Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/21/2001BOOK AGENDA MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD February 21, 2001 6:00 P.M. City Council Chambers Maplewood City Hall 1830 East County Road B 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes: 4. Approval of Agenda 5. Unfinished Business 6. Design Review January 23,2001 a. Service Engineering Addition and Parking Waiver- 2720 Maplewood Drive b. AutoZone Plan Review and Setback Variance - 749 N. Century Avenue Visitor Presentations Board Presentations Staff Presentations a. 2000 CDRB Annual Report b. CDRB representation needed for the February 26 and March 12 city council meetings. c. We will schedule interviews for the CDRB vacancy on March 13. 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 TUESDAY, JANUARY 23, 2001 II. II1. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Ledvina called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Matt Ledvina Present Ananth Shankar Present Tim Johnson Present Jon LaCasse Present Craig Jorgenson Present Staff Present: Recording Secretary: Lori Hansen APPROVAL OF MINUTES January 9, 2001. Board member Johnson moved approval of the minutes of January 9, 2001. Board member Jorgenson seconded the motion. Ayes-All The motion passed. Tom Ekstrand, Assistant Director of Community Development IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Board member LaCasse moved approval of the agenda, as submitted. Board member Johnson seconded. Ayes-All The motion passed. UNFINISHED BUSINESS There was no unfinished business. Community Design Review Board -2- Minutes of 01-23-01 VI. DESIGN REVIEW A. Rose-Rice Auto Sales Site Plan Revisions/Variances-(1908 Rice Street). Mr. Tom Ekstrand, Assistant Director of Community Development, gave the staff report for the city. Brad Beatty, of Rose-Rice Auto Sales, is requesting approval of a 5-foot parking lot setback variance. He purchased the property recently and has been making several improvements. He paved the easterly front lot which used to be a parking lot for the previous owner's vehicles. The problem is the expansion of the parking lot was an expansion of its use which requires a conditional use permit. He also paved up to the easterly fence line which is also the lot line, and up to the front fence line which is the street right-of-way line. He is asking for a setback variance for the easterly line and continuation of a non-conforming use. Staff is denying approval of the setback variance. State law requires that the city council make two findings to approve a variance. They must determine that the applicant cannot meet the code because of "circumstances unique to the property". This means that there must be some unique physical characteristic of the site preventing code compliance. There is no unique circumstance in this instance. The applicant could have met the setback requirement if they checked with the city before paving. The variance must also meet the "spirit and intent of the ordinance." The purpose of the setback requirement is to ensure parking lots do not crowd neighboring properties, so there is room for snow storage and room for landscaping. Staff, unfortunately, cannot make the findings required for approval of the setback variance. Assistant City Engineer, Chris Cavett, and Mr. Ekstrand visited the site to evaluate the drainage flow and determined the water is going to run toward the abutting property to the south. There is a definite drop to the abutting lot (Amusement City). The city engineer feels the applicant should address this issue by submitting a storm water management plan. Under the present conditions the rate of runoff has increased due to the paving of the lot. The applicant appears to have two options: (1) Catch the runoff onsite in a catch base and pipe it underground to the storm sewer on Rice Street, which would require MnDot permit and approvals. (2) Work with the adjacent property owner to coordinate an effort for drainage control. Mr. Cavett thought in the second case, agreements and easements may be required between the neighbors. In order to waive the curbing requirement, the city would need to evaluate the applicant's proposal. The city has conditioned its recommendation as such. The applicant needs to submit such a plan to the city for the city engineer's evaluation. Staff is recommending approval of the conditional use permit. The operation of the sales of used cars has drastically improved. The applicant should be commended on cleaning up the site so well and improving the appearance of the buildings. Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit to include the expanded parking lot which maintains the zero setback to the Roselawn Avenue right-of-way. This would be keeping in line with what has been established in that area. A revised set of conditions was distributed by Mr. Ekstrand that included the drainage concerns. He added a condition that the applicant comply with the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) requirement for handicapped parking space. As for curbing, staff is relying on what the submitted drainage plan will show, where the city engineer determines curbing should be required, or if he determines curbing may be waived. Nick Schwartz was present for the applicant. He explained that he has been working with the owners of the property and Mr. Ekstrand to ensure code compliance while making improvements to the property. He felt the paving of the parking lot conforms to most of the conditions, with the drainage run-off condition being his main concern. Community Design Review Board -3- Minutes of 01-23-01 He had talked with the adjacent property owner (Amusement City) prior to blacktopping the parking lot to receive their approval. He stated "this property owner felt the paving was an improvement for drainage" and could obtain documentation from the owner if need be. Mr. Shankar asked if there was any proposed parking in the right-of-way zone, and staff commented that there was not. Mr. Ledvina did not see any provision for striping of the parking lot in the conditions. He suggested that the applicant submit a plan for parking lot striping according to code per staff approval. Staff commented that these parking lot concerns are addressed in the recommendation (B2: e and f). The time frame for completion of all the work is June 30, 2001, as clarified by Mr. Shankar. The drainage issue would need to be addressed as soon as the snow starts melting. Staff also added that the city engineer recommends that a written agreement be submitted to the city (2C in the conditions) if the applicant chose to coordinate with the neighbor to sheet drain onto their property. Board member Shankar made a motion that the design review board: A. Deny the proposed five-foot parking lot setback variance from the east property line since the proposed variance does not meet the following findings required by state law: Strict enforcement of the code would not cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the property. The applicant could have met the setback requirements without any hindrance by site characteristics. The variance would not be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. The ordinance requires parking lot setbacks to provide room for snow storage so not to crowd adjacent properties. B. Adopt the resolution that approves a conditional use permit for used car sales at 1908 Rice Street. This resolution also approves the recently expanded parking lot which maintains the existing nonconforming setback from Roselawn Avenue. Approval of the reduced front setback is since the continuation of the existing pavement setback would meet the spirit and intent of the code. The approval of a conditional use permit for car safes is based on the findings required by ordinance and subject to the following conditions: All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city, except as stated below. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 2. The applicant shall revise the site plan for staff approval as follows: ao Cut away the part of the new easterly parking lot which encroaches into the required five-foot side setback area. The applicant shall backfill and sod this five- foot setback area. b. The excess pavement material shall be removed from the site. The edges of the new parking lot shall be curbed with upright continuous concrete curbing. The plan for this curbing shall be submitted to staff for approval by the city engineer who will evaluate the parking lot for drainage control. The curbing requirement may be waived if deemed necessary for drainage purposes by the city engineer. The applicant shall also submit a drainage plan prepared by a civil engineer or work out a satisfactory plan and agreement with the neighbor to the south. The drainage plan should address the management of storm water runoff. Community Design Review Board -4- Minutes of 01-23-01 VII. VIII. o do The required five foot setback shall be measured to the back of the curb, if the engineer requires curbing, not to the parking lot edge. Stripe the parking spaces as required by code. The applicant shall designate four customer parking spaces on the west side of the building. There shall be one handicap-accessible parking space. This space must meet the requirements of the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act). The applicant shall complete these parking lot corrections by June 30, 2001. The city council shall review this permit at that time if the work is not completed. The council may extend this deadline if an extension is warranted. The city council shall review this permit annually as required by the code, unless they determine that there is no need for such subsequent reviews. Board member LaCasse seconded. Ayes-All Motion carries. This proposal will be before the city council on February 12, 2001. B. Election of Chairperson and Vice Chairperson--Community Design Review Board 2001. Board member Shankar moved that Matt Ledvina be reappointed chairperson for the Maplewood Community Design Review Board for the year 2001, and Tim Johnson be reappointed as Vice Chairperson. Board member Jorgenson seconded. Ayes-All Motion carries. VISITOR PRESENTATION No visitor presentations. BOARD PRESENTATIONS Chairperson Ledvina attended the city council meeting on Monday, January 22. The Jehovah's Witness Kingdom Hall addition and parking lot expansion proposal was approved. The drainage discussion from the community design review board was repeated at the council meeting. The overall impression was the drainage situation was going to be improved and was viewed as an acceptable approach to the site expansion. Mr. Ledvina wanted to solicit board members' opinions on the Menard's expansion. He was very surprised at the size of the building. The exterior was supposed to be bricked, but with the sign already installed, Mr. Ledvina was concerned if the brick would indeed be added. Mr. Ekstrand has not checked the file recently but was also concerned that the builder was not using the same tip-up material the design review board had approved. Staff and board members could not recall if brick or painting of the poured wall was required, but Mr. Ekstrand will check on the plans and let the board know. Community Design Review Board -5- Minutes of 01-23-01 IX. Xo STAFF PRESENTATIONS A community design review board member is needed for the city council meeting on February 12, 2001. Board member Johnson will attend this meeting. Mr. Ledvina asked if the design review board meetings for February could be combined. Mr. Ekstrand stated the Auto Zone proposal (the former A&W site on Century Avenue) and the annual report are on the agenda so far. Everyone agreed to one meeting next month which will be during the third week of February. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 6:36 p.m. TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: DATE: MEMORANDUM City Manager Thomas Ekstrand, Assistant Community Development Director Parking Waiver and Design Review - Service Engineering 2720 Maplewood Drive February 12, 2001 INTRODUCTION Proposal John Kliethermes, Jr. is proposing to build a second-story addition on Service Engineering, 2720 Maplewood Drive. Refer to the maps on pages 6-9. The proposed addition would cover the middle third of this southwestern-style building. Mr. Kliethermes would build wing-wall extensions on the front elevation to give the proposed upper floor more of a full second-story appearance from the highway. Refer to the building elevations on page 10. The addition is needed for data storage and office space for the applicant. Mr. Kliethermes is not proposing to add additional personnel. Requests The applicant is requesting: A waiver from the parking requirements. The existing building is "grandfathered" to have 15 parking spaces (11 on the site north of the building and four along the street). The code requires 25 spaces for the existing building. With the proposed addition, the code would require 13 additional spaces for a total of 38. Refer to the applicant's letter on pages 11-13. 