Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/11/2001BOOK AGENDA MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD December 11, 2001 6:00 P.M. City Council Chambers, Maplewood City Hall 1830 County Road B East 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes: November 27, 2001 4. Approval of Agenda 5. Unfinished Business Design Review a. Carefree Cottages Villas (Phase IV) - Behind 1733 Gervais Avenue b. Code Amendment- Outdoor Lighting Ordinance 7. Visitor Presentations 8. Board Presentations Staff Presentations a. Reminder: December 25 meeting cancelled. Next meeting January 8, 2002. b. CDRB member volunteer for December 17 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. 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. The Board will then discuss the proposal. No further public comments are allowed. The Board will then make its recommendations or decision. Most decisions by the Board are final, unless appealed to the City Council. You must notify the City staff in writing within 15 days to register an appeal. jw\forms\cdrb.agd Revised: 11-09-94 II. III. IV. MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA NOVEMBER 27, 2001 CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Ledvina called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Matt Ledvina Present Craig Jorgenson Present Linda Olson Present Ananth Shankar Present Staff Present: Shann Finwall Associate Planner Recording Secretary: Lisa Kroll APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of the Community Design Review Board minutes for October 23, 2001. Board Member Jorgenson moved approval of the minutes for October 23, 2001. Board Member Shankar seconded. Ayes--Jorgenson, Ledvina, Olson, Shankar The motion passed. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Board Member Olson moved approval of the agenda. Board Member Jorgenson seconded. Ayes - Jorgenson, Ledvina OIson, Shankar The motion passed. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. Community Design Review Board Minutes 11-27-2001 VI. DESIGN REVIEW Specialty Engineering Addition 1766 East Highway 36 On May 9, 2001, Specialty Engineering lost 16,300 square feet of warehouse space due to a fire. The remaining portion of the building is constructed of two types of materials including painted concrete block on the exterior of the warehouse space and face brick on the exterior of the office space. The proposed 17,472 square foot addition will be constructed in the same location as the lost warehouse space and will be approximately one foot taller than the existing building. The addition includes an enclosed loading dock with access on the east wall. The exterior materials for the addition include tip up concrete panels that are impregnated with a light brown color. The panels will have an aggregate finish with a decorative smooth band. In addition, five windows and a glass entry door will be added to the south side of the building, and four windows will be added to the east side of the building. Specialty Engineering's existing parking lot has no curb and gutter, no striped parking stalls, and does not meet setback requirements. The parking lot also falls under the legal nonconforming ordinance and does not require improvements with the proposed building addition. However, Specialty Engineering is proposing to cut away asphalt to comply with required setbacks, resurface the lot, add concrete curb and gutter, and stripe 24 parking stalls. There is also room for approximately 10 parking stalls to be striped on the front of the parking lot, adjacent Cope Avenue, bringing the total number of parking stalls to 34. In addition, a future parking lot is proposed on the north side of the lot, adjacent Highway 36. This parking lot would have an additional 49 parking stalls, but is only proposed to show the possibility of additional parking. It would not be built unless Specialty Engineering, or a future owner or tenant, requires additional parking. There is an existing shared parking lot access point in between Specialty Engineering and Strauss Skate to the west. Specialty Engineering has expressed concerns with the shared access including Strauss' customers occasionally test riding bicycles, driving through, and parking in Specialty Engineering's lot. Specialty Engineering is concerned about the safety of the bicycle test riders and points out that the added traffic hinders the flow of traffic in their parking lot, particularly in the afternoon when their employees are leaving the site. For this reason, Specialty Engineering is proposing to close off the access. The city's fire chief, Steve Lukin, requested that the shared access remain for fire safety reasons. Chief Lukin pointed out that during Specialty Engineering's fire last spring the shared access allowed the city's large fire vehicles to maneuver around the site more efficiently and quickly. Currently there is no clear delineation between the two parking lots. This is a possible cause for many of Strauss' customers utilizing Specialty engineedng's parking lot. With the parking lot improvements a 20-foot long curbed island is proposed between the two parking lots, which will clearly delineate the two lots and reduce the access width from 55 feet to 24 feet. The reduced access width will help alleviate some of Specialty Engineering's concerns, and will address the fire chief's fire access concerns. Therefore, staff recommends that the shared access remain with a reduced width of 24 feet. Community Design Review Board Minutes 11-27-2001 Specialty Engineering proposes to put six crab apple trees along Cope Avenue and foundation plantings to be located along the front of the building. Specialty Engineering has two existing parking lot lights located on telephone poles along Cope Avenue. In addition to these lights, they propose five wall pack lights to be located on the south and east side of the addition. There are three existing rooftop mechanical units and two new units proposed with the addition. Specialty Engineering proposes to paint all rooftop equipment to match the building. Specialty Engineering's dumpster is currently stored on the east side of their parking lot, adjacent McDonald's fence. With the addition they propose to construct a dumpster enclosure made of cedar fencing that will be located adjacent the east and north walls of the existing warehouse and office space. Board Member Olson asked staff if the area to the north of the building between the warehouse and Highway 36 would remain as grass? Ms. Finwall said yes it would remain as a grass area. Board Member Shankar asked if the reason staff is requesting the additional ten parking stalls is that Specialty Engineering does not meet the parking code for their facility currently? Ms. Finwall said that is correct, but as pointed out in the staff report the parking lot situation is grandfathered. Also, Specialty Engineering is making the parking lot more conforming with the additional striped stalls. Chairperson Ledvina asked staff who owns the fence on the east property line? Ms. Finwall said McDonald's owns the fence on the east property line. Chairperson Ledvina asked staff if there is a lighting plan that is required for this proposal with proximity to residential area? 'Ms. Finwall said lighting on the site is also grandfathered in. In addition, Specialty Engineering is not adjacent residential property, but is approximately 330 feet from residential property south on Lark Avenue. The lighting proposed is additional wall pack lights to be located on the south and east side of the building. There are two existing pole lights that light the parking lot located on Cope Avenue. Chairperson Ledvina asked staff if there is a maximum impervious surface requirement for this site? Ms. Finwall said no there is not. The applicant Dave Myhr from Specialty Engineering addressed the board members. Mr. Myhr told staff that Specialty Engineering is trying to replace what was lost in the fire and try and improve the ground so that the property would look aesthetically more pleasing from Cope Avenue. The improvements would bring the property in compliance with many codes. Community Design Review Board Minutes 11-27-2001 4 Specialty Engineering had a taller structure before the fire and now they are proposing a shorter structure (the new addition will be one-foot taller than the existing building-where the previous structure was at least 2 feet taller). There used to be a block building that was built in the sixties and they are proposing a more modern construction with the tilt up panels with exposed aggregate. Mr. Myhr said they have already painted the remaining building so it would match the new construction. The concern that Specialty Engineering had with the recommendations of staff is the issue of safety. They feel there is a safety issue with the cross traffic between their parking lot and Strauss Skate. It seems to be easier for customers to go from the parking lot of Strauss Skate across Specialty Engineering's lot and exit onto Cope Avenue. It creates a safety issue because of the speed the customers have in the parking lot. The semi trucks enter and exit the parking lot of Specialty Engineering and as they come from the east side of the building, where the truck ramp is located, the visibility is limited. This is one of the reasons Specialty Engineering wants to put in the curbing between the two parking lots. Chairperson Ledvina asked Mr. Myhr regarding the access issue for Strauss Skate, have you discussed this with your neighbor? Mr. Myhr states that if it remains open it will be no different than having cars parked along half of the 55-foot opening. An average car is 18 feet long and it is going to take up half of that space. The other half of the parking lot remains open for traffic. If they cut the parking lot down to 24 feet it really doesn't change the access or the viability of people to use that as an access. Chairperson Ledvina asked Mr. Myhr if there would be any grass that would be restored in that area if the curb were added? Mr. Myhr said Specialty Engineering proposed to set the parking curb 10 feet from the property line rather than 5 feet in an effort to match the line of the building and then restore that 10-foot strip with grass. It was also proposed to put trees and or plantings on that strip of grass. Then it was discussed that it may be better to just have grass in that area so that emergency vehicles could drive over the curb. Chairperson Ledvina pointed out that the site plan shows a bump in not linear for vehicle turn-around in that area. Mr. Myhr said the landscape plan shows it straight without the bump in. The plan was to run the curbing straight and leave a 10-foot strip of grass. Board Member Olson said she would have to agree with the fire marshal that having two entrances and exits to the parking lot would be an asset. She thinks that with the curb and gutter extended it would have a psychological deterrent as far as traffic between Strauss Skate and Specialty Engineering. She also asked if there was a reason they reduced the height of the building one foot in the new