Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/27/2000BOOK AGENDA MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD June ~, 2000 ~ -, :.2D:') 6:00 P.M. City Council Chambers Maplewood City Hall 1830 East County Road B 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes: May 23, 2000 .. 4. Approval of Agenda 5. Unfinished Business 6. Design Review a. U.S. West Wireless Monopole, 1194 County Road C (Lakeview Lutheran Church) b. Super America, 1750 White Bear Avenue 7. Visitor Presentations 8. Board Presentations 9. Staff Presentations a. Reminder: CDRB volunteer July 10 city council meeting is Jon LaCasse. b. Next Meeting: Ms. Tine Thevenin will attend the July 11, 2000 CDRB meeting to give her presentation on site lighting. 10. Adjourn 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 thi~re is anyone present who wishes to comment on the proposal. After everyone is the audience wishing to speak has given his or her comments, the chairperson will close the public discussion portion of the meeting. The Board will then discuss the proposal. No further public comments are allowed. The Board will then make its recommendations or decision. Most decisions by the Board are final, unless appealed to the City Council. You must notify the City staff in writing within 15 days to register an appeal. jw\forms~:lrb.agd Revised: 11-09-94 MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA MAY 23, 2000 CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Ledvina called the meeting to order at 6:03 p.m. I1. ROLL CALL Matt Ledvina Present Ananth Shankar Present Tim Johnson Absent Jon LaCasse Present Craig Jorgenson Present III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES IV. May 9, 2000 Boardmember LaCasse moved approval of the minutes of May 9, 2000, as submitted. Boardmember Shankar seconded. Ayes--all The motion passed. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Boardmember Shankar moved approval of the agenda, amended to move the existing Item 6.a. to the existing Item 6.c., moving New Century Town Homes up to Item 6.a., followed by Dearborn Meadow Double Dwellings. Boardmember LaCasse seconded. Ayes--all The motion passed. V. UNFINISHED BUSINESS VI. There was no unfinished business. DESIGN REVIEW A. New Century Town Homes, Highwood Avenue and Century Avenue Secretary Tom Ekstrand presented the staff report. Staff had recommended that the front setback meet the code requirement of 30 feet but found that the city council had approved a 20 foot setback from street right-of-ways for the PUD, therefore, staff changed their recommendation to meet the directive required by the city council regarding setbacks. Staff said that there were other issues: the size for shade trees should be increased from 1~ to 2~ inches in caliper and that additional visitor parking be provided. Community Design Review Board Minutes of 05-23-2000 -2- Robert Engstrom of Robert Engstrom Companies was present. Chairperson Ledvina had a question about the road that connects to Century Avenue. He wondered if there was any reason why it was not being proposed for development now and what the applicant's plans were for it. Mr. Engstrom said that they had just acquired the property and that this property would be for future consideration and not part of the present plan. Ross Feffercorn, the owner of Country Home Builders, and Scott Hintermeister, the project manager, were present at the meeting. Mr. Feffercorn showed the boardmembers a revised plan demonstrating that they had picked up 20-foot setbacks where they previously didn't have any. He also showed on the plan where they had picked up several additional parallel parking spaces. He said some of the stalls are 9~ feet by 18 feet and others are 9¼ feet by 20 feet. Mr. Feffercorn then discussed the elevations of the units, materials used, etc. Boardmember Shankar asked if there was a rec room or community room. Mr. Feffercorn said there was not going to be one as any type of c~mmunity room tends to drive association fees up pretty high and they don't tend to get used very often. Boardmember Shankar moved the Community Design Review Board approve the site, building and landscaping plans (date-stamped April 24, 2000 and May 16, 2000) for the proposed New Century Town Homes. Approval is based on the findings required by code and subject to the property owner doing 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 for the town homes, the property owner shall: a. Revise the site and landscape plans for staff approval showing that: (1) The town homes are set back to comply with the city council's direction in the PUD approval. (2) Visitor-parking areas have been added around the town house development. Parking stalls must be at least 9 ¼ by 18 feet in size. (3) The deciduous, over-story trees must be 2 ¼ inches in caliper, balled and burlapped. b. Submit the grading, drainage, utility and erosion control plans to the city engineer for approval. c. Obtain approval of the water main layout by the St. Paul Regional Water Board. The applicant also provide any utility easements that may be required. d. Provide any fire hydrants on the plans as may be required by the Maplewood Fire Marshal. 3. All parking areas and drives must have continuous concrete curbing. 4. All landscaped areas shall be sodded, except for areas that would have landscape mulch. Ail damaged boulevards must be sodded. Community Design Review Board Minutes of 05-23-2000 -3- 5. All landscaped areas shall have an automatic in-ground irrigation system. 6. The future multi-family area east of the Pinkspire Lane looped street is not included in this approval. The applicant must submit site, landscaping and architectural plans for this area. 7. If any required work is not done, the city may allow temporary occupancy if: a. The city determines that the work is not essential to the public health, safety or welfare. b. The city receives a cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit for the required work. The amount shall be 200 percent of the cost of the unfinished work. Any unfinished landscaping shall be completed by June I if the building is occupied in the fall or winter or within six weeks if the building is occupied in the spring or summer. 8. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. Boardmember LaCasse seconded. Ayes--all The motion passed. Bo Dearborn Meadow Double Dwellings, Castle Avenue Secretary Tom Ekstrand presented the staff report. Staff said the board would be looking at the design plans for the site, landscaping and buildings. Staff said the proposed buildings would be attractive and would fit in with the design of the existing homes. Staff recommended that the applicant revise the landscaping plan to be consistent with the Maplewood ordinance. The maple trees must be at least 2~ inches in caliper, balled and burlapped. The plantings proposed around the foundations of the units should remain on the plan. In addition, all yard areas should be sodded except for those areas mulched and edged as planting beds. Staff recommended approval of the applicant's proposal for a six foot high wood privacy fence along the entire south property line subject to the conditions on Page 7, Item E, of the staff report. Boardmember Shankar said it appeared that the units were 15 feet from each other and asked if that met the code requirements. Staff said they would have to get back to the board on what the code requirements are for this type of development. Mike Ackerman, the applicant, was present at the meeting. Mr. Ackerman said that there were quite a few decent trees on the property. He pointed out the grading limit on the proposed preliminary plat and said that nothing would be graded outside of that line. Mr. Ackerman also talked about the building materials that would be used on the units. He said the reason he had proposed the privacy fencing was to keep headlights from shining into the houses to the south. Boardmember S'nar~kar asked ff Lots I and 2 would be accessed directly from Castle Avenue. Mr. Ackerman said yes. He said the site has the wetland and an easement and you can't bund anything over that easement, so the only use for the easement is some sort of private drive. Community Design Review Board Minutes of 05-23-2000 Chairperson Ledvina said that one of the concerns, relating specifically to Units I and 2, was the possibility of adding a turnaround, and he asked the applicant how he viewed that concept. Mr. Ackerman said it would be more safe than not having it but felt that because of wetland restrictions and the fact that the single family houses to the east don't have turnarounds it would not happen. Boardmember Jorgenson asked about the fence line on the south and the two neighbors in homes that are listed on the preliminary plat who had concerns about maybe putting trees in there. Mr. Ackerman said that the two homes shown on the preliminary plat are rental property and the person who owns them is a real estate agent who has not made any comment. Mr. Ackerman said it was actually people farther west than these houses that were concerned about it and it doesn't even affect them but that they were more concerned for the sake of the person who lives to the east. Boardmember Shankar asked if the applicant was e~croaching on the 30-foot setback anyplace. Mr. Ackerman said no they weren't. Boardmember Jorgenson mentioned that there were several good sized trees that the applicant would be taking out and wanted to know if there was any way the applicant could try and salvage some of those trees. Mr. ^ckerman said that in the north part of the project, because Castle Avenue is so high and it comes down so fast, there really wasn't much that could be done for trees in that area. He said that on the plan the grouping of the best trees was being saved by the wetland. Boardmember Shankar said he felt that the north elevation of Unit 3 should have a base of brick. Chairperson Ledvina thought that it would be a reasonable addition to continue the brick along the north elevation at that height. Chairperson Ledvina said he was not in favor of the site plan in that he felt the buildings fit in the area too tightly, and he wasn't comfortable with the special arrangement as it affected the existing homes and the orientation of the two southerly units. Chairperson Ledvina said he didn't have any problems with the landscaping, grading or drainage plans and felt that the building elevations were reasonable. There was further discussion among the boardmembers and staff regarding the site plan. Mr. Ackerman said that the