2. Approval of architectural plans. BACKGROUND May 22, 1995: The city council approved a conditional use permit (CUP) to allow Service Engineering to "expand a nonconforming use" by adding the 11-space parking lot north of the building. The site was considered nonconforming because it exceeded the impervious-surface requirements of the shoreland ordinance. The council also granted a seven-foot parking lot setback variance for the north parking lot. The code required a 15-foot setback from the front lot line and the parking lot is set back eight feet. DISCUSSION Parking Waiver Parking Needs The applicant's parking needs are less than the number of spaces required by code. In his parking data on page 13, Mr. Kliethermes states that he typically needs 15 spaces, and occasionally, 17. The occasional need for two parking spaces beyond the 15 available spaces should not be a problem since cars can park along Kohlman Avenue. The city typically does not encourage on-street parking. Two spaces along this side street are desirable, however, under these circumstances. Mr. Kliethermes also added five parking spaces next to Kohlman Avenue. These five spaces have a gravel surface and have not been approved by the city. Refer to the site plan on page 9. The five new parking spaces violate three ordinance requirements. They do not have a 15-foot front setback, they are not paved and they increase the impervious-surface area of the site. Compacted gravel is considered an impervious material, however, it is not considered pavement. To resolve these code violations, the applicant should apply for a conditional use permit to expand the impervious surface of the site and also apply for a front setback variance for the south parking lot. An alternative to making these applications is the removal of this parking lot and ground restoration. Proof of Parking As "proof of parking," the applicant is proposing 10 future parking spaces adjacent to the northerly parking lot. To construct these spaces, the applicant would have to remove several mature trees, excavate into a steep hill and build substantial retaining walls. Expanding the parking lot with these constraints is possible, but not feasible. As mentioned, there is also the issue of the shoreland requirement for restricting the amount of impervious surface on the site. Parking Waiver Summary Staff agrees with the applicant's assessment of his parking needs. Our only concern with allowing the addition is that if building occupants change, there could be a greater parking demand. As an alternative to denying this proposal because of the infeasibility of providing more parking, staff suggests that the city require that the applicant sign a restrictive covenant to assure that future occupants are Iow traffic generators. The city attorney feels that this method for parking control is feasible. Mr. Kliethermes agreed with this. Building Design and Site Esthetics The design of the proposed second floor would be attractive. Staff has no objection as long as all sides of the building match in material, texture and color. The back of the wing walls should also be finished with the same material, texture and color for uniformity. The applicant has not stated whether there would be any new roof-top mechanical equipment installed on the new second story. If there is, the code requires that the applicant screen them from residential neighbors. The area behind the building should be picked up. There are presently materials being stored there giving the site an unkept appearance. The code also requires a trash enclosure for the dumpster. If the city council approves this proposal, they should require the construction of a trash enclosure. RECOMMENDATIONS A. Approve a parking waiver for Service Engineering, 2720 Maplewood Drive, based on the following reasons: 1. The applicant has shown that there are enough parking spaces for the building's current parking needs. 2. The applicant is not planning to add personnel with this addition. Providing more paved parking on the site would further violate the impervious surface requirements of the shoreland ordinance. The site is currently exceeding this requirement. The applicant has verbally agreed to a restrictive covenant being recorded against his property to regulate the types of businesses in this building based on their degree of traffic generation. This approval is conditioned upon the property owner doing the following before obtaining a building permit for the second-story addition: Submitting a signed restrictive covenant to be approved by staff. This covenant shall ensure that future occupants of 2720 Maplewood Drive are Iow traffic-generating businesses. The city shall record this document with Ramsey County. Submitting complete applications for a conditional use permit and a setback variance for the five-car parking lot on the south side of the site. As an alternative to making these applications, the property owner may agree to remove the parking lot and restore the ground. If the property owner chooses this alternative, he shall present staff with a letter of intent to do so with the stipulation that he will complete the parking lot removal and ground restoration by June 1, 2001. With either alternative, the property owner shall give the city cash escrow to cover the cost of the parking lot removal and ground restoration. Approve the plans, date-stamped January 26, 2001, for the proposed second-story addition at Service Engineering, 2720 Maplewood Drive. Approval is based on the findings required by code and subject to the following conditions: 1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. 2. Before getting a building permit, the applicant shall do the following: Submit a signed restrictive covenant to be approved by staff. This covenant shall ensure that future occupants of 2720 Maplewood Drive are Iow traffic-generating businesses. The city shall record this document with Ramsey County. Submit complete applications for a conditional use permit and a setback variance for the five-car parking lot on the south side of the site. As an alternative to making these applications, the property owner may agree to remove the parking lot and restore the ground. If the property owner chooses this alternative, he shall present staff with a letter of intent to do so with the stipulation that he will complete the parking lot removal and ground restoration by June 1, 2001. With either alternative, the property owner shall give the city cash escrow to cover the cost of the parking lot removal and ground restoration. Submit plans for staff approval showing the placement and design of a trash enclosure. The enclosure must have a gate that extends to the ground. The enclosure must be large enough to accommodate trash and recycling containers. The property owner shall also submit screening plans for any new roof-top mechanical equipment he may install that would be visible by the residential neighbors. 