construction, was it a structural concern? Mr. Myhr said it is not a structural concern but do require a high bay facility. One of the concerns of staff was that the south side of the building was exposed to the residential neighborhood and it would be better to have a lower structure so it would not be such an imposing building. The original plan was to have a two-story structure built. Community Design Review Board Minutes 11-27-2001 Board Member Olson asked Mr. Myhr if that effects Specialty Engineering's operations at all? Mr. Myhr said they would work around that. The high bay is nice because welding will be done in that area which creates a lot of smoke. With the higher ceilings they can add some additional smoke collection to try and mitigate any smoke that might occur in the interior. Board Member Shankar asked Mr. Myhr for clarification. The new addition is actually taller than the existing warehouse? Mr. Myhr said it is taller by one foot. Board Member Shankar asked Mr. Myhr where the semi trucks come from? Mr. Myhr said the semi's come from Cope Avenue and they travel along the east side of the building, they pull up parallel to the existing side of the warehouse back into the enclosed truck bay and the new addition. Board Member Shankar asked if there is enough radius to do all that maneuvering to get the semi trucks back into the dock? Mr. Myhr said Specialty Engineering had no problem with it before the fire so it is their intent to keep doing it that way again. Board Member Shankar asked if there is a reason that the small office addition is protruding to the east from the warehouse? Mr. Myhr said the existing office has been there since the sixties and it is the structure that was remaining from the fire. Board Member Shankar asked if Mr. Myhr is proposing the dumpster to be put behind the office addition so it is hidden from Highway 36? Mr. Myhr said there is a modified dumpster plan, the one on the print is not accurate. Mr. Myhr walked around to each member and showed the modified plan for the dumpster enclosure which include a larger fenced in enclosure located on the east side of the addition. Chairperson Ledvina asked Mr. Myhr if the dumpster enclosure is made of cedar? Mr. Myhr said correct. Board Member Olson asked Mr. Myhr about the comment made earlier about Maple trees? Mr. Myhr said they are going to plant some lower trees for underneath the power lines and they will plant whatever tree staff recommends. Ms. Finwall clarified, that originally Mr. Myhr had suggested planting 6 Amur Maples that are a lower growing tree/shrub. Staff pointed out to Mr. Myhr, that type of tree is beginning to be quite invasive and not very environmentally friendly. Staff suggested replacing them with crab apple trees. Board Member Olson asked staff if all of the trees would be one species? Community Design Review Board Minutes 11-27-2001 Ms. Finwall said that is what is being proposed. Chairperson Ledvina said the staff report focuses on the parking on the south side of the proposed addition and apparently it is not possible to fit in two rows of parking, is that correct? Mr. Myhr said yes there is room, it is just not shown as being striped, there is a modified plan that shows striping. The plan that was just submitted shows 51 parking spaces striped on the curbed paved area. They just did not show all of the parking spaces being striped on the plan that was submitted, but that can certainly be done in the spring. Three of the parking stalls will be handicapped accessible, one will be on the north end and two of them will be back by the south end. Chairperson Ledvina asked Mr. Myhr in terms of the building elevations, are there two bands of striping on the proposed addition? Mr. Myhr said there are two smooth bands, one is above the window line and the other is two feet below the crown. Chairperson Ledvina asked what color the striping would be? Mr. Myhr said the striping will be the same color as the building. There are vertical ribs running in it and the smooth bands break up the vertical ribs to give it some depth or contour. Chairperson Ledvina asked if the bands have exposed aggregate also? Mr. Myhr said it will be the same color as the sample of block he brought with him to show members and it will be smooth. Chairperson Ledvina said one of the things he is concerned about is the south elevation. He is concerned about the area between the west end of the building and the window to the east. There is quite a large expanse of wall that is 100 plus feet. Did you look at dressing that wall up at all? Mr. Myhr said all they looked at was putting some bushes in that area that would grow six-to- eight feet to break that area up. The previous building had a garage door and a service entrance and it was a taller building with cinder blocks. They think what they are proposing to build in that area will look far better than what was there before. Chairperson Ledvina said he appreciates the effort Specialty Engineering has put into the design of the building, however, since the slate is wiped clean, this is a good time to think about adding architectural elements to break up that part of the building. Is there a possibility of adding elements to break up that expanse? Mr. Myhr said there is nothing left in the budget to add architectural details. They have used up the money from the insurance claim just to get this structure up the way it has been presented. Board Member Shankar asked Mr. Myhr why they need the windows clustered together in that one corner? Community Design Review Board Minutes 11-27-2001 Mr. Myhr said, if they are unable to regrow their business back to move into that area, it would be their intent to lease out that space. The windows are grouped together so there is room for a possible addition in the event they do lease space. At that point and time they may have to take a look at putting parking for themselves on the north side of the building. Board Member Olson said she noticed on the landscape plans they have dogwood, nine bark, burning bush or equal drawn out on the plans. She is not that familiar with the tree species, what is the height of a dogwood? Mr. Myhr said it is a six-to-eight foot bush. Board Member Olson asked if the height of the vegetation will exceed the height of the windows? Mr. Myhr said no because they do not have the dogwood specified in front of the window area, that will have Iow growth vegetation like spirea. They are just calling out the taller vegetation on the areas without the windows. Board Member Shankar asked Mr. Myhr, there are two smooth bands on the elevation, the one in the middle is a narrower band and the one on the top is a wider band, is that correct? Mr. Myhr said the architect's believe the width of the two bands are the same width, regardless of how it is depicted on the elevation. The intent was to have the bands the same width. Board Member Shankar said his preference is to have the wider band to the top and the narrower band in the middle. Mr. Myhr said he would check into that for staff. Board Member Jorgenson asked Mr. Myhr, can you describe the wall pack lights? Scott Amundson with M.A. Mortenson Construction described the lights as being a total of five wall pack units that are proposed. The intent is to illuminate the area directly adjacent to the building and to provide some illumination out into the adjacent parking stalls. The intent is to illuminate down and away from the edge of the building and out into the parking lot. He is not sure of the actual radius that will be provided by the particular light pack, but the intent was to have five exterior wall pack lights. The packs come with a directional lamp, you can turn it straight out, but the intent is to illuminate the area directly adjacent the building and have some spillover into the adjacent parking area. Board Member Jorgenson asked, so the proposed light plan is for five wall pack lights instead of the two that is in the staff report? There will be three lights on the south and two lights on the east side? Mr. Amundson said that is correct. Community Design Review Board Minutes 11-27-2001 Board Member Shankar said Mr. Amundson is showing some metal panels above the dock doors, is that correct? Mr. Amundson said yes it is. It is an exterior mounted cooling metal door and the shroud on the enclosure isn't large enough to carry it all the way up to the top of the parapet, so they are providing a texture coat metal panel to seal that off and match the color of the precast panels. Board Member Shankar asked how tall the metal panels are? Mr. Amundson said anywhere from one foot to eighteen inches of it would be exposed above the cooling door mechanism. Board Member Shankar pointed out that the drawing is not accurate because it shows a four- foot metal panel. Mr. Amundson said the drawing was intended to depict the existence of a metal panel to provide a closure or counter flashing above the cooling door mechanism. The scale of the panel will be dictated by the height of the shroud on the metal panel. Board Member Olson asked if the window frames will be done in brown? Mr. Amundson said the window frames will be done in the brown anodized aluminum frame as is the storefront. Board Member Shankar asked if the window frames will be done in clear brown anodized aluminum or dark brown anodized? Mr. Amundson said the intent is to have dark brown anodized to aesthetically match the rest of the building color schemes. Board Member Olson asked if there is any other color being introduced or is it all going to be shades of beige and brown? Mr. Amundson said, it will all be beige and brown to match the existing warehouse. Chairperson Ledvina discussed the requirement for Specialty Engineering to reconstruct within one year of the fire. For clarification he would like to change the condition on page 3 number 1 of the staff report. Ms. Finwall said Specialty Engineering would require a conditional use permit for construction of a building within 350 feet of residential property if they do not begin construction by one year of the date of the fire. Therefore it would be okay to clarify the condition. Chairperson Ledvina would like to clarify the condition on page 3 of the staff report item number 1. to read: Repeat this review if the city has not issued a building permit for the project within one year of the fire. Mr. Myhr said that would be fine with Specialty Engineering. Community Design Review Board 9 Minutes 11-27-2001 Chairperson Ledvina asked staff, regarding the north parking area, is there a condition in the staff report that says the north parking area is not approved at this time, or can we add it as a condition? Ms. Finwall said to answer Board Member Shankar's question earlier, the parking for Specialty Engineering requires 46 parking stalls with the addition. Originally they proposed to have 24 stalls and staff recommended an additional 10 stalls. The revised parking layout is proposed for 51 parking stalls depending on how it is laid out without the use of the north parking area. Therefore, they meet the parking requirements. However, it is not required as their existing lot is