Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/28/2002BOOK AGENDA MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD May 28, 2002 6:00 P.M. Maplewood City Hall - Maplewood Room 1830 County Road B East 10. Call to Order Roll Call Approval of Agenda Approval of the May 14, 2002 Minutes Unfinished Business: None Scheduled Design Review: Lexus Automobile Dealership Addition - Highway 61 Dearborn Meadow Townhomes - Castle Avenue S.P. Richards Addition - Gervais Avenue Tillges Medical Office Building - Hazelwood Street Visitor Presentations Board Presentations Staff Presentations: a. Community Design Review Board Representation at the June 10, 2002, City Council Meeting Upcoming Items: 1) Washington County Bank- White Bear Avenue 2) Sinclair Gas Station - Larpenteur Avenue 3) Hmong Alliance Church Expansion - McMenemy Street Adjourn WELCOME TO THIS MEETING OF THE COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD This outline has been prepared to explain the review process of this meeting. The review of an item usually follows this format. 1. The chairperson of the meeting will announce the item to be reviewed. The chairperson will ask the applicant or developer of the project up to the podium to respond to the staff's recommendation regarding the proposal. The Community Design Review Board will then discuss the proposed project with the applicant. The chairperson will then ask the audience if 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: 11o09-94 II. III. IV. MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, MAY 14, 2002 CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Ledvina called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Matt Ledvina Craig Jorgenson Linda Olson Ananth Shankar Present Absent Present Present Staff Present: Shann Finwall, Associate Planner Lisa Kroll, Recording Secretary APPROVALOFAGENDA Board member Olson moved to approve the agenda. Board member Shankar seconded. Ayes-Ledvina, OIson, Shankar The motion passed. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of the CDRB minutes for March 12, 2002. Board member Olson had a correction on page 6 in the eighth paragraph. It should read Board member Olson stated that at a recent meeting at work she learned that with rather than when. Chairperson Ledvina had a correction on page 5 in the first paragraph. It should read part of the reason the driveway is curved rather than curbed. Another change is in the fifth paragraph it should read pea gravel rather than peat gravel. Board member Olson moved approval of the minutes for March 12, 2002, with the amended changes. Chairperson Ledvina seconded. Ayes---Olson, Ledvina Abstention -Shankar The motion passed. Community Design Review Board Minutes 5-14-2002 V. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. VI. DESIGN REVIEW a. Kline Nissan Automobile Dealership - 3090 and 3110 Maplewood Drive Ms. Finwall said Rick Kline, of Kline Auto World, is proposing to build a 25,502-square- foot, two-story Nissan dealership with a 16-bay automobile maintenance garage. The dealership will be constructed at 3090 and 3110 Maplewood Drive (Highway 61). This site is zoned M-l, Light Manufacturing, and currently contains two vacant single-family homes. The applicant is requesting that the city council approve: A 75-foot-wide wetland buffer variance. The Ramsey/Washington Metro Watershed District has classified the wetland on the site as a Class 1 wetland. City code requires a 100-foot-wide wetland buffer along Class 1 wetlands. The applicant is proposing a 25-foot-wide wetland buffer. A conditional use permit (CUP) for a maintenance garage. The sale of new and used vehicles is permitted. City code requires a CUP for service and maintenance garages. 3. Design review (architectural, site, landscape, and lighting plans). The applicant proposes to grade up to the wetland edge and to reestablish an "improved" 25-foot-wide buffer. The parking lot will be constructed 25 feet from the wetland's edge. The applicant is working with Sunde Engineering to design and install a subsurface storm water infiltration system that will help treat the water prior to being deposited into the wetland. This type of system was also installed at the Volvo dealership located to the south of the Nissan site. On April 4, 2002, the Ramsey/Washington Metro Watershed District approved the Kline Nissan dealership proposal. The watershed district requires only a 75-foot-wide wetland buffer for Class 1 wetlands, as opposed to the city's required 100-foot-wide buffer. Therefore, the watershed district approved a 50-foot-wide wetland buffer variance that allows the applicant to remove the entire buffer and to provide an "improved" 25-foot-wide-buffer with reestablished native vegetation once the subsurface storm water infiltration system is installed. After much debate, staff had determined that preserving more of the natural wetland buffer along the northeast side of the property would be a suitable compromise, especially since the watershed district indicated that the flood plain wetland to the east is particularly sensitive. Community Design Review Board 3 Minutes 5-14-2002 Ms. Finwall said allowing the proposed 25-foot-wide wetland buffer on the east and south would preserve much of the applicant's site plan and cause the least disruption to the parking and traffic patterns as proposed. R.J. Ryan Construction submitted a new site plan for review after the planning commission meeting. The new site plan shows the 50-foot-wide wetland buffer setback on the northeast side of the property. With this alternative, the applicant would lose 29 parking spaces from their originally submitted site plan, for a total of 240. For comparison, this would be 64 more parking spaces than the Kline Volvo dealership, (they have 88 spaces). The neWly submitted site plan meets the recommendations of staff and the planning commission. However, Mr. Stearns, the Vice President and C.E.O. of Kline Volvo has not approved of the change to Kline Nissan's proposal. On May 6, 2002, the planning commission recommended approval of Nissan's proposed conditional use permit and wetland buffer variance with the condition that Nissan maintain a 50-foot-wide wetland buffer along the northeast portion of the site as recommended by staff. At the meeting, Mr. Stearns, indicated that he agreed with all of staff's recommendations except the 50-foot-wide wetland buffer setback on the northeast side of the site. He indicated that the site was very expensive and because of this they would need every square foot of land they would get. The city's parking ordinance does not clearly define the special parking requirements for an automobile dealership, i.e., parking spaces for automobile inventory. However, using the ratio of 1 space for each 200 square feet of office/showroom, 1 space for every 1,000 square feet of parts storage, 3 spaces for each service bay, and 1 space per employee, the Nissan site is required to have 131 parking spaces. The applicant's original site plan shows 269 parking spaces and the newly submitted site plan shows 240 parking spaces. The proposed building will have a front exterior of flat metal panel wall systems, corrugated metal panels, and anodized aluminum frames with insulated glass. The sides and rear exterior will be rock-face concrete block and EIFS (exterior insulation finish system - a stucco-look material). The front and south side of the building will be visible from Highway 61. The south side of the building has a large expanse of rock-face concrete block, giving the appearance of a very large plain wall. For this reason, staff recommends that design elements found on the front of the building also be implemented onto the south side, including the extension of the flat metal panel wall systems with decorative corrugated metal panels. Much of the north elevation is already treated decoratively. After the May 6, 2002, planning commission meeting, R.J. Ryan Construction submitted a new south elevation showing five, small square windows along the top portion of the elevation. This proposal was submitted due to staff's concerns over the large rock-face concrete block wall that will be visible from Highway 61. Community Design Review Board Minutes 5-14-2002 4 Installing five small windows breaks up the wall only slightly. Therefore, staff further recommends that additional design elements be implemented on the south side. The city's tree preservation ordinance requires that all quality trees that have a trunk diameter of at least 8 inches be removed from the site, be restored one for one up to 10 trees per acre. The site has 18 large trees, 14 of which will be removed. Therefore, the applicant is only required to plant 14 trees on the site. The proposed landscape plan shows a total of 35 trees on the site, exceeding the tree preservation requirements. The applicant has not provided a turf restoration plan for the wetland buffer. This plan should be submitted to the city and the watershed district prior to issuance of a building permit. The lighting plan meets city requirements and includes 24 parking lot pole lights (25 feet high) and 4 wall-pack lights. The maximum light intensity at the property line is .4-foot candles. There are six vehicle display pads shown on the site plan in addition to the 269 to 240 parking spaces proposed. Two of the display pads are shown constructed within the requested 25-foot-wide wetland buffer on the south side of the lot. A new site plan should be submitted which shows that the vehicle display pads do not encroach into the wetland buffer. Chairperson Ledvina said the the wetland variance represents a land use issue and is not really up for discussion at this meeting. That land use issue was discussed at the May 6, 2002, planning commission meeting. He suggested that board members focus on the design elements. Board member OIson asked staff about the letter from Lieutenant Banick recommending this proposal be denied. She asked if staff has spoken with the Maplewood Police Department? Ms. Finwall said the police department has concerns because the proposed dealership is being constructed with the building towards the front of the property and most of the parking in the back. Their concern is that there will be automobile vandalism. It should be noted that the lighting at Kline Nissan appears to be adequate and the dealership does not express the same concern. The police department has these same concerns at the other dealerships in the city. It is an ongoing problem. Board member Olson said this relates more to the fact that the city does not have enough police officers, is that correct? Ms. Finwall said that could be part of the problem. Board member Shankar asked if in addition to the two display units staff was mentioning, some on-grade parking would also be within the wetland easement that would have to be taken out? Community Design Review Board Minutes 5-14-2002 Ms. Finwall asked if Mr, Shankar was referring to the south portion of the parking lot? Mr. Shankar said yes. Ms. Finwall said it does not appear that any of the parking encroaches into the 25-foot setback. Chairperson Ledvina said to clarify there will be two wetland setbacks on this property. A 50-foot setback on the northeast property line and all other areas on the south would be a 25-foot setback. Ms. Finwall said that is correct as proposed by staff and recommended by planning commission. Chairperson Ledvina asked staff if there are dedicated parking stalls for customer parking? He knows the board has had issues with this with other car dealerships. Basically customers don't have enough room to park and the inventory takes all the parking stalls up. Is there any type of requirement or designation on the site plan that would help the board with this? Ms. Finwall said currently the applicant does not designate a specific number of customer parking stalls? Chairperson Ledvina asked what the staff's opinion is in this regard? Ms. Finwall said this has been a problem with other dealerships. The inventory was such that it left little customer parking. However, the applicant is proposing 269 parking spaces. It was a requirement for Maplewood Toyota that they assign several of their spaces as customer parking only. If the board would like to add that as a condition that the applicant assign several parking spaces as customer parking only that would make sense. Chairperson Ledvina asked