Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/24/2001BO01~ AGENDA MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD July 24, 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 July 10, 2001 a. 3M Leadership Development Institute Remodel- 600 Carlton Street 6. Design Review a. Comfort Bus - 1870 Rice Street 7. Visitor Presentations 8. Board Presentations 9. Staff Presentations a. CDRB representation needed for the August 27 city council meeting. Reminder: Linda is scheduled for August 13 city council meeting. 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. 2. 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. 3. The chairperson will then ask the audience if there is anyone present who wishes to comment on the proposal. 4. 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. 7. 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 II. MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA JULY 10, 2001 CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Ledvina called the meeting to order at 6:03 p.m. ROLL CALL Matt Ledvina Ananth Shankar Tim Johnson Craig Jorgenson Linda Olson Staff Present: Recording Secretary: Present Absent Present Absent Present Tom Ekstrand, Assistant Community Development Director JoAnn Morin III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES IV. June 12, 2001 Board member Johnson moved approval of the minutes of June 12, 2001. Board member OIson seconded. Ayes--All The motion passed. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Chairperson Ledvina suggested that the Board review the Dean's Tavern design first because no one was present for the 3M design review. Board member Olson moved approval of the agenda as amended. Board member Johnson seconded. Ayes--All The motion passed. V. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. VI. DESIGN REVIEW a. Dean's Tavern Addition - 1986 Rice Street. Mr. Ekstrand gave the staff presentation. He stated that Mr. Paul Mateyka of Dean's Tavern is proposing to add a 1,353 square-foot customer seating area and a 120 square-foot kitchen addition onto the south side of his building. The building exterior of the proposed additions would be horizontal-lap siding to match the existing building. The applicant would also add vinyl awning across the front of the building to match the existing awning on the building. He stated that Mr. Mateyka had just informed staff that they are considering utilizing the existing awning by taking the Community Design Review Board Minutes of 07-10-01 -2- awning off of the north and south elevation of the building and using those awnings as a continuation for the front of the new addition. Mr. Ekstrand stated that the conditions had been changed from the original conditions listed in the staff report. The additional conditions that he has added are relative to site elements. In terms of the building appearance, the addition would match the existing structure, in terms of the site, however, there are several non-conformities with this property and staff would like to come as close to conformity with city code, within a degree of reasonableness. They have an encroachment out into the right-of-way with the existing parking, staff is not recommending that be changed because this being an existing situation and it did not upset the engineering staff. If it does ever come time that MnDot decides to widen Rice Street, then the applicant would be forced to comply and move parking and provide a better boulevard. The applicant agrees to sweep, patch and restripe the existing parking lot and add paving to the north, which is now gravel. Mr. Ekstrand stated that staff grappled with requiring screening on the north end of the site because there is a house on that property. The property is zoned commercial and is currently a rental property, but the code still does require screening. Mr. Ekstrand stated that city code does however that the Community Design Review Board has the discretion not to require screening if they feel it would not be beneficial. Mr. Ekstrand stated he reviewed this issue with Mr. Mateyka. The entire site going to the north is a gradual slope upwards towards the house on the adjacent property. He stated if a six-foot high barrier was put in, it would probably not do a great deal of screening for the house, car headlights would still go over the top of the barrier and hit the residential windows. He stated that the purpose of the screening code is to protect an adjacent house from headlight glare. Mr. Ekstrand stated in terms of meeting the ordinance, there is only a five-foot green strip required from their parking lot adjacent to the abutting lot line. In this case it is presently a sea of gravel and to creating a five- foot strip of green would not survive, it would also need to be curbed so people would not drive over it. The applicant stated that the adjacent property owner has no problem with sharing his access and having the Dean's Tavern patrons drive in from his property and cross over onto their parking lot. Mr. Ekstrand stated he felt that there wasn't enough benefit in requiring screen and the five-foot strip of landscaping. He is recommending to meet code setbacks that the parking lot stop five-feet from the north lot line and be paved to that point, and the gravel would remain the rest of the way. Mr. Ekstrand stated that in front of the proposed addition there is currently an asphalt area with a concrete apron and drive leading out to Rice Street. The applicant proposes to provide a strip of greenery with foundation plantings right in front of the addition, but would like to leave the existing bituminous for service and deliveries. This area would not be for parking and staff recommends that it be posted for no parking. Chairperson Ledvina asked staff if there would be curbing on the north edge of the parking lot. Mr. Ekstrand stated that he is recommending no curbing. Chairperson Ledvina asked if the ordinance required curbing in this situation. Mr. Ekstrand stated that was correct, but this is a bit of a different scenario. He stated that the code as written would allow the continuation of what is there, but because they are proposing a change, it gives the Board an opportunity to start requiring upgrades. Mr. Ekstrand stated he did not feel it is necessary to require every upgrade possible, but rather try to attain a reasonable amount of upgrades and not hinder the applicant from making their improvements by making it more