grandfathered in. The north parking lot is shown as proof of parking and is not proposed at this time. Chairperson Ledvina said to staff, that since this a new plan, we could say the parking plan is subject to staff approval. Ms. Finwall said that 2. a. (1) could be revised to read, a revised plan should be submitted to staff for approval. Chairperson Ledvina said he would like to add a sixth condition stating that the north parking lot was not approved at this time. Ms. Finwall said that would be fine. Board Member Shankar asked if he heard the new color of the metal panels would match the existing building color? Chairperson Ledvina said correct. Board Member Shankar asked if that could be added as item 2. d.? Ms. Finwall asked Board Member Shankar to repeat that? Board Member Shankar said the color of the new pre cast panels in the addition, shall match the color of the masonry walls of the existing warehouse. Ms. Finwall said thank you. Chairperson Ledvina said as far as the parking lot is concerned and the access to the parking lot for Specialty Engineering and Strauss Skate, it is his opinion that restoring a lO- foot strip of grass is preferable. He thinks that a sodded area is fine and emergency vehicles could drive over that area very easily. Maplewood has hundreds of properties with one access to the parking lot. He feels that the applicant's request to close that access to the west is acceptable. Board Member Jorgenson said he agrees with Chairperson Ledvina. Getting rid of the tree and leaving it a green space with sod will break things up. He understands the safety issue of the parking lot and sees the heavy business and traffic through the parking lots as a safety hazard. He would concur with the applicant, that this is a safety issue and Specialty Engineering is doing what is best for themselves and everybody involved. He was in the area last spring when the fire occurred and saw the emergency vehicles maneuvering around the site. Community Design Review Board Minutes 11-27-2001 ]0 Board Member Olson said it would not be necessary to install the curbed island. Board Member Shankar said if you were having some parking there that curbed island provides a breakage point. Chairperson Ledvina asked Board Member Olson in her opinion how did she feel about the driveway access issue? Board Member Olson said she agreed that the lO-foot strip of sod would be fine and she is comfortable having emergency vehicles driving onto the grassed area. Chairperson Ledvina asked staff if 2. a. (2) could be eliminated regarding the driveway access? Ms. Finwall said the landscape plan would have to be slightly revised. So, perhaps Specialty Engineering should submit a revised landscape plan that should be added as 2. e. Chairperson Ledvina said maybe 2. a. (2) could be changed to indicate that. Board Member Shankar said maybe it could say, the revised landscape plan shall be submitted for staff approval. Board Member Jorgenson asked if the landscape plan should still say 6 crab apple trees? Chairperson Ledvina said he thinks that could be worked out with staff. Board Member Shankar said he would like to see the south elevation dressed up more as Chairperson Ledvina had mentioned. But in lieu of what the applicant said that the panels have already been fabricated, there is not much the board can do about that. Board Member Jorgenson said he feels it will be a very handsome addition to the area. Chairperson Ledvina said overall it is a pretty good proposal. He welcomes the site improvements that are going to be made to this project. He would have liked to see a bit more in regards to the south elevation with some more architectural detailing but we recognize the budget situation. It concerned him that the applicant already directed the manufacturer to set molds etc. The applicant should not do anything without the board reviewing and approving it first. Mr. Scott Amundson of M.A. Mortenson Construction said, Fabcon is the pre cast panel supplier and installer and they have given them notice to proceed with the shop drawings. At this point M.A. Mortenson Construction has not reviewed the drawings, so if there was an intent to change the smooth bands to reflect the wide at the top and the narrow at the bottom, it can be addressed still. Board Member Shankar would like to add condition 2. e. to reflect that. Saying that both the smooth bandwidths shall be equal in height or that the top band shall match the height of the metal panels. Community Design Review Board ! ! Minutes 11-27-2001 Chairperson Ledvina asked staff if this motion represents an approval and it does not go to City Council, is that correct? Ms. Finwall stated that is correct. Board Member Jorgenson moved to approve the proposed site plan, building elevations, and landscape plan date stamped November 2, 2001, for Specialty Engineering at 1766 East Highway 36. This approval shall be subject to the following conditions: ]. Repeat this review if the city has not issued a building permit for the project within one year of the fire. 2. Complete the following before the city issues a building permit: a. Submit plans to staff for approval that incorporates the following details: (1) A revised parking plan. (2) A revised landscape plan. b. Design and location of an exterior dumpster enclosure. If no dumpster enclosure is constructed, all dumpsters must be stored indoors. c. Present a sample of the exterior building materials to staff for approval. d. Color of precast panels shall match existing warehouse color. e. Both smooth bands shall be equal in width or the top smooth band shall match the height of the metal panels on the east elevation. 3. Complete the following before occupying each building: a. Complete all landscaping for the site. b. In-ground sprinkler for all landscaped areas. If the installation of a sprinkler system is not feasible because of existing pavement, the applicant must submit written agreement to hand water all landscaping. c. Restore and sod damaged boulevards. d. Install a stop sign at the driveway exit. e. Paint all rooftop mechanical equipment to match building. 4. If any required work is not done, the city may allow temporary occupancy if: a. The city determines that the work is not essential to the public health, safety or welfare. b. The city receives 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. Community Design Review Board Minutes 11-27-2001 ]2 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. 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. 6. The north parking area in this plan is not approved at this time. Board Member Olson seconded the motion. Ayes - Jorgenson, Ledvina, Olson, Shankar The motion passed. McCarron's Water Treatment Plant Addition 1900 Rice Street Ms. Finwall said the Saint Paul Regional Water Service is proposing an addition to the McCarron's campus at 1900 Rice Street. This addition requires design review as well as a conditional use permit revision for the expansion of a public building. The Planning Commission did review the conditional use permit aspect of the application on November 19, 2001, in which they recommended approval of this project. The Saint Paul Regional Water Services is proposing to make the following changes to their original plant building: Build a 250-square-foot entrance vestibule. This vestibule would be above a below- grade maintenance shop also proposed in the applicant's planned improvements. This vestibule would be on the west side of the building. Add a new fa(j:ade on the west elevation. The primary material would be stucco. Refer to the elevations. 3. Provide four handicap-parking spaces in an existing parking lot. 4. Add landscaping to the site, primarily along the west side of the main building. The applicant is requesting: Approval of a conditional use permit revision for the proposed addition and changes to the facility. City code requires a conditional use permit for public utilities, public services or public buildings in the city. This request is to revise an existing conditional use permit since the council previously approved a conditional use permit for the applicant. The proposed changes would be revisions to the site plan covered by the conditional use permit. 2. Approval of project plans. Community Design Review Board Minutes 11-27-2001 ]3 The project scope is for improvements to employee, maintenance, and administrative and public education areas in the original plant building on the McCarron's Water Treatment Plant campus. There are two additions to the building's west side exterior: The largest is a below grade 3,921 square foot maintenance shop addition. Only the new loading dock is and exposed surface replacing the original. The second addition is a 250 square foot entrance vestibule located on top of the maintenance addition. This has been designed in the original architectural character/features of the Plant building. The interior renovation work is for the public education, administrative and employee service areas. These are located in abandoned chemical feed areas of the Plant found in the old Train Bay and Head House (Tower 1). Board Member Olson asked staff if the dark rectangular area on the map, was the solids collection area? Ms. Finwall said perhaps the applicant can answer that. Chairperson Ledvina asked the applicant to address the board. The applicant David Wagner addressed the board. He is with the Saint Paul Regional Water Services, he is the Engineering Manager with the Utility, and the Project Manager on this project. Board Member Olson said the reason for her question is that she was able to take the tour last spring at the facility during their open house. She was very impressed with the way the solid system worked and was confused about the actual location of this. Mr. Wagner said the area in question used to house chlorine and some other chemicals and there used to be some railroad tracks there. The proposed plan is to convert that area into three levels of remodeled space. This will be lunchrooms, locker rooms, and additional office space etc. Board Member OIson asked Mr. Wagner why the entrance to the facility on Rice Street is blocked, is that a security issue? Mr. Wagner said that is a temporary security issue. They are looking at a more permanent closing of that entrance to the public. Board Member Olson said she thinks the architect did an excellent job with the architectural renderings and compatibility with the existing structure, and she is very pleased to see the retro-style thirties style coming out in the design details. Chairperson Ledvina said he would agree with Board Member Olson. Board Member Jorgenson said he would concur with the others. Board Member Jorgenson moved to approve the plans (date-stamped November 2, 2001) for the proposed expansion and renovation of the St. Paul Regional Water Services McCarron's Water Treatment Plant at 1900 Rice Street North. The city bases this approval on findings Community Design Review Board Minutes 11-27-2001 VII. VIII. IX. 14 required by the code. 1. 2. 