staff what the appropriate number of customer parking spaces are? Ms. Finwall said the city ordinance does not clearly define that so the staff would probably leave that up to the applicant to decide what their customer load would be. Chairperson Ledvina said perhaps the applicant may have some information on that. Chairperson Ledvina said it was unclear in the staff report whether the canopy shown on page 19 is part of the proposal. Ms. Finwall said that was not part of the proposal. She thought the design element elevations would give board members an idea of what the building would look like but that canopy is not part of this proposal. Community Design Review Board Minutes 5-14-2002 Chairperson Ledvina asked the applicant to address the board. Mr. Jack Grotkin, the Vice President of R.J. Ryan Construction, Inc., addressed the commission. Mr. Grotkin said he does not have any color renderings but he does have some finish material sheets that were provided by Nissan from their factory prototype. The entryway is going to have a red ACM material on it that is a fiberglass smooth panel. The glass framing will be silver with a clear glass in it. The metal panels are a gray material. The corrugated metal and louvers will match and are just there for an accent. The EIFS and rock-face block will be painted in a coordinating gray color to match. Chairperson Ledvina asked if these metal panels are flat or gloss finish? Mr. Grotkin said the metal panels are flat and look like brushed aluminum and come directly from Nissan. Board member Olson asked if the color scheme is primarily gray and silver with touches of red? Mr. Grotkin said correct. Chairperson Ledvina asked if the metal panels are painted? Mr. Grotkin said no they are pre-finished metal and are maintenance free. Chairperson Ledvina asked if Mr. Grotkin could address the issue of providing customer parking spaces? Mr. Grotkin said they don't show any customer parking on this site plan. They did address customer parking on the Kline Volvo dealership. For that dealership they used the parking in the front for customer parking. He said there are 12 parking stalls in front of the building that he would propose as customer parking. Chairperson Ledvina asked if that would be sufficient? Mr. Grotkin said he thinks it would be sufficient. He will leave it up to Mr. Kline if more customer parking stalls should be designated or not. Chairperson Ledvina asked if the applicant has any concerns regarding the staff report recommendations? Mr. Grotkin said other than the 50-foot wetland setback recommendation he doesn't have any concerns. Community Design Review Board 7 Minutes 5-14-2002 Chairperson Ledvina asked the applicant what he would propose to do to modify the south elevation to reduce the visual impact of that large wall associated with the service area. Mr. Grotkin said he had proposed putting the windows on that elevation from the planning commission meeting recommendation. They could also run a band of single score block across the wall above or below the windows to break up the rock face block wall. He said he would ask the architect about that. Board member Shankar asked about the drainage off the roof. Mr. Grotkin said the building will have interior roof drains and there are overflow scuppers. Board member Olson asked the applicant how they are going to resolve having the car pads extend into the wetland area? Mr. Grotkin said they will either reduce the size of the car pads or eliminate them entirely. The oblong car pad will be reduced and the round car pad will probably be eliminated completely. Board member Shankar said he assumes the cars will be delivered on trucks. How will the trucks get in and out of the site? Mr, Grotkin said the trucks can either come off Highway 61 and exit onto County Road D or enter onto County Road D and exit back onto Highway 61. Part of the concern with reducing the setback from 25 feet to 50 feet is it tightens that up. It will still work but it would have been nice to have a 25-foot wetland setback throughout site. Board member Shankar asked the applicant if he thought them would be enough room to have a semi truck go into the site and unload cars? Mr. Grotkin said yes there is enough room and they are aware that there will be no removing of cars on the highway. Board member Olson said she is curious about the landscape plan. Mr. Grotkin said they have done a tree mitigation report and they have hired a forester to make a plan and follow the guidelines. They are removing quite a few trees from this site but they will be planting new trees. Board member Olson asked if there will be dedicated vegetation along the wetland area? Mr. Grotkin said it will be similar to the Volvo dealership next door with native plantings in the buffer and an award winning drainage system installed in the parking lot. Community Design Review Board Minutes 5-14-2002 Chairperson Ledvina said the major concern for the CDRB is the large expansion of concrete block on the south elevation. The applicant has made some effort by incorporating some small windows into that wall. There may be some further modifications board members may require. Chairperson Ledvina and board member Shankar discussed various ideas for the south elevation of the building to include smooth bands on the large expansion. Board member Olson asked if final approval of the revised south elevation could be done with staff approval? It was determined that a smooth band should be added to align with the windows. The banding should be approved by the staff prior to issuance of a building permit. Board member Shankar moved to approve the plans date-stamped March 5, March 20, April 22, and May 9, 2002, for the proposed Nissan dealership at 3090 and 3110 Maplewood Drive, based on the findings required by the code. Approval is subject to the following conditions: Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project, bo Before getting a building permit, the applicant must submit to staff for approval the following: Dedicating a 50-foot-wide wetland protection buffer easement along the northeast lot line and a 25-foot-wide wetland protection buffer easement along the remaining wetland edge. This easement shall be prepared by a land surveyor, shall describe the boundary of the buffer and shall prohibit an building, mowing, cutting, filling or dumping within the buffer. The applicant shall record this easement before the city will issue a building permit. Submitting a revised grading plan showing compliance with the required wetland dedications. The grading plan shall include grading to within 10 feet of the wetland edge on the side where the 50-foot-wide wetland buffer is required, with restoration of the remaining 40 feet of wetland buffer consisting of native plantings to be approved by staff and the watershed district. o Submitting a revised landscape plan for the restoration of 40 feet of the wetland-protection buffer on the northeast side of the site and for the 25- foot-wide buffer in the other wetland buffer areas. This plan shall be subject to staff and watershed district approval. Underground irrigation is required for all landscaped areas, excluding the wetland protection buffer. Community Design Review Board Minutes 5-14-2002 4. A revised site plan showing the following revisions: a) A 50-foot setback for the parking lot from the wetland on the northeast side of the site. The revised site plan shall include the reconfiguration of the parking stalls and will ensure that no vehicle display pad encroaches into the required wetland buffer. b) A right-turn lane from Highway 61 into the site, subject to MnDOT's approval. c) A trash enclosure that matches the building in material. This enclosure shall not be placed in required parking spaces. It must have a 100 percent opaque closeable gate. If the trash dumpster is kept inside the building, an outdoor enclosure is not required. Verification that all watershed district special provisions, as indicated on the watershed district permit, are met prior to issuance of a building or grading permit for the site. A revised south building elevation showing a smooth faced band on the concrete block to align with the windows. The banding shall also align with the metal panels located on the side. This revision is subject to staff approval Combine the two parcels (3090 and 3110 Maplewood Drive) into one parcel with Ramsey County. Proof of lot combination must be submitted prior to issuance of a building permit. am Applicant shall submit to staff for review and approval a striped parking plan which designates customer only parking spaces within the site plan. c. The applicant shall complete the following before occupying the building: 1. Replace any property irons removed because of this construction. Install a reflectorized stop sign at the exit and a handicap-parking sign for each handicap accessible parking space. Construct a trash dumpster enclosure to meet code requirements, unless trash dumpsters are stored indoors. Community Design Review Board Minutes 5-14-2002 l0 Install an in-ground lawn irrigation system for the parking lot islands and the sodded areas between the highway and the parking lot. Lawn irrigation in the right-of-way may be waived if MnDOT will not allow it. It is also waived in the wetland buffer area. 5. Post signs identifying the customer and employee parking spaces. Install city approved wetland buffer signs at the edge of the wetland buffer easement that notifies that no building, mowing, cutting, filling or dumping is allowed within the buffer. d. If any required work is not done, the city may allow temporary occupancy if: 1) The city determines that the work is not essential to the public health, safety or welfare. 2) The city receives a cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit for the required work. The amount shall be 150 percent of the cost of the unfinished work. Any unfinished landscaping shall be completed by June 1 if the building is occupied in the fall or winter or within six weeks if the building is occupied in the spring or summer. This approval does not include signage. All proposed signs must comply with the city's sign ordinance and the applicant mUst obtain all required sign permits prior to installation. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. Board member Olson seconded. Ayes - Ledvina, Olson, Shankar The motion passed. This item goes to the city council on Tuesday, May 28, 2002. b. 3M Building #277 - Conway Avenue East of McKnight Road Ms. Finwall said 3M Company is proposing to build a 56,861-square-foot (total of both floors), two-story building on the north side of Conway Avenue west of the Building #270 parking lot. The applicant would use this building to house computer and data- processing equipment. They anticipate a parking need for 28 new parking spaces. There would be 26 spaces west of the proposed building and two on the north side. The paved area on the north is meant for dock access and deliveries. Community Design Review Board ! ! Minutes 5-14-2002 The building would have an exterior of brick, precast concrete and metal panels. The brick would match the color of the other brick buildings in 3M Center. The metal panels would be a compatible color to the brick, though the applicant has not determined the panel color. The proposed building would fit in with the other buildings at 3M Center. If the applicant has not picked the color of the metal panels by the meeting date, staff suggests that the review board direct staff to approve the building colors prior to building permit issuance. The proposed building would have adequate parking. Should parking needs change and more parking be needed in the future, there is a considerable amount of open and ramped parking next to this site. Ms. Finwall said the applicant proposes to remove 11 existing trees along 5th Street and Conway Avenue but would replant the perimeter of the site with 30 new trees and two planting beds. The proposed landscaping seems somewhat sparse in consideration of the large south elevation of the proposed building. Staff recommends that the applicant add landscaping along the south side by including three to four planting beds spaced along the front to break up and soften this long elevation. The revised plan should also identify the planting species, sizes and quantities. City code requires deciduous trees to be at least 21/2 inches in caliper, balled and