units on the southwest corner facing the tax land are a good situation for them. He said if that unit was turned like the board was suggesting, it would have to have a read in front of it to service the driveway and there would be hardly any backyard. Mr. Ackerman said it would be impossible to turn and still maintain the 30 foot side setback from the other property, because of the easement, and still get two units. Mr. Ackerman felt that, in terms of orientating units, it was the best use for the site. Boardmember Shankar moved the Community Design Review Board deny approval of the plans date-stamped March 31,2000 (site plan, landscape plan, grading and drainage plans and building elevations) for Dearborn Meadow on the basis that the layout on this site appears to be too congested. Boardmember Jorgenson seconded. Ayes--Ledvina, Shank'ar, Jorgenson Nay= LaCasse The motion passed. Community Design Review Board Minutes of 05-23-2000 -5- C. Woodland Hills Church, 1740 Van Dyke Street Secretary Tom Ekstrand presented the staff rePort. Staff feels that the applicant's proposal is going to be an asset and is attractive, and the landscaping would be very nice. Staff is recommending approval of the plans with the three conditions shown on Page 2 of the staff report. Chairperson Ledvina had a question about what represented the vestibule, because there are two vestibules, and he wanted some more detail. Philip Sherwood, representing Woodland Hills Church, and Tod Elkins, of Genesis Architecture, were present. Mr. Sherwood said they were planning on repaving and redoing the west part of the parking lot; patching and sealing and striping the back part; and then redoing the front part of the parking lot in the second phase. He said that in Phase 2 they plan to build a two-story sanctuary, about a 25 foot construction, and in this iJhase they would grass and landscape it, and remove the asphalt pavement. Mr. Elkins showed where the two diagonal vestibules were on the plan, breaking into the sort of existing facade. Chairperson Ledvina asked if these were projections from the building. Mr. Elkins said they were part projections and part going back into the space. Mr. Elkins said that from an aesthetic standpoint, they were fairly minor incursions to the facade, just a thin windwail to one side and then it's basically glass storefront to allow adequate entry and exiting into the space or out of the space. Chairperson Ledvina wanted to know what would happen to the canopy or overhang on the west facade. Mr. Elkins said that they would keep most of the original canopy and they would remove it at the entries so they would be able to put in a new simple roof structure. Chairperson Ledvina asked if the canopy was going to be painted and asked the applicant to go over the materials as they exist now. Mr. Elkins said it was a metal paneled canopy and will be painted in natural earth tones even though they haven't selected the final colors yet. There was discussion about the proposed Phase 1 changes regarding the parking lot improvements and perimeter site landscaping. There was also some discussion on the Phase 2 site plan changes. Boardmember Shankar had some concerns about the distance from the face of the Phase 2 addition to the face of the concrete islands in the pilot. Mr. Elkins said they could work on this to make it deeper if that is what is needed. Boardmember Shankar moved the Community Design Review Board approve the plans (date stamped April 24, 2000) for the proposed landscaping plan, Phase 1 building exterior changes and site plan revisions at Woodland Hills Church, 1740 Van Dyke Street. Approval is based on the findings required by the code and subject to the property owner doing the following: 1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. 2. The large addition on the front of the building proposed in Phase 2 is not approved at this time. The applicant shall submit plans for this addition to the community design review board for their approval. 3. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community deve~ may approve minor changes. 4. The applicant shall maintain a distance of 39 feet from the face of the Phase 2 additio~ 'to the face of the concrete island in the parking lot. Community Design Review Board Minutes of 05-23-2000 -6- Boardmember LaCasse seconded. Ayes--all D. White Bear Avenue Corridor Study Discussion Secretary Tom Ekstrand presented the staff report. Mr. Ekstrand said that this item was the consultant's report for the White Bear Avenue Corridor Study. Mr. Ekstrand said most of it involved the City of St. Paul because they had a lot more and a lot older issues to deal with. Maplewood's portion is substantially newer by comparison. Mr. Ekstrand said that the study has set some goals and principles. He summarized some of the key areas. The study identified and discussed some design elements (i.e. lighting, fences, paving, trees and landscaping, transit stops and signage) that they feel should be applied throughout both cities. The Maplewood portion of the study focused on two sites: the Builder's Square building on VanDyke Street and the Hajicek 80-acre piece of lar~d west of the Maplewood Mall and north of Birch Run Station. Recommendations were provided for both of these areas. Mr. Ekstrand said substantial ideas were presented for signage in the White Bear Avenue corridor. The study offered some information on establishing some corridor-wide guidelines and some ideas for sign placement guidelines for individual businesses. Mr. Ekstrand said this study was offered to the board as an information item. He asked the board for their reaction and if there were any thoughts from this study that they could use. Chairperson Ledvina asked how the recommendations in this document compared to the city's ordinances, particularly in regard to signs. Mr. Ekstrand said the consultants looked at Maplewood's sign code and much of the information contained in the study came from the city's code. VII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS There were no visitor presentations. VIII. IX. Xe BOARD PRESENTATIONS Boardmember LaCasse reported on the May 22, 2000, City Council meeting. A. CDRB Volunteer for June 12 City Council Meeting: Mr. Shankar will attend this meeting. STAFF PRESENTATIONS Secretary Tom Ekstrand said the article on ~snout houses" (given to him by Chairperson Ledvina) would be included with the next CDRB agenda packet. ADJO~NMENT The meeting adjourned at 7:55 p.m. MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: PROJECT: LOCATION: DATE: City Manager Ken Roberts, Associate Planner Conditional Use Permit and Design Review US West Wireless Monopole 1194 County Road C June 22, 2000 INTRODUCTION Project Description Dale Casper, representing US West Wireless, is proposing to install a 75-foot-tall monopole for telecommunications equipment. They want to install the m~onopole to replace an existing light pole that is west of the existing parking lot and south of the existing building at 1194 County Road C (Lakeview Lutheran Church). (Refer to the maps and plans on pages 6-10 and the statements on pages 11 and 12.) There also would be equipment boxes on a pad near the base of the monopole and they would enclose the base area with a six-foot-tall brick screening wall and a chain-link fence. Requests The applicant is requesting that the city approve: 1. A conditional use permit (CUP) for a monopole and related equipment in an M-1 (light manufacturing) zoning district. 2. The design and site plans. BACKGROUND October 10, 1994: The council approved a CUP to expand the church. This approval was subject to three conditions. August 12, 1996: The council again reviewed the CUP for the church. January 13, 1997: The city council adopted the commercial use antenna and tower ordinance. DISCUSSION The 1996 Federal Telecommunications Act does not allow cities to prohibit the installation of telecommunications facilities and equipment. Because of this law, local governments may only regulate, but may not prevent, the installation of monopoles or other telecommunications facilities. As such, the city may only base their decision about this request (or any other similar request) on land use and on health, safety and welfare concerns. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) licenses all telecommunications systems. This licensing requires that the pmpc~sed or nea/telecommunications equipment not interfere with existing communications or electronics equipment. If there is interference, then the FCC requires the telecommunications company to adjust or shut down the new equipment to correct the situation. Maplewood must be careful to not limit or prohibit this tower (or any other tower) because of electronic interference. That is up to the FCC to regulate and monitor. As part of their site selection process, US West noted that they could not find an existing structure within one-half mile of this site that would meet their needs. In fact, the proposed site appears to fill-in a gap in their coverage area. (See the map on page 13.) The city council should approve this request. This project meets the requirements of the Maplewood tower ordinance and the criteria for a CUP. As proposed, the tower would be about 100 feet from the northeast corner site (the southwest corner of the property at 1200 County Road C). The city code requires at least a 100-foot setback from a property used for residential purposes and a setback of at least 30 feet from a street right-of-way. Much of the base area and the lower portion of the monopole would be screened by the existing building and by the proposed screening wall. The applicant is not proposing to add any trees to help to screen the base area from the house to the northeast. The city should require the applicant to plant trees on top of the hill that is to the north and east of the existing church parking lot to help screen the base area from view from the homes that are northeast of the site. (See the site plans on pages 8 and 9.) The site design, with the additional tree planting, would be compatible with the adjacent church and parking lot. It is important for the city council, when reviewing this or similar applications, to balance the interests of the applicant, the property owner (the church), the neighbors and the city as a whole. The proposed location maximizes the use of existing trees on the church and neighbors properties and the church building to help screen the proposed tower from the homes to the north and east. In addition, the proposed location provides some screening