5. All work shall follow the approved plans. approve minor changes. Board Member Olson seconded the motion. The motion is passed. Visitor Presentations No visitors present. Board Presentations The property owner shall do the following: Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a permit for this project. Revise the site plan for staff approval showing handicap parking spaces that meet ADA requirements before obtaining a building permit. 3. Provide a detailed grading, drainage, utility and erosion control plan to the city engineer for approval before obtaining a building permit. 4. If any required work shown on the approved plans is not done by the time of a final inspection for this project, the city may allow temporary occupancy if: a. The city determines that the work is not essential to the public health, safety or welfare. b. The city receives 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. c. The city receives an agreement that will allow the city to complete any unfinished work. The director of community development may Ayes -Jorgenson, Ledvina, Olson, Shankar Mr. Ledvina was the representative for the CDRB at the November 13, 2001 City Council meeting. Items that were passed were The Productive Day Golf Course that was ayes - all. The other was the Hill Murray School addition that was ayes - all. Staff Presentations a. Mr. Shankar will represent the CDRB at the December 10, 2001, City Council meeting. Mr. Jorgenson will represent the CDRB at the December 17, 2001, City Council meeting at 5:00 p.m. There will be a Mall Area Traffic Study presentation by the consultant on December 17, 2001, at 6:00 p.m. at City Hall. Everyone on the board is invited to attend this meeting. Following that will be the regular Planning Commission Meeting at 7:00 p.m. Community Design Review Board Minutes 11-27-2001 Just a reminder that there will not be a CDRB meeting December 25, 2001, because of the holiday. Community Design Review Board Members Mr. Shankar and Mr. Jorgenson have decided to continue as members on the board for another two years. The status .of filling the Community Design Review Board vacancy is that Mr. Ekstrand would like to wait until the City Council decides on the Planning Commission member's vacancies. The Community Design Review Board has received two applications. The Planning Commission has received four or five applications. Once the council decides on a new Planning Commission member, the applicants who did not get chosen may then apply for the Community Design Review Board, allowing a more diverse group to chose from. It may be as soon as January that the board at applicants. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 7:25 p.m. MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: APPLICANT: DATE: City Manager Ken Roberts, Associate Planner Carefree Cottages Villas (Phase IV) Behind 1733 Gervais Avenue Bruce Mogren December 5, 2001 INTRODUCTION Project Description Bruce Mogren, representing the Carefree Cottages Villas, is proposing to build 12 units of senior housing and 2 single dwellings. He is proposing to build this project on the north side of Gervais Avenue between the Carefree Cottages of Maplewood and the property at 1733 Gervais Avenue. (See the location map on page 14 and the property line/zoning map on page 17.) The development would have two areas. As shown on the proposed site plan (page 20), there would be two one-story buildings with a total of 12 townhome units north of Gervais Avenue, next to the driveway for the existing Carefree Cottages. The other part of the project would be along Gervais Avenue and would include 3 single dwellings (the existing house at 1733 Gervais and 2 new houses on either side of the existing house). The 15 total units would be on a 1.9-acre site for an average of 7.9 units per acre. The site would have 12 open parking spaces - one in front of each garage stall. (The proposed plan does not show any guest parking spaces). The buildings would have exteriors of vinyl horizontal-lap siding, gray asphalt shingles and vinyl trim and fascia boards. Requests To build the development, Mr. Mogren is requesting that the city approve the following: A change in the city's land use plan. This change would be from R-1 (single dwellings) to R-3H (residential high density) for the 12 townhouse units. (See the existing and proposed land use plan maps on pages 15 and 16.) A conditional use permit (CUP) for a planned unit development (PUD) for a 15-unit housing development. This PUD would have 12 units of rental senior housing and three single dwellings. The applicant is requesting the CUP because the proposed development has a mix of housing types, lot sizes and densities. In addition, having a PUD gives the city and developer a chance to be more flexible with site design and development details than the standard zoning requirements would normally allow. For example, the new proposed lots on Gervais Avenue would be 9,375 and 9,384 square feet in area. (See the property line/zoning map on page 17, the proposed lot split map on page 19 and the proposed site plan on page 20.) A lot division to divide the property into four lots - 3 lots for the single dwellings along Gervais Avenue and one lot for the 12 townhouse units. (See the map on page 19.) 4. The design plans for the site, landscaping and buildings. 3. DISCUSSION Zoning, Land Use and Comprehensive Plans The city has shown this site planned for Iow-density residential development (R-l) on the land use map (see the map on page 15). To have town houses, the applicant is requesting that the city change this designation to high-density residential (R-3(H)). Maplewood intends areas designated as R-3(H) as areas for townhouses or apartments of up to 12 units per gross acre. Maplewood has zoned this property R-1 (single dwellings). This zoning designation only allows single dwellings and their accessory uses. Because of this zoning designation, the developer has also applied for a conditional use permit for a planned unit development for this proposal. The proposed development plan is consistent with the density allowed by the proposed comprehensive plan designation. Specifically, the 15 new units on the 1.9-acre site means there would be 7.9 units per gross acre. This proposal would meet the density standards outlined in the Maplewood Comprehensive Plan for high-density residential areas. In addition, the proposed development density would be consistent with the density standards recommended by the Metropolitan Council for housing in first-ring suburbs. This is a good site for a mix of housing styles and densities. It is next to an existing senior housing development, on a collector street (Gervais Avenue) and near an arterial street (White Bear Avenue) and a church. Conditional Use Permit The applicant is requesting the CUP for the PUD because the proposed development has a mix of rental town houses and three single dwellings. The current R-1 zoning only allows single dwellings, unless the city approves a PUD for a mix of housing for the site. Having the PUD also gives the city and developer a chance to be more flexible with site design and development details than the standard zoning requirements would allow. The developer intends to rent the town houses to seniors. As proposed, the 15 dwelling units would be on about 1.9 acres for an overall project density of 7.9 units per acre. Compatibility Staff does not find a problem with compatibility in terms of land use. The proposed senior town houses would be next to an existing senior housing development. In addition, townhomes are often built next to single dwellings. A recent example is with the New Century Addition in south Maplewood. The developer, Robert Engstrom, is presently developing this neighborhood with a mix of single dwellings and townhomes. There are many other examples in Maplewood where this is the case as well. Traffic Traffic-generation data from the Institute of Traffic Engineers indicates that residential units like townhomes generate an average of five vehicle trips per day. In either case, with the proposed 12 town house units and three single dwellings, there would not be a large number of cars added to this area. Property Values The Ramsey County Assessors Office has told us that multiple dwellings adjacent to single dwellings are not a cause for a negative effect on property values. If properly maintained and kept up, this development should not be detrimental to the neighborhood. The required annual review of the conditional use permit is a built-in safeguard to ensure that the city council will regularly review this development. As stated above, it is common that residential developers mix single dwellings and townhomes in their projects. Public Utilities There are sanitary sewer, storm sewer and water in Gervais Avenue and in the existing Carefree Cottages to serve the proposed development. Drainage Concerns The grading plan (on page 21) shows the developer using a rain water garden and the existing storm sewer in Gervais Avenue to control the storm water. The developer's engineer has provided, the city engineer with information and calculations showing that this project will not increase the amount of storm water running off of the site. Tree Removal/Replacement As proposed, the applicant's contractor would grade most of the property to prepare the site for construction. The proposed plans show the developer removing 13 large trees (maple, oak and basswood) and transplanting 21 coniferous trees within the site. (See the plans on pages 20 and 21.) With careful grading and construction, the developer will be able to save several of the large trees on the site - primarily along the east side of the site and along Gervais Avenue. The applicant is proposing to plant at least five replacement trees (including ash and maple) with his plans. In addition, city staff is recommending that the developer plant additional trees for screening on the site. Sidewalk I had Chuck Ahl, the Maplewood Public Works Director, review the proposed development plans. Mr. Ahl noted that the developer is not proposing to build any trails or sidewalks with the development. He recommends that the developer install a six-foot-wide concrete sidewalk along the north side of Gervais Avenue between the west end of the existing sidewalk and the west property line of the site. This sidewalk would allow people to walk between the homes on Flandrau Street and the new houses on Gervais Avenue to the commercial area to the east without having to go on the street. The city engineer also told me that he would allow some flexibility with the design and location of the new sidewalk to allow the developer to work around the existing trees and grades in the location of the sidewalk. Lot Division and Access The proposed plans show access to the northerly town houses from the existing driveway for the Carefree Cottages. The applicant told me that he would be arranging for cross easements and access agreements for his development to use this driveway. City staff should review these agreements before the project receives final approval from the city. The town houses on the south side of the development will have access from a new driveway that would connect to Gervais