~
~ N
Attachment 2
ARENA
GOODRICH
GOLiF'
2 ,.. SOUTH
~ CHINA
$
F~AIVISE¥ COUNTY - GOLF COURSE
GOODRICH
GOLF COURSE
CLUBHOUSE
F
~KING
mT
N~W ~
· LIr~S ~iAN 1:20 UA~IUU
PASO
/
/
//
,/
Attachmen~l~_=3
SITE
PLAN
6
Attachment 4
Parks and Recreation Department
Gregory A. Mack, Director
2015 N. Van Dyke Street
Maplewood, MN 55109-3796
May 26, 2000
Tel: 651-748-2500
Fax: 651-748-2508
www.co.ramsey.mn.us
Ms. Melinda Coleman
Community Development Director
City of Maplewood
1830 County Road B East
Maplewood, MN 55109
Dear Ms. Coleman:
Ramsey County is requesting approval from the City of Maplewood to remodel the existing
Goodrich Golf Course Clubhouse and construct a 1,700 square foot addition. The
remodeled and expanded clubhouse will be operated in a similar manner as it is now and will
provide more seating space for golf tournaments, meetings and other events.
The existing clubhouse was constructed in the late 1960's and the golf course has been in
operation since the mid-1950's. The building will improve the character of the surrounding
area' and will not depreciate property values in the area. The use of the clubhouse will not
create nuisances and will have no impact on current vehicular traffic on local streets. The
public facilities will not be impacted in terms of cost or burden on the systems. The site of
the clubhouse will be enhanced by incorporating the natural and scenic features as part of
the public golf course. The clubhouse will cause no adverse environmental impacts and will
continue to be used by the public as a recreation facility. The clubhouse operation will
comply with all city ordinances.
This statement accompanies the application and documentation as required by the City.
Enclosed are design plans prepared by HCM Architects. There are also documents provided
by the Ramsey County Property Records and Revenue Department that list the property
owners and addresses for properties within 350 feet of the Goodrich Clubhouse site and the
legal description for Goodrich Golf Course.
Ramsey County intends to follow all of the standards established by the City of Maplewood in
the development and use of the Goodrich Golf Course Clubhouse. Ramsey County requests
that the City of Maplewood approve the remodeling and expansion of the Goodrich Golf
Course Clubhouse. Thank you for your consideration of this request.
Sincerely,
Director of Operations
KCF/jjh
Enclosure
Minnesotlt*8 First Home Rule County
printed on recycled paper with a minimum of 10% post.consumer content
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION
Attachment 5
WHEREAS, Ramsey County applied for a conditional use permit for the Goodrich Golf Course
and to add onto the clubhouse.
WHEREAS, this permit applies to the property located at 1820 Van Dyke Street. The legal
description is:
SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 29, RANGE 22, SUBJECT TO STREETS AND AVES AND
EASEMENTS AND RIGHTS-OF-WAY AND EXCEPT PART OF N % OF SW 1/4
SOUTHEASTERLY OF NORTH ST. PAUL ROAD AND SOUTHWESTERLY OF HAZEL
STREET AND EXCEPT THE WEST 810 FEET OF NORTH % OF SOUTHWEST 1/4 AND
EXCEPT THE WEST 810 FEET OF THE SOUTH 235 8/10 FEET OF SOUTH ½ OF
NORTHWEST 1/4 AND EXCEPT THE WEST 870 FEET OF THE SOUTH ~ OF THE
NORTHWEST 1/4 LYING NORTH OF SAID SOUTH 235 8/10 FEET THE NORTH % OF
SOUTHWEST 1/4 AND SOUTH % OF THE NORTHWEST 114 ALL IN SECTION 14,
TOWNSHIP 29, RANGE 22.
WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows:
1. On June 19, 2000, the planning commission recommended that the city council approve
this permit.
On , the city council held a public heating. City staff published a notice in the
paper and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The council gave everyone
at the hearing a chance to speak and present wdtten statements. The council also
considered reports and recommendations from the city staff and planning commission.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above-described
conditional use permit, because:
1. The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be in
conformity with the City's Comprehensive Plan and Code of Ordinances.
2. The use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area.
3. The use would not depreciate property values.
The use would not involve any activity, process, materials, equipment or methods of
operation that would be dangerous, hazardous, detrimental, disturbing or cause a
nuisance to any person or property, because of excessive noise, glare, smoke, dust,
odor, fumes, water or air pollution, drainage, water runoff, vibration, general
unsightliness, electrical interference or other nuisances.
The use would generate only minimal vehicular traffic on local streets and would not
create traffic congestion or unsafe access on existing or proposed streets.