of the site (especially the base area) from the north. The proposed site balances the interests of the church and US West Wireless in having a tower site on this property and the neighbors who want the tower screened from all their views. In addition, the city has approved similar monopole facilities at three other churches in Maplewood that are near residential neighborhoods. These include Christ United Methodist on Hudson Place, Presentation Church on Kennard Street and Trinity Baptist Church at 2220 Edgerton Street, just south of Highway 36. I am not aware of any complaints about the monopoles after their owners installed them. Church Conditional Use Permit When the city approved the conditional use permit and the design plan for the church in 1994, they required the church to build a trash enclosure and restripe the parking lot. The church has not yet completed these two items. The city should require the church or the applicant to complete these items as part of this request. In fact, the church should complete these items even if US West does not build the monopole. If the applicant does not proceed with the monopole, or if the city council denies the CUP, the church still needs to build the trash enclosure and restripe the parking lot. RECOMMENDATIONS Adopt the resolution on pages 14 and 15~ This resolution approves a conditional use permit to allow up to a 75-foot-tall telecommunications monopole and related equipment. This approval is for the property at 1194 County Road C. The city bases this approval on the findings required by the ordinance and is subject to the following conditions: 1. All construction shall follow the site plans dated May 26, 2000, as 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. 4. The applicant or owner shall allow the co-location of other providers' telecommunications equipment on the proposed tower with reasonable lease conditions. 5. Any antenna that is not used for a year shall be deemed abandoned and may be required to be removed. 6. The applicant or US West shall post a bond or other guarantee with the city to ensure proper removal of the antenna and monopole and the restoration of the site. Before the city issues a building permit for this monopole, the church shall build a trash enclosure (as required by the 1994 CUP approval for the church ) and restripe the parking lot. Bo Approve the site and design plans date-stamped May 26, 2000, for up to a 75-foot-tall telecommunications monopole and equipment to the property at 1194 County Road C. Approval is based on the findings required by code and subject to the applicant doing the following: 1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued permits for this project. Before the city issues a building permit, city staff must approve a landscaping plan for the property. This plan shall show the planting of a mix of Austrian Pine and Norway Pine trees to the northeast of the existing church parking lot on the hill. These trees are to help screen the base area from the homes along County Road C. These trees shall be at least 8 feet tall, balled and burlapped and shall be planted in staggered rows. If the landscaping or trees are not installed by the completion of the tower, the city shall require the applicant to provide 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 worl~ Any unfinished landscaping shall be completed within six weeks of occupancy. 4. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of commtmity developmewt may approve minor changes. 3 CITIZENS' COMMENTS City staff surveyed the 12 property owners within 350 feet of the proposed site. We received one reply that said "no problem." REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Site size: 1.66 acres Existing land use: Church and child care center SURROUNDING LAND USES North: South: West: East: Future Forest Products Shop across County Road C Kline Auto Dealership Vacant property and Park and Ride Lot across Highway 61 Single dwellings on the south side of County Road C BACKGROUND September 8, 1977: The city council approved a CUP for an addition to the church. August 14, 1989: The council approved a CUP for a day care facility at the church. August 13, 1990 and August 14, 1995: The council reviewed and renewed the CUP for the day care and required another review in five years. PLANNING Land Use Plan designation: C (church) Zoning: M-1 (light manufacturing) Ordinance Requirements Section 36-607 requires a CUP for a communications tower in any zoning district other than residential. The ordinance allows a maximum height of 175 feet, however, the tower must be setback from any adjacent residential property the height of the tower plus 25 feet. Findings for CUP Approval Section 36-442(a) states that the city council must base approval of a CUP on nine standards for approval. Refer to findings one through nine in the resolution on pages 14 and 15. Application Date The city received all the application materials for this request on May 26, 2000. State law requires the city to take action on this request by Jury 25, 2000, tmless the applicant agrees to a time extension. p:sec9/1194ctyc.mem Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Property Line/Zoning Map 3. Site Plan 4. Site Plan (Enlarged) 5. Proposed Elevation 6. Applicant's statement dated May 11, 2000 7. Letter dated June 13, 2000 from Dale Casper 8. Nearby and Proposed US West Wireless Site Map 9. Conditional Use Permit Resolution 10. Project Plans date-stamped May 26, 2000 5 ~ D Attachment 1 1 4,o LYIXA AVE. .B 3 AV~. AV. LOCATION MAP 6 Attachment 2~ CITY OPEN S~PACE FUTURE FOREST.-'t .~ ...,'~'~6D6CT'S s~~ TIMBER & TURF COUNTY ROAD C 2617 .I --~GH-EM-AN 'i 3RD. '"'Al WET- LAND~%~' PROPERTY LINE ] ZON]NG MAP1.~ 7 ~tachm~nt 3 WOODED aREA F~ST COUNTY RO/~ C EXISTIN~- ~ICN--~i EXISTING CONCRETE PAD -EXISTING MANHOLE (TYP.) EXISTING TELCO PEDESTAL hEXISTING OVERHEAD ELECTRIC (WP.) EXISTING - PLAY AREA BUILDING EXISTING BUILDING ROOF US WEST , EXISTING FENCE BALLFIELD BACKSTOP EXISTING ~FIELO EXISTING WOOD POLE ('rYP.) us WEST ~EN~ crYP.) US WEST tdETAL POLE ~"~ PL PL~ PL PL PL PROPERTY LINE (TYP.) SCN. E: I"-.50'-0' EXISTING BIIUMINOUS PARKING LOT O' ~0' 100' SITE PLAN E°~-~9 N k Attachment 4 (x~TING ROOF OVI~:RHANG EXISTING BAU. I~IELD EX~STINGj BU~LDfNG CONCRL'*T[ PAD EG~NpM£HT ./~ ~ I US wEST LANDSCAPE PAVERS/ [xISllNG I STR~NT ANTf'NNA~ ~ ~I~TA~ / ~us ~ST / I UET~ P~ ~ UND~GR~ND ~ c~ ~ ~.- BRICK WALL. 6 IrT. NT. ~ 12 FT. LONG ,, xT x c,,uN L,~ BACKSTOP SCALE: 1/4"-1'-0" EXISTING LUblINARE EDGE OF EXISTING BITUMINOUS PARKING LOT SITE PLAN (ENLARGED) 9 75'-0" ~"-US WEST ANTENNA~ (TYP.) ~-US WEST METAL POLE, BEYOND EXISTING WOOD POLE EXISTING LUMINAIRE ON NEW MAST ARM AT EXISTING HEIGHT EXISTING WOOD POLE WALL, BEYOND BUILDING WEST EQUIPMENT, BEYOND BUILDINC ANTENNA - EXISTING S~GN BUILDING L~ CHURCH II U EXISTING GRADE AT EOUIPM£NT ~'%~ EXISTING CONCRETE CURB EAST COUNTY ROAD .EXISTING SHRUBS (*n,P.) © I1-""il 'IPi NORTN rq ~=VATIQN SCALE: 1/8'-1'-0' O' 8' PR. OPOSED ELEVATION U S WEST Wireless, L.L.C. 426 North Fairview Avenue Room 101 St. Paul, MN 55104 Attachment 6 lite'~ better here- May 11,2000 City of Maplewood Director of Community Development 1830 County Road B East Maplewood, Mn. 55109 Dear Zoning Department: U S West Wireless L.L.C. is proposing to replace an existing light pole on property owned by Lakeview Lutheran Church and construct a seventy-five foot (75') high metal communicator pole with an attached PCS antenna array and accompanying equipment cabinets. The existing luminaire will be installed on a new mast arm at the existing height and mounted on the new pole. The equipment cabinets will be recessed under an indentation in the church building and surrounded by a wooden fence on the south side to screen the equipment from sight. This proposed communication facility site should be approved by the City of Maplewood because this request falls within the city ordinances for Telecommunication Antennas, Towers and related equipment The communications facility is proposed on a pdmary land area for tower requiring CUP and there is no other tower or building within a one-half mile radius that U S West Wireless can co-locate on or attach to. If you have any questions or comments, I can be reached at (612) 250-8624 or by fax at (651)642-6942 Dale Casper ~, I Site Acquisition Coordina~r USA 0S 60 Proud Sponsor 36 USC 380 U S WEST Wireless, L.L.C. 426 North Fairview Avenue Room 101 St. Paul, MN 55104 Attachment 7 life's better' here' June 13, 2000 Mr. Kenneth Roberts City of Maplewood Community Development 1830 County Road B East Maplewood, Mn. 55109 Dear Kenneth: Per your request I am forwarding 16 copies of a map which shows previously existing U S West Wireless sites and our proposed site at Hwy 61 & County Rd. G. The purpose of this map is to help the Planning Commission, City Council and Community Development staff better understand our need for the proposed site at this location. Our objective is simply to fill in a coverage gap that exists in our system. The proposed site is centrally located between the existing sites and will give our network continuous coverage which we now do not have. If you have any questions or comments, I can be reached at (612) 250-8624 or by fax at (651)642-6942 Dale Casper Site Acquisition Coordinator USA %%o Proud Sponsor 36USC380 12 Attachment 8 ~ I USWEST SITES MIN442 MAPLEWOOD flEA~ AriD PROPOSED US WEST WIR~ ;=SS STIES 13 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION Attachment 9 WHEREAS, Mr. Dale Casper, representing US West Wireless, applied for a conditional use permit to install up to a 75-foot-tall telecommunications monopole and related equipment. WHEREAS, this permit applies to the property at 1194 County Road C. The legal description is: Speiser's Arbolada, subject to road and vacated road accruing, Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 1, in the north one-half of Section 9, Township 29, Range 22 in Ramsey County, Minnesota. (PIN's 09-29- 22-11-0050, 0051, 0052) WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: 1. On July 6, 2000, the planning commission recommended approval of this request. The city council held a public hearing on July 24, 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. The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and scenic features into the development desi.qn. g. The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. All construction shall follow the site plans dated May 26, 2000, as 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 or owner shall allow the collocation of other providers' telecommunications equipment on the proposed tower with reasonable lease conditions. 