costly for them, but try to get closer to what the code would like to see there. He stated that curbing would meet the ordinance, but he questioned how much would it benefit with the existing traffic patterns there, it may be a hindrance. Board member Johnson asked staff if the owner of the property to the north had been spoken to. Mr. Ekstrand stated that he understands the applicant has talked with the owner of the property, but not with the current renter. The owner has authority over the renter. Community Design Review Board Minutes of 07-10-01 -3- Board member Olson stated that she passes the property daily and does not see any reason for requiring screening if it is not going to be ~a ~particle improvement. She stated that it is a fairly open area and as she recalls that residence is not near the lot line. Mr. Ekstrand stated that he does not want to be lax with the code, but he feels that certain improvements do not need to be required in this situation if they are not beneficial. Chairperson Ledvina asked if the residence property was zoned commercial. Mr. Ekstrand stated that yes; it is zoned business commercial. Mr. Paul Mateyka, the applicant, addressed the Board. He stated that he agrees with the staff report as given. Chairperson Ledvina asked the applicant about the curb cut on the southern part of the lot. He asked if it would be used for deliveries and such. Mr. Mateyka stated yes that it would be. Chairperson Ledvina asked if it would be possible to use the other entrances for deliveries. Mr. Mateyka stated there are other entrances that could be used. Board member Olson asked how much parking on the north side would be new to cover the needs of the extra patrons. Mr. Mateyka stated he would be adding 55-feet by 140-feet of new pavement and increasing the parking by about ten cars. Board member Olson asked the applicant if he would be keeping the awning on the front of the building. Mr. Mateyka stated he wants to remove the south and north awnings and put the entire awning on the front of the building and wrap it around about three feet on each side. He stated that the awning is about 15 years old and is weathered canvas. He added that if he put new awning onto the building, it would not look very good next to the weathered old awning. Board member Johnson asked the applicant when he planned to add the deck addition. Mr. Mateyka stated he would be pursuing that this winter or next spring. Board member Johnson asked staff if there was any requirement by the Board to ensure the applicant adds the deck addition. Mr. Ekstrand stated that staff is recommending approval of the location of the deck, but staff would approve the actual design when it was built. Mr. Mateyka stated that there are six mature trees where the deck is planned to be. He stated that those trees would be saved and the deck would be wrapped around them for natural shade on the deck. Board member Olson stated she liked the idea of the planters and a strip of green along the front of the building. Chairperson Ledvina stated that he also does not have a problem with not requiring the screening on the north side of the property in this instance. He added that there are better applications for screen and in this scenario it would not be appropriate. He added that when the property to the north develops the screening and curbing could be addressed at that time. He asked staff if the Board could identify a condition to that effect in this proposal. Mr. Ekstrand stated that was a good point, when and if that property does develop it would be desirable to have a finished edge to the site. He stated he felt it should be added as a condition. However, the condition may be missed when the property develops, but he feels that it still should be an added condition. Mr. Ekstrand added that Mr. Mateyka is hoping to purchase an additional 50-feet of the property to the north, which would encompass the adjacent driveway and bring his property line up to the grass edge. He stated that if and when a lot division is approved, staff would like to see some site upgrades. Chairperson Ledvina stated he likes the way the awning on the property looks currently. He feels it really finishes off the north elevation. He stated he felt it would detract from the building if it were Community Design Review Board Minutes of 07-10-01 to be removed from the north elevation. He stated he could understand the applicant's concern as it relates to matching the fabrics to a new awning, but thought perhaps there is a way to treat the fabrics to restore an older fabric to a newer look. Chairperson Ledvina stated that he does not feel that it is necessary to retain the curb cut in front of the new addition. He stated that there are three curb cuts onto Rice Street and feels that it would be beneficial to eliminate one of those cuts. He feels that area should be restored with vegetation. Board member Olson stated she agreed with Chairperson Ledvina on his point regarding the awning. She would much rather see the awning replaced than to have it chopped back to only three-feet around the corners of the building. She stated it would be more practical to retain the awning over the doorway to protect the patrons and employees when entering the building. Board member Olson also agrees the Chairperson Ledvina's point regarding removing the curb cut and having the area restored to vegetation. Board member Johnson also agrees that the curb cut should be removed. He also stated he did not feel that the screening on the north side was necessary. Mr. Ekstrand stated that he felt that the awning on the north side should be retained. He also stated that he would also like to see one less curb cut on Rice Street. He feels that it would not hinder the business for their deliveries. He also stated with the current curb cut, there is a possibility of patrons pulling right up to the building, even if it were to be posted no-parking, it is a potentially hazardous parking area. He stated that if the curb cut were closed, he recommends that it be done to MnDot standards. He stated there might be a permit process for closing a curb cut. The Board all agreed that there is definitely potential parking hazards in that area. Chairperson Ledvina asked if the pylon sign was going to be removed and if so, what type of replacement sign would be added. Mr. Mateyka stated that the pylon sign would be removed and new signs would be placed onto the building. Mr. Mateyka asked the Board if he would be required to place awning above the deck on the south side of the building. Board member Olson stated that she did not see any reason why he could not eliminate the awning on the south side. Board member Olson moved to approve the plans date stamped June 21, 2001 for expansion of Dean's Tavern at 1986 Rice Street 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. Submit the following for staff approval before the city issues a building permit: a. Grading, drainage, utility and erosion control plans. 