burlapped. Coniferous trees must be at least six feet tall. Ms. Finwall said the site is currently used as a parking area for semi trailers. These would be relocated to 3M's Case Street distribution center in St. Paul. Ms. Finwall said Chris Cavett, Maplewood Assistant City Engineer, reviewed the applicant's civil drawings. Mr. Cavett felt that the applicant should develop the plans further. He outlined his concerns in the staff report. The review board should require the applicant to submit revised civil engineering plans for review and approval of the city engineer. Chairperson Ledvina asked the applicant to come forward and address the board. Mr. Jeff Rudin, the project manager for Sebesta Blomberg, addressed the board. Sebesta Blomberg is the architecture and engineering firm for this proposed project at 3M Company. He said the building is the technical operations system and houses computer equipment. It is a two-story building with a 20,000 square foot second floor that will be a machine room for the computers. The color of the metal panels will be gray and are pre-finished. The precast stone is cream in color and is a veneer material. This material acts as a wainscot and will be around the east and west elevations and along the north wall at the loading dock. The columns are wrapped in the precast stone as well. Community Design Review Board Minutes 5-14-2002 Board member Shankar asked if the drainage from the roof is internal? He does not see any scuppers. Mr. Rudin said there is a step in the roof beyond the main roof expanse over the machine room. This drains into an interior roof drain system on the east and west side. The building is essentially wrapped on three sides by a single story structure. Mr. Rudin said the Iow roof on the north actually drains to the north into a storm sector and out to a catch basin that is located in Avenue "N". The east and west Iow roofs on the west side drain into the 12-inch diameter pipe that goes to the drainage well under the parking lot. The drainage from the single story roof to the east actually drains out onto the grade and they use the natural landscaping as a filter for the solids and phosphorus before it enters the street. This seemed to be consistent with what the staff was looking for. Board member Shankar asked if the glass is going to be green like the other buildings adjacent to this? Mr. Rudin said no the glass is clear. That building you're referring to is old. They are trying to tie this proposed building into the triad of buildings north of Conway Avenue. Chairperson Ledvina said this will be a big improvement from what is currently there. The storm water drainage and the landscaping will definitely be a huge plus for this site and he is very happy to see this development there. The architecture is such that the building does not appear massive and has some features and variations of building materials and he does not see any issues to bring up. Board member Olson said considering there are not very many windows this is quite an attractive product. Regarding the letter from Chris Cavett about storm water management, were all of his concerns in the staff report addressed yet? Ms. Finwall said none of those issues have been addressed yet. Chairperson Ledvina said those are conditions of approval so staff would anticipate the applicant would meet those. Board member Shankar said he would agree with Mr. Ledvina's comments. He is not a fan of 3M brick but having massive amounts of metal panels like they are proposing breaks it up. Otherwise, he said an entire building of 3M brick would be over-bearing. Board member Shankar moved to approve the plans date-stamped April 17, 2002, for the proposed building #277 at 3M Center on Conway Avenue. Approval is subject to the applicant doing the following: Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. Community Design Review Board Minutes 5-14-2002 Before getting a building permit, the applicant shall submit the following to staff for approval: A revised grading, drainage and erosion-control plan addressing the issues in the assistant city engineer's memorandum dated April 29, 2002. bo A revised landscape plan that includes three to four additional planting beds in front of the south elevation. The revised plan shall also identify the planting species, sizes and quantities. If any required work is not done, the city may allow temporary oCcupancy if: ao The city determines that the work is not essential to the public health, safety or welfare. The city receives a cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit for the required work. The amount shall be 150 percent of the cost of the unfinished work. Any unfinished landscaping shall be completed by June I if the building is occupied in the fall or winter or within six weeks if the building is occupied in the spring or summer. Board member OIson seconded. Ayes - Ledvina, OIson, Shankar The motion passed. VII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS No visitors present. VIII. BOARD PRESENTATIONS Board member Olson briefly reviewed the last city council meeting she attended in March. The City council discussed the Hillcrest Animal Hospital and the Lighting Ordinance and that was all that pertained to the CDRB. IX. STAFF PRESENTATIONS Second City Council Meeting in May Rescheduled to May 28, 2002 (Tuesday) - Relocate'May 28 CDRB Meeting to Maplewood Room Ms. Finwall reported that the city council would be meeting in the council chambers on Tuesday, May 28, 2002, because of the Memorial Day holiday. Therefore, the CDRB meeting will be moved to the Maplewood Room at 6:00 p.m. on May 28, 2002. She said there are four items to be reviewed. Community Design Review Board Minutes 5-14-2002 ]4 1. Dearborn Meadows Town homes 2. 3. Tillges Medical Office Building 4. Lexus Addition S.P. Richards Addition b. Interview of Applicants for CDRB Membership Ms. Finwall said there are three applicants for the community design review board (CDRB) vacancy. This vacancy is for the remainder of Board member Tim Johnson's two-year term, which would end January 1, 2003. The three applicants are Diana Longrie-Kline, Richard Eugene Currie, and Julie Lin Beitler. The board's recommendations will go to the city council on Tuesday, May 28, 2002. Chairperson Ledvina discussed the interview process with applicants. The applicants were interviewed in alphabetical order by last name. Julie Lin Beitler was the first applicant to be interviewed Chairperson Ledvina asked if she has any problem with the obligations of meeting two Tuesdays a month at 6:00 p.m. or in the role of a community design review board member? Ms. Beitler said no. She is studying for her Master's degree and she has class on Monday and Wednesday night. Chairperson Ledvina asked while listening to the meeting this evening, if she had any comments or impressions to share of the proposals and how things were handled between staff, the board and the applicant? Ms. Beitler said she thinks the CDRB needs a few mom people on the board. It is kind of quiet up there. She thinks the board pointed out some good things. Especially with the Nissan dealership and adding the banding by the windows on the south elevation, it is too plain. It is interesting to learn the details that are picked through. She is sure with each applicant you gain more experience. The design review is interesting to her and she would really like to learn more about the steps of putting up a building. So many times you hear about the planning issues and you don't hear about the issues that went into the coloring, the lighting, the landscaping and so forth. It would be something she is definitely interested in. Chairperson Ledvina asked if she thought them was anything that could have been improved on that the board did not consider? Ms. Beitler said the two projects were pretty straightforward and she did not see anything that the board did not bring up or ask about. Chairperson Ledvina asked if she had any comments about the strip mall called "The Corner Shops" located off Highway 36 and White Bear Avenue regarding the design and site plan? Community Design Review Board Minutes 5-14-2002 Ms. Beitler said she feels it is a problem driving into the parking lot and she always feels like she is going to get into an accident there. You have cross traffic from McDonald's and the other stores and restaurants and it is a bit dangerous. She is not sure of another way the parking lot and entrance could have been designed but it is very busy and congested. She is not impressed with the landscaping and the ramp coming off Highway 36 onto White Bear Avenue has a lot of garbage there along the fence. She is not sure if that is the city or the county right-of-way but it looks really bad and not very appealing. Otherwise, she likes the restaurants that are there and it looks a lot better than when Bali Hal restaurant was there. Chairperson Ledvina asked if she has any thoughts about any recent developments. One that looks really nice and one development that you wondered what the city was thinking and who let this happen? Ms. Beitler said she is not impressed with how Pier 1 and Michael's Arts and Crafts development turned out from when the Bruentrup Farm was taken out. She likes the pond but it needs more landscaping and it is a shame that the large tree died. She is a preservationist and would have rather seen the farm stay. She does like Emma's Place so far with the deep colors and they have turned something that was just an open lot into something that she thinks will end up looking nice. She does live by the Woodland Hills Church and she thinks that looks nice compared with what was there before. The color scheme and the entrance is a nice design she thinks. Board member Olson asked if she has heard about the Hillcrest Area? Ms. Beitler asked if she is referring to turning the bowling alley into town homes? Board member Olson was referring to the Hillcrest Village Concept plan that was in the newspaper and presented at a Metropolitan Council meeting at the church not too long ago. It does involve the City of Maplewood too. Ms. Beitler said she knows it involves St. Paul. She thought it was odd to have town homes right there on White Bear Avenue. Board member Olson asked how long she has lived in Maplewood and what city did she move here from? Ms. Beitler said she has lived in Maplewood for two years. She moved here from White Bear, where she lived for a while. She is originally from Osceola, Wisconsin. Board member OIson asked if she liked Maplewood? Ms. Beitler said Maplewood was the closest city with malls and restaurants from Osceola, Wisconsin where she grew up. She felt at-home and comfortable here when they were looking for a house. Community Design Review Board Minutes 5-14-2002 Board member Olson asked what her involvement was with GIS? Ms. Beitler said right now her position with Minnegasco she is a GIS Specialist. She is responsible for entering anything into the GIS database. GIS is a mapping and data storage program. They put all the gas facilities and all the data that goes along with it. They produce maps. She just started working in the field with contractor design, specking and putting in gas mains and making sure that they get the notes. The main part of the job is taking accurate dimensions and it is very important when you are working with gas. Board member Olson asked her why she wants to be on this committee? Ms. Beitler said she applied for the planning commission opening but someone else got the position. She did not know too much about the CDRB but Shann Finwall described it to her and she became interested. She finds any land use issues interesting to her. It was her major in college and she has not pursued it yet but it is really something she wants to get into it right now. She said she does some volunteer work at Minnegasco and it is a good feeling to give back. Chairperson Ledvina thanked her for taking the time to interview and mentioned to her there would be a voting process done by the board and those results will be passed on to the city council. The city council interviews will be Tuesday, May 28, 2002. If she has any questions about anything she should call Shann Finwall. Richard Euqene Currie was the second applicant to be interviewed. Chairperson Ledvina asked if he has any problem with the obligations of meeting two Tuesday's a month at 6:00 p.m. and in the role of the community