3. The applicant shall complete the following before occupying the building: Paint any new roof-top mechanical equipment to match the building that would be visible. Screen any roof-top mechanical equipment that would be visible by residential neighbors. b. Construct a trash dumpster enclosure with a closeable gate. c. Finish the back of the wing walls to have the same material, texture and color as the building for uniformity. The property owner shall keep the area behind the building picked up and not store any items in that space. 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. The city receives a cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit for the required work. The amount shall be 150 percent of the cost of the unfinished work. Any unfinished landscaping shall be completed by June 1 if the building is occupied in the winter or within six weeks of occupancy if the building is occupied in the spring or summer. c. The city receives an agreement that will allow the city to complete any unfinished work. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Site size: acres: .70 acres Existing land use: Service Engineering SURROUNDING LAND USES North: South: West: East: Don's Auto Body and Maplewood Imports Kohlman Avenue, Angus Meats and a single dwelling Maplewood Drive (Highway 61) Single dwellings PLANNING Land Use Plan designation: M1 (light manufacturing) Zoning: M1 Ordinance Requirements Section 25-70 of the city code requires that the CDRB make the following findings to approve plans: That the design and location of the proposed development and its relationship to neighboring, existing or proposed developments and traffic is such that it will not impair the desirability of investment or occupation in the neighborhood; that it will not unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring, existing or proposed developments; and that it will not create traffic hazards or congestion. That the design and location of the proposed development is in keeping with the character of the surrounding neighborhood and is not detrimental to the harmonious, orderly and attractive development contemplated by this article and the city's comprehensive municipal plan. That the design and location of the proposed development would provide a desirable environment for its occupants, as well as for its neighbors, and that it is aesthetically of good composition, materials, textures and colors. p:sec4~service.eng Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Property Line/Zoning Map 3. Property Line/Address Map 4. Site Plan 5. Building Elevations 6. Applicant's Narrative 7. Plans date-stamped January 26, 2001 (separate attachment) 5 VADNAIS HEIGHTS RD. D ~GE~It,L R~. LOCATION MAP Attachment 2 G L~' · '7..5 ,3~) .ANGUS MEATS MAPLEWOOD IMPORTS DON'S AUTO BODY ' IIlIIi ii~ I ! I 1 ~OHLMAN a' ' -II ~ .-.F --"! T Attachment 3 MAPLEWOOD IMPORTS DON'S AUTO BODY 2732 ENGiNEERiNG SERVICE 2720 ANGUS MEATS KOHLIVlAN AVE PROPERTY LINE / ADDRESS MAP 1 ~ Attachment 4 PROPOSED FUTURE PARKING LOT EXPANSION IF NEEDED SERVICE ENGINEERING BUILDING ~2No MAN FIVE GRAVEL PARKING SPACES UNDER CONSTRUCTION SITE PLAN Attachment 5 ~'~~"~-"*~~_~ 0 0 O0 ~) ~/ WEST ELEVATION o o o o o o o o© o o o c~[~-~ CO CO O0~ ~-~ /'-~ ~ ,., ~ ,., ~, ,., ~, ,~ ~C 0000 /~ .__~ 0 0 EAST ELEVATION O0 '% 0 F~ OFO ~ NORTH ELEVATION, = OOOF SOUTH ELEVATION BUILDING ELEVATIONS 10 Attachment 6 December 29, 2000 City of Maplewood Community Design Review Board Application 1830 County Road B East Maplewood, MN 55109 2720 MAPLEWOOD DRIVE MAPLEWOOD, MN Please accept our request for a building permit to replace the roof and add storage and office space to the existing building. Per conversation with Mr. Tom Ekstrand of the Planning Commission, it is our understanding that the City of Maplewood believes that the existing building does not have enough parking spaces to meet the general requirements for the city building code. The original site consisted of a small family home which has been added onto over the past 60 years. In adding new spaces, the inside is broken up into a number of small spaces and hallways. This type of construction has left the building with less than desirable space for continuity of business operation. Service Engineering has operated in the building since 1993 and does not anticipate relocation. Other tenants include State Farm Insurance, Great Garage Door, Parkview Real Estate and Jacobberger and Associates. Parkview Real Estate and Great Garage door have been in the building since prior to 1993 and continue with long term leases. State Farm has been in the building since 1997 and are in the first part of a 10 year lease. Jaccobberger and Associates is a small legal group with 2 lawyers who intend to operate permanently from this building. The parking requirements for the building are excessive for the needs of the tenants. I have listed the tenants and the allocation of parking required on the attached table. Each of the tenants have stated that the level of activity will not change over the course of their leases. No other tenants are scheduled or will be recruited. If additional parking area is required by the City in the future, the site has room to create the additional parking spaces. A proposed parking layout drawing has been provided. It seems contradictory to the City's green objective for open space to require that additional parking spaces are constructed at this time when they are not needed. Service Engineering maintains project files for the life of the projects it is involved in. The files consist of drawings and design documents which take up a significant amount of space. We need an efficient area for access and storage of these documents. With the number of computers and plotters, the office requires additional space to operate. 