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 gates that are 100 percent opaque and extend to the ground. c. A lighting plan for the parking lot if there would be any new site lights installed. This plan shall meet the standards of the city lighting code. Community Design Review Board Minutes of 07-10-01 -5- A revised site plan showing narrowing of th.e landscaped area west of the handicap- parking spaces to avoid blocking the sidewalk and the deletion of the four westerly parking spaces along the north parking row. 3. Complete the following before occupying the addition: a. Restore and sod damaged boulevards. Install reflectorized stop signs at all exits and a handicap-parking sign for the handicap-parking spaces. The site lights shall not exceed the maximum light intensity required by code. Aim or shield any new site lights so they are not a nuisance to neighbors. Paint any new roof-top mechanical equipment that may be placed on the proposed. addition. Paint must match the color of the building. Any new roof-mounted equipment visible to adjacent residential property shall be screened. The exterior materials and color of the additions shall match the existing building. Construct a trash dumpster enclosure for any outside trash containers. The enclosures must be 100 percent opaque, match the color of the building and have a closeable gate that extends to the ground. (code requirement). Remove the pylon sign and sign base from the parking lot. Pave the parking lot to within five feet of the north property line. Also, pave the existing entrance, which is on the neighbors' property to the north 20 feet east of the existing driveway apron. The applicant must present written approval from that owner before doing this work. i. Sweep and patch the existing parking lot. j. Stripe the entire parking lot. k. The five-foot parking lot setback from the north lot line shall be provided but shall be crushed rock. 4. If any required work is not done, the city may allow temporary occupancy if: a. The city determines that the work is not essential to the public health, safety or welfare. bo The city receives cash escrow 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 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. The location of the future deck is approved. The deck design, however, shall be subject to staff approval. The owner shall provide fencing around the perimeter of the deck subject to the requirements of the Police Chief. Community Design Review Board Minutes of 07-10-01 -6- 6. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development or the assistant community development director may approve minor changes. 7. Close the curb cut in the front of the new addition in accordance with MnDot standards. This area shall be restored with sod and landscaping. 8. The applicant shall retain or replace the awning that exists on the north side of the building in its current configuration with the approval of the awning as indicated on the proposed plans. 9. The applicant shall install curbing on the north edge of the parking lot at the time the adjacent property to the north is developed. Board member Johnson seconded the motion. Ayes - All Motion carries. b. 3M Leadership Development Institute Remodel - 600 Carlton Street. Mr. Ekstrand gave the staff report. He indicated that the applicant was not present at this time. He stated that Mr. John OIfelt, of 3M Company is proposing to make some building upgrades with building 255, which is their training facility. They are proposing to give the building a face lift by refurbishing the outside of the building by covering the existing pre-cast concrete exterior with the lower 60% being brick and the upper portion would be metal panels in warm tones of gray. The roof would be a standing-seam metal roof held out by wooden supports. They are upgrading the building because they are going to be converting this facility into an executive training facility. They are proposing to' I'eave the south elevation as is because the building is well screened by existing screens, they plan to paint it to be compatible with the new details that will be on the building. They are also proposing landscaping on the front street side and the east side of the building. They are also proposing to lower the parking lot lighting poles from 30-feet to 20-feet and increasing the wattage from 400 watts to 800 watts. They feel this lighting change will provide better security and cause less light spill over as well. Based on the photometric plan, they are a little high on the number of foot-candles allowed at the residential lot line. They are at .5, code requires .4. Staff is recommending that the applicant submit a revised plan showing they are meeting the .4 maximum. As for the building plan, staff felt that they are nice upgrades and are recommending approval. Board member Johnson asked staff if 3M was aware of the recommendations put forth by staff. Mr. Ekstrand stated that yes, they were aware. He did state that they have not yet responded to the requirement for a revised lighting plan. Chairperson Ledvina asked staff if they have seen any building material samples that they are proposing. Mr. Ekstrand stated no, he had not seen any samples. Chairperson Ledvina stated that he was concerned about how the design of the mansard and the wood supports were going to work and look. Mr. Ekstrand stated that he thought that each of the wooden supports would angle out from the wall, however, the plans do not depict the detail of the size of the wooden supports. Mr. Ekstrand stated he was not sure whether the mansards would be in an open or closed design style. Board member Olson suggested deferring this design review until the next meeting when a representative from 3M could be available to answer their questions. Chairperson Ledvina added that he would like to see some materials as well. He also stated that he is a bit concerned about the existing