5. Any antenna that is not used for a year shall be deemed abandoned and may be required to be removed. 6. The applicant or US West Wireless shall post a bond or other guarantee with the city to ensure proper removal of the antenna and monopole and the restoration of the site. 7. Before the city issues a building permit for this monopole, the church shall build a trash enclosure (as required by the 1994 CUP approval for the church ) and restripe the parking lot. The Maplewood City Council approved this resolution on ,2000. 3.5 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: DATE: MEMORANDUM City Manager Thomas Ekstrand, Associate Planner Building Setback Variance, Conditional Use Permit, Parking Waiver and Design Review- SuperAmerica 1750 White Bear Avenue June 22, 2000 INTRODUCTION Project Description SuperAmedca (SA), is proposing to demolish their convenience store, fuel islands and fuel island canopies at 1750 White Bear Avenue and build a new facility. The proposed store would be a 3,086-square-foot, one-story bdck building with a hip roof. The proposed station would have six, single-island fuel dispensers beneath a new canopy that would serve up to 12 cars. Refer to the maps and drawings on pages 9-13. (The present station has a 2,376 square-foot convenience store with two rows of pumps. There are eight fuel dispensers in each row. SA can currently fuel 12 to 16 cars at a time.) Requests The applicant is requesting: Approval of a 15-foot building setback vadance for the proposed 15-foot setback from the North St. Paul Road right-of-way. The code requires a 30-foot setback. Refer to the letter on page 15. A conditional use permit (CUP) to change a nonconforming use. This station is a nonconforming use because it is closer than 350 feet to residential property, its fuel vent stacks are closer than 200 feet to residential property and the pavement setbacks are insufficient. Refer to the letter on page 14. 3. A parking waiver to have seven fewer parking spaces than the code requires. The code requires 16 parking spacesmthe applicant proposes nine. 4. Approval of site, landscape and architectural plans. BACKGROUND On March 24, 1997, *the city council approved a similar request by SA for their station at 11 South Century Avenue. SA demolished their building, fuel islands and canopy and rebuilt a new convenience store, canopy and fuel pump island. Like the current proposal, the council approved a CUP because the site was also closer than 350 feet to residential property. The council also approved a parking waiver permitting 11 parking spaces instead of the required 15 spaces. DISCUSSION Building Setback Variance Staff does not agree with the proposed building setback variance. Even though the site is oddly shaped, there is room to provide a 30-foot setback from North St. Paul Road. Any parking lost on the north side of the proposed building can be added in front of the store. The existing building, furthermore, meets the required setbacks. It is difficult, therefore, to say that the lot shape "necessitates" a variance. Conditional Use Permit 350-Foot Proximity to Residential Property In spite of the code requirement for a 350-foot setback from a residential lot line, the proposed fuel station and convenience store would be a huge improvement over the existing facility. There would be four fewer fuel dispensers (six instead of eight) so the amount of activity would not increase. The pumps would also be arranged in a more functional manner than the two existing pump rows. The existing rows create conflicting cross traffic within the site. Customers also presently park in the center of the site between the two pump islands further hindering traffic flow. 24-Hour Operation This SA station is presently open 24 hours. The applicant proposes to keep these hours. The city code says that major motor fuel stations must be closed between 11 p.m. and 6 a.m. The code allows the council to approve stations to stay open longer as part of a conditional use permit. Staff does not object to SA's hours. Their current 24-hour operation has not been a source of complaints. Staff does not see any benefit in restricting their hours since they have been functioning a long time without problems. Fuel Vent Stacks The code requires that tank vents be at least 200 feet from a residential lot line. The existing ones are 100 feet away from the residential lot lines across White Bear Avenue. The new vents would be 185 feet away--an increase of 85 feet. The new vents would also have a vapor- recovery system that would provide a safeguard to prevent fumes. Even though they would not be set back 200 feet, the new vent stacks would be an improvement. One neighbor I spoke to said that she can smell gasoline fumes sometimes when the tankers fill the station's tanks. The proposed increased setback and vapor-recovery system should improve this occasional nuisance. Pavement Setbacks City code requires that paved areas be set back 15 feet from street right-of-ways. Currently, there is no setback along White Bear Avenue and only four feet along the North St. Paul Road frontage. The applicant would be widening the on-site green area to up to 30 feet (for the building) along North St. Paul Road and five feet along White Bear Avenue. Parking Waiver As with the remodeled SA station at 11 South Century Avenue, there is basis for a parking waiver. Fuel station/convenience stores do not need as much parking as a store by itself since most customer vehicles are already parked at the pumps. Coming as close as possible to meeting code, of course, is preferable. The applicant could add three more spaces than shown on the site plan by adding spaces in front of the building. Staff recommends that the applicant revise the site plan to add three spaces (or as many as would fit) in front of the building. The applicant would still need a parking waiver for 12 spaces instead of the required 16. Site Plan Comments Staff recommends approval of the site plan with the changes already suggested: increasing the building setback to meet the code and adding more parking in front of the building. Design Considerations The proposed building would be attractive. The elevations drawings do not show the trash enclosure, however. Staff recommends that the applicant build a brick enclosure to match the proposed building. Landscaping The proposed landscaping would be attractive. The wrought iron fence proposed worked out nicely at the SA station at 11 South Century Avenue. Neighbor Concerns Two neighbors across White Bear Avenue asked about the status of the monitoring wells on their's and SA's property. I asked Mike Cronin, the applicant's representative about this. Mr. Cronin is looking into this and will address this question at the community design review board meeting. One neighbor is concerned about the sign on the canopy gladng in their windows all night. An option may be to place signs on the ends of the canopy instead of the front (west) side. White Bear Avenue Corridor Study During late 1999 and early this year, the City of Maplewood was involved in the White Bear Avenue CorTidor Study. This was a joint study with the City of St. Paul, the City of Maplewood and the White Bear Avenue Business Association. The consultant in charge of this study prepared a report regarding the "Avenue" with specific goals and guiding principles for the corridor. The SA proposal meets these principles since the plan would: · Improve connectivity between Jand uses and districts along the avenue. · The new building would contribute to the overall character of the street. · Build on existing strengths. · Create a safer street. The proposed renovated site would sustain these goals and principles by providing an increased green area with appealing landscaping and wrought iron fencing, an attractive building and a more functional site plan. RECOMMENDATION A. Deny the 15-foot building setback variance for SuperAmedca's proposed convenience store at 1750 White Bear Avenue. Denial is based on the following reasons: 1. There are no circumstances that are unique to the property that warrant the proposed setback variance. The applicant can adjust the site plan to meet the required 30-foot building setback from the North St. Paul Road right-of-way. 2. The existing building meets all required setbacks without the need for a variance. 3. The proposed reduced setback would not meet the spirit and intent of the code since visibility would be obscured from the adjacent property to the northeast at their North St. Paul Road driveway. Adopt the resolution on pages 16-17 approving a conditional use permit to rebuild and enlarge a motor fuel station at 1750 White Bear Avenue. Approval is based on the findings required by ordinance 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. 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 comply with all requirements of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency regarding fuel tanks, fuel spillage, monitoring wells, any contaminated soil, etc. Approve a parking-reduction waiver to allow 12 parking spaces (four fewer than the code requires). Approval is because: 1. Most of the customers that would be in the store at a given time are fuel customers who would leave their cars at the pump islands. 2. A reduction in the parking requirements is justified to create more efficient traffic flow within the site. This approval is conditioned on the applicant revising the site plan to add parking spaces in front of the building. The revised site plan shall be submitted to staff for approval. Do Approve the plans date-stamped June 1, 2000, for the redevelopment of the SuperAmerica fuel station and convenience store at 1750 White Bear Avenue. The owner shall do the following: 1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. 4 2. Submit the following for staff approval before the city issues a building permit: a. Grading, drainage, utility and erosion control plans. b. Plans for the design and placement of the trash enclosure. The trash enclosure shall be large enough for refuse containers and any recycling containers the applicant may use. The trash enclosure shall have a gate(s) that are 100 percent opaque and extend to the ground. c. A revised site plan showing a 30-foot building setback from the North St. Paul Road right-of-way and parking in front of the building. Parking spaces shall be 10 feet wide (code requirement). The handicap-accessible space must be eight feet wide with an adjacent eight-foot-wide loading space. d. A photometric plan for site lighting showing that the light "spilF towards the residential lots does not exceed code requirements. The applicant shall also use canopy lights that do not have lenses which drop below the bottom of the canopy as proposed. 