design review board? Mr. Currie said no he can schedule his time as seen fit. His work at Twin City Nursery was not happy tonight however because they were busy so they did not appreciate him leaving early. He saw the ordinance about the 2Y2 inch caliper and sometimes your smaller trees will take off better than bigger trees. Chairperson Ledvina asked if there are any specific developments in the city he felt were real quality developments and good examples of how to do things? Also on the flip side do you know of any developments that were not? Mr. Currie commented on the last time he was up there was when they were doing Gander's Mountain. You have to realize he was on the fire department for 13 years so he pre-planned all the buildings west of Highway 61. He had to go through and draw out plans. They have all the drawings of where everything is. When you talk about Gander's Mountain and you wanted to kick out and make an indentation. In fire fighting when you get in there, guys get lost in a smoke filled place. Outside you can put some artificial stuff. When you put nooks and crannies in it is not a good situation. Guldens restaurant was one of them. Community Design Review Board Minutes 5-14-2002 17 He was in that fire and in the basement they had a cement wall and the fire was on one _~side and the fire fighters were on the other side and they could not find the door to go to th~ other side. Consequently they lost it. Most of the designs are good. He has not sec~ anything way out of line. Tonight's drawing look like they are going to use all of the sa~rne bushes right around the wetland where there are other plants that maybe they could have used to get some more color contrast. There are red twigged and there are also yellOw twigged for wetland areas. Chairperson Ledvina asked if he had any questions about how the board handled any of the two proposals tonight? Mr. Currie said he thought it went smooth. Of course 3M wants to have their whole complex look the same. Nissan looks like they are going to unload cars out into the street anyway. He sees the dealerships all the way down Highway 61 when he comes home at night. They all say they don't do that but they do. It will look good. The windows at Nissan could have been bigger. They looked too tiny for that wall. They could have put some arborvitaes on the outside or something to break that wall up and give it a whole different effect. If they had the parking lot about four foot from the building and you can get arb's that only have a two to three foot spread and you would still have enough room in the back of the building so they won't be up against it. Chairperson Ledvina asked if he had any comments about the strip mall called "The Corner Shops" located off Highway 36 and White Bear Avenue with the design and site plan? Mr. Currie said he doesn't get out that way. He goes on County Road B. It is interesting; he read who is supposed to be on this committee. If you read it there is a total of 6 people. You are supposed to have two architects, two landscapers, and two lay people. Chairperson Ledvina said he believes that was a recommendation. The reason they have an odd number is to prevent a tie vote. Ms. Finwall said there is an error in the CDRB ordinance. It states there will be five members. However, it goes on to state there will be two from landscaping, two from architecture and two lay people which adds up to six people instead of five. Board member Olson asked if that is something the board should correct as a committee? Mr. Currie said it is probably that should either be corrected or add something else. Ms. Finwall said she would supply a copy of the ordinance at the next meeting for members to take a look at. Community Design Review Board Minutes 5-14-2002 18 Board member Olson said she did ask Tom Ekstrand about the number of CDRB members. She said when the design review board only has four members and someone can't make the meeting it is hard to make the quorum. Mr. Ekstrand's response was that it is a bit of a problem getting the community out to apply for these openings. Mr. Currie said maybe go to seven members so you have a better chance of a quorum. He said all the commissions he has applied for didn't seem to have a shortage of applicants. The only one was the civil service board. Board member Olson said maybe Mr. Ekstrand was referring to earlier and conditions may have changed. Board member Olson asked Mr. Currie how long he has lived in Maplewood? Mr. Currie said 49¼ years. Board member Olson asked him if he ever had a wish to move somewhere else? Mr. Currie said no. He has his ma's house and you can't take him out. He was offered to move to Oregon and run the nursery in St. Paul, Oregon. Board member Shankar asked Mr. Currie if he could give the board one example of a building he liked in the City of Maplewood for building design and one that you like for landscape design? Mr. Currie said he likes the landscape design at St. Jerome's because he did it. His least favorite is the golf dome. Chairperson Ledvina said thank you for taking the time to interview with the board and he can contact Shann Finwall if he has any questions. Mr. Currie said okay and he will see everyone on Mondays. Diana Lonqrie-Kline was the third applicant to be interviewed. Chairperson Ledvina asked while listening to the meeting this evening, were there any comments or impressions of the proposals of how things were handled between staff, the board and the applicant? Ms. Longrie-Kiine said she was surprised that the first applicant for Nissan did not have their color renderings prepared and ready to go and that it was hard to match up the colors with the design that they were presenting. If she were asking questions she may have asked what were the peak times of the day and how many customer's do they have on average during this peak time? 19 Community Design Review Board Minutes 5-14-2002 She knows whenever she has been to a dealership there is never any customer parking. People are parking in the fire lanes and that can be a safety hazard. Ms. Longrie-Kline said she would have asked how many employees will they have and where will the employees park? She thinks 12 customer parking spaces is probably the minimum. Those would have been some of the questions she might have asked. With regard to the south elevations, she thinks the idea of having a band on the wall along is a good idea. She works for the Target stores in the real estate department and she is a senior property administrator. Her region of responsibility is primarily on the east coast so she does not work with any shopping centers in Minnesota whatsoever so there is no conflict of interest. One of the things she does quite often is review architecture and signage for different Target centers. Target has approval rights at these centers and that is part of what she does besides review legal documentation and draft legal documents. One of the architectural items she likes to look for is to ensure that a block wall isn't just a big block wall. Ms. Longrie-Kline said she likes the idea of having the band on the south elevation on the Nissan building between the windows. She illustrated how she would have suggested banding to the board. In regards to the 3M Center proposal, she thought they did a pretty good job with their building. She thought it could have used a little more landscaping. Chairperson Ledvina asked if she has any concerns about the obligations for being a board member? Ms. Longrie-Kline said none whatsoever. She said she does not travel for her job and she lives 15 minutes away. She works in Minneapolis but if she knows what time the meeting is she just leaves early enough to get here in time. Chairperson Ledvina asked if there are specific developments in the city she felt were real quality developments and good examples of how to do things? Also on the flip side do you know of any developments that were not? Ms. Longrie-Kline said it is like the old saying if something is good you never remember it, but if something is bad that sticks out in your mind. You see it and it is pleasing and it seems fine. At the Maplewood Mall she did not like the big box store called Just For Feet. She looks at a lot of signage and reviews documentation for signage in her position. For this reason she thought that the large Birch Run Sign was a massive sign, maybe a bit too large. Chairperson Ledvina asked if she had any comments about the strip mall called "The Corner Shops" located off Highway 36 and White Bear Avenue with the design and site plan? Ms. Longrie-Kline said she does drive by the development and she used to occasionally go to the Bali Hal restaurant that was there. Community Design Review Board Minutes 5-14-2002 2O She does go to Kinko's in that strip mall and she thinks the parking is fine at least for the times she goes there. The mix of tenants seem to work fine. She said she likes the looks of the architectural features and she thinks it looks kind of trendy and fun. Board member Olson asked if there was any other commission that she might be interested in if she can't be on this commission? Ms. Longrie-Kline said she has applied for the planning commission and she is also interested in the community design review board. She has been trying to get on the planning commission for some time now and she will keep trying until she can get on a commission. Board member Olson said her commitment to Maplewood appears to be very strong. Is there another community that you have ties to? Ms. Longrie-Kline said she has lived here for 18 years. She works in Minneapolis and is on the Hennepin County Bar Association. She is also involved with the volunteer lawyers network and she does pro-bono cases occasionally for them. She is also on the board for the St. Croix Valley Boys Choir and has been on that board for five years. Board member Shankar asked if you had to review two projects and approve only one, and one project had a strong site plan but the building design was mediocre. The other project, the building design was spectacular but the site plan was lacking, which one would you approve? Ms. Longrie-Kline said she thinks it is very important to have a good site plan. That site plan has all the elements you need for functionality of the site whether or not it is parking, drainage, access to roads etc. and a building can be a mediocre and it can be very functional inside and it can be a fine building without being beautiful. Chairperson Ledvina thanked her for her time during the interview with the board. He said the board will vote and if you have any questions you can contact Shann Finwall. Chairperson Ledvina asked each member to vote accordingly with 3 beinq the hiqhest score and I bein.q the lowest score. Ms. Finwall stated the voting results were as follows: Julie Lin Beitler had 5 points. Richard Euqene Currie had 4 points. Diana Longrie-Kline had 9 points. Community Design Review Board Minutes 5-14-2002 2! Board member Shankar said Diana Longrie-Kline had well-rounded answers. ,She had interests in a wide variety of things. Chairperson Ledvina said Diana Longrie-Kline has a lot of very strong qualities that will improve the board's decision making and the contributions to the proposals that come before the board. Board member Olson said Diana Longrie-Kline had excellent answers. She would like to add that Diana's knowledge of signage in her position at Target would prove to be particularly valuable to the board as the review of the sign code moves forward. Chairperson Ledvina agreed that he was interested when Diana talked about signs. Her knowledge would be a real plus when the board reviews the sign code. Board member Olson moved that the CDRB recommend to the city council to approve Diana Longrie-Kline for the CDRB vacancy. Board member Shankar seconded. Ayes - Ledvina, Olson, Shankar The motion passed. X. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:07 p.m. TO: FROM: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: LOCATION: DATE: MEMORANDUM City Manager Ken Roberts, Associate Planner Conditional Use Permit Revision and Design Approval Ryan Companies Lexus Automobile Dealership (3000 Highway 61) May 21, 2002 INTRODUCTION Project Description Mr. Brian Teeters, representing Ryan Companies and Lexus, is proposing a revision to the conditional use permit (CUP) for the Lexus Dealership at 3000 Highway 61. This revision includes three additions to the existing building and changes to the parking lot and ddveway layout to accommodate the building additions. Refer to the maps on pages 8-11 and the applicant's statement on page 13. The proposed building additions would be rock-face concrete block, EIFS (exterior insulation finish system), a stucco-look material and glass and would match the existing building. (Please see the proposed building elevations on page 12 and the proposed project plans.) Requests The applicant is requesting that the city council approve: A revision to the existing conditional use permit (CUP) for a maintenance garage. The city code permits the sale of new and used vehicles from this location. The code, however, requires a CUP for service and maintenance of cars. 2. The revised architectural, site and landscape plans. BACKGROUND On February 26, 1996, the city council approved the design plans, a conditional use permit and a wetland setback variance for Lexus. (See the minutes starting on page 14.) On Apdl 8, 1996, the city council reconsidered the conditional use permit and the design approval for the project. This wa~ to allow the applicant to start construction after they sign a developers agreement and provide a letter of credit for the extension of a water main to the site. (See the minutes on pages 18 and 19.) On September 10, 2001, city staff approved plans for a minor construction project for Lexus. This was to allow Lexus to expand their parking lot by 59 spaces. This expansion was onto the vacant part of their site north of their building. Except for some minor site restoration, they have finished this parking lot. (See the existing site plan on page 9.) On January 14, 2002, the city council reviewed the conditional use permit for this site and agreed to review it again in one year. DISCUSSION Conditional Use Permit The city council should approve the CUP revision as the proposal would meet the necessary findings. The owners have operated the existing dealership without problem since the contractor finished the construction. The applicant had originally proposed to store all refuse and parts in the building. Since then, they have started keeping their trash dumpsters and other debris on the back (east) side of the building. As such, the applicant is now proposing to add an enclosure for the dumpsters on the east side of the building. (See the plans on pages 10 and 11.) This enclosure would be a welcome addition to the site as it would allow Lexus to keep the dumpsters more out of site. Lexus should correct some minor issues as part of this building project. These include removing the old silt fence along the bottom of the slope near the wetland and the old fence sections that Lexus has put in a pile near the south property line. Design Considerations The proposed extedor building materials (rock-face concrete block and EIFS) would match the existing building materials. The proposed building would be attractive after the construction is complete. As I noted above, the applicant is proposing to add a dumpster enclosure on the east side of the building. Staff has not yet received plan details for the enclosure. The city should approve these plans as part of the approval process. Parking The city's parking ordinance does not cleady define the parking requirements for an automobile dealership, i.e., parking spaces for automobile inventory. The code, however, does list parking requirements for a variety of other land uses. The code would require Lexus to have 160 parking spaces if one uses the ratio of 1 space for each 200 square feet of office/showroom, 1 space for every 1,000 square feet of parts storage, 3 spaces for each service bay and 1 space per employee. The applicant's plans show 190 parking spaces before the construction and 176 parking spaces after the construction. Staff feels that there should be sufficient parking for the needs of Lexus. Other Comments The Maplewood Police Department and the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District both had no comment about the proposed expansion. The Fire Marshal noted that Lexus needs to maintain clear access around all sides of the building, especially on the east side. RECOMMENDATION Adopt the resolution on pages 23-24. This resolution approves a revision for an existing conditional use permit for a maintenance garage at the Lexus dealership at 3000 Highway 61. The city bases this approval on the findings required by the code and subject to the following conditions (I have underlined the additions and crossed-out the deletions): All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city. This shall include the sump pump catch basin design submitted on February 26, '1996. The director of community development may approve minor changes. The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the permit shall become null and void. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 3. The city council shall review this permit in one year. The property owner shall agree to accept responsibility for the annual maintenance and upkeep of the sump catch basins. The owner shall do such maintenance at least once a year and provide city staff with written documentation about the maintenance tasks that are performed. 5. The dealership shall not store any materials or supplies on the outside of the building, except for what they store in the dumpster enclosure. 6. Vehicle transports shall not load or unload vehicles on the public right-of-way of Hi.qhwa¥ 61. 7. The dealership shall only park vehicles on des ,qnated paved surfaces. Approve the plans (stamped April 26, 2002) for proposed additions to the Lexus dealership at 3000 Highway 61. The city is approving these plans based on the findings required by the code. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. Before getting a building permit, the applicant shall provide staff with detailed plans for the dumpster enclosure. These plans shall show the enclosure with ,materials matching the materials of the building and shall be subject to staff approval. 3 3. The applicant shall complete the following before occupying the building additions: a. Screen all roof-mounted equipment visible from streets or adjacent property. (code requirement) b. Construct the trash dumpster enclosure, subject to staff approval. (code requirement) c. Post any driveways or drive aisles that are less than 28 feet wide for "no-parking." This includes the driveway on the east side of the building. d. The contractor or property owner shall clean up the site including the removal of the unused silt fence and privacy fence sections. 4. If any required work is not done, the city may allow temporary occupancy if: a. The city determines that the work is not essential to the public health, safety or welfare. b. The city receives a cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit for the required work. The amount shall be 150% of the cost of the unfinished work. This approval does not include the signs. Staff will review any sign changes through the sign permit process. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Site size: 3.63 acres Existing land use: Lexus dealership SURROUNDING LAND USES North: Kline Volvo dealership South: Venberg Tire West: Highway 61 East: Vacant property (wetland) PAST ACTION On July 22, 1996, the council considered a sign variance request for Lexus. They were asking the city to allow them a second freestanding sign for the dealership. The council denied Lexus' request for an additional freestanding sign. On September 24, 1996, the community design review board waived the requirement to screen the roof equipment for the Lexus dealership. On July 28, 1997, the city council reviewed the conditional use permit for this project. The council renewed the permit for one year and directed staff to set up an inspection schedule to coincide with the conditional use permit reviews. On October 12, 1998, the city council reviewed Lexus' conditional use permit and required another review in one year. PLANNING Land Use Plan designation: M-1 (light manufacturing) Zoning: M-1 Ordinance Requirements Section 36-151(b)(9)(c) requires a CUP for maintenance garages. 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. 5 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. Criteria for Conditional Use Permit Approval Section 36-442(a) states that the city council may approve a CUP, based on nine standards. (See findings 1-9 in the resolution on pages 23-24.) Application Date We received this application on April 26, 2002. State law requires that the city take action within 60 days of receiving complete applications for a proposal. City council action is required on this proposal by June 25, 2002. p:sec3~Jexus CUP revision.doc Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Property Line/Zoning Map 3. Existing Site Plan 4. Proposed Site Plan (dated 4-26-02) 5. Proposed Grading Plan 6. Proposed Building Elevations 7. Applicant's Conditional Use Permit Statement dated Apd125, 2002 8. February 26, 1996 City Council minutes 9. Apdl 8, 1996 City Council minutes 10. Site photos 11. Conditional Use Permit Revision Resolution 12. Plans Date-stamped Apd126, 2002 (separate attachment) VADNAIS HEIGHTS Attachment 1 WHITE BEAR LAKE COUNTY D ,. COUNTY HIGHRIDGE ST..JOHN'S 2. COUNTRYV1EW BE~ AVE. = = = m = ~ ~ COUN~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ COU~T ~ ~ KOHL~ RVNS AVE. GRANDVIEW SHERREN AVE. AVE. AVE. DEMONT Loke EHILL RD. COPE LOCATION MAP 1322 SPARKLE AUTO SALES 4.30ac. 3110 .q A ~40.\5 Attachment 2 Z640 INT~ ROAD DI·· · ·· 03) ' VENBERG TIRE ~ I', Io1¢'~' ', I iol I I ...... _04 ) sURX/~ '1' NO' PROPERTY LINE I ZONING MAP 8 N J 'Attachment 3 BXlSTIN~ bBXUS 15UILOING 11,400 S.I:. SITE PLAN (EXISTING) Attachment TOTAL. WITH ~ ADDITION 14.014 90. FT. EX~TIN~ I,.~XL~ ~ SITE PLAN (PROPOSED) 10 Attachment 5 / I / / / / / T / / / t ! I 1 TOTAL WITH NEW ADDITION 14,074 SQ. FT. EXIS'~N~ LEXUS BUILDING 11,400 S(~, FT. FFE=884.0 ~lNG EDGE OF WElL.AND z Attachment 6 5. P~ PRff. CAGT CDN~ ~VAU. P~ 1Z. 6, 16' X ~ ' ~ r~ C, J6U. ~ TO tt, ATC;~'i PAI411~ TO/i~ATOrl Attachment 7 WWW. RYAN(:OM PANIES.COM April 25, 2002 RYAN COMPANIES US, INC. 50 South Tenth Street, Suite 300 Minneapolis, MN 55403-2012 612-492-4000 tel 612-492-3000 fax i YAH BUILDIHG L~S?IHG REL~,TIONSH~PS Tom Ekstrand Assistant Community Development Director City of Maplewood 1830 East County Road B Maplewood, MN 55109 RE: LEXUS OF MAPLEWOOD ADDITION CUP WRITTEN STATEMENT Dear Tom: This letter is in response to the City of Maplewood's requirement of a written statement for the Conditional Use Permit application for the Maplewood Imports Addition. The project consists of a 14,000SF addition and remodel to the existing Lexus of Maplewood facility. Included in this addition are a new car delivery area, an expanded show floor, added service stalls, a carwash, and office space. The new addition fagade will be cohesive with the appearance of the existing facility as it relates to color, texture, and overall design. The addition is being constructed over an existing bituminous surface. The site drainage area will not be effected nor will the area of impervious surface. The Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District has reviewed the new addition and determined that the site will not be altered enough to require a Watershed District permit. We feel that this project is in accordance with the City of Maplewood's CLIP guidelines and will cause no adverse effects on any nearby residences and businesses. Please contact me with any questions you may have at (612) 492-4397. Project Manager encl. Ramsey-Washington Watershed District Letter 13 G:'tDEPT~PROJ-NEW~I200\1239-000 LEXUS OF MAPLEWOOD ADDITION~ETTERS\CUPCRITERIALETTER. DOC/RE Attachment 8 The City' CounCil held a public hearing on February 12, 1996. City staff published a notice in the Maplewood Review and sent notices to the surrounding property owners as required by law. The Council gave everyone at the hearing an opportunity to speak and present written statements. The Council also considered reports and recommendations from the City staff and Planning Commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE 'IT RESOLVED that the City Council approve the above-described variance for the following reasons: Strict enforcement of the code would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the property and not created by the property owner. The lO0-foot-wide wetland buffer requirement would make development of this site difficult. The difficulty was created by the new ordinance. The variance would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance, since the applicant would improve the quality of the wetland buffer substantially over its present state. Approval is subject to the applicant doing the following: Submitting a grading and landscaping plan subject to the requirements of the City staff and the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District for the wetland buffer. o Dedicating a wetland-buffer easement. This easement shall describe the boundary of the buffer and prohibit any building, mowing, cutting, filling or dumping within the buffer. The applicant shall record the deed for this easement before the City will issue a building permit. 