loading dock. It appears 3M is doing all the upgrades to improve the appearance of Community Design Review Board Minutes of 07-10-01 -7- their building but the loading dock is very unsightly. He felt that something should be done to improve the appearance of that dock. Board member Olson stated she would like to see illustrations of the light poles that they are proposing. Board member Olson motioned to table this design review. Board member Johnson seconded the motion. VII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS Ayes - All VIII. There were no visitors present. BOARD PRESENTATIONS Board member Johnson reported on the June 25 City Council Meeting. He stated the Afton Ridge townhomes were on that agenda. The City Council approved this item with the design modificationS that were put forth by the Board regarding the modification of the south elevation of the Oxford design and the elimination of the emergency vehicle turn-around. Chairperson Ledvina brought up the issue regarding the portable auto sales on Rice Street that the Board had approved several months ago. He stated that they are in full operation, and in full non-compliance with all the conditions that the Board had outlined in the staff report. Mr. Ekstrand stated that staff is aware of the situation and will be in contact with the business soon to address the issues. Chairperson Ledvina stated that they are still in need of closing the curb cut and changing the lighting on the canopy. Board member Johnson announced that he would be stepping down from the Community Design Review Board. He stated he is involved in another business that is involving more and more of his time. He indicated that he could remain on the Board until staff finds a replacement for him. IX. STAFF PRESENTATIONS Mr. Ekstrand requested a CDRB representative for the July 23rd City Council Meeting, Chairperson Ledvina volunteered for that meeting. Mr. Ekstrand also asked for a CDRB representative for the August 13th City Council meeting, Board member Olson volunteered for this meeting. Mr. Ekstrand stated that there are no CDRB items currently on either of those meeting agendas. Chairperson Ledvina asked staff what are the upcoming proposals for the CDRB. Mr. Ekstrand stated that staff is working on a project for Comfort Bus, a school bus company, who has submitted their plans for the old Amusement City site. He stated that Amusement City would be closing down on August 22, 2001. Mr. Ekstrand stated that Beau's Restaurant on McKnight and Minnehaha has been sold to a different restaurant and plans are being made for a "face lift" and adding additional parking. He stated this application would be for a conditional use permit, a rezoning and a plan change, and a setback vadance would be required. X. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 7:03 p.m. MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: DATE: City Manager Tom Ekstrand, Assistant Community Development Director Design Review - 3M Leadership Development Institute (Building #255) 600 Carlton Street July 17, 2001 INTRODUCTION John Olfelt, of 3M Company, is proposing to make exterior building and landscaping improvements to 3M Company's Leadership Development Institute located at 600 Carlton Street. Refer to the maps on pages 3-6. Mr. Olfelt is proposing to do the following: 1. Refurbish the building exterior by covering the existing precast-concrete exterior with brick, metal panels and a standing-seam roof. The applicant is proposing to apply this new exterior on the north, west and east sides. The applicant would wrap the new exterior treatment around onto the south elevation about 10 feet from the east and west elevations. The majority of the south elevation would remain as is (precast concrete panels) but would be painted to match the proposed metal panels. The applicant is not proposing a full retreatment of the south elevation since trees hide this side of the building. The applicant would also add a canopy over the walkway at the northeast corner of the building to cover the main entrance as well as make some window changes. Refer to the building elevations. 2. Add landscaping on the front (west) and back (east) of the building. The applicant proposes to plant locust trees and several spirea bushes on the west side of the building. They would plant crab trees and spirea bushes on the east side. Refer to the landscape plan. 3. Lower the height of the light poles in the parking lot from 30 feet to 20 feet and increase the lamp wattage from 400 watts to 800 watts for better security. The building interior would remain a training facility, but will be remodeled to accommodate executive staff rather than technical staff. BACKGROUND February 25, 1991: The city council approved the training facility subject to seven conditions. May 13, 1991: The council vacated part of a utility easement that ran under the building. May 28, 1991: The council allowed two ground-mounted and two wall-mounted antennas. March 23, 1992: The council extended this CUP for five years. April 14, 1997: The council reviewed the CUP and moved to review it again only if a problem develops or if the owner proposes to change the site plan. DISCUSSION Building and Landscape Design The proposed building exterior and landscaping improvements are attractive enhancements that will benefit the neighborhood and 3M's campus. Staff would normally prefer to see a visible elevation, like the south elevation, treated as the other three. In this case, however, the south elevation is quite screened by trees as the applicant stated. Furthermore, even if the trees did not remain, the applicant is still improving the building appearance substantially over its current state. Staff, therefore, is happy with the proposed improvements. Lighting Changes The applicant's proposed lighting changes would lessen the light spread onto the residential lots to the east. The proposed lighting plan, however, shows an anticipated light intensity of .5 footcandles at the residential lot line. The city code requires a maximum of .4 footcandles. The applicant should revise their plan to meet this requirement. COMMITTEE ACTION July 10, 2001: The community design review board tabled this request since the applicant was not present at the meeting. RECOMMENDATION Approve the plans date-stamped June 25, 2001, for the building exterior and landscape plan changes at 3M Building #255, 600 Carlton Street. Approval is based on the findings required by the code and subject to the applicant submitting a revised lighting plan for staff approval showing a maximum light spread to the abutting residential lot lines of .4 footcandles. The applicant shall submit this plan before obtaining a building permit. 