11 December 29, 2000 Page 2 The existing roof structure is inadequate as constructed for flat or built-up roofing. The building has undergone at least five additions on the main level with the roof having many drops and grade changes. These cause ice damming resulting in leaks. The roof leaks have caused significant damage to furniture and flooring in the middle room areas. The leaking is potential hazardous. Without a reconstruction of the roof, the leaking will continue. To improve the appearance of the building, the exterior has been repainted and stucco patches repaired. We believe that the additional area in the center of the building will improve the continuity between the many additions of the lower level. The southwestern theme of the building will be enhanced with the addition. In 1993, Maplewood Drive was widened and improved along the frontage of this building. At that time, a number of parking spaces along the front of the building were removed and replaced with 3 spots. Approximately 16 spots were lost due to the City changes. The City had proposed a parking area in the rear of the property to offset some of the losses, but at our request it was not constructed. At that time, those spaces were not needed and are not required now. In 8 years the parking needs have not changed and will not in the future. My wife and I own the building and have resided in Maplewood for 20 years. We have 4 children 2 which are attending North High School and 2 still in Richardson Elementary. I am also owner of Service Engineering. It is our intent to stay in Maplewood while maintaining ownership in both the building and Service Engineering. I request that given the above information, the City of Maplewood acknowledges and approves the request for the building permit without construction of additional parking spaces at this time. ~ John ~;. Kliethermes, Jr., P.E. 12 0 0 -rim ~m o::1 o g- 0 0 gl -r rn rn --z 13 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: DATE: City Manager Thomas Ekstrand, Assistant Director of Community Development AutoZone 749 N. Century Avenue February 13, 2001 INTRODUCTION Project Description CEI Engineering is proposing to build a one-story, 5,500-square-foot AutoZone auto-parts store on the former A&W restaurant property at 749 N. Century Avenue. Refer to pages 9-12. The proposed building would have an exterior of split-face (textured) and single-score (flat) concrete block. There would also be two four-inch-wide accent bands of flat concrete block. The building would be painted variations of grey (light, medium and dark). Refer to the building elevations. Requests The applicant is requesting that the city approve: A 20-foot building setback variance from the rear property line. The code requires a 50-foot setback and the applicant is proposing 30 feet. Refer to the site plan on page 12 and the applicant's justification on pages 15-16. 2. The building design, site and landscape plans. 3. A lot division. The current property owner plans to retain the southerly 52 feet of the A&W site to incorporate with his lot to the south. DISCUSSION Building Setback Variance State law requires that the city council make two findings to grant a variance. They must determine that stdct enforcement of the code would cause the applicant undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the property. "Undue hardship" means the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under the conditions allowed by the official controls. The council must also find that the variance would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. There are no circumstances that are unique to this site that prevent the applicant from meeting the 50-foot rear setback requirement. Staff has shown an altemative site plan on page 13 that the applicant could meet setbacks while being only one parking space under code requirements. (The code requires 28 parking spaces and this concept would provide 27.) Staff would support a parking waiver for a reduction in parking. This alternative, furthermore, does not reduce the building size and gives more opportunity for landscaping behind the building which would benefit the residential neighbors. It should also be noted that the applicant could purchase additional land to the south for more flexibility in site design. Building Design The proposed building design would be compatible with the existing commercial development in this area. The building materials, however, which would be entirely concrete block, would be of a lesser quality than the adjacent and nearby commercial buildings. These neighboring buildings all have a combination of brick and decorate block. Staff recommends that the applicant substitute the single-score block with brick on all sides of the building. This would be compatible and consistent with the block-brick design used on Video Update and the Oakdale Tire & Auto Center across Century Avenue. In addition, all roof-top equipment must be screened from the residential neighbors' view. The applicant must also provide a photometric plan showing the light spread. The code requires this plan to protect the residential neighbors. Landscaping/Screening The applicant is proposing six maple trees north of the parking lot and a six-foot-tall treated-wood screening fence. The fence would be placed on the entire north lot line and along the west lot line to screen the parking lot. No plantings have been proposed along the street frontage or behind the building. A combination of evergreen and deciduous trees should be planted behind the building to soften the appearance of the masonry wall. The existing vegetation is deciduous which does not provide much winter screening. The applicant should also revise the landscape plan to provide plantings in the setback area along Century Avenue. All lawn areas are proposed to be seeded. The city typically requires sod. The plan should be revised to show sod instead. The proposed northerly fence should be set back 20 feet from the front lot line so not to block any driver visibility for the proposed site and for neighbors. Staff also recommends that the applicant substitute the proposed treated wood fence with cedar for a more decorative appearance. The neighbors to the north have a screening fence along their south lot line. The applicant should coordinate the fence placement with them. It may be warranted to have the neighbors remove their fence. Perhaps the applicant could revise their fence design to take into account this existing fence as well as the existing tree locations. With these considerations in mind, the applicant should submit a revised fence plan. Site Plan The applicant mentioned that they may possibly connect their parking lot to the abutting property to the south. Staff does not object to this concept, but we must see specific plans for both properties showing how these lots would interact and function. Without a specific proposal, approval of this possible connection is premature. The applicant should revise the site plan to meet a five-foot parking