4. Complete the following before occupying the building: a. Restore and sod damaged boulevards. b. Install reflectorized stop signs at all exits and a handicap-parking sign for the handicap-parking space. c. Install and maintain an in-ground sprinkler system for all landscaped areas. d. Screen the roof-top mechanical equipment as proposed. 5. 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 150% of the cost of the unfinished work. 6. The director of community development may All work shall follow the approved plans. approve minor changes. CITIZENS' COMMENTS I surveyed the 33 property owners within 350 feet of this site. Of the 11 replies, five were in favor, two had no comment and four neighbors had a miscellaneous comment. In Favor 1. The SA station is a good neighbor. The updates will be good. (Minnhealth PA, 3220 Bellaire Avenue) 2. Sounds nice. No problem. (Staff of HealthSouth, 1812 North St. Paul Road) 3. It is a positive change. (Knutson, 9235 Knollwood Drive) 4. It would be an improvement for the area. (Meister Investments, 1977 6th Street) 5. Anything that improves the area is great with me. Sounds like a better improved convenience store which is a good thing. (1735 Van Dyke Street) Miscellaneous Comments 1. Got Milk? (Bottari, 1789 White Bear Avenue) Any pollution issues for old tanks? Any effect on the monitoring well that is already in our yard? Where will the new driveways be? Where will the garbage area be and will it be totally enclosed? Where will the new lighting be in relation to current site and will there be any increase or decrease in the level of lighting or brightness? Any traffic or noise changes as a result? Is it coming closer to White Bear Avenue? The vapor recovery system sounds good if it will reduce the fumes when they're filling the tanks. We're immediately across the street from the north side of SA and wonder how the proposed changes might affect what we see, hear and smell from SA or if it will become more challenging to get out of our driveway. Thanks for asking! We look forward to more information with interest. (Sturm, 1759 White Bear Avenue) 3. We can do without the 2 foot by 23 foot illuminated sign shining all night through our home. I would also like to be informed about the results of samples taken from the monitoring well on our boulevard. When we bought our home, the realtor said that the well would only be there about six months. Well we've been here six years and it is still there. They even added another one up the street. We have never received any information about the monitoring well and I would sure like to know what is going on. (Smith, 1733 White Bear Avenue) 4. Since 1993 an environmental company has been testing the soil around Super.~merica. I located at 1721 White Bear Avenue want to know the amount of Contaminants that have leaked from spillage of gasoline from tank leakage onto my property address this issue and clean up the first damage before going on to a new adventure. (Tschida, 1721 White Bear Avenue) REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Site size: 35,284 square feet (.81 acres) Existing land use: SuperAmedca Station SURROUNDING LAND USES North: South: West: East: Gruber's Hardware and the former Mid Amedca Bank North St. Paul Road and Blockbuster Video White Bear Avenue and single dwellings Parking lot for the former Mid America Bank PAST ACTIONS (Other Stations) The city council has approved CUPs to expand these motor fuel stations which are closer than 350 feet to residential property: Apdl 11, 1988: The HCO Fuel Station at 2228 Maplewood Drive added a fuel island canopy. July 22, 1991: Joe Fleming, at 2271 White Bear Avenue, removed his old building, fuel-island canopy and pump islands and built a new facility with a convenience store and service garages. September 28, 1992: Ray Muckala, of the Holiday Express Station at 743 N. Century Avenue, added a pump island, enlarged his fuel-island canopy and remodeled his building. February 14, 1994: John Fleming, at 9 N. Century Avenue north, added a new fuel-island canopy, and pump islands. Mr. Fleming also received a vadance to place his new canopy closer than 15 feet to Century Avenue. March 24, 1997: SuperAmedca, at 11 South Century Avenue, removed the old building, fuel- island canopies and pump islands and built a new facility with a convenience store. PLANNING Land Use Plan designation: BC (business commercial) Zoning: BC Code Requirements Section 36-151(b)(9)(c) does not allow motor fuel stations within 350 feet of a residential lot line. Section 36-17(e) allows the enlargement of a nonconforming use by I~UP if it would not affect the development of the parcel as it is zoned. Section 26-2.2(a)(9) requires that a motor fuel station have four parking spaces plus one for each 200 square feet floor space for the store. (We consider the spaces at the pumps to serve as the first four spaces.) '7 Section 36-22(b)(5) requires that parking spaces for "high customer turnover" use be 10 feet wide. Convenience stores fit this category. Criteria 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 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 CUP Approval Section 36-442(a) states that the city council may grant a CUP, subject to the nine standards for approval. Refer to the resolution on pages 16-17. p:sec14~sa-remod.cup Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Property Line/Zoning Map 3. Site Plan 4. Building Elevations 5. Canopy Elevations 6. Applicant's CUP request dated May 19, 2000 7. Applicant's variance request dated May 19, 2000 8. CUP Resolution 9. Plans date-stamped May 19, 2000 (Separate Attachment) 8 Attachment 1 LOCATION 9 MAP 14- ~7 C~) (~) 1753--~ 1733 1721 1717 · ~ 1709 · z ~s. ~, Z4- · · Attachment 2 FORMER MID AMERICA BANK~ ~ , ~ 5 ~ 'GRU~ BC 17 16 BURGER! KING BLOCKBUSTER I- ----r4'--- BIG APPLE o~ - BAGELS ~-lC..~ ..... Be PROPERTY LINE ] ZONING MAP 10 Attachment 3 WHI rE SITE PLAN 11 Attachment 4 p,EASI' ELEVA11CN ~ t4L"'Ttt4. Date Reg. No iiiJUN 0 1 2000 Attachment 5 13 Attachment ATFACHMENT TO THE APPLICATION OF SPEEDWAY SUPERAMERICA LLC TO REBUILD ITS PRESENT CONVENIENCE STORE AT 1750 WHITE BEAR AVENUE Speedway SuperAmerica is proposing to build a new store and fuel dispensers at its present 36,649 sf wedge shaped site at the intersection of White Bear Avenue and North St. Paul Road. The existing 9_376 sf store would be demolished and a new, 3086 sf store would be built in the northeast coiner of the site. The new store will provide service 24 hours each day, seven days a week. The new store would have a hip roof, be all earth tone brick with a basket weave soldier course, and a matching mason%' trash enclosure. The rooftop equipment will be located in an 'alcove cut into the hip roof and the open edge will be screened. The present dual pump islands, one parallel with White Bear Avenue, one parallel with North St. Paul Road, will be combined into a single "T" shaped canopy parallel to White Bear Avenue. The present eight tandem dispensers will be replaced by six parallel dispensers. Eight parking spaces and the handicapped accessible space will be provided in front of the store, and tweh'e spaces are provided at the pump islands. In our experience his arrangement provides more than adequate parking at similar sites allowing confident approval of any necessaD' parking xvaiver. The existing four driveways will be retained, but relocated away from the Whim Bear Avenue / North St. Paul intersection. The 35 ft width of the northerly drive to North St. Paul and the 36 ft southerly drive to White Bear Lake alloxvs service to the relocated underground tanks. The underground tanks will be moved from the north part of the site to south. They will be reoriented from perpendicular to White Bear to parallel to White Bear and the intake vent pipes will be relocated from at the White Bear property line to the North St. Paul property line, 85 ft fi'om White Bear Avenue. Most important, a Stage One Vapor recovery system will be installed, creating a closed system between the tanker and the underground tanks during filling. Landscaping will be greatly enhanced at the site. First, the mature trees along North St. Paul Road will be preserved. Along White Bear we are proposing a masom~: and wrought iron fence where there is no green space or buffer now. The fence will be identical to the fence installed at our store located at Centul3' and Upper Al'ton. This fence has worked well as an alternative to the a green strip at small, and in this case a wedge shaped, sites. The fence will be calxied around into the "point" formed by the inte~.'section of White Bear and North St. Paul. This area, now only sod, will be enhanced with a backdrop of Crab trees, and a planting bed of Day Lilies, Juniper and Spirea. A group of Cmbapple trees will anchor the northwest corner of the site, and Mugo pines will be extended alone the blank wall of our neighbor's building. Norway Pines and Amur Maples will enhance the Northeast coiner along North St. Paul. All green areas, approximately 20% of the sim, will be irrigated. The following sign package is proposed: Building: 1. Integrated into the fascia, 2, 1.5 ft x 15 ft non illuminated "SA SuperAmerica" 45 sf 2. Above doom:ay, SA logo, illuminated, 2.5 x 3.5 sf 9 sf 3. On Building face 4 ft x 6 ft "SuperMom's" 24 sf Canopy: 4. Long side to White Bear Avenue, 2 ft x ~ ft illuminated "SA SuperAmerica" 43 sf Freestanding 5. One, 26 ft tall 112 sf May 19, 2000 14 Attachment_Z. ATTACHMENT TO THE APPLICATION OF SPEEDWAY SUPERAMERICA LLC FOR CERTAIN VARIANCES TO PERMIT REBUILDING OF ITS PRESENT CONVENIENCE STORE AT 1750 WHITE BEAR AVENUE 1. Reduction in building setback from 30 ft to 15 to 19 ft along North St. Paul Road as shown on the site plan a. The requested variance will allow Speedway SuperAmefica LLC to demolish the present building and dispenser islands, construct a new and competitive building, reorganize and improve circulation and traffic flow on the site and install significant landscaping and other features and continue the present use of the site. Absent this variance this new investment could not be made. b. The request is necessitated by the unique wedge shape of this site, and our inability to privately acquire additional area to expand. The most efficient design places the building and then the dispenser islands in the widest part of the site. Even with the building at the widest part of the site a variance is needed to accommodate and maintain a sale and efficient relationship of the building to the dispensers to the roadways. c. The requested variance is the minimum necessal3' to allow redevelopment of the site. It will effect 57 ft (3%) of the 2500 North St. Paul Frontage and will not create conflicts or precedents for the adjacent developed and commercially used site. Approval of the requested variance xvould be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Code by allowing reinvestment in this uniquely shaped site to allow the present use to continue and improve. It will gain the City the benefits of a site rebuilt to modern standards, including appearance, circulation and relocation of the underground tan'~ and filler vents. 