6. The use would be served by adequate public facilities and services, including streets,
police and fire protection, drainage structures, water and sewer systems, schools and
parks.
7. The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services.
8. The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and scenic
features into the development design.
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 applicant must begin construction within one year after the council approves this
permit or the permit shall end. The city council may extend this deadline for one year.
3. The city council shall review this permit in one year.
The Maplewood City Council approved this resolution on
9
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
LOCATION:
DATE:
City Manager
Tom Ekstrand, Associate Planner
Design Review-Pineview Estates
North Side of County Road D, West of 1655 County Road D and Maple Ridge
Apartments
May 22, 2000
INTRODUCTION
Mr. Pat Goff, of Goff Homes, is requesting approval of a building-design change for his proposed
72 unit apartment development on County Road D. Refer to the maps on pages 4-7. Mr. Goff
received community design review board (CDRB) approval of his previous design on May 25,
1999. Refer to pages 9-10.
The proposed buildings would have exteriors of horizontal-lap vinyl siding with brick accents on
the south and front elevations (garage-door side).
BACKGROUND
May 26, 1992: The CDRB approved the plans for Pineview Estates Condominiums.
The conditions of approval stated that this approval is good for two years. The applicant,
consequently, is repeating this review process since he had not started the project.
May 25, 1999: The CDRB approved Mr. Goff's plans for Pineview Estates. Refer to the minutes
on pages 11-12.
DISCUSSION
Site Plan and Building Design
This site plan is essentially the same as the one approved in 1999, except that there would now
be three curb cuts and the buildings would be arranged in slightly different groupings. Staff does
not find any problem with these changes.
The building design is also similar to the previous proposal. The roof line would be slightly
different, however, with dormers as well as the center peak detail. The applicant is also
proposing to add a cantilevered area on the south elevations with bdck accenting as previously
required by the CDRB. The new design would also have entry doors on the end elevations of the
buildings. Staff likes this new design better than the 1999 proposal.
Another change is the addition of an office on the south side of building #5. This would serve as
a rental and management office.
Landscaping
The landscaping would be attractive. The planting sizes would meet code requirements.
Trash Disposal
Since these would be rental units, the applicant would need to provide areas for trash storage
and pick up. The code requires that outdoor trash dumpsters be kept within screening
enclosures built of a material compatible with the buildings. Enclosures must have closeable
gates.
RECOMMENDATION
Approve the revised plans (date-stamped May 15, 2000) for Pineview Estates, based on the
findings required by the code. The developer, Goff Homes, 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 submit the following for staff approval:
a. Submit a grading, drainage, utility and erosion control plan to the city engineer.
b. Submit the building color scheme to staff for approval.
3. Complete the following before occupying the building:
a. Replace property irons that are removed because of this construction.
b. Restore and sod damaged boulevards. Sod all landscaped areas, except the hillside to
the north which shall remain in its present state,
c. Install reflectorized stop signs at the exits and addresses for the buildings.
d. Install an automatic in-ground irrigation system with a rain sensor for all landscaped
areas, except for the hillside to the north.
e. Install continuous concrete curbing.
4. If any required work is not done, the city may allow temporary occupancy if:
a. The city determines that the work is not essential to the public health, safety or welfare.
b. The city receives a cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit for the required work.
The amount shall be 200 percent of the cost of the unfinished work. Any unfinished
landscaping shall be completed by June 1 if the building is occupied in the fall or winter or
within six weeks if the building is occupied in the spdng or summer.
5. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may
approve minor changes.
REFERENCE INFORMATION
SITE DESCRIPTION
Site size: 5.98 acres
Existing land use: undeveloped
SURROUNDING LAND USES
North: Interstate 694, City of White Bear Lake
South: Undeveloped land planned for commercial use
East: A single dwelling and the Maple Ridge Apartments
West: A vacant lot owned by the City of Maplewood
PLANNING
Land Use Plan designation: R-3H (high-density residential)
Zoning: R3 (multiple-dwelling residential)
p:sec34-30~pineview, etc
Attachments:
1. Location Map
2. Property Line/Zoning Map
3. Proposed Site Plan
4. Proposed Building Elevations
5. Applicant's Letter dated May 9, 2000
6. Approved 1999 Site Plan
7. Approved 1999 Building Elevations
8. May23, 1999 CDRB Minutes
9. Plans date-stamped May 15, 2000 (separate attachments)
· Attachment 1
VADNAIS HEIGHTS
BEAR LAKE
//
LOCATION
MAP
Attachment 2
MAPLEWOOD_----,
PONDING
300'
O
PROPOSED PINEVIEW ESTATES
COUNTY RD. D ..................