lot setback from the side lot line as required by the code. The applicant must obtain a driveway permit from MnDOT for the new driveway curb cut. They should also close the old A&W driveway properly by curbing across this driveway opening and restoring the ground. Drainage Concerns Mr. Chris Cavett, Assistant City Engineer, has reviewed the grading, drainage and erosion control plans and has several comments and concerns. Refer to page 17. The applicant should work with Mr. Cavett on plan revisions. All issues should be resolved before a building permit is issued. Lot Division The owner of the proposed southerly parcel should saw-cut and remove any pavement within five feet of the new lot line to observe a five-foot setback (code requirement). The owner of the southerly parcel should also abandon the old A&W well. The owner should contact a well-drilling company for the proper procedure. RECOMMENDATIONS A. Deny the proposed 20-foot rear building setback variance because: 1. There are no circumstances that are unique to this site that prevent the applicant from meeting the 50-foot rear setback requirement. 2. The applicant can meet the setback requirements by revising the site plan as illustrated by staff in the staff report. 3. The variance would not meet the spirit and intent of the ordinance since there are options to meeting the code requirements. 4. The applicant could purchase additional land from the seller which would increase site- layout options. Approve a parking waiver for the proposed AutoZone to have up to five spaces fewer than the code allows. This exception allows the applicant flexibility in laying out the site plan. This waiver would still require at least 23 parking spaces which is reasonable for a building this size. Approve the architectural plans, date-stamped January 18, 2001, for the proposed AutoZone auto parts store, 749 N. Century Avenue, and approval of the staff's-alternative site plan concept for AutoZone as illustrated in the staff report. Approval is subject to the applicant complying with the following conditions: 1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. 2. Before getting a building permit, the applicant shall: ao Submit grading, drainage, utility and erosion control plans to the city engineer for approval. The plans shall address the concerns and issues outlined by Chris Cavett in his report dated February 12, 2001. Submit revised building elevations which substitute the single-score concrete block with face brick on all sides of the building. The applicant shall also submit a screening design for roof-top mechanical equipment that would be visible by residential neighbors. Staff shall review these revisions. Submit a revised site plan for staff approval which illustrates staff's alternative design with building setback compliance. The revised site plan shall also provide for a five- foot parking lot setback from the south lot line and compliance with all parking-lot dimensional requirements. Submit a revised landscape plan for community design review board approval providing for plantings in the 15-foot setback area, a mix of evergreen and deciduous trees behind the building and sod in all turf areas, not seed. Submit a revised fence design that uses cedar instead of treated wood. The applicant shall coordinate their fence design with the neighbor to the north to take their existing screening fence into account. The revised fence shall be set back 20 feet from the north lot line so not to obstruct driver visibility. The revised fence design shall be considered part of the landscape plan and shall be subject to review board approval. Submit a photometric plan showing the light spread from lighting fixtures. There shall not be any lights behind the building. The lighting fixtures used shall be the type that have recessed bulbs and lenses. Obtain an access permit from MnDOT for the proposed driveway access and for stormwater flow within their system. The applicant shall also follow MnDOT's requirements for closing the old A&W driveway opening. This old opening shall be curbed over and the ground restored. 3. The applicant shall complete the following before occupying the building: a. Install a handicap-parking sign for each handicap-parking space and a stop sign at the driveway exit. b. Provide continuous concrete curb and gutter around the parking lot and driveways. This includes the area of any future driveway connection to the lot to the south. Paint the roof-top mechanical equipment to match the building color if the units are visible. (code requirement) The applicant must also screen the roof-top equipment from residential neighbors' views. Construct the trash dumpster enclosure using the same materials and color as the building. This enclosure shall have a 100 percent opaque gate. The gate material shall be cedar to match the screening fence. e. Install an in-ground lawn irrigation system for all landscaped areas (code requirement) except for the ponding area behind the building. f. Provide site-security lighting as required by the code. The light source, including the lens covering the bulb, shall be concealed so not to cause any nuisance to drivers or neighbors. g. Properly close the old A&W driveway opening with curbing and ground restoration. 4. If any required work is not done, the city may allow temporary occupancy if: a. The work is not essential to the public health, safety or welfare. b. The city receives a cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit for the required work. The amount shall be 150 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. Signs are not included in this approval. The applicant shall submit sign proposals to staff for review. 6. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. D. Approval of the proposed lot division, subject to the following conditions: The owner of the proposed southerly parcel shall saw-cut and remove any pavement within five feet of the new lot line to observe a five-foot setback (code requirement). The five-foot setback area shall then be restored and sodded. 2. The owner of the southerly parcel shall properly abandon the old A&W well. The owner must contract with a well-drilling company for this work. The above work shall be accomplished before the city signs the deeds for this lot division or the property owner or buyer shall provide staff with escrow to guarantee that this work will be completed. 