3. Accepting responsibility for the annual maintenance and upkeep of the sump catch basins. Seconded by Councilmember Koppen Ayes - Mayor Bastian, Councilmembers Allenspach, Carlson. Koppen Nays - Councilmember Rossbach f. Mayor Bastian introduced the followinq Resolution and moved its adoption: 96 - 02 - 26 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Ryan Construction .Company of Minnesota, Inc. applied for a conditional use permit for a motor vehicle maintenance garage as part of a new Lexus automobile dealership; WHEREAS, this permit applies to property on the east side of Highway 61 between Beam Avenue and County Road D. The legal description is: Tracts D and G, Registered Land Survey No. 525 WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: 1. On February 5, 1996, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council approve this permit. 14 2-26-9( On February 12. 1996, 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 based on the building and site plans. The City approves this 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. 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. 8. The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and scenic features into the development design. 9. The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects. Approval is subject to the following conditions: All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the City. This shall include the sump pump catch basin design submitted on February 26, 1996. The Director of Community Development may approve minor changes. 2. The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of Council approval or the permit shall become null and void. The Council may extend this deadline for one year. 3. The City Council shall review this permit in one year. 15 2-26-96 Befor6 {he issuance of a building permit, the City must have a signed construction contract for the extension of the water main to the Lexus site. The water system must be operational before the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. The future expansion is not allowed with this permit. The applicant must apply for design approval and an amendment to the conditional use permit before building this expansion. The future expansion must be at least 100 feet from the billboard. The property owner shall agree to accept responsibility for the annual maintenance and upkeep of the sump catch basins. The applicant shall submit the plans for the sump catch basins and discharge rip rap to the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District for their approval before the City will issue a building permit. Mayor Bastian moved to approve the site plans (stamped December 7, 1995 and the site plan stamped Februar.y 1, 1996) for proposed Lexus dealership on Hiqhway 61 based on the findinqs required by the code. Approval is subject to the followinq conditions: 1. Repeat this review in two years if the City has not issued a building permit for this project. 2. Before getting a building permit, the applicant shall: Dedicate and record a wetland-buffer easement. This easement shall describe the boundary of the buffer and prohibit any building, mowing, cutting, filling or dumping within the buffer. Submit a revised landscape plan providing for any planting and ground reshaping or restoration of the wetland buffer as may be required by the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District. Replace the seed on the Highway 61 right-of-way with sod if allowed by the Minnesota Department of Transportation. The right-of-way shall have an in-ground lawn irrigation system unless prohibited by MnDOT. Before the issuance of a building permit, the City must have a signed construction contract for the extension of the water main to the Lexus site. The water system must be operational before the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. The applicant shall complete the following before occupying the bui 1 ding: a. Replace any property irons removed because of this construction. Install reflectorized stop signs at both exits, a handicap parking sign for each handicap parking space and an address on the building. c. Screen all roof-mounted equipment visible from streets or adjacent property. (code requirement) 16 2-26-9F o do ee Construct a trash dumpster enclosure, subject to staff approval, if there would be outside trash storage. (code requirement) Install an in-ground lawn irrigation system for the parking lot islands and the sodded areas between the highway and the parking lot. Lawn irrigation in the right-of-way may be waived if MnDOT will not allow it. f. Post signs designating at least 55 customer and employee parking spaces. g. Post one-way traffic signs for the narrow driveway beneath the canopy on the south side of the building. The future expansion is not allowed. The applicant must apply for design approval and an amendment to the conditional use permit prior to building this expansion. The future expansion must be at least 100 feet from the billboard. If any required work is not done, the City may allow temporary occupancy if : a. The City determines that the work is not essential to the public health, safety or welfare. b. The City receives a cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit for the required work. The amount shall be 150) of the cost of the unfinished work. This approval does not include the signs. by staff through the sign permit process. All work shall follow the approved plans. Development may approve minor changes. Signage will be reviewed The Director of Community Traffic flow in and out of the Lexus dealership shall be reviewed by MnDOT. Any site plan change is subject to staff approval. Seconded by Councilmember Koppen Ayes - Mayor Bastian, Councilmembers Allenspach, Carlson. Koppen Nays - Councilmember Rossbach l? Attachment 9 c. Mayor Bastian asked if anyone wished to speak before the Council regarding this matter. The following was heard: Steve Bloomer, Owner Lexus of Wayzata d. Councilmember Carlson moved to amend the conditions of the Lexus Conditional Use Permit in order to allow construction of the buildinq to beqin prior to the siqninq of the water system construction documents, with the requirements that there be no combustible material on site and the Lexus Company provide the City with a letter of credit. Seconded by Councilmember Allenspach Ayes Mayor Bastian, Councilmembers Allenspach, Carlson, Koppen Nays - Councilmember Rossbach eo Councilmember Carlson introduced the followinq Resolution and moved its adoption: 96 - 04 - 53 AMENDED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION - LEXUS WHEREAS, Ryan Construction Company of Minnesota. Inc. applied-for a conditional use permit for a motor vehicle maintenance garage as part of a new Lexus automobile dealership; WHEREAS, this permit applies to property on the east side of Highway 61 between Beam Avenue and County Road D. The legal description is: Tracts D and G, Registered Land Survey No. 525 WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: 1. On February 5, 1996, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council approve this permit. On February 12, 1996, 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 based on the building and site plans. The City approVes this permit oecause: 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. 18 4-8-96 Seconded by Councilmember Allenspach 4. The use would not involve any activity, process, materials, equipment or methods of operation that would be dangerous, hazardous, detrimental, disturbing or cause a nuisance to any person or property,, because of excessive noise, glare, smoke,. dust, odor, fumes, water or air pollution, drainage, water run- off, vibration, general unsightliness, electrical interference or other nuisances. 5. The use would generate only minimal vehicular traffic on local streets and would not create traffic congestion or unsafe access on existing or proposed streets. 6. The use would be served by adequate public facilities and services, including streets, po)ice and. fire protection, drainage structures, water and sewer systems, schools and parks. 7. The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services. 8. The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and scenic features into the development design. 9. The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the City. This shall include the sump pump catch basin design submitted on February 26, 1996. The Director of Community Development may approve minor changes. 2. The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of Council approval or the permit shall become null and void. The Council may extend this deadline for one year. 3. The City Council shall review this permit in one year. 4. Before the issuance of a building permit, the Citymust have a development agreement and letter of credit guaranteeing the extension of the water main to the Lexus site. The water system must be operational before the presence of substantial amounts of combustible materials, as required by the Fire Chief. 5. The future expansion is not allowed with this permit. The applicant must apply for design approval and an amendment to the conditional use permit before building this expansion. The future expansion must be at least 100 feet from the billboard. 6. The property owner shall agree to accept responsibility for the annual maintenance and upkeep of the sump catch basins. 7. The applicant shall submit the plans for the sump catch basins and dischargerip rap to the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District for their approval before the City will issue a building permit. Ayes - Mayor Bastian. Councilmembers Allenspach, Carlson, Koppen Nays - Councilmember Rossbach 19 4-8-96 Attachment 10 20 21 22 Attachment 11 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Ryan Construction Company of Minnesota, Inc. applied for a revision to a conditional use permit to expand an existing motor vehicle maintenance garage. WHEREAS, this permit revision applies to property at 3000 Highway 61. The legal description is: Tracts D and G, Registered Land Survey No. 525 WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit revision is as follows: 1. On May 20, 2002, the planning commission recommended that the city council approve this permit revision. On June 10, 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 revision based on the building and site plans. The city approves this permit because: 1. The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be in conformity with the city's comprehensive plan and code of ordinances. 2. The use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area. 3. The use would not depreciate property values. The use would not involve any activity, process, materials, equipment or methods of operation that would be dangerous, hazardous, detrimental, disturbing or cause a nuisance to any person or property, because of excessive noise, glare, smoke, dust, odor, fumes, water or air pollution, drainage, water run-off, vibration, general unsightliness, electrical interference or other nuisances. 5. The use would generate only minimal vehicular traffic on local streets and would not create traffic congestion or unsafe access on existing or proposed streets. 6. The use would be served by adequate public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, water and sewer systems, schools and parks. 7. The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services. 8. The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and scenic features into the development design. 