PROPERTY LINE I ZONING MAP
Attachment 3
1-694
--- COUNTY ROAD D_..~ __..
PROPOSED SITE PLAN
MAY 15, 2000
6
Attachment 4
BUILDING ELEVATIONS
PROPOSED
7
Attachment 5 '~'
GOFF HOMES, INC.
865 ASPEN CIRCLE
LITTLE CANADA, MINNESOTA 55109
651-482-0767
May 09, 2000
Community Design Review Board
City of Maplewood
1830 E. County.Road B
Maplewood, MN 55109
Re: Co. Rd. D Property
Dear Board Member:
We would like to build twelve six unit apartment buildings on the six acre site on County
Road D. We would like to begin construction as soon as possible.
The plan we are proposing is the plan that was approved in May of 1992 with a few
modifications. We have added a 10'x 20' office to one end of the building to be used by
the 0nsite m~anager. We have decided not to build the building you approved for this site
last year as we built it in another suburb and found that we have eliminated most of the
senior population with two flights of stairs in all units. This plan can accommodate seniors
in one-third of all the units.
We appreciate your consideration.
Sincerely, ~
Patrick W. Goff
8
Attachment 6
COUNTY ROAD D ~
SITE PLAN
1999
Attachment 7
South Elevation
Office
._-,.:~.-.. '...."~ . i:. . . ~"
.~. ,. :.. .~. '.:.:..-.'.. ;........~",::;~;.,..- .- ....
:). ~,?: :.-.~... :;~:' ..~".' .:....~;~.....,..,~: .'-,' - '- ..... ~.,.... ..-',-.
East Elevation
Office
!
VI.
Attachment
MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA
MAY 25,..199~
DESIGN REVIEW
B. Pineview Estates Condominiums--County Road D, Goff Homes, inc.
Secretary Tom Ekstrand presented the staff report. He said the 1992 proposal had one-car
garages with a second story above the garages. The roof was hip style. The revised plans
are for a three-story building with the garages on the first level and two living stories above
that. There were 72 units proposed. Pat Goff, the applicant, said the retaining walls would be
four feet or less.
Mr. Goff said the roofs would be a shaded, medium earth tone, the siding will be almond with
white trim and the brick is a blended medium sand color. Boardmember Shankar felt the brick
that is shown should be returned on the County Road D side of the building. The beige
central air-conditioning units will sit on the decks. The deck rails are painted, baked, white
enamel over aluminum. The divider wall on the deck, between the units, is sided and trimmed
in white, wrapped aluminum. The siding will continue around the front of the deck.
Mr. Goff said at the north end of each building there are three extra parking stalls. Each unit
has the capacity to park two vehicles in the garage, two outside and any overload at the end
of the building. He said potential residents are told that there should only be two licensed
vehicles per household at the household. No parking of boats, motor homes, etc. will be
allowed outside at any time.
Chairperson Ledvina commented that he did not see any landscaping proposed in the green
strips on the west and east sides of the property. Mr. Ekstrand said the west side abuts a
drainage pond owned by the City of Maplewood so no landscaping is needed there. He
agreed that some landscaping would be appropriate along the east side. Mr. Ledvina agreed
with a previous comment about the appearance of the building on the south side. He felt the
brick should be wrapped along the elevation. Mr. Ledvina suggested some other type of
architectural detail, i.e. a Iouvered circle or half-circle, to break up the wall. Mr. Shankar liked
the dormers shown on the previous plan. Mr. Ledvina agreed and thought the dormers would
help to break up the asphalt. Mr. Shankar felt the applicant could be asked to add the
dormers on the south elevation and "forget about the front elevation." Mr. Ledvina agreed
and said the appearance of the units on County Road D was a strong concern of his.
Boardmember Johnson moved the Community Design Review Board approve the plans
(date-stamped May 7, 1999) for Pineview Estates, based on the findings required by the
code. The developer, Goff Homes, 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:
a. Submit a grading, drainage, utility and erosion control plan to the city engineer for
approval.
11
Community Design Review Board
Minutes of 05-25-99
-2-
b. Submit a plan for the retaining wall to staff for approval. The developer shall install a
protective rail on top of the retaining wall if it is taller than four feet.
c. Submit the building color scheme to staff for approval.
d. The applicant shall extend the bdck base on the south elevation of each unit and add
two dormers at the roof line above each window on the third floor on the south
elevations.
Complete the following before occupying the building:
a. Replace property irons that are removed because of this construction.
b. Restore and sod damaged boulevards. Sod all landscaped areas, except the hillside
to the north which shall remain in its present state.
c. Install reflectorized stop signs at both exits and addresses for the buildings and
complex.
d. Install an automatic in-ground irrigation system with a rain sensor for all landscaped
areas, except for the hillside to the north.
e. Install continuous concrete curbing.