3mcarltn.des.doc (Section 36-29) Attachments 1. Location Map 2. Property Line/Zoning Map 3. Neighborhood Map 4. Site Plan/Landscape Plan 5. Existing Lighting Plan 6. Proposed Lighting Plan 7. Building Elevations (north and west) 8. Building Elevations (south and east) 9. Plans date-stamped June 25, 2001 (separate attachment) 2 ST. ST. BRAND AVE. Attachment 1 IdAY[R LN. JAI4ES UPPER AFTON RD. Lake LOCATION MAP Attachment 2 Attachment AVENUE N AVENUE[ ~ ,.. 3M' )NT /-,VE 610 4~ ~, '~ I .................................... CONWAY A'VENUE .................................... ~e~}-=~ .................................... ~r~, s~'~mc ~:[r ........ 3MI " 3M NEIGHBORHOOD MAP Attachment 4 6 Attachment ,,1 J Attachment 6 J3J;J JJ J J JJJJ JJJJJ J J J JJ 8 Attachment 7 Attachment 8 10 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: DATE: MEMORANDUM City Manager Ken Roberts, Associate Planner Design Review - Comfort Bus Company 1870 Rice Street July 18, 2001 INTRODUCTION Project Description Craig and Lee Rossow, of Comfort Bus Company, are proposing to move their Little Canada bus terminal to the Amusement City site at 1870 Rice Street. Refer to the maps on pages 9-11. They propose to operate their school bus business from this location. They would remove all existing construction from this site and build a two-story office building, a shop and dispatch building and a fueling dock. They have shown their vision for their proposed dispatch and maintenance building and office building on the enclosed plans. The proposed office building would be a 10,000-square-foot, two-story precast concrete building with an EIFS cornice, metal fascia and trim and a fiat roof. The proposed shop and dispatch building would be a 20,500 square foot two-story precast concrete building with several bays for the washing, repair and service of busses. The fuel dock would have fuel dispensers beneath a new canopy that would serve up to 10 busses. Refer to the maps and drawings on pages 11-17 and the enclosed project plans. Requests The applicant is requesting city approval of site, landscape and architectural plans to build this facility. BACKGROUND On January 22, 2001, the city council approved a CUP for the bus-maintenance portion of their business. The city code requires a CUP for mechanical repair and maintenance garages in a BC (business commercial) district. The city code allows the bus parking and office portions of this facility as a permitted use. (See the council minutes starting on page 18.) The council also approved the termination of the Amusement City CUP since they approved the CUP for Comfort Bus for the property. DISCUSSION Site Considerations The applicant should provide details later when they apply for building permit approval including items such as: · Dimensions for all site-related elements (parking lots, drive aisles, setbacks, buildings) · Site lighting proposal Wetland Mr. Betts', the operator of Amusement City, proposed in 2000 an expansion for Amusement City. This plan was to incorporate the St. Paul Water Utility property southwest of this site. (See the plans on pages 11 and 12.) Mr. Rossow said that they may wish to incorporate this property into their site in the future. (They have shown this area for future parking on the proposed plans.) Staff wants the applicant to be aware that there is a Class 5 wetland on the adjacent parcel that may limit the use or development of that property. The applicant should discuss these issues with staff. Noise The applicant should make every attempt to keep the noises from the busses and repair work to a minimum. The owner and his employees should not work on the busses or equipment with the shop doors open. Building Design The proposed buildings would fit the character of this area. The elevation drawings do not show any details of the fuel canopy nor do they specify the proposed colors or show a trash enclosure. The applicant told me that the main colors of the precast panels for the buildings would be gray and pastel. Staff recommends that the applicant build a trash enclosure to match the proposed building. Landscaping Staff has several issues with the proposed landscape plan. They are as follows: First, it should be noted that the city code requires the applicant to install an in-ground irrigation system for all landscape areas. For this site, there should be an irrigation system in the landscape areas around the office building and for the boulevard along Rice Street. The areas proposed for trees need to have a variety of species shown on the plan. For example, the plan shows the entire frontage along Roselawn Avenue having Arbor Vitaes. While this proposal may provide screening of the site, there should be a variety of screening trees to prevent damage to all the trees from disease and to provide a variety of textures and colors. Such screening trees in this area could include Austrian Pines or Black Hills spruce, as well as the proposed Arbor Vitaes. A second area with a similar concern is the site frontage along Rice Street. The proposed plan shows the applicant installing 7 Summit Ash trees in this area. It is important to have an attractive street scape here as well. As such, staff recommends that the boulevard area south of the proposed driveway have three trees and that the applicant use at least two species of trees along Rice Street. It is important that the plan show a variety of materials to provide a more interesting appearance and some screening of the parking lot from Rice Street. To accomplish this, the plan could include shrubs, ornamental trees and planting beds with perennials, along with over story trees about 30 feet apart, along Rice Street. The fenced yard area on the south side of the office building, and those who may use it, would benefit from having deciduous shade trees planted along the south and west sides of the grass. The revised plans should show at least four of these types of trees (maples, oaks, etc.) in this area. The landscape plan also must specify how the contractor will finish the slopes near Roselawn Avenue. The proposed plans do not specify whether the contractor would seed or sod this area to prevent erosion and to finish the site. Site Lights The