9. The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects. 23 Approval is subject to the following conditions: All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city. This shall include the sump pump catch basin design submitted on February 26, 1996. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 2. The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the permit shall become null and void. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 3. The city council shall review this permit in one year. The property owner shall agree to accept responsibility for the annual maintenance and upkeep of the sump catch basins. The owner shall do such maintenance at least once a year and provide city staff with written documentation about the maintenance tasks that are performed. 5. The dealership shall not store any materials or supplies on the outside of the building, except for what they store in the dumpster enclosure. 6. Vehicle transports shall not load or unload vehicles on the public right-of-way of Highway 61. 7. The dealership shall only park vehicles on designated paved surfaces. The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on June ,2002. 24 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: DATE: City Manager Ken Roberts, Associate Planner Dearborn Meadow Castle Avenue, north of Cope Avenue May 21, 2002 INTRODUCTION Project Description Mr. Mike Ackerman is proposing to build nine townhouses (in four twinhomes and one single unit) in a development called Dearbom Meadow. It would be on a 2.11-acre site on the south side of Castle Avenue, north of Cope Avenue. Refer to the maps on pages 15-22. A homeowners' association would own and maintain the common areas. Each building would have horizontal-lap vinyl siding, aluminum soffits and fascia and brick veneer on the fronts. In addition, each unit would have a two-car garage. (See the elevations on page 24 and the enclosed plans.) Requests To build this project, Mr. Ackerman is requesting that the city approve: A change to the comprehensive plan. This would be from M-1 (light manufacturing) to R-2 (single and double dwellings) for the site. (See the existing and proposed land use maps on pages 17 and 18.) 2. A change to the zoning map. This would be from M-1 (light manufacturing) to R-2 (single and double dwellings) for the site. Refer to the property line/zoning map on page 16. A conditional use permit (CUP) for a planned unit development (PUD). This PUD will allow the townhouses to be on smaller lots than code usually allows (in area and in width) and to have them on a private driveway. 4. A preliminary plat for nine lots for the nine housing units. (See the map on page 19.) 5. The design plans for the site, landscaping and buildings. City staff also is proposing to change the zoning and land use plan designations for two areas next to the proposed development. These changes would be from M-1 (light manufacturing) to R-2 (single and double dwellings). BACKGROUND On July 22, 1985, the city approved a plan amendment and a rezoning for the property between Castle and Cope Avenues, east of the property at 1930 Castle Avenue. The land use plan change was from RL (Iow-density residential) to BVV (business warehouse) and RM (medium- density residential). The zoning map change was from R-1 (single dwellings) and BC (business commercial) to M-1 (light manufacturing) and R-2 (single and double dwellings). These changes were required by the distdct court after Hillcrest Development sued the city to overturn a zoning map change from BC to R-1 that the council made on September 12, 1983. The court decision is the basis for the current land use and zoning designations in the area. On April 17, 2000, the planning commission considered Mr. Ackerman's requests for a 10-unit townhouse development. The commission tabled action on the proposed plans to allow the developer's engineer to review the drainage patterns in the area. This was to insure that the proposed development would not increase storm water runoff onto adjacent properties. On May 15, 2000, the planning commission recommended approval of the land use plan and zoning map changes and the lot-area and lot-width variances for the 10-unit proposal. For the preliminary plat, the commission split their vote four to four. On May 23, 2000, the community design review board recommended that the city council deny the 10-unit proposal. The board felt that the site was too dense based on the configuration of the buildings. They felt that 15 feet between structures was too little and that the southerly buildings should be reoriented to face north with their backyards butting up to the backyards to the south. After much discussion and the recommendation from these meetings, Mr. Ackerman withdrew his development requests before staff sent the 10-unit proposal to the city council. DISCUSSION Land Use Plan and Zoning Map Changes To build the proposed plat, Mr. Ackerman wants the city to change the land use plan and zoning map for the site. These changes would be from M-1 (light manufacturing) to R-2 (single and double dwellings). (See the existing land use plan map on page 17 and the proposed land use plan map on page 18.) The city intends R-2 areas for small-lot (7,500 square-foot) single dwellings and for double dwellings. For M-1 areas, the city plans for offices, clinics, day care centers, retail businesses, warehousing and light manufacturing operations. Land use plan changes do not require specific findings for approval. Any change, however, should be consistent with the city's land use goals and policies. There are several goals in the Comprehensive Plan that apply to this request. They include: · Provide for orderly development. · Minimize conflicts between land uses. · Provide a wide variety of housing types. · Whenever possible, changes in types of land use 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 vadety of housing types for all residents.., including apartments, townhouses, manufactured homes, single-family housing, public-assisted housing, Iow- and moderate-income housing, and rental and owner-occupied housing. · Transitions between distinctly differing types of land uses should not create a negative economic, social or physical impact on adjoining developments. · The city coordinates land use changes with the character of each neighborhood. · Protect neighborhoods from encroachment or intrusion of incompatible land uses by adequate buffering and separation. 2 An advantage of this proposal is that an area that the city once thought would be good for commercial or light industrial development would become residential. This is especially beneficial to the existing nearby residential properties. Having twinhomes near existing residences should be better neighbors than a commercial or a manufacturing use that the existing land use and zoning designations would allow. Compatibility Staff does not find a problem with this proposal in terms of compatibility and land use. The proposed townhouses would be near Highway 36 and next to single dwellings. In addition, developers will often build townhomes next to single dwellings. ^ 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, such as ^fton Ridge, Southwinds, Bennington Woods and the Carriage Homes of Maple Hills where this is the case. Density As proposed, the nine units on the 2.11-acre site means there would be 4.27 units per acre. This is consistent with the density standards in the comprehensive plan for double dwelling residential development. In addition, the proposed change would expand the residential uses on a street that is now pdmadly used by the existing homes in this area. Thus, the proposal meets the goals in the comprehensive plan by having similar uses fronting on the same street. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) Conditional Use Permit Section 36-438(b) of the city code says that it is the intent of the PUD code "to provide a means to allow flexibility by substantial deviations from the provisions of this chapter, including uses, setbacks, height and other regulations. Deviations may be granted for planned unit developments provided that: Certain regulations contained in this chapter should not apply to the proposed development because of its unique nature. 2. The PUD would be consistent with the purposes of this chapter. The planned unit development would produce a development of equal or superior quality to that which would result from strict adherence to the provisions of this chapter. The deviations would not constitute a significant threat to the property values, safety, health or general welfare of the owners or occupants of nearby land. The deviations are required for reasonable and practicable physical development and are not required solely for financial reasons." The applicant has applied for a conditional use permit (CUP) for a planned unit development (PUD) for the nine-unit housing development. They are requesting the CUP for the PUD because of the proposed lot widths and lot sizes. The developer is proposing a small lot around each dwelling unit. A homeowners' association would own and maintain the rest of the land, including the pdvate driveway. Exchanging the common land for larger lot sizes would not change the location, design or 3 number of units in this development. In addition, the city has approved similar-styled developments in the past such as Holloway Ponds at Holloway Avenue and Beebe Road. In this case, the proposal would have nine townhouse units in five buildings. 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 city requirements would normally allow. The developer intends to sell each of the townhomes and expects that each unit will sell for at least $230,000. Preliminary Plat Density and Lot Size As proposed, the nine units on the 2.11-acre site means there would be 4.27 units per acre (an average of 10,212 square feet per unit). This is consistent with the density standards in the comprehensive plan for double dwelling residential development and is well above the 6,000 square-foot minimum lot area that the city requires for each unit in a double dwelling. Maplewood has zoned the properties on the north side of Cope Avenue R-2 (single and double dwellings). This is the zoning proposed with this request for undeveloped land between Cope and Castle Avenues. The city requires each single dwelling lot in this zoning distdct to have at least 60 feet of frontage and be at least 7,500 square feet in area. Double dwellings in this distdct are to have 120 feet of street frontage and be at least 12,000 square feet in area. The existing lots on the north side of Cope Avenue meet or exceed these standards. Public Utilities There are sanitary sewer, storm sewer and water in Castle and Cope Avenues to serve the proposed development. Specifically, the city designed and built the storm sewer in Cope Avenue to accommodate drainage from a large area north of Cope Avenue. The developer's plans will connect their pipes to the existing storm and sanitary sewer pipes. Tree Removal/Replacement Maplewood's tree ordinance requires there be at least ten trees per gross acre on the site after grading. For this 2.11-acre site, the ordinance requires that at least 21 large trees remain. The plans show the removal of 29 large trees (ash, oak and elm), but they would preserve eight existing trees. The proposed landscape plan (page 22) shows the developer planting 11 spruce trees and 10 maple trees. (As a point of clarification, the developer would remove more than 29 trees. Other than the 29 "quality" trees, the applicant would remove many box elder and cottonwoods.) Wetland Ordinance The Ramsey/Washington Metro Watershed Distdct has reviewed the current development proposal and has issued Mr. Ackerman a permit. (See their comments in the memo on page 34.) They have classified the wetland on proposed Outlot A as a Class Five Wetland. These are the wetlands that humans have impacted the most and have the least diverse types of vegetation and the least community resource significance. This wetland classification does not require a buffer area. However, the building foundations must be at least ten feet from the edge of the wetland. The proposed grading plan (on page 20) meets these requirements. 