4. If any required work is not done, the city may allow temporary occupancy if:
a. The city determines that the work is not essential to the public health, safety or
welfare.
b. The city receives a cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit for the required work.
The amount shall be 200 percent of the cost of the unfinished work. Any unfinished
landscaping shall be completed by June 1 if the building is occupied in the fall or
winter or within six weeks if the building is occupied in the spring or summer.
5. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may
approve minor changes.
· Boardmember Shankar seconded. Ayes--all
Secretary Ekstrand asked about adding to the landscaping recommendation. Boardmember
Shankar moved an amendment to the motion to change 3. d. to read: Install an automatic in-
ground irrigation system with a rain sensor for all landscaped areas, except for the hillside to
the north. Applicant shall add landscaping to the east side of the site, subject to staff
approval. This amendment was acceptable to Boardmember Johnson.
Ayes--all
,The motion passed.
Secretary Ekstrand stated that the applicant, Mr. Goff, could appeal any of the conditions
within 15 days.
12
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
MEMORANDUM
Community Design Review Board
Thomas Ekstrand, Associate Planner
Article on House Designs-"Snout Houses"
June 7, 2000
Board Chair Matt Ledvina asked me to distribute this arlicle to the membership for discussion.
p:miscell~shortmem.3
Attachment:
ArlJcle on 'Snout Houses"
SATURDAY, MAY6 · 2000
Homes
STAR TR~BUI~ · PAGE H7
Portland turns up nose at 'snout house'
City limits on designs
anger some builders,
but court appeal fails
By Timothy Egen
New York Times
PORTLAND, ORE. -- They have seen
the enemy creep into the settled, earth-
toned neighborhoods of this city -- the
boxy transplants from the suburban
netherland. Houses that turn their backs
to the street, ttouses that embrace a nest-
ing pair of monster-size sport-utility vehi-
cles and little else. Houses that give no
idea where the front door might be.
Snout houses, they call them, all ga-
rage and muscled front facades. And for
the past eight months, Portland has made
the snout house illegal, going to a frontier
of design dictate where no other big U.S.
city has gone before.
"You can still build an ugly house in
Portland," said Chariie Hales, the city
commissioner who led the effort to ban
houses that do not fit into this city's
neighborhood fabric. "But now you just
have to work at it a lot harder."
Over the years, Portland has been like
Martha Stewart at the keg party of Amer-
ican cities. While other cities (Portianders
mention Houston with particular horror)
have proudly resisted even elemental
zoning, Portland has decreed a perpetual
se/f-improvement binge.
Nearly 30 years ago, in what seemed a
radical step against sprawl, the Portland
metropolitan area drew a line over which
the city could not spill. The ciW tipped up
a freeway near dox~wttown and replaced it
with a grassy, riverfront park: Pedestrians
and bicycles only, please! Then tracks
were laid for a light-rail system, Max,
which lets Portland claim a certain moral
high ground in transportation circles,
even if it has not made traffic on the free-
ways move more quickly.
Literary quotations are embedded in
the streets downtown, where the code
protects views of Mount Hood and the
Willamette River and entire blocks of his-
toric neighborhoods, and it prohibits
blank walls or "uninviting" entrances at
the ground floor of buildings. All of this
has allowed urban planners from this
place, known as the Rose City, to dine out
around the country, extolling "the Port-
land Story. ~
And now comes the next front in this
city's war against the nation's urban icons
-- the big-chested detached house with
t~'o-car garage. Last September, against
the protests of builders who said that the
city government had no right to enforce
home designs, the Portland City Council
voted, in effect, to outlaw the 'snout
house" -- unanimously.
Trick~)r-treat test
In this ever-quirky city of just under a
half-million people, the term "snout
house" since has been shunned as offen-
sive to people who live in snout houses.
But the offending structure has been
clearly defined in the city code: the garage
cannot dominate the front of the house or
protrude; the main entrance has to be
close to the street and clearly identifiable
from the sidewalk; and the side of the
The "snout house," le~ Isn't welcome In PorUend, which has placed limits on home desigrm In
front porches end detectable front doors, es in the photo at right.
house that faces the street must have a
certain minimum of window and door
space.
'Basically, we want a house to pass the
'trick-or-treat test,' ' Hales said. "So when
kids come around to trick or treat, they
actually get a sense that somebody lives in
the house, and they can Fred the door.
Imagine that."