4. Record the new deeds within one year. CITIZENS' COMMENTS I surveyed the 36 property owners within 350 feet of this site and received the following replies: 1. No objections. (Owners of 785 and 799 Century Avenue) Finally something is being done with that slummy A&W. I can't believe the city didn't order it to be demolished. I guess anything will be better than looking at that. We are worried about more noise. We would also like a 12 foot fence in the back so we don't have to look at it or hear it. (Charles, 744 Mayhill Road) 3. I am pleased to see more new construction taking place in this area. I hope this plan is accepted. (Tosh, 2696 Minnehaha Avenue) I am very, very concerned with the added vehicle traffic this proposal will contribute to the dangerous intersections of Minnehaha, 10th Street and Century Avenue. I strongly suggest an impact study be conducted. The request for a zoning variance is another example of how the residential sector rights of existence is continuously being dismantled and ignored. Please give this neighborhood a "break" for a change! (Dicker, 743 Mayhill Road) AutoZone should set their proposed fence seven to eight feet from their north lot line so not to crowd the trees on my property. Also, setting the fence in would allow AutoZone to put plantings on my side of the fence so I am not just looking at a fence. Make sure the drainage flow is not obstructed. (Feist, 763 Century Avenue) There is currently confusing signage on Geneva Avenue. By crowding more buildings with turn in/outs will further confuse roadway. I do not support a variance for the building setback. (Blomquist, 360 N. Robert Street) I know the AutoZone will probably go up anyway, but my neighbor and I are less than enthusiastic over this development. Because of the speed and heavy traffic on Century Avenue, and all the businesses already in place, this section of the street has frequent fender benders and more serious accidents, due to vehicles slowing down, turning in, turning out while passing traffic swings wide and fast to pass around these vehicles. As a pedestrian, I walk along Century a lot and we have no sidewalk. (Reger, 779 Century Avenue) - REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Site size: 32,296 square feet Existing land use: The former A&W Restaurant and a vacant lot SURROUNDING LAND USES North: South: West: East: Single dwellings Holiday Station and Maplewood Auto Service Single dwellings Century Avenue and commercial businesses in the City of Oakdale PAST ACTION November 20, 1980: The city council rezoned the northerly 76 feet of the proposed site to LBC (limited business commercial). PLANNING Land Use Plan designation: BC (business commercial) and LBC Zoning: BC and LBC (north 76 feet of the proposed site) Ordinance Requirements Section 36-28(c)(6)(b) requires that commercial buildings of this size be set back 50 feet from abutting residential property. Section 25-70 of the city code requires that the CDRB make the following findings to approve plans: That the design and location of the proposed development and its relationship to neighboring, existing or proposed developments, and traffic is such that it will not impair the desirability of investment or occupation in the neighborhood; that it will not unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring, existing or proposed developments; and that it will not create traffic hazards or congestion. That the design and location of the proposed development is in keeping with the character of the surrounding neighborhood and is not detrimental to the harmonious, orderly and attractive development contemplated by this article and the city's comprehensive municipal plan. That the design and location of the proposed development would provide a desirable environment for its occupants, as well as for its neighbors, and that it is aesthetically of good composition, materials, textures and colors. Findings for Variance Approval State law requires that the city council make the following findings to approve a variance from the zoning code: 1. Strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the property under consideration. 2. The variance would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. "Undue hardship," as used in granting of a variance, means the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property, not created by the landowner, and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance. Application Date We received these applications on January 18, 2001. State law requires that the city take action within 60 days of receiving complete applications for a proposal. City council action is required on this proposal by March 18, 2001. p:sec25\autozone.var Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Property Line/Zoning Map 3. Property Line/Address Map 4. Site Plan 5. Site Plan-Staff'sAIternative 6. Building Elevations 7. Letter of Variance Justification date-stamped January 18, 2001 8. AutoZone Engineering Review by Chris Cavett dated February 12, 2001 9. Plans date-stamped January 18, 2001 (separate attachments) LOCATION MAP Attachment 1 Attachment 2 ~ 6q°~a,'c~6' I 8 0."/~I 1 2 <z~) 30 (~0 ~.4 [ I I~,~ ~~ PROPOSED ,7 .LOT 10 Attachment 3 777 757 749 PROPOSED AUTO ZONE SITE LOT DIVISION :.} ~ ........ -743-' MINNEHAHA AVENUE .... PROPERTY LINE / ADDRESS MAP Attachment 4 S1~8'4.2'42"W 183.50 ~J ORE # 5082 ~' PARKING SPACES=;~9 ~' I~OTO'~E ---~WR F.F.~. = 995.t~9 SITE PLAN 12 Attachment 5 SITE PLAN STAFF'S ALTERNATIVE 13 Z Attachment 6 14 Attachment 7 RECEIVED JAN I $ 2001 APPLICANT'S NARRATIVE FINDINGS Lot 12 is zoned LBC (Limited Business Commercial). No buildings are allowed in LBC zoned areas, therefore limiting our design by forcing the building to be located only on lot 13, and in partial Lot 14. Lot 12 will have no building. The parking requirement for this project is 1 space per each 200 square feet of building area. Thus, we need 28 parking spaces for this project and we have provided for 29 spaces. This design enables delivery vehicle entry, unloading, and exit from the project site without any disturbance to the adjoining residential property to the west of our site. Lots 13 and Partial Lot 14 are zoned BC with a building setback requirement of 50' at the west property line adjoining residential property to the west or our project site. The proposed design has a 30.08' setback at the west side of the site to facilitate 29 parking spaces. All parking spaces are screened from the adjoining residential property 15 o by a wooden screen wall and the proposed building itself. Any vehicle noise will be abated, as well. The proposed design includes a drainage detention pond to comply with City drainage requirements, further reducing parking space location