Avenue. As proposed, the 12 town houses will be on one parcel and the three single dwellings will each be on their own parcel. (See the proposed lot split map on page 19.) Since the proposal includes creating four parcels, the city needs to approve a lot division so the developer may divide the property as proposed. Building Design, Site Layout and Landscaping Design Review Discussion The proposed buildings would be attractive and would fit in with the design of the existing Carefree Cottages in the area. They would have an exterior of horizontal vinyl siding (with a wood grain finish), vinyl trim and the roofs would have pewter gray asphalt shingles. (See the proposed elevations on pages 23 and 25 and the enclosed project drawings.) These buildings would be very similar, if not identical to, the existing Carefree Cottages to the north and east of the site. Staff does not have any major concerns about the proposed plans since this development will be on a private driveway and would be somewhat isolated. In fact, only the tenants of the town houses and the residents in the existing town house building would be able to see the fronts of the new buildings. Parking It should be noted that the city will not allow parking along the new driveway in the site since it will be 24 feet wide. There is little room on the site to add off-street parking within this development without squeezing two or three spaces between the driveways of the four-unit and eight-unit buildings and possibly west of the four-unit building. Landscaping The developer should further develop the landscaping plan to increase the screening between the proposed town houses and the existing and proposed single dwellings. There are at least three areas that will need additional plantings or another type of screening method. Specifically, these additional trees should include Colorado Blue Spruce, eastern red cedar and eastern arborvitae. These additional trees should be located as follows: (2) (3) Along the north property line of 1725 Gervais Avenue. Along the south side of the new driveway (along the south property line of Parcel A). Along the west side of the new driveway (along the east property line of Parcel B). The trees in these locations shall be at least 8 feet tall, in staggered rows (if possible) and are to provide screening that is at least 80 percent opaque. Watershed District It is important to remember that the applicant or the contractor must get a permit from the watershed district before starting grading or construction. That is, the watershed district will have to be satisfied that the developer's plans will meet all watershed district standards. The applicant must contact Karl Hammers of the watershed district at (651) 704-2089 to inquire about their plan review and permitting requirements. Fire Marshal's Comment Butch Gervais, the Maplewood Fire Marshal, stated that the fire department must have clear passage to the buildings. The final site plan should be reviewed by Mr. Gervais to ensure fire safety needs are met. RECOMMENDATIONS Approve the resolution on page 29. It changes the land use plan from R-1 (single dwelling residential) to RH (residential high density) for the 12 town house units of the Carefree Villas of Maplewood. The city bases this change on the following findings: This site is proper for and consistent with the city's policies for high-density residential use. This includes being next to existing high-density senior housing units, a collector street and near two churches, shopping and Four Seasons Park. 2. This development will minimize any adverse effects on surrounding properties because: a. Studies have shown there will be no adverse effect on property values. b. There would be no traffic from this development on existing residential streets. Approve the resolution starting on page 30. This resolution approves a conditional use permit for a planned unit development for the Carefree Villas, based on the findings required by code. (Refer to the resolution for the specific findings.) Approval is subject to the following conditions: All construction shall follow the plans dated November 26, 2001, except where the city requires changes. Such changes shall include revising the grading and site plans to show the required sidewalk along Gervais Avenue. The city council may approve major changes to the plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 2. The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the permit shall end. The council may extend this deadline for one year. The owner shall not convert the town houses in this development to non-seniors housing without the revision of the planned unit development. For this permit, the city defines senior housing as a residence occupied by persons that are 62 years of age or older. 4. There shall be no outdoor storage of recreational vehicles, boats or trailers at or around the townhouses. 5. Residents shall not park trailers and vehicles that they do not need for day-to-day transportation on the town house site. 6. If the city council decides there is not enough on-site parking after the town houses are occupied, the city may require additional parking. Co 7. The developer or builder will pay the city Park Access Charges (PAC fees) for each housing unit at the time of the building permit for each housing unit. 8. The three single dwellings are exempt from reviews for conditional use permit revisions for any expansions, additions or changes provided that such changes would meet all applicable zoning and building standards and requirements. 9. The city council shall review this permit in one year. Approve the proposed lot split shown on page 19. This plan creates four parcels for the Carefree Villas development on Gervais Avenue. This lot division shall be subject to the developer or applicant completing the following conditions before the city approves the lot division deeds: 1. The developer or owner recording drainage and utility easements along all existing and new property lines, subject to the approval of the city engineer. 2. The developer or owner recording cross easement and access agreements for Parcel A to have access to Gervais Avenue across the adjacent property (the existing Carefree Cottages). 3. Signing an agreement with the city that guarantees that the developer or contractor will: a. Complete all grading for overall site drainage, complete all public improvements and meet all city requirements. b. * Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits. c. Provide all required and necessary easements (including ten-foot drainage and utility easements along the front and rear lot lines of each lot and five-foot drainage and utility easements along the side lot lines of each lot). d. Pay the city for the cost of any traffic-control, street identification and no parking signs. e. Install a sign where the new driveway intersects Gervais Avenue indicating that it is a private driveway. f. Provide for the repair of Gervais Avenue (street, curb and gutter and boulevard) after the developer connects to the public utilities and builds the private driveway. g. Pay the costs related to the engineering department's review of the construction plans. Changing the proposed lot divison as follows: a. Dedicate drainage and utility easements along all property lines. These easements shall be pedestrian and utility easements in the front and shall be ten feet wide, shall be 10 feet wide along the rear property lines and five feet wide along the side property lines. b. Add drainage and utility easements as required by the city engineer. o Secure and provide all required easements for the development. These shall include any off- site drainage and utility easements, subject to the city engineer's requirements. 6. Record the following with the lot division deeds: a. All homeowners association documents. b. An access agreement for the proposed town houses that ensures the tenants may use the existing driveway(s) for ingress and egress. The applicant shall submit the language for these dedications and restrictions to the city for approval before recording to assure there will be one responsible party for the maintenance of the common areas, private utilities, driveways and structures. The city will not issue building permits until the deeds for the town house site and the three single dwelling lots are recorded and the developer has met the city conditions. Do Approve the plans (site and landscaping) dated November 26, 2001 and the building elevations (dated November 26, 2001 ) for the Carefree Villas of Maplewood. The city bases this approval on the findings required by the code. The developer or contractor shall do the following: 1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. 2. Complete the following before the city issues a building permit: a. Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall include the grading, utility, drainage, erosion control, tree, sidewalk and driveway and parking lot plans. The plans shall meet the following conditions: (1) The erosion control plan shall be consistent with city code. (2) The final grading plan shall include: (a) Building, floor elevation, driveway and contour information. (b) The street, driveway and sidewalk grades as allowed by the city engineer. (c) No grading beyond the boundaries of the development without temporary grading easements from the affected property owner(s). (d) Emergency overflow swales as required by the city engineer or by the watershed district. The design of the overflow swales shall be approved by the city engineer. (3) There shall be no parking on either side of the new private driveway. The developer or contractor shall post the driveways with no parking signs. (4) The tree plan shall: (5) (6) (7) (8) (a) Show where the developer or contractor will remove, save or replace large trees. (b) Show the size, species and location of the replacement and screening trees. The new screening trees shall be grouped together. These planting areas shall be along the south and east sides of the site to help screen the development from the existing and proposed houses to the south. The deciduous trees shall be at least two and one half (2 1/2) inches in diameter and shall be a mix of red and white oaks, ash, lindens, sugar maples or other native species. The coniferous trees shall be at least eight (8) feet tall and shall be a mix of Austrian pine and other species. (c) Show the planting or transplanting of at least 20 trees after the site grading is done. (d) Show no tree removal beyond the approved grading and tree limits. (e) Include for city staff a detailed tree planting plan and material list. All the parking areas and driveways shall have continuous concrete curb and gutter except where the community design review board, based on the city engineer's determination, decides that it is not needed for drainage purposes. The design of the rainwater garden and its outlet shall be subject to the approval of the city engineer. The outlet shall be protected to prevent erosion. The developer shall give the city an easement for this drainage area and shall be responsible for getting any