2. Reduction in the required spacing of the underground tank filler vents from 200 ft to approximately 185 ft fi'om the nearest residential property. Presently the vent pipes are located on our White Bear Avenue property line just west of the store, 100 ft ( the width of the right of way) Ii'om the nearest residences. a. The hierarchy of the organization of our site places the store in the widest pm't, the dispensers and their circulation needs in the next, and then the underground tanks in the remaining portion. The vent filler pipes must be proximate to the tanks. The conforming location of the tanks would be under the dispenser island and perhaps a part of the store. Neither a possible location. The vents have been relocated as far as possible from the residences under these consu'aints. b. The underlying problem is the wedge shape of the site. c. The new location will improve the essential character of the area by allowing the vent pipes in a location more in conformance with the Code. d. In 'addition to moving the vent pipes approximately 85 ft farther from the residences, a Stage One Vapor recover3' system will be installed, creating a closed system between the tanker and the andergroand tanks dm'ing filling. This eliminates the dispersion of 'almost all vapors in the air, addressing the intent of the spacing requirement. May 19. 2000 15 Attachment 8 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION WHEREAS, SuperAmedca Group, Inc. applied for a conditional use permit to enlarge their fuel station and convenience store. WHEREAS, this permit applies to 1750 White Bear Avenue. The legal description is: ALL OF LOT EIGHT (8) EXCEPT THAT PART LYING NORTH OF AND NORTHEAST OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED LINES: BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE WEST LINE OF SAID LOT EIGHT (8), 3.22 FEET SOUTH OF THE NORTHWEST CORNER THEREOF; THENCE EAST ON A LINE 3.22 FEET SOUTH OF AND PARALLEL WITH THE NORTH LINE OF SAID LOT EIGHT (8) TO THE POINT OF INTERSECTION OF A LINE 3.53 FEET SOUTHWEST OF AND PARALLEL WITH THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT EIGHT (8); THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ON SAID LINE 3.53 FEET SOUTHWEST OF THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT EIGHT (8) TO THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT EIGHT (8), SAID LINE BEING THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF THE NORTH ST. PAUL ROAD, IN BLOCK ONE (1), MEISTER'S HIGHLANDS, RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA. WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: 1. On July 6, 2000, the planning commission recommended that the city council approve this permit. The city council held a public headng 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 headng a chance to speak and present wdtten statements. The council also considered reports and recommendations of the city staff and planning commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above-described conditional use permit, 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. 'The use would be served by adequate public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire p~otection, ~rainage ~[~uctums, water and sewer systems, schools and parks. 16 t 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: There are no circumstances that are unique to the property that warrant the proposed setback variance. The applicant can adjust the site plan to meet the required 30-foot building setback from the North St. Paul Road right-of-way. 2. The existing building meets all required setbacks without the need for a variance. The proposed reduced setback would not meet the spidt and intent of the code since visibility would be obscured from the adjacent property to the northeast at their North St. Paul Road driveway. 4. The applicant shall comply with all requirements of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency regarding fuel tanks, fuel spillage, monitoring wells, any contaminited soil, etc. The Maplewood City Council approved this resolution on ,2000. 17 BOOK AGENDA MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD June 27, 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: June 13, 2000 4. Approval of Agenda Revision in Order: First Item - Guest Speaker Tine Thevenin 5. Unfinished Business 6. Design Review Code Amendment - Curbing Ordinance Changes 7. Visitor PresentatiOns ' 8. Board Presentations 9. Staff Presentations a. CDRB volunteer Needed for City Council Meeting on July 24, 2000. 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\cdrb,agd Revised: 11-09-94 MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA JUNE 13, 2000 CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Ledvina called the meeting to order at 6 p.m. I1. ROLL CALL Matt Ledvina Present Ananth Shankar Absent Tim Johnson Present Jon LaCasse Present Craig Jorgenson Present II1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES IV. There were no minutes. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Boardmember Jorgenson moved approval of the agenda as submitted. Boardmember Johnson seconded. Ayes--all The motion passed. V. UNFINISHED BUSINESS There was no unfinished business. VI. DESIGN REVIEW 3M Building #207 Addition, 3M Center Secretary Tom Ekstrand presented the staff report. He said, since the area is already landscaped, staff felt there was no need for any additional plantings. John Knowland, an architect with HGA Architects, was present representing the applicant. He said the addition was basically one story with a mezzanine. The area would be used as a training facility for applying graphics on the side of trailers, busses, etc. The exterior of the addition will match the existing building. There were no questions of the applicant. Boardmember Johnson moved the Community Design Review Board approve the plans date- stamped May 30, 2000, for the addition to 3M Building #207, based on the findings required by the code. Boardmember Jorgenson seconded. Ayes--all - The motion passed. Community Design Review Board Minutes of 06-13-00 -2- B. Amusement City Expansion, 1870 Rice Street Secretary Tom Ekstrand presented the staff report. He clarified that Recommendation 2. b. (on page 2 of the staff report) should indicate that the 94 parking spaces were shown on the November 30, 1993, site plan. Also, the 45 "new" spaces that must be paved and striped (Recommendation 6 on page 3) are shown on the May 16, 2000, plan. Dan Betts, the applicant, described the proposal. He said the exterior of the building will only be painted. Mr. Betts also said netting will separate the paintball area from the track. Boardmember LaCasse felt there wasn't adequate room to turn around at the furthest southeast parking space. Mr. Ekstrand agreed and said, if this spot is eliminated, it would not affect the proposal code-wise. Boardmember LaCasse moved the Community Design Review Board recommend adoption of the resolution which revises 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): I I1~1~:; I ICIV~;; L7~;~:;I I IIUIIIC;I~/U,~ ~,t, JIIllJICill II,~ CilJ~JUL ucIIIICi~jt~ IIUIII LIIC; UIIVIII~II (~11~.,..,.J~:; L,/~;I,,~ClUO~:;; ~JI C, V~;ClO~ Ol.t,~llll~ V~IllUI~;O ~,JII I, i1~;; UllVlll~ I,"']11~:~;;. 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 Ma,v_J.~,JZ0~ November 30, I~93, with the exception of the driving range which is hereby terminated. 2. Maintain the following site improvements: a. A reflectorized stop sign at the Rice Street driveway. Community Design Review Board Minutes of 06-13-00 Co -3- A striped parking lot with at least 94 parking spaces as shown on the November 30, 1993, site 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) A trash dumpster enclosure for any outside trash dumpsters subject to staff approval. d. Direct or shield the lights so the bulbs are not directly visible from any public street. (code requirement) All cars shall be removed from the non-paved areas. Specificall.v. all cars parked on the old drivin_a ran_oe site must be removed b.v Jul.v 1, 2000. Future revisions to the approved site plan must come before the cit.v council for their review and approval. The applicant must not encroach into the wetland with this expansion. The 45 "new" parkin_a spaces shown on the Ma.v 16. 2000 site plan must be paved, striped and have continuous concrete curbin_o around the entire parkino_ IoL unless breaks are required b.v the cit.v eno_ineer for draina_oe reasons. The applicant shall also eliminate the furthest southeast parkin_o space since access to this space is limited. Z. Eliminate the furthest southeast parkino_ space. Boardmember Johnson seconded. Ayes--all The motion passed. C. Goodrich Golf Course Clubhouse Addition, 1820 Van Dyke Street Secretary Tom Ekstrand presented the staff report. He said there will be a uniform look between the existing building and the addition. Chairperson Ledvina asked if the provision for an irrigation system was usually incorporated in the landscape plan. Mr. Ekstrand said the code requires lawn irrigation, but the city can waive this requirement if another suitable form of watering is available. He felt, in this case, the golf course was in the "lawn-maintenance business" so he wasn't concerned about them taking care of the landscape. Kevin Finley, director of operations for Ramsey County Parks and Recreation, spoke about the project. He introduced Roger Christensen of HCM Architects who is the architect for the addition. Mr. Finley showed various sketches of the proposed building and described the features. He presented both small copies and a large board of the landscape plan. The board discussed the plan with the applicant. Chairperson Ledvina thought the building was very attractive and fit well on the site. Boardmember Jorgenson moved the Community Design Review Board: Bo Approve the plans (date-stamped May 26, 2000) and the landscape plan (dated June 13, 2000) for the Goodrich Golf Course Clubhouse addition, subject to the findings required by the city code. The developer shall do the following: Community Design Review Board Minutes of 06-13-00 Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. Submit a grading, drainage and erosion control plan to the city engineer for approval prior to getting a building permit. 