applicant should provide a lighting plan indicating the light spread and fixture design. The fixtures the contractor installs should have a design that hides the bulb and lens from view to avoid nuisances. The code requires that the applicant design and install site lights so they do not shine into any neighbors' windows or onto a public street. Parking The applicant is proposing 141 standard sized parking spaces for the vehicles of the employees and visitors. This should be enough parking to meet the needs of the business and city code requirements. According to the city code, Comfort Bus, with the office building, storage and shop areas would need 101 spaces. The required parking takes into account parking for employees, the shop storage and vehicles. City Engineer's Review Chris Cavett, the Assistant City Engineer, did a review of proposed plans. He is generally satisfied with the proposed plans. His comments and recommendations are in his memo starting on page 22. RECOMMENDATION Approve the plans date-stamped June 15, 2001, and June 29, 2001, for the construction of the Comfort Bus facility (office building, shop building, parking areas and fuel dock) at 1870 Rice Street. This approval is based on the findings required by the city code. The approval shall be subject to the applicant or owner meeting the following conditions: 1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. 2. Submit the following for staff approval before the city issues a building permit: a. Final grading, drainage, utility and erosion control plans. These plans shall meet the requirements of the city code and the Assistant City Engineer. These shall include: (1) Having concrete curb and gutter around the perimeter of the parking lot and drive aisles. (2) Resolving all public utility concerns including water and sewer. This includes coordinating with the city for the replacement or repair of the public sanitary sewer line that runs through the property. The owner shall provide the city with the necessary easements if the city or the applicant decide to move the sewer line. bo 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 gates that are 100 percent opaque and extend to the ground. The CDRB may waive the requirement for an enclosure if the owner will keep any dumpsters behind the buildings and out of site. do A photometric-lighting plan that meets the standards of the city lighting code. This plan shall show: (1) The light spread and fixture design. The lens covering the bulb shall be concealed or aimed so not to cause a nuisance to drivers or to neighbors. (2) That the site lights will not exceed the maximum light intensity allowed by code. (3) That the lights beneath the canopy will be flush mount. The lenses must not drop below the bottom of the canopy. The final building material samples (with colors and textures). Revised plans showing: (1) The driveway access on Rice Street shall have an entrance lane, a left-turn exit lane and a right-turn exit. These lanes shall be marked with painted arrows on the pavement depicting the turning movement. (2) Handicap-parking spaces to meet the requirements of the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act). (3) The driveway to Roselawn Avenue on the site plan matching the location as shown on the grading and drainage plans. (4) Changes to the landscape plan including: (a) Showing an in-ground irrigation system for all landscape areas. This shall include the landscape areas around the office building and for the boulevard along Rice Street. (b) Showing a variety of species along Roselawn Avenue for screening, to prevent damage to all the trees from disease and to provide a variety of textures and colom. Such screening trees could include Austrian Pines or Black Hills spruce, as well as the proposed Arbor Vitaes. (c) For the frontage along Rice Street, the boulevard area south of the proposed driveway shall have three trees and there shall be at least two species of trees along Rice Street. The plan also shall show a variety of materials and provide a more interesting appearance and some screening of the parking lot from Rice Street. This area could include shrubs, ornamental trees and planting beds with perennials, along with over story trees about 30 feet apart. (d) The fenced yard area on the south side of the office building shall have at least four deciduous shade trees (maples, oaks, or other similar trees) planted along the south and west sides of the grass. (e) Specifying how the contractor will finish the slope near Roselawn Avenue. These areas will need seed or sod to establish turf to prevent erosion and to finish the site. 3. Complete the following before occupying the buildings: a. Restore and sod damaged boulevards. b. Install reflectorized stop signs at all exits and a handicap-parking sign for each handicap-parking space. c. Provide continuous concrete curb and gutter all around the parking lot and driveways. Paint all rooftop mechanical equipment, stacks and vents to match the uppermost part of the building. The owner or contractor shall screen any new roof-mounted equipment that is visible to residential property. (code requirement) e. Install and maintain an in-ground irrigation system for all landscaped areas. (code requirement) Construct the trash dumpster enclosure (unless waived by the CDRB) using the same materials and color as the building. This enclosure shall have a 100 percent opaque gate. g. Stripe all customer and visitor parking spaces at a width of 9 % feet and the employee vehicle spaces at a width of nine feet. h. Install the site lighting following the approved photometric-lighting plan as required by the code. 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 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 of occupancy if the building is occupied in the spring or summer. c. The city receives an agreement that will allow the city to complete any unfinished work. 5. This approval does not include the future parking area. The plans for the future parking area shall be submitted for approval by the city. 6. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 5 REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Site size: 9.92 acres Existing land use: Amusement City SURROUNDING LAND USES North: Rice and Roselawn Used Cars and Roselawn Avenue South: Chalet Lounge and undeveloped St. Paul Water Utility property East: Railroad tracks and St. Paul Water Utility property West: Rice Street and businesses in the City of Roseville PAST ACTIONS (Amusement City) November 17, 1977: The city council approved the CUP for the amusement facility. October 22, 1981: Staff approved a racetrack addition. March 9, 1982: The design board approved the bumper boats, mini-golf and barfing cages. April 25, 1994: The council revised the CUP to include the driving range. October 11, 1994: Staff approved a siding change for the equipment building. May 22, 1995: The council extended the CUP for one year. May 20, 1996: The council extended the CUP for another year. October 29, 1996: Ms. Carolyn Wilkerson submitted a petition, signed by 128 people, requesting that the city council close Amusement City's driving range. November 25, 1996: The city council "moved to set a public hearing to formally review the CUP to determine whether there are valid safety issues which should result in amending or revoking the permit." March 10, 1997: The city council held a public hearing to review Ms. Wilkerson's request. The council renewed the CUP, but required the owners of the driving range to do the following: 1. Increase the height of the netting to 65 feet along the north side of the driving range. 2. Aim the tee boxes, where practical, toward the southeast corner of the driving range. 3. Cease storing vehicles on the driving range. 4. Provide verification that the business is using only Iow trajectory golf balls. 5. Submit a statement indicating how they will process claims for damages. The council also moved to review this permit again in one year. June 23, 1997: The city council amended the CUP to suspend the operation of the driving range portion of this amusement facility because of complaints about golf ball damage, the storing of vehicles on the site without the proper approvals and violation of CUP requirements that pertained to the driving range. The CUP for the rest of the amusement facility is still in effect. March 30, 1998: The city council reviewed the CUP and authorized review again in one year. July 10, 2000: The city council amended the CUP for Amusement City to expand their facility into the abutting St. Paul Water Utility property to the southwest. They also allowed the conversion of one of the applicant's buildings into a pizza restaurant. PLANNING Land Use Plan designation: BC Zoning: BC Ordinance Requirements Section 36-151(b)(9) requires a CUP for motor-vehicle repair garages. Section 36-446(a) provides that the city council may terminate a CUP if the use is no longer in effect. Code Requirements Section 36-28(c)(6)(a) requires that buildings have at least a 30 foot setback from street right-of-way. Section 36-(c)(5)(a) requires that parking lots have at least a 15 foot setback from street right-of-way. Section 25-70 of the city code requires that the CDRB make the following findings to approve plans: That the design and location of the proposed development and its relationship to neighboring, existing or proposed developments and traffic is such that it will not impair the desirability of investment or occupation in the neighborhood; that it will not unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring, existing or proposed developments; and that it will not create traffic hazards or congestion. That the design and location of the proposed development is in keeping with the character of the surrounding neighborhood and is not detrimental to the harmonious, orderly and attractive development contemplated by this article and the city's comprehensive municipal plan. That the design and location of the proposed development would provide a desirable environment for its occupants, as well as for its neighbors, and that it is esthetically of good composition, materials, textures and colors. Application Date We received the complete application and plans for these requests on June 29, 2001. State law requires that the city take action within 60 days of receiving proposals. As such, city action is required on these requests by August 28, 2001. p:sec18\comfort.des Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Property Line/Zoning Map 3. Proposed Site Plan 4. Proposed Landscape Plan 5, Proposed Grading Plan (dated June 29, 2001) 6. Elevations - Office Building 7. Floor Plans - Office Building 8. Elevations - Shop Building 9. Floor Plans - Shop Building 10. 1-22-01 City Council Minutes 11. 7-11-01 memo from Chris Cavett 12. Project Plans - Separate Attachment Attachment 1 Lr~ OANADA CT. ~AV~. PAU~ LOCATION ~9 MAP At%a. :~,.ent 2 1930 Ma,'q E. Dean e't- cul ~ ! ! 0.1 ~ c., .~. / / / / ROSELAWN AVENUE PROPOSED ~' ' ~' ": COMFORT BUS~ '~ '; '(EXISTING AMUSTMENT -- .,.4' __ CITY PROPERTY) ._% ! 1 (5.5o u.~..) '|b'rAt. $ 5.~ $,'t~.. · oo PUlvl PIN,6 SITE Attachment J PLAN ll Attachment 4 Ld Attachment 5 JUN 2 9 20P~' RECEIVE PROPOSED GRADING PLAN 13 Attachment 6 14 Attachment 7 15 Attachment 8 16 Attachment 9 iii 1" I,!-itl 17 Attachment l0 MINUTES MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL 7:00 P.M., Monday, January 22, 2001 Council Chambers, Municipal Building Meeting No. 01-02 7:00 P.M. (7:08 P.M.) Rice Street) a. b. C. Comfort Bus Company Conditional Use Permit (1870 Mayor Cardinal convened the meeting for a public hearing. City Manager Fursman introduced the staff report. Community Development Director Coleman presented the specifics of the report. d. Commissioner Eric Ahlness presented the Planning Commission report. e. Mayor Cardinal opened the public hearing, calling for proponents or opponents. The following persons were heard: Lee Rossow, Comfort Bus Company, the Applicant Kerry Rankin, 206 Roselawn Avenue East, Maplewood Jim Rankin, 206 Roselawn Avenue East, Maplewood Lee Rossow, second appearance f. Mayor Cardinal closed the public hearing. Councilmember Allenspach moved to adopt the following resolution terminating the conditional use permit for an amusement center at 1870 Rice Street: RESOLUTION 01-01-008 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TERMINATION WHEREAS, the Maplewood City Council approved a conditional use permit for an amusement center at 1870 Rice Street. WHEREAS, the owner of this property has closed the amusement center and sold the land. WHEREAS, the Maplewood City Council has approved a conditional use permit to the new owner of this property for the operation of a bus terminal. WHEREAS, this permit termination applies to the following described property: EISENMENGER AND ZASPEL'S LAKE PARK, RAMSEY CO., 18 MINN., SUBJECT TO ST AND AVE AND VAC STS AND ALLEYS ACCRUING, THE FOL A TRACT LYING NWLY OF SOO LINE RY R/W OF THE FOL; LOTS 4 THRU 10 BLK 1, LOT 7 BLK 2, LOTS 5 THRU 32 BLK 4, LOTS 12 THRU 25 BLK 6 AND ALL OF BLK 3. AND EISENMENGER AND ZASPEL'S LAKE PARK, RAMSEY CO., MINN., SUBJECT TO HWY THE FOL VAC ALLEY ACCRUING AND LOTS 33 THRU LOT 39 BLK 4. AND EISENMENGER AND ZASPEL'S LAKE PARK, RAMSEY CO., MINN. VAC ST AND ALLEY ACCRUING AND LOTS 1 THRU 4 BLK 4. WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit revision is as follows: The city council approved this permit on November 17, 1977. They subsequently reviewed this permit many times and considered several changes to this business. The city council's most recent revision of this permit was on July 10, 2000. o On December 18, 2000, the planning commission recommended that the city council terminate this permit. o The city council held a public hearing on January 22, 2001. 