options. The City zoning ordinance, Section 36-28, specifies that an exterior wall facing an adjoining residentially zoned property, with a maximum square footage of 1,999 square feet, must be setback a minimum of 50 feet from that property line. The graph below shows that the proposed building's exterior west wall, having a square footage of 1,632, intersecting the graph line from 50' and ?5' setback walls. The intersection point is at 40' setback, which, being greater than the 30' setback on our design, indicates that the proposed exterior wall has the visual impact of being setback 40: In closing we feel that our proposed design is in keeping with the intent of the City Ordinance, i.e. minimize problems associated with commercial property adjacent to residential property. Adequate screening between our commercial site and the adjacent residential property has been provided with a wood privacy fence and landscaping. The proposed design will not create any inconvenience, additional noise, nor nuisance for the adjoining residential property. Thank you for your consideration. Sin~ Jer~my Y~rogram Manager 16 Attachment 8 I N T E R 0 F F I C E MEMO To: From: Subject: Date: Tom Ekstrand, Assistant Community Development Director Chris Cavett, Assistant City Engineer AutoZone Engineering Review February 12, 2001 I have completed my engineering review of the grading, drainage and erosion control plan. Listed below are the issues and questions that I feel need to be addressed: From the desk of... Christopher M.Cavett, P.E. Assistant City Engineer City of Maplewood 1830 E. County Road 'B' Maplewood, MN 55109 (651) 770-4554 Fax: (651) 770-4506 The grading plan gives the impression as though the silt fence will installed outside the property boundary. If that is the case, temporary grading easements with the impacted property owners shall be required. We strongly recommend draining as much of the northerly lot as possible, (especially the garbage area), overland and into the ponding area to provide at least some form of"pre-treatment" before the flow is allowed to enter the drainage system. 3. Mn/DOT Utility Permit will be required to connect to the Mn/DOT system. 4. Drainage Report: The applicant's proposal calls for a significant reduction in size of an informal drainage basin and little is known about the hydraulics of this basin at this time. The drainage report gives no indication of pre-existing or post-development high water elevations. The report also indicates that the drainage area beyond the site is only about 0.69 Acres. From a quick estimate using an aerial photo, we would estimate the "off-site" tributary area at approximately 5.7 + acres rather than the 0.69 acres shown in the report. This may have a significant impact on the site. Without a more in depth determination of pond elevations, typical guidelines would require the lowest openings of all the adjacent structures to be 1-foot above the emergency overflow elevation. The emergency overflow condition will be significantly altered under the applicant's proposal. Where will the "new" emergency overflow be and who will be impacted? Guidelines often accept lowest openings at 2-feet above the 100-year high water elevation. There is no indication of the downstream capacity of the existing drainage system, nor of the anticipated flow in that system. What might the likelihood of a "heading-up" pressure flow condition be?, and What might be its impact on the proposed drainage system and pond elevations? c: Jeremy Yee, CSI Engineering Assoc., Inc. via Fax: 501-273-0844 17 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: City Manager Thomas Ekstrand, Assistant Community Development Director 2000 Community Design Review Board Annual Report February 1, 2001 INTRODUCTION Attached is the 2000 community design review board annual report. RECOMMENDATION Approve the 2000 community design review board annual report. p:\misscell\drbanrep.00 (6.2) Attachment: 2000 Community Design Review Board Annual Report MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: City Manager Matt Ledvina, Chair 2000 Community Design Review Board Annual Report February 1, 2001 INTRODUCTION In 2000, the community design review board (CDRB) reviewed 44 items: New Development Proposals 24 Expansions and Remodeling 6 Sign Reviews 1 Code Changes 1 Variances 5 Miscellaneous _[7 Total 44 COMPARATIVE TABLE 1994-1998 Year Number of Items Reviewed 1994 54 1995 57 1996 31 1997 53 1998 35 1999 28 ATTENDANCE Board Member Meetings Attended (of 18 meetings) Matt Ledvina 18 Ananth Shankar 13 Tim Johnson 12 Craig Jorgenson 14 Jon LaCasse 17 DISCUSSION 2000 was a busy year with 24 new development proposals and six addition and remodeling proposals. Some projects were controversial such as the Woodland Hills Church on the Builder's Square site and Emma's Place, a 13-unit subsidized townhouse development north of City Hall. There were four cellular-telephone tower proposals and several housing developments. In addition to Emma's Place, the housing developments reviewed were: Woodlyn Heights Townhomes #7 (nine units), New Century Townhomes (93 units), Dearborn Meadow Twinhomes (10 units), Pineview Estates Condominiums (72 units), Rosoto Senior Apartments (70 units),. Birch Glen Apartments (60 units), Emerald Estates Townhomes (12 units) and the Highpoint Townhomes (36 units). The community design review board has endeavored to improve the city's site-lighting ordinance. The board invited Ms. Tine Thevenin, a researcher on this subject, to present her thoughts and ideas on site lighting. As a result of this discussion, the board is in the process of evaluating Ms. Thevenin's ideas to see if they would benefit Maplewood. Some of the other projects approved in 2000 were: the new post office annex on Gervais Avenue, Bennigan's Restaurant and Pub, the Gladstone Fire Station, Forest Products, Wheeler Lumber Landscaping, Maplewood Corner Shoppes on the old Bali Hai site and a substantial addition to Mounds Park Academy. In addition to these reviews, the board also reviewed an amendment to the curbing requirements. In 2001, the board is looking forward to reviewing areas of special concern such as the 80-acre Robert Hajicek property near the Maplewood Mall. The board also feels that there may be a need to evaluate the building and design criteria as it relates to the White Bear Avenue Corridor Study which was completed in 1999. The board is dedicated to promoting attractive development in Maplewood and will continue to require quality building designs in the year 2001. p:\misscell\drbanrep.00 (6.2) 2