needed off-site pond and drainage easements. Provide a minimum of six-inch-thick sidewalk section at each driveway. The site, driveway, sidewalk and utility plans shall show: (a) A six-foot-wide concrete sidewalk along the north side of Gervais Avenue between the west end of the existing sidewalk and the west property line of the site. The public works director shall approve the location and design of the sidewalk. (b) A water service to each unit. (c) Repair of Gervais Avenue (street and boulevard) after the developer connects to the public utilities and builds the private driveway. (d) The coordination of the water main locations, alignments and sizing with the standards and requirements of the Saint Paul Regional Water Services (SPRWS). Fire-flow requirements and hydrant locations shall be verified with the Maplewood Fire Department. (e) The plan and profiles of the proposed utilities. Submit a certificate of survey for all new construction and have each building staked by a registered land surveyor. c. Revise the landscape plan for city staff approval showing: (1) Foundation plantings of perennials and shrubs (with mulch) for the areas between the sidewalks and the proposed buildings. (2) The planting of additional native evergreens on the site to provide additional screening. These additional trees should include Colorado Blue Spruce, eastern red cedar and eastern arborvitae. These additional trees should be located as follows: (a) Along the north property line of 1725 Gervais Avenue. (b) Along the south side of the new driveway (along. the south property line of proposed Parcel A). (c) Along the west side of the new driveway (along the east property line of Parcel B.) The trees in these locations shall be at least 8 feet tall, in staggered rows (if possible) and are to provide screening that is at least 80 percent opaque. (3) All lawn areas shall be sodded. The city engineer shall approve the vegetation within the rainwater garden. (4) Having in-ground irrigation for all landscape areas (code requirement). do Show city staff that Ramsey County has recorded the deeds, cross easements and all homeowners association documents for this development before the city will issue a certificate of occupancy for the first town house unit. 3. Complete the following before occupying the buildings: Replace property irons that are removed because of this construction and set new property irons for the new property corners. Restore and sod damaged boulevards and sod all turf areas outside of the rainwater garden. Install a reflectorized stop sign at the Gervais Avenue exit, a handicap-parking sign for each handicap-parking space, no parking signs along the private driveway and addresses on each building for each unit. In addition, the applicant shall install stop signs and traffic directional signs within the site, as required by staff. d° Construct a six-foot-wide concrete public sidewalk on the north side of Gervais Avenue between the west end of the existing sidewalk and the west property line of the site. The Maplewood Public Works Director shall approve the location and design of the sidewalk. Provide pedestrian ramps in the sidewalk along Gervais Avenue to match the entrance driveway. Any future driveway shall match the grade of the new sidewalk. f. Complete the site grading and install all required landscaping, the rainwater garden and an in-ground lawn irrigation system for all landscaped areas (code requirement). g. Install continuous concrete curb and gutter along all interior driveways and around all open parking stalls, except where the CDRB determines that it is not necessary. h. Install on-site lighting for security and visibility, subject to city staff approval. i. Construct a six-foot-wide concrete sidewalk on the north side of Gervais Avenue from the west end of the existing sidewalk (near the easterly driveway) to the west property line of the site. If any required work is not done, the city may allow temporary occupancy if: a. The city determines that the work is not essential to the public health, safety or welfare. b. The city receives 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. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 3.0 CITIZEN COMMENTS Staff surveyed the 19 property owners within 350 feet of the site about the proposal. There were three responses. For 1. 2. This would be just fine for us. (Owner - 1730 Gervais Avenue) We need lots more senior housing in Maplewood! We need to take better care of our senior population and give them opportunities in housing. (Anonymous) I am very pleased with the proposal to add units to the Carefree Villas. I believe they will be a nice addition to the neighborhood. (Fenton - 1725 Gervais Avenue) REFERENCE Site Description The site has a single-family home. Surrounding Land Uses North: Existing Carefree Cottages of Maplewood. East: Existing Carefree Cottages of Maplewood. South: Gervais Avenue. South of Gervais Avenue are light industrial land uses such as Cook's Auto Repair, an office-warehouse complex and Schwan's Foods warehouse. West: The Seasons Park Addition with single-family homes along Flandrau Street, a Lutheran church and Four Seasons Park. Reasons for the Requests This proposal needs a land use plan change because: 1. State law does not allow a city to adopt any regulation that conflicts with its comprehensive plan. 2. One of the findings required by code for a CUP is that the use is in conformity with the city's comprehensive plan. The land use plan shows this site for R-1 (single dwelling) uses, which do not include multiple-family housing. The developer is applying for a CUP because the zoning on this site is R-1 (single dwellings). The R-1 zone only allows single dwellings and their accessory uses. The developer chose to apply for a CUP, rather than a zone change, to have the town houses on the site. A CUP for a PUD is only for a specific use and site plan. A rezoning to R-3 (multiple dwelling residential) would allow a variety of multiple-dwelling uses and plans. PLANNING Existing Land Use Plan designation: R-1 (single dwellings) Proposed Land Use Plan designations: R3-H (high density residential) and R-1 Zoning: R-1 CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL Land Use Plan Change There are no specific criteria for a land use plan change. ,Any land use plan change should be consistent with the goals and policies in the city's comprehensive plan. Findings for CUP Approval Section 36-442 states that the city council must base approval of CUPs on the nine findings stipulated in the resolution on pages 30 & 31. Design Approval Section 25-70 of the city code requires that the CDRB make the following findings to approve plans: 1 . That the design and location of the proposed development and its relationship to neighboring, existing or proposed developments and traffic is such that it will not impair the desirability of investment or occupation in the neighborhood; that it will not unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring, existing or proposed developments; and that it will not create traffic hazards or congestion. 2. That the design and location of the proposed development is in keeping with the character of the surrounding neighborhood and is not detrimental to the harmonious, orderly and attractive development contemplated by this article and the city's comprehensive municipal plan. 3. That the design and location of the proposed development would provide a desirable environment for its occupants, as well as for its neighbors, and that it is aesthetically of good composition, materials, textures and colors. HOUSING POLICIES The land use plan has eleven general land use goals. Of these, three apply to this proposal. They are: minimize land planned for streets, minimize conflicts between land uses and provide many housing types. The land use plan also has several general development and residential development policies that relate to this project. They are: - Transitions between distinctly differing types of land uses should not create a negative economic, social or physical impact on adjoining developments. Whenever possible, changes in types of land uses should occur so that similar uses front on the same street or at borders of areas separated by major man-made or natural barriers. Include a variety of housing types for all types of residents, regardless of age, ethnic, racial, cultural or socioeconomic background. A diversity of housing types should include apartments, town houses, manufactured homes, single-family housing, public-assisted housing and Iow- to moderate-income housing, and rental and owner-occupied housing. - Protect neighborhoods from encroachment or intrusion of incompatible land uses by adequate buffering and separation. The housing plan also has policies about housing diversity and quality that the city should consider with this development. They are: - Promote a variety of housing types, costs and ownership options throughout the city. These are to meet the life-cycle needs of all income levels, those with special needs and nontraditional households. - The city will continue to provide dispersed locations for a diversity of housing styles, types and price ranges through its land use plan. The city's long-term stability of its tax base depends upon its ability to attract and keep residents of all ages. To do so, the city must insure that a diverse mix of housing styles is available in each stage of the life cycle of housing needs. Application Date We received the revised plans from the applicant on November 26, 2001. State law requires that the city take action within 60 days of receiving complete applications for a proposal. As such, the city must take action on this request by January 25, 2002. kr/c: Sec 10/villas. mem Attachments 1. Location Map 2. Existing Land Use Plan Map 3. Proposed Land Use Plan 4. Property Line/Zoning Map 5. Existing Property Line Map 6. Proposed Lot Split Map · 7. Proposed Site and Landscape Plan 8. Proposed Grading, Tree and Utility Plan 9. 8-unit Building Floor Plan 10. Proposed building elevation 11. 4-unit building floor plan 12. Proposed building elevations 13. Applicant's Comprehensive Plan Amendment Statement 14. Applicant's CUP Statement 15. Resolution: Land Use Plan Change 16. Resolution: CUP for PUD 17. Project Plans date-stamped November 26, 2001 (Separate Attachment) 13 .Attachment 1 0 ' SHERI~N AV~.. Loke ~^~. AVE. RD. AVE. ROSEWCX~ A~. LOCATION 14 MAP P R":2 : Attachment 2 OS M- 1 LBC BC Highway 36 , interchange ~ ~ LEGEND ~ <:1: R-1 = SINGLE DWELLINGS ~_ '-- R-3(H) = HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ~ ~ P = PARK r~ ~ C=CHURCH ~ ~ OS = OPEN SPACE .._~ C) M-1 = LIGHT MANUFACTURING ~ .~_ BC = BUSINESS COMMERCIAL Attachment 3 -- -~.:_~_).. ~ _.. ..... ~. ~__. - '~~_~ , .~ ~:- ~ ....... ,,~ .,~~~ ...... ,~..,.. ~ $ LEGEND : ~ R-3(H) = HIGH DENSI~ RESIDENTIAL O ~ P = PARK ~ ~ C = CHURCH ~ ' ~ OS =OPEN SPACE .~ = =-~ = u~.~ =~.u~c~um.~ , ~ ~ .c =.u~,.~ co~.c,~ Attachment 4 x,~ 4 r~ -2465 : D (~) (so) ~ 24561 CAREFREE COTTAGES BC (4~) LBC 331 ~: ~.~.