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 terminate the above-described conditional use permit because the site has been sold for use as a bus terminal and is no longer needed as an amusement center. Seconded by Councilmember Collins Collins, Ayes - Councilmembers Allenspach, Koppen, Wasiluk Abstain - Mayor Cardinal Councilmember Allenspach moved to adopt the following resolution approving a conditional use permit for motor-vehicle repair as part of a proposed bus terminal at 1870 Rice Street: 19 RESOLUTION 01-01-009 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Lee and Craig Rossow, of the Comfort Bus Company, applied for a conditional use permit to operate a motor-vehicle maintenance garage as part of their bus terminal operation. WHEREAS, this permit applies to 1870 Rice Street. The legal description is: EISENMENGER AND ZASPEL'S LAKE PARK, RAMSEY CO., MINN., SUBJECT TO ST AND AVE AND VAC STS AND ALLEYS ACCRUING, THE FOL A TRACT LYING NWLY OF SOO LINE RY R/W OF THE FOL; LOTS 4 THRU 10 BLK 1, LOT 7 BLK 2, LOTS 5 THRU 32 BLK 4, LOTS 12 THRU 25 BLK 6 AND ALL OF BLK 3. AND EISENMENGER AND ZASPEL'S LAKE PARK, RAMSEY CO., MINN., SUBJECT TO HWY THE FOL VAC ALLEY ACCRUING AND LOTS 33 THRU LOT 39 BLK 4. AND EISENMENGER AND ZASPEL'S LAKE PARK, RAMSEY CO., MINN. VAC ST AND ALLEY ACCRUING AND LOTS 1 THRU 4 BLK 4. WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit revision is as follows: On December 18, 2000, the planning commission recommended that the city council approve this permit. The city council held a public hearing on January 22, 2001. City staff published a notice in the paper and sent notices to the surrounding property owners as required by law. The council gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The council also considered reports and recommendations of the city staff and planning commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council revise the above- described conditional use permit revision, based on the following reasons: The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be in conformity with the City's Comprehensive Plan and Code of Ordinances. 20 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 mn-off, vibration, general unsightliness, electrical interference or other nuisances. o The use would generate only minimal vehicular traffic on local streets and would not create traffic congestion or unsafe access on existing or proposed streets. The use would be served by adequate public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, water and sewer systems, schools and parks. The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services. o The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and scenic features into the development design. 9. The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city. The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the permit shall become null and void. The council may extend this deadline for one year.' 3. The city council shall review this permit in one year. The applicant shall comply with Minnesota Pollution Control Agency requirements as it relates to all applicable aspects of their vehicle repair operation. Seconded by Councilmember Koppen Ayes - Councilmembers Allenspach, Collins, Koppen, Wasiluk Abstain - Mayor Cardinal Attachment 11 I N T E R 0 F F I C E MEMO To: From: Subject: Date: Ken Roberts Chris Cavett Comfort Bus Engineering Review of gradingterosion control, utilities and drainage July 11, 2001 Listed below are our comments to the above referenced review: GRADING/EROSION CONTROL JUL RECEIVED 1. Provide curbing on entire bus parking area. The City Engineer may waive the curbing requirement in areas where there would be a benefit to water quality. The proposed grades and drainage patterns do not support a reason to waive the curbing requirement. Curbing would actually appear to be a benefit along the bus parking lot to prevent the encroachment of vehicles beyond the pavement. The southerly portion of the parking lot has been designated as a "future" development area. Temporary bituminous curbing has been allowed in situations as this, but only if future expansion is proposed within three years and the cost of the concrete curb is escrowed with the city. 2. Indicate methods of permanent erosion control (turf establishment) to be used. a. Temporary erosion control measures have been indicated on the plans, but methods and locations of turf establishment have not been indicated on the plans. bo How will turf be established on slopes, and how will they be protected? What type of seed mixtures are proposed in the ponding area? We suggest using a native grass mix with forbes. The areas labeled as "future development" shall have turf established in them. 22 Ken Roberts Page 2 July 11,2001 UTILITIES 1. Resolve and coordinate with the City of Roseville the intent for the existing Roseville water service. Indicate the on plans the proposal for the. 2. Obtain St. Paul Regional Water Services approval of the proposed private water service layout. Contact Tom Johnson at SPRWS, 651-266-6273. MISC. 1. Provide the city a copy of the Ramsey County access permit for the entrance onto Rice Street. 2. Relocate the section offence that is encroaching onto the R.R. Right-of-way. o Coordinate with the city and the city's contractor during the replacement/repair of the public sewer line that runs through the easterly portion of the property. The city's work will be coordinated during construction of the site. Provide the city revised easements if the sanitary sewer line requires realignment. 23