3. All work shall follow the approved plans. approve minor changes. Boardmember LaCasse seconded. The motion passed. Pineview Estates Apartments, County Road D The director of community development may Ayes--all Secretary Tom Ekstrand presented the staff report. He recommended adding a condition which would require a plan for a trash enclosure before receiving a building permit or an occupancy permit. Chairperson Ledvina asked if there were any design concerns where the rear of Units 8 and 9 face the front of Units 10, 11, and 12. Mr. Ekstrand said he wasn't "worried" about this arrangement and would be more concerned if the units faced garage doors. Pat Goff, the applicant, addressed the concern about a trash enclosure. He said each single- stall garage is over 25 feet deep and each unit has a 55-gallon trash container. A contractor is retained by the management to remove the trash weekly. Mr. Golf has built these units in other cities and has had no problem with the arrangement. Chairperson Ledvina commended Mr. Goff on the improved design of these units. However, he encouraged the applicant to improve the monument sign, possibly with "brick pedestals." Mr. Ledvina expressed concern about the "attractiveness" of the rear of Units 8 and 9. Other board members felt the green area and plantings, plus the absence of garage doors, made the arrangement of these units more acceptable. Boardmember LaCasse moved the Community Design Review Board 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. c. Submit plans for trash storage enclosure if this ever becomes an issue. 3. Complete the following before occupying the building: a. Replace property irons that are removed because of this construction. Community Design Review Board Minutes of 06-13-00 -5- 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. f. Provide an enclosure for any trash storage--current or in the future. 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. 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 Johnson seconded. Chairperson Ledvina added a friendly amendment that the applicant revise the design of the monument sign to include materials used in the construction of the building, including brick. Boardmembers LaCasse and Johnson accepted the amendment. Ayes--all The motion passed. VII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS There were no visitor presentations. VIII. BOARD PRESENTATIONS Chairperson Ledvina commented on the "snout-house" article that was included in the packet. Secretary Tom Ekstrand didn't feel that it was necessary yet, in Maplewood, to write an ordinance to cover this type of design. He said it was something "to be cognizant of and be aware of" for the future. Mr. Ledvina thought it was good to make developers "sensitive to our orientation on design." He also felt the New Century development was "some very well-thought out architecture" and should be used as a model for other developers. BoardmemberJorgenson had newspaper articles that addressed snout-houses and said the developers were angry about the city telling them how to design their buildings. After interaction with the city council, the council chose to formulate design criteria for structures. Community Design Review Board Minutes of 06-13-00 -6- IX. STAFF PRESENTATIONS A. CDRB Volunteer for June 26 Council Meeting: Mr. Ledvina will attend this meeting. CDRB Volunteer for July 10 Council Meeting: Mr. Johnson will attend this meeting. Secretary Tom Ekstrand reminded the design board about the annual city tour. All the board members present indicated that they would attend the tour. X. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 7:20 p.m. MEMORANDUM To: From: Subject: Date: City Manager Tom Ekstrand, Assodate Planner Guest Speaker- Ms. Tine Thevenin on the Su~ect of Site Lighting June 30,2000 Tine Thevenin has agreed to give her presentation about site lighting and light pollution to the community design review board on July 11, 2000. Ms. Thevenin is a recipient of a grant from the University of Minnesota's Experiment in Rural Cooperation. I have enclosed a copy of her brochure and a copy of a lighting ordinance from the City of Ames, Iowa. Ms. Thevenin submitted this as a good example. I have also enclosed a copy of our code for comparison. We are fortunate to have Ms. Thevenin give her presentation on this issue that is often a key aspect of our project reviews. p:com_dvptVnemo.mem Attachments: 1. Brochure 2. Ames, Iowa Lighting Ordinance 3. Maplewood Lighting Ordinance Attachment 2 Sec. 29.901. Outdoor Lighting Code. The provisions of Division IX, Sections 29.901 - 29.912, of the Zoning Ordinance may be referred to as the Outdoor Lighting Code. These regulations are intended to reduce the problems created by improperly designed and installed outdoor lighting. It is intended to eliminate problems of glare, minimize light trespass, and help reduce the energy and financial costs of outdoor lighting by establishing regulations which limit the area that certain kinds of outdoor-lighting fixtures can illuminate and by limiting the total allowable illumination of lots located in the City of Ames, Iowa. All business, residential, and community driveway, sidt'walk, and property luminaires should be installed with the idea of being a "good neighbor", with attempts to keep unnecessary direct light from shining onto abutting properties or streets. A purpose of thc Outdoor Lighting Code is to set standards for outdoor lighting so that its use does not interfere with the reasonable use and enjoyment of property within the City. It is an intent of the Outdoor Lighting Code to encourage lighting practices that will reduce light pollution by reducing up-light, glare, and over lighting. (Ord. No. 3529, Sec. 1, 7-13-99) , Sec. 29.902. Def'mitions. For the purposes of Sections 29.901 through 29.912, terms used shall be defined as follows: (1) Direct Light: Light emiRed directly from the lamp, off of the reflector or reflector diffuser, or through the refractor or diffuser lens, of a luminaire. (2) Fixture: The assembly that houses the lamp or lamps and can include all or some ofthe following parts: a housing, a mounting bracket or pole socket, a lamp holder, a ballast, a reflector or mirror, and/or a refractor or lens. (3) Fully-shielded lights: outdoor light fixtures shielded or constructed so that no light rays are emitted by the installed fixture at angles above the horizontal plane as certified by a photometric test report. (4) Glare: Direct light emitted from a luminairc with an intensity great enough to cause visual discomfort, eye fatigue, a reduction ~n a viewer's, ability to see, or in extreme cases momentary blindness. (5) Grandfathered lumlnaires: Luminaires not conforming to this Outdoor Lighting Code that were in place at the time this Outdoor Lighting Code Went into effect. (6) Lamp: The component ora luminaire that produces the actual light. (7) Light Trespass: The shining of light produced by a luminaire beyond the boundaries of the property on which it is located. (8) Lumen: A unit of luminous flux. One footcandle is one lumen per square foot. For the purposes of these regulations, the lumen-output values shall be thc initial lumen output ratings of a lamp. (9) Luminaire: This is a complete lighting system, and includes a lamp or lamps and a fixture. (10) Outdoor Lighting: The night-time illumination of an outside area or object by any man-made device located outdoors that produces light by any means. (Ord. No. 3529, Sec. 1, 7-13-99) Sec. 29.903. REGULATIONS. All public and private outdoor lighting installed in the City of Ames, Iowa shall be in conformance with the requirements established by the Outdoor Lighting Code. (Ord. No. 3529, Sec. 1, 7-13-99) Sec. 29.904. CONTROL OF GLARE--LUMINAIRE DESIGN FACTORS. (1) Any lumiaa~ witha hmpmmiatma~ ~h~ l~00 lmm:as ahall not t:mit, in its iastall~ posi~ an~' dir~ light above a horizontal plane through the lowes~ direct light emitting part of the luminaire. (2) Any luminaire with a lamp rated at more than 1800 lumens, shall not emit in its installed position any more than 5% of its total light output in the zone from 15 degrees below the horizontal to the horizontal plane through the lowest direct light emitting part of the luminaire. (Ord. No. 3529, Sec. 1, 7-13-99) Sec. 29.905. EXCEPTIONS TO CONTROL OF GLARE. 4 (1) Any lighting source producing 1800 lumens or less shall bc exempt from the Outdoor Lighting Code. (2) All temporary emergency lighting needed by the Police or Fire Departments or other emergency services, as well as all vehicular luminaires, shall be exempt from the requirements of the Outdoor Lighting Code. (3) All hazard warning luminaires required by Federal regulatory agencies arc exempt from the rcquiremcnts of the Outdoor Lighting Code. (4) A building or structure that has been designated for historic preservation by the City of Ames, State of Iowa, or the National Park Service, shall bc exempt from the "fully shielded" requirements, if an historic restoration cannot be achieved by other means. (Ord. No. $$29, Sec. 1, 7-13-99) Sec. 29.906. OUTDOOR ADVERTISING SIGNS. ' (1) Lighting fixtures used to illuminate an outdoor advertising sign shall bc mounted on the top of thc sign stxucture. All such fixtures shall comply with the shielding requirements of Section 29.904. An exception to this requirement may be allowed for ground mounted, monument signs. Ground mounted, monument signs may bc illuminated with a ground mounted or a bottom mounted lighting fixture, provided that the light output shall bc directed totally to thc monument sign surface to prcvcnt up-lighting and glare. (2) Outdoor advertising signs of the type constructed of translucent materials and wholly illuminated from within do not require shielding. Dark backgrounds with light lettering or symbols arc preferred, to minimizc detrimental effects. (3) Electrical illumination of outdoor advertising off-site signs bctwcen thc hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m., shall only be done by means of lights directed downward. (Ord. No. 3529, Sec. 1, 7-13-99) Sec. 29.907. RECREATIONAL FACILITIES Lighting of outdoor recreational facilities (public or private}, such as, but not limited to, football fields, soccer fields, baseball fields, set, ball fields, tennis courts, special event or show areas, shall meet the following conditions: (1) All fixtures used for such lighting shall be fully shielded as defined in Section 29.902(4), or be designed or provided with sharp cut..offcapability, so as to minimize up-light, spill-light, and glare. (2) Illumination of the playing field, court, track, or event site, after midnight is prohibited except to conclude a scheduled event that was scheduled to be completed before 11:00 p.m. that circumstances prevented concluding before 11:00 p.m. (Ord. No. 3529, Sec. I, 7-13-99) Sec. 29.908. PROHIBITIONS (1) Laser Source Light. The use oflaser source light or any similar high intensity light for outdoor advertising or entertainment, when projected above the horizontal is prohibited. (2) Towers. Lighting on towers is prohibited except as required by regulations of the Federal Aviation Administration. - (3) Searchlights. The operation ofsearchlights for advertising gmgoses is larohibitect (Ord. No. 3529. ~ 1, 7-13-999 Sec. 29.909. GRANDFATHERING OF NONCONFORMING LUMINAIRES Luminaires lawfully in place prior to the effective date of the Outdoor Lighting Code shall be grandfathered. Such grandfathered luminaires may be replaced with a like kind of luminaire unless more than 50 percent of the like kind of luminaires on the same premises are being replaced. In such case ali the replacement luminaires on the premises shall meet the standards of the Outdoor Lighting Code. (Ord. No. 3529, Sec. 1, 7-13-99) Sec. 29.910. DEVELOPMENT PERMITS (1) Submission Contents. The applicant for any permit or site plan approval required by any provision of the ordinances of this city involving outdoor lighting fixtu~s shall submit (as part of the application for site plan approval or a permit) evidence that the proposed work or activity will comply with the Outdoor Lighting Code. Specifically, the application or submission shall include: (a) plans indicating the location on the premises, and the type of illuminating devices, f'~tures, lamps, supports, reflectors, and other devices; (b) a detailed description ofthe illuminating devices, fixtures, lamps, supports, reflectors, and other devices. The destxiptkm shaH include manufacturer's catalog cuts and drawings, including sections when requested; (c) photometric data, such as that furnished by manufacturers, showing the angle of cut off or light emissions. (:2) Additional Submission. The above required plans, descriptions and data shall be sufficiently complete to enable the plans examiner to readily determine whether compliance with the requirements of the Outdoor Lighting Code will be secured. If such plans, descriptions and data cannot enable this ready determination, by reason of the nature or configuration of the devices, l%xtures, or lamps proposed, the applicant shall additionally submit as evidence of compliance to enable such determination such certified reports of tests as will do so provided that these tests shall have been performed and certified by a recognized testing laboratory. (3) Lamp or Fixture Substitution. Should any outdoor light fixture, or the type of light source therein, be changed al~r the permit has been issued, a change request must be submitted to the building official for approval, together with adequate information to assure compliance with this code, which must be received prior to substitution. (Ord. No. 3529, Sec. 1, 7-13-99) Sec. 29.911. LIGHT TRESPASS All nonexempt outdoor lighting fixtures shall be designed, installed, and maintained to prevent light trespass. Outdoor lighting fixtures shall be installed and thereafter maintained so as not to cause direct light from the luminaire to be directed toward residential buildings on adjacent or nearby property or nearby land. If such condition should occur, the luminaire shall be redirected or its light omput shall be controlled as necessary to eliminate such condition. (Ord. No. 3529, Sec. 1, 7-13-99) Sec. 29.912. PENALTIES (1) Violation. It shall be a municipal infraction for any person to violate any of the provisions of the Outdoor Lighting Code. Each and every day during which the violation continues shall constitute a separate offense. (2) Violations and Legal Actions: If, after investigation, the City finds that any provision of the Outdoor Lighting Code is being violated, the City shall give written notice of such violation to the owner and/or to the occupant of such premises, demanding that the violation be abated within one hundred twenty (120) days of the date of the written notice. If the violation is not abated within the one hundred twenty day period, the City shall institute actions and proceedings, to enjoin, restrain, or abate any violations of the Outdoor Lighting Code and to collect the penalties for such violations. (3) P~alti~: A ~ ofthe Outdoor~ ~ m' may pmvis~ ~a~of, shall be ptmi~le by a civil ~ of~$500 fro- a l~Wsua's f~st ~iolation ~heroof, and a penalty of $750 for each repeat violation. Each day, afl~ the expiration of the one handred lwenty day period provided in paragraph (2) above, ~ a violation occurs, or is perm~ed 1~ exist, constitutes a selmate violation for the purpose of the civil penalty. (Ord. No. $§29, Sec. I, 7-13-99) 6 Attachment 3 ORDINANCE NO. 796 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE SITE-LIGHTING REQUIREMENTS FOR MULTI-FAMILY AND NONRESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES The Maplewood City Council approves the following changes to the Maplewood Code of Ordinances: Section 1. This amendment changes Section 36-28(C)(1) as follows (additions are underlined and deletions are crossed out)' (c) The developer of any project, other than single or double dwellings, shall do the following: (1) Install exterior site parking lot lighting. The light source, including the lens covering the bulb. shall be concealed Lighting shall not be directly visible from any residential area or public street. Lighting shall not exceed a .4 one foot candle of light intensity at a residential property line. Residential areas are areas planned or used for residential purposes. A site- lighting plan shall be submitted for all development applications that abut residential properties. Section 2. This ordinance shall take effect after the city publishes it in the official newspaper. The Maplewood City Council approved this ordinance on April 26. 1999. Mayor ~tte~t: City Clerk 7 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: MEMORANDUM City Manager Thomas Ekstrand, Associate Planner Curbing-Code Amendment June 28, 2000 INTRODUCTION On February 22, 2000, the community design review board (CDRB) recommended approval of the plans for the new Gladstone Fire Station. Part of their recommendation included a variance from the concrete-curbing requirement for three edges of paving (two parking lot edges and one side of the long driveway north of Frost Avenue). The variance was to allow sheet drainage for better water quality in the ponds. The board also directed staff to prepare a code amendment waiving the curbing requirement to avoid the need for future variances. (The city council approved the fire station curbing vadance on March 13, 2000.) BACKGROUND March 8, 1999: The city council amended the curbing ordinance to allow bituminous curbing on a temporary basis instead of concrete curbing. An example of this would be for a phased development where the parking lot would be expanded in the future. DISCUSSION The benefit of concrete curbing is to create a neat edge between the parking lot and the grass. Curbing also helps keep cars on the pavement by providing a wheel stop. There are instances, though, when omitting a curb would improve the quality of storm water. As in the case with the recent fire station proposal, three pavement edges were allowed to have no curb. This allowed sheet drainage to flow to the adjacent holding ponds through the grass where nutrients and sediments in the runoff could be dispersed into the grass rather than channeled and concentrated by hard surfaces and curbing. Staff is proposing that the curbing requirement be waived where the city engineer determines that water quality would be improved by sheet drainage. RECOMMENDATION Approve the code change on page 2, waiving the requirement for concrete curbing where the city engineer determines that water quality would be improved by sheet drainage. p:com_dvpt~ord~u rbing.00 Attachment: Code Amendment ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CONCRETE-CURBING REQUIREMENTS The Maplewood City Council approves the following changes to the Maplewood Code of Ordinances: Section 1. This section changes Sections 36-22( c ) as follows (additions are underlined): All parking lots shall have continuous concrete curbing surrounding the exterior perimeter of the parking lot and drives. Park parking lots, that are not used in the winter, and parking lots having twelve (12) spaces or less are exempt from this requirement, unless required by the city engineer for drainage control. The city engineer may also waive the curbing requirement in instance,° where sheet drainage over ground would improve storm-water quality. The community design review board may allow continuous bituminous curbing temporarily on a case-by-case basis, subject to the following conditions: (1) Bituminous curbing may be permitted for phased or staged developments where an adjacent future development phase would be built that would result in the removal of the curbing. (2) Bituminous curbing shall not be allowed for more than three years from the time of installation, at which time it must be removed due to the construction of a future phase of development or simply replaced with permanent continuous concrete curbing. (3) Bituminous curbing shall not be permitted if the city engineer requires concrete curbing for drainage control. (4) Bituminous curbing that becomes damaged shall be repaired immediately or as soon as the weather permits. (5) The city may require that the developer provide escrow to cover the replacement of the bituminous curbing with concrete curbing. Section 2. This ordinance shall take effect after the city publishes it in the official newspaper. The Maplewood City Council approved this ordinance on ,2000. Attest: Mayor City Clerk Ayes - Nays -