~-. , - I Attachment 5 PARCEL "A" DESCRIPTION: feet ~ ~ Sou~ 175 feet of ~t ~, ~G. ~e~' G~en ~ ~ ~ l~u~eey County, ~/ctl~J~el~ot,Q~ PARCEL RIGHT--OF--WAY UNE.. GERVAIS I I EXISTING LOTS EXISTING PROPERTY LINES 18 Attachment 6 1 .L_ 11.4~7.96 ~q. fi. PROPOSED LOT ~9 SPLIT Attachment 7 .? 1733_.,r- / / ~:(--....[ _ t.725 ~ /." ~t~.VAI5 AVEN~JE PROPOSED SITE AND LANDSCAPE PLAN20 1~ § UNIT5 ,." Attachment 8 Attachment 9 8-UNIT FLOOR PLAN 22 Attachment 10 PROPOSED BUILDING ELEVATIONS 23 Attachment ll 4-UNIT FLOOR PLAN 24 Attachment 12 PROPOSED BUILDING ELEVATIONS 25 Attachment 13 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT Intended Use of Property Filing Requirements requested by Ken Roberts' RECEIVED Mogren Development Company intends to construct twelve single level townhomes on the northern half of this property. These townhomes would be restricted to renters that are 55 and older. The south half of the property would be developed into three single-family lots (one of the lots has an existing home). I feel that this proposed development would blend very well with our current townhomes, which border the property on the east and north. I believe that townhomes would also be a better fit for the single family neighbors to the weSt. Townhomes would require a side setback of 50 feet from the neighboring single-family hOmes, as compared to the single-family minimum setback of 10 feet. The townhome buffer would be fully landscaped to provide more privacy. I have consulted with Development Engineering, the engineering company for this proposed project and they have concluded that this project would have a minimal impact on the existing utilities, specifically sewer and water. Changing the density from R1 to multifamily will increase the number of living units from seven to fifteen. Twelve of the units are restricted to tenants 55 years of age and older. Senior tenants have fewer persons per household and typically use less water and sewer than a family would. Senior households, on average, are rated at two persons per household while families are rated at 2.75 per household. Mathematically we are requesting a net increase of housing for thirteen additional senior people over the current zoning. Development Engineering concluded that this proposed development's impact on utilities should not be significant. 26 Attachment 14 REASONS WHY THE CITY SHOULD APPROVE THIS REQUEST 1.) This property is currently zoned RI. The development that is being submitted does not conform to the current comprehensive plan or zoning. Up until now this property has been virtually "Land Locked" because of its location. The proposal calls for rental housing restricted to "senior citizens", very similar in nature to the existing Carefree Cottages which currently borders this property on two sides. 2.) This proposed development would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area. The property is currently zoned "R-I" Residential. I am proposing a P.U.D. because I feel that multi-family would be a good fit with the surrounding properties. This property does have a unique nature because it is bordered on the west by single family homes and on the north and east by multi-family townhomes. If the property were to be developed as single family residences, (the current proposed zoning), and the side setback from the single-family neighbors to the west would be only ten feet from their backyards. The single-family lots created would also be surrounded on two sides by senior citizen townhomes. If the city allows the proposed P.U.D. plan, the side set back from the single-family homes to the west would be fifty feet. This fifty feet consists of mature trees and the intention of this developer is to maintain as much as possible this fifty foot "buffer area" in it's current natural state. 3.) It is my opinion that the proposed P.U.D. would, at a minimum, maintain the property value of the adjacent single family homes. It stands to reason that this P.U.D. provides an extra fifty feet of green space adjacent to the neighbor's backyards as opposed to a single- family residence, which can be as close as ten feet away from these backyards. Plus, it is very unlikely that the senior rental units would create noise or disturbances in the neighborhood. 27 4.) Not applicable The development would only add twelve additional "senior citizen" living units to join the two hundred forty eight units, which already exist on this site. The traffic created by these additional units would have very little or no impact on the neighborhood. 6.) & 7.) There are currently adequate public facilities and there should be minimal impact with these additional units. 8.) & 9.) See the answer to #2 Attachment 15 LAND USE PLAN CHANGE RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Bruce Mogren applied for a change to the city's land use plan from R-1 (single dwellings) to R-3H (residential high density). WHEREAS, this change applies to the undeveloped property located on the north side of Gervais Avenue between the Carefree Cottages of Maplewood (Phases I and II) and the house at 1733 Gervais Avenue. WHEREAS, the history of this change is as follows: On December 17, 2001, the planning commission held a public hearing. The city staff published a hearing notice in the Maplewood Review and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The planning commission gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The planning commission recommended that the city council approve the plan amendments. 2. On , 2002, the city council discussed the land use plan changes. They considered reports and recommendations from the planning commission and city staff. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above-described changes for the following reasons: 1. This site is proper for and consistent with the city's policies for high-density residential use. This includes being next to existing high-density senior housing units, a collector street and is near two churches, shopping and Four Seasons Park. 2. This development will minimize any adverse effects on surrounding properties because: a. Studies have shown there will be no adverse effect on property values. b. There would be no traffic from this development on existing residential streets. The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on 2002. 29 Attachment 16 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Bruce Mogren applied for a conditional use permit (CUP) for the Carefree Villas (Phase IV) planned unit development (PUD). WHEREAS, this permit applies to the undeveloped property on the north side of Gervais Avenue between the existing Carefree Cottages of Maplewood (Phases I and 11) and the house at 1733 Gervais Avenue. The legal description is: The North 125 feet of the South 300 feet of the West 100 feet of Lot 2, E.G. Rogers' Garden Lots, and also; the East 10 feet of the West 100 feet of the South 175 feet of Lot 2, E.G. Rogers' Garden Lots, all in Section 10, Township 29, Range 22, Ramsey County, Minnesota. And Except the West 100 feet, the South 300 feet of Lot 2, E.G. Rogers' Garden Lots in Section 10, Township 29, Range 22, Ramsey County, Minnesota. WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: On December 17, 2001 the planning commission recommended that the city council approve this permit. On ,2002, the city council held a public hearing. The city staff published a notice in the paper and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The council gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The council also considered reports and recommendations of the city staff and planning commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above-described conditional use permit, because: The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be in conformity with the city's comprehensive plan and code of ordinances. 2. The use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area. 3. The use would not depreciate property values. The use would not involve any activity, process, materials, equipment or methods of operation that would be dangerous, hazardous, detrimental, disturbing or cause a nuisance to any person or property, because of excessive noise, glare, smoke, dust, odor, fumes, water or air pollution, drainage, water run-off, vibration, general unSightliness, electrical interference or other nuisances. The use would generate only minimal vehicular traffic on local streets and would not create traffic congestion or unsafe access on existing or proposed streets. The use would be served by adequate public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, water and sewer systems, schools and parks. 7. The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services. The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and scenic features into the development design. 30 9. The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects. Approval is subject to the following conditions: All construction shall follow the plans dated November 26, 2001, except where the city requires changes. Such changes shall include revising the grading and site plans to show the required sidewalk along Gervais Avenue. The city council may approve major changes to the plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the permit shall end. The council may extend this deadline for one year. The owner shall not convert the town houses in this development to non-seniors housing without the revision of the planned unit development. For this permit, the city defines seniors housing as a residence occupied by persons that are 62 years of age or older. There shall be no outdoor storage of recreational vehicles, boats or trailers at or around the townhouses. Residents shall not park trailers and vehicles that they do not need for day-to-day transportation on the town house site. If the city council decides there is not enough on-site parking after the town houses are occupied, the city may require additional parking. The developer or builder will pay the city Park Access Charges (PAC fees) for each housing unit at the time of the building permit for each housing unit. The three single dwellings are exempt from reviews for conditional use permit revisions for any expansions, additions or changes provided that such changes would meet all applicable zoning and building standards and requirements. 9. The city council shall review this permit in one year. The Maplewood City Council approved this resolution on 2002. 