Some home builders are infuriated by
this kind of talk. Structural shear re-
quiremems and universal electrical stan-
dards are one thing. But talking about a
house that has to make 'more cormection
to the public realm,' as the city planners
have done, is another thing.
"This is really wild stuff,' said Kelly
Ross, the government affairs director of
the Homebuilders Association of Metro-
politan Portland. His group sponsors
"Street of Dreams," a show where build-
ers show off their most pneumatic homes.
'Last year, virtually every house featured
would have been illegal under the new
design code,' he said.
But that disparity could have more to
do with the gulf between home builders
and Portland's city planners. Nationwide,
a backlash has been underway for some
time against certain suburban house
designs. Attempts to rein in 'McMan-
sions" and monster-box homes have
resulted in height and size restrictions in
parts of California and Colorado.
Private, gated communities, which
were among the fastest:growing residen-
tial neighborhoods in the 1990s, long
have regulated house color, entrance size
and the placement of a driveway basket-
ball hoop, among other things. But no big
city has gone so far as Portland. The
builders feel offended.
Ignoring 'reality'
Ht's not like we're building these tract
houses that are ugly as sin,' said Randy
Voeller, a draftsman for Mascord Design
of Portland, The company finds that
nearly 35 percent of its home plans do not
meet the new requirements. 'Nobody
wants to build an ugly house. But we
don't like the city trying to shove these
base designs down our throats."
The home builders say the city is trying
to turn back the clock to a time when
Mom stayed home and Dad took the
streetcar to work. 'The city of Portland
should recognize the reality of our cul-
ture,' Ross said. 'The norm in today's
households is two vehicles, and the vehi-
cles are getting larger. It makes no sense
to impose a standard that runs counter to
these facts.'
Builders and others have criticized the
design regulations as a serious erosion of
propetX3' tights. They Filed an appeal with
the state, but that challenge was rejected.
Nationwide, legal assaults have been
turned back by the courts, which have
continued to give municipalities the right
to zone and regulate, even for aesthetics,
within their borders.
Jeff Fish, a leading builder, says, *The
city of Portland, they've become so-
cialists.'
Fish has built hundreds of snout
houses. On his wall is a bigpicmre of a
new pink house, a flaring double-nos-
triled garage out front for oversize sport-
utility vehicles. He displays one of his
more popular home designs: a simple,
1,400-square-foot house, complete with
puffed-up garage and obscured entrance,
which is labeled atop the architectural
drawing, 'Snout house."
"1 have a class of people who want that
double-car garage,' he said. "As an Amer-
ican citizen, I have the tight to build what-
ever I want to sell to that class of people."
The design restrictions mean that the
average new home will cost about $17,000
more to build, Fish estimates. The city,
citing a study done before last year's vote,
says the cost on new homes is negligible.
Protecting a civic Identity
The new design restriction rose from
neighborhood complaints about subur-
ban-style houses invading the city. A city
survey found that nearly ?0 percent of
new homes built were snout houses.
These houses were deemed unfriendly, ~in
New yor~ Trnes
an effort to promote 'friendlier' designs with
some cases unsafe, because they turned
eyes away from the street, and a general
affront to Portland's civic ethic.
Though nobody in the city government
ever came right out and said so, the intent
of the new regulations was also to keep a
certain look (read: ugly and suburban)
from coming to Portland. As one archi:
tect, Martha Peck Andrews, said in a pub-
lic hearing last year, the city "has suffered
through some pretty schlocky and insen-
sitive residential design in the last 30
years."
But one person's schlocky and insen-
sitive is another person's castle.
The city regulations specify that a
garage can be no wider than 50 percent of
a house front and that a front door must
be recessed no more than 8 feet behind
the front wall. The code gave incentives
for porches, balconies and living space
above a garage.
Because most available residential lots
inside the city are smaller than older lots,
it will be hard to build a new house with a
two-car garage. And city officials do not
deny that this is one intent of the regula-
tions.
"We are not anti-automobile so much
as we are pro-pedestrian," said Dr. Mark
Bello, a Portland city planner. "We are try-
ing to avoid the downward spiral of urban
neighborhoods becoming unsuccessful
suburban neighborhoods.'
Hales denies that the city is trying to
legislate taste. "We're trying to reinforce
the great neighborhood character that
already exists in Portland,' he said. "I
mean, who is really practicing social en-
gineering here? The people who design
communities where you can't do any-
thing but drive~ Or the people who give
you a choice of getting away from your
The city has managed to scare away a
certain kind of home builder. Fish, a Port-
land native, who has built more than 500
houses In the city, now sports a bumper
sticker on his car with the slogan:
'Friends don't let friends build in Port-
land.'