31 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: MEMORANDUM City Manager Thomas Ekstrand, Assistant Director of Community Development Outdoor-Lighting Ordinance Review November 9, 2001 INTRODUCTION On June 12, 2001, the community design review board (CDRB) reviewed the outdoor-lighting ordinance amendment. The board directed staff to survey other cities for their requirements for comparison. Specifically, the CDRB wanted staff to consider whether the code should require a maximum quantity of light on a property. Should the total amount of lumen output, of all of the lamps (light bulbs in each luminary) on a site, be required not to exceed a predetermined quantity? In addition to revising the outdoor-lighting requirements for multi-family and non-residential development, staff is also proposing to add lighting criteda that would apply to single dwellings. BACKGROUND July 11, 2000: Ms. Tine Thevenin, a guest speaker, gave a presentation to the CDRB about site lighting. The CDRB directed staff to study the city's site-lighting requirements based on recommendations suggested by Ms. Thevenin. January 9, 2001: The CDRB and staff discussed possible changes to the city's outdoor-lighting ordinance. The board directed staff to review other city ordinances to compare them to Maplewood's ordinance for useful elements to guide developers in creating their lighting plans. The board also felt that a statement of purpose and intent would provide a goal for developers and explain clearly the city's intent for proper outdoor lighting. MAPLEWOOD'S OUTDOOR-LIGHTING REQUIREMENTS (Last revised April 26, 1999) The developer of any project, other than single or double dwellings, shall do the following: Instafl exterior site lighting. The light source, including the lens covering the bulb, shall be concealed from any residential area or public street. Lighting shall not exceed a . 4 footcandle of light intensity at a residential property line. Residential areas are areas planned or used for residential purposes. A site-lighting plan shall be submitted for all development applications that abut residential properties. DISCUSSION The following is a brief overview and summary of Ms. Thevenin's discussion' about site lighting. Purpose of Lighting · secudty · visibility Problems with Lighting · light trespass - nuisance to neighbors and drivers · money spent - costly to run lights all night · glare - causes discomfort, can be blinding, appears cluttered, can lead to confusion · skyglow · hinders security when improperly directed · confusing to birds, animals and insects Aspect of Good Lighting · Lights that illuminate only the area to be illuminated, not the sky or neighboring properties. Proposed Changes After reviewing several lighting ordinances, staff has substantially expanded the scope of our ordinance. In one respect, the purpose and intent of the proposed code is the same as the current code. We are still stdving for lighting plans that do not cause any nuisance and are not wasteful in terms of "over lighting." The proposed ordinance is more descriptive and addresses elements like recreational lighting, light-pole height, photometric plan requirements, control of glare, light trespass, nuisance lighting in single-dwelling neighborhoods and grandfathedng of existing lights. One significant change is requiring a maximum of .4 footcandles of light intensity at the property line of the site on which the lights are located. The code presently limits the light intensity of .4 footcandles at a residential lot line. Controlling the Quantity of Light I surveyed the following cities to see if they require a maximum "quantity' of light on a property: Roseville, Oakdale, White Bear Lake, White Bear Township, Mounds View and St. Paul. None of these cities had such a requirement. In fact, their ordinances were rather brief. Most of them stated a maximum footcandle of light intensity at the property line. And most required, like Maplewood's code, no more than .4 footcandles at a residential lot line. The benefits of such an ordinance requirement are worthwhile. There would be a lower cost to the property owner by not "over lighting' an area, there may be less potential for nuisance complaints and perhaps a more aesthetic site by less illumination. The problem, though, is difficulty in enforcement and a potential for a considerable amount of staff time in enforcing such a requirement. There is also the concern about over-regulation. Should the city be involved in site lighting to the point that we require verification of the total amount of lumens dispersed on a site? Also, should we attempt to control the amount of outdoor lighting in strictly commercial areas like around the Maplewood Mall and Birch Run Station? Staff feels that this is one aspect of outdoor-lighting regulation that the city should not regulate. RECOMMENDATION Approve the proposed outdoor-lighting ordinance amendment. p:ord~Jightin2.501 .doc Attachment: Outdoor Lighting Ordinance Amendment ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE OUTDOOR-LIGHTING REQUIREMENTS The Maplewood City Council approves the following changes to the Maplewood Code of Ordinances: Section 1. This amendment changes Section 36-28(C)(1) as follows (additions are underlined and deletions are crossed out): (c) The developer of any project, other than single or double dwellings, shall do the following: (1) Install outdoor li:htin~ accordinq to the followin~ requirements: a. Purpose and Intent. The purpose and intent of the Outdoor Li.qhtin.q Code is to create minimum standard.-; for the design and installation of all outdoor li.clhtin_a. These regulations are intended .to reduce tl~e problems created by improped~ designed and in;tailed outdoor li.qhtin~. It is intended to eliminate problems of g are, minimize light trespass and help reduce- the energy and financial costs of outdoor lighting by establishing regulations that lim;t the area that certain outdoor luminaries illuminate. A purpose of the Outdoor Li.qhtinn Code is to set standards for outdoor lighting so that its use does not interfere with the reasonable use and enioyment of property within the city. It is the intent of the Outdoor Lighting Code to encourage li.qhtin.~ practices that will reduce light pollution by reducin.q up-light, glare and over li.qhtin~. b. Definitions. .(1) Direct Li.qht: Liqht emitted directly from the lamp, off of the reflector or reflector diffuser or through the refractor or diffuser lens of a luminary. (2) Fixture: The assembly that houses the lamp or lamps and can include all or some of the following parts: housinq, mounting bracket, pole socket, lamp holder, ballast, reflector, mirror and/or refractor or lens. (3) Glare: Direct light emitted from a luminary with an intensity great enough tn cause visual discomfort, eye fatigue, a reduction in a viewer's ability to see, or in extreme cases, momentary blindness. (4) Grandfathered Luminaries: Luminaries not conforming to this Outdoor Li.qhtin,.-i Code that were in place at the time this code took effect~ (5) Lamp: The component of a luminary that produces the actua! light. (6) Light Trespass: The shining of light produced by a luminary beyond the boundaries of the property on which it is located. (7) Lumen: A unit of luminous flux. One footcandle is one lumen per square foot. For the purposes of these regulations, the lumen-output values shall be the initial lumen output rating of the lamp. (8) Luminary: This is a complete lighting system and includes a lamp or lamps and a fixture. (9) Outdoor Lighting: The night-time illumination of an outside area or object by any man-made device located outdoors that produces light by any means. (!0)Shielded Lights: Outdoor luminary shielded or constructed so that no light rays are emitted by the installed fixture at an.q es above the horizontal plane of the luminary's opaque cover or shade. Control of Glare. All luminaries used for outdoor lighting shall be designed and installed to have their lamp, reflector and reflector diffuser concealed from any residential area or public street. Luminaries mounted beneath canopies shall be a flush-mount type so that they do not extend beneath the lower surface of the canopy. Direct lighting used for the purpose of illuminating any sign shall be aimed or shielded to meet this requirement. d~ Recreational Facilities. Li.qhtin.q of outdoor recreational facilities, such as, but not limited to, ball fields, tennis courts, soccer fields, hockey or skating rinks, golf courses and go f-ball ddving ranges and special event or play areas, shall meet the fo owing conditions: All fix-tures used for such lighting shall be shielded or aimed to comply with this ordinance as much as possible and be designed or provided with sharp cut-off capability to minimize u,,-~k,h~,...., .., light spi!!over and glare. This ,'~,,~" .... lighting of recreational facilities may require a certain amount of direct, oub.~,ard lighting to illuminate a vast area. ~'~ P.,-r~=fi~,n=gf.-,-ility lighting is prohibited =~-, ~n.r~O p.m., ,,,,l"--" later completion time is '~nnrn~,~d by ~h~ r~ifv cnun~il e. Grandfathering of Nonconforming Luminaries. Luminaries lawfully in place before the effective date of the outdoor-!i.qhting ordinance shall be allowed to remain. Such !uminades, how. ever, are not exempt from comp!¥in~ with the outdoor-lighting ordinance that was in effe~ at the time of their installation. f~ Light Pole Height Maximum Th,~ maximum hmighf mllnw~,rl fOr ighf pnl~ ~h~ll h¢~ 9R f~,f T~ll~r linhf poles may be installed to replace existing poles that exceed 25 feet and for athletic field or recreational !iRhtinR. The community design review board may allow taller light poles as pad of a design review for nonresidential development, based on appropriateness for a specific proposal. Staff. may review !ightinR plans under the "minor construction' provisions ~f ~Minn ~ Photometric Plan Require_cl. The developer of any recreational, multiple-dwelling or nonresidential development shall submit a photometric plan for review by the city when the pmpe.,'t,.! to be illuminated._i~ -~nhuttin.q,..... across the street from or is near property used or planned for any type of residential development. Specifically, this plan shall include: (1) Site and architectural plans indicating the location of the types of luminaries nron~ f9~ A d~f'-ilmd dmemdpfinn nf th~ luminary, incJudJn~ rnmn, ff~Cf,lr~¢ cata!oR cuts and ~t,o~.. Hr~tln~_,_..,,,. ~ inc!udinfl ~ i ~ (3._) A drawn plan that illustrates the light spread and footcandle levels of the proposed !uminades. h. I i,qhf.lnf,-n=if¥ Maximum. Outdoor !,qhting shall not exceed .4 footcandles of light intensity at the prope. _fly lines on ~hir~h fh~ outdoor lir~hl'~= are in~fnl ~cl i m ifih+ Trespass. · ""... outdoor ...-,.llnhflnn.-...,~ fixtures shall be designed, installed and maintained to prevent light.... trespass. Outdoor lighting fixtures shall be installed and maintained to orevent direct light from the luminary from hitting adjacent or nea~y residential property. If such condition should occur, the luminary shall be replaced, redirected or shielded to have i+, light ,,,,+-,,+ ~'nnfrnll~'H fn eliminate I gh+ trespass ,,, glare. 6 .q~¢finn__ .,-.. 2. Thi{..... amendment also adds Section 1 Q-Q('~._ -,_v, ~--- follows (additions are underlined): Sec. !9-9. Same--Affecting p--,,,~'- --,,,~ safe~,. The following are declared to be nuisances affecting public peace and safe~: ,(25) Lights on any building or prope~ that annoy or ~use a nuisance to neighboring prope~, o,.,--r, o~,,p=n* ~. r~sid~nf For the n,,~., nC H~f~rmininn allowable ....~inhflnn.-...~, fha...- guidelines listed ..in. Section 38-28(c)(1) shall apply. Section 3. This ordinance shall take effe~ after the ci~ publishes it in the official newspaper. The Maplewood Ci~ Council approved this ordinance on ,2001. Attest: Ayes - Nays -