4 Drainage Concems Several neighbors expressed concern over the potential for increased runoff and flooding due to this development. The neighbors also have told staff that there has been an on going drainage problem for the area between Cope and Castle Avenues for several years. Specifically, there are properties that have Iow areas that tend to collect storm water and this water does not drain off quickly. The city should require that the grading/drainage plan would not increase the storm- water flow onto any neighbor's land. (Please also see the comments from the Assistant City Engineer starting on page 32.) Since the planning commission last reviewed this proposal in 2000, the developer has revised the grading plan. He is now proposing to expand the wetland to form a larger area for the collection of storm water. As proposed, the utility plan shows most of the storm water from the site, including the private driveways, and the drainage from the undeveloped area east of the site, going into the expanded ponding area. The developer is proposing that the overflow from the pond go into new and existing storm sewer pipes that connect to the city drainage system in Cope Avenue. Based on the latest plans, the developer's engineer provided the City Engineer with information and calculations about the storm water. These show that this project will actually reduce the amount of storm water running off the site. Building Design The proposed buildings would be attractive and would fit in with the design of the existing homes. They would have an exterior of horizontal vinyl siding with brick veneer on the fronts, and the roof would have asphalt shingles. (See the drawings on page 24.) Landscaping The proposed plans keep many of the existing trees around the perimeter of the site and near the wetland. As proposed, the developer would plant 21 trees on the site. These include a row of black-hills spruce along the south property line and 10 maple trees on the site, primarily at the front comer of each unit near the driveway. The landscape plan (page 23) also shows the proposed plantings around each unit that will include a spirea, junipers, dogwoods and arborvitaes. The applicant should revise the landscape plan to be consistent with Maplewood ordinance standards. The maple trees must be at least 2 1/2 inches in caliper, balled and burlapped. The plantings proposed around foundations of the units should remain on the plan. In addition to the above, all yard areas should be sodded (except for mulched and edged planting beds). Other Comments Police Department Lieutenant John Banick of the Maplewood Police Department had two concerns with this proposal. They include that this development would add traffic in the neighborhood and to the intersection of White Bear and Cope Avenues. He also questioned if emergency vehicles (including fire trucks) would have the necessary room to turn around or back out after a call. 5 Fire Marshal Butch Gervais, the Maplewood Fire Marshal, wants the city to make sure the end of the road is back far enough for proper snow removal to maintain proper turning radius. RECOMMENDATIONS Approve the resolution on page 35. This resolution changes the land use plan for the Dearborn Meadow plat and two adjacent properties on the south side of Castle Avenue, north of Cope Avenue. This change is from M-1 (light manufacturing) to R-2 (single and double dwellings). The city is making this change because: 1. It would be consistent with the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan. 2. This area would eliminate the planned commercial area that would have been between two residential areas. 3. This site is proper for and consistent with the city's policies for medium-density residential use. This includes: a. Creating a transitional land use between the existing Iow density residential and commercial land uses. b. It is on a collector street and is near an arterial street. c. Minimizing any adverse effects on surrounding properties because there would be no traffic from this development on existing residential streets. 4. It would be consistent with the proposed zoning and land uses. Approve the resolution on page 36. This resolution changes the zoning map for the Dearborn Meadow plat and two adjacent properties on the south side of Castle Avenue, north of Cope Avenue. This change is from M-1 (light manufacturing) to R-2 (single and double dwellings). The reasons for this change are those required by the city code and because the owner plans to develop this part of the property for double dwellings. Approve the resolution starting on page 38. This resolution approves a conditional use permit for a planned unit development for the Dearborn Meadow development on the south side of Castle Avenue. The city bases this approval on the findings required by code. (Refer to the resolution for the specific findings.) Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. All construction shall follow the plans approved by the city. The city council may approve major changes to the plans. The Director of Community Development may approve minor changes to the plans. Such changes shall include: a. Revising the grading and site plans to show: (1) The developer minimizing the loss or removal of natural vegetation. (2) All driveways at least 20 feet wide. If the developer wants to have parking on one side of the main ddve (Castle Place), then it must be at least 28 feet wide. 6 (3) All parking stalls with a width of at least 9.5 feet and a length of at least 18 feet. 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. 3. Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall meet all the conditions and changes noted in the engineer's memo dated May 14, 2002. 4. The approved setbacks for the principal structures in the Dearborn Meadow PUD shall be: a. Front-yard setback (from a public street or a private driveway): minimum - 20 feet, maximum - 35 feet b. Front-yard setback (public side street): minimum - 30 feet, maximum - none c. Rear-yard setback: 30 feet from any adjacent residential property line d. Side-yard setback (town houses): minimum - 20 feet from a property line and 20 feet minimum between buildings. 5. 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. 6. The city council shall review this permit in one year. Approve the Dearborn Meadow preliminary plat (received by the city on April 24, 2002). The developer shall complete the following before the city council approves the final plat: 1. Sign 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. Pay the city for the cost of traffic-control, street identification and no-parking signs. d. 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). e. Cap and seal any wells on site. f. Have Xcel Energy install a street light at the intersection of Castle Avenue and the proposed private ddveway (Castle Place). The exact location and type of light shall be subject to the city engineer's approval. g. Install permanent signs around the edge of the wetland buffer easement. These signs shall mark the edge of the easements and shall state that there shall be no mowing, vegetation cutting, filling, grading or dumping beyond this point. City staff shall approve the sign design and location before the contractor installs them. The developer or contractor shall install these signs before the city issues building permits in this plat. h. Install survey monuments along the wetland boundaries. 2.* Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall include grading, utility, drainage, erosion control, tree, and street plans. The plans shall meet all the conditions and changes listed in the memo dated May 14, 2002 and shall meet the following conditions: a. The erosion control plans shall be consistent with the city code. b. The grading plan shall: (1) Include proposed building pad elevation and contour information for each home site. The lot lines on this plan shall follow the approved preliminary plat. (2) Include contour information for all the land that the construction will disturb. (3) Show housing pads that reduce the grading on sites where the developer can save large trees. (4) Show the proposed street and driveway grades as allowed by the city engineer. (5) Include the tree plan that: · Shows where the developer will remove, save or replace large trees. This plan shall include an inventory of all existing large trees on the site. · Shows no tree removal beyond the approved grading and tree limits. (6) Show drainage areas and the developer's engineer shall provide the city engineer with the drainage calculations. The drainage design shall accommodate the runoff from the surrounding areas. The undeveloped parcel to the east of this site shall have unrestricted access to the storm sewer with a capacity to accommodate post development runoff. c. The street and utility plans shall show the: (1) Water service to each lot and unit. (2) Repair of Castle Avenue (street and boulevard) after the developer connects to the public utilities and builds the pdvate driveways. (3) Design of the sanitary sewer allowing for the unrestricted access to the sanitary sewer in the development from the undeveloped properties adjacent to the site (primarily to the east). 3. Paying for costs related to the engineering department's review of the construction plans. 4. Change the plat as follows: a. Add drainage and utility easements as required by the city engineer. b. Show drainage and utility easements along all property lines on the final plat. These easements shall be ten feet wide along the front and rear property lines and five feet wide along the side property lines. c. Label the pdvate street as Castle Place and label Castle Street as Castle Avenue on all plans. d. Label the common area as Outlot A. e. Provide easements to allow for unrestricted access to the storm sewer, sanitary sewer and water main in the development from the undeveloped parcel to the east. 5. Secure and provide all required easements for the development including any off-site drainage and utility easements. 6. The developer shall complete all grading for public improvements and overall site drainage. The city engineer shall include in the developer's agreement any grading that the developer or contractor has not completed before final plat approval. 7. If necessary, obtain a permit from the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District for grading. 8. If the developer decides to final plat part of the preliminary plat, the director of community development may waive any conditions that do not apply to the final plat. Submitting the homeowners' association bylaws and rules to the director of community development. These are to assure that there will be one responsible party for the maintenance of the private utilities, driveways and common areas. *The developer must complete these conditions before the city issues a grading permit or approves the final plat. Eo Approve the plans date-stamped April 24, 2002 (site plan, landscape plan, grading and drainage plans and building elevations) for Dearborn Meadow. 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: Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall include: 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. 9 (2) The (a) (b) (c) grading plan shall: Include building, floor elevation and contour information. Include contour information for the land that the construction will disturb. Show sedimentation basins or ponds as may be required by the watershed board or by the city engineer. (3)* The tree plan shall: (a) Be approved by the city engineer before site grading or tree removal. (b) Show where the developer will remove, save or replace large trees. This plan shall include an inventory of all existing large trees on the site. (c) Show the size, species and location of the replacement trees. 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 and sugar maples. (d) Show no tree removal beyond the approved grading and tree limits. (4) All the parking areas and driveways shall have continuous concrete curb and gutter except where the city engineer decides that it is not needed. (5) There shall be no parking on one side of the 28-foot-wide driveway (Castle Place). The developer or contractor shall post Castle Place with no parking signs to meet the above-listed standard. b. Submit a certificate of survey for all new construction and have each building staked by a registered land surveyor. c. Submit a revised landscape plan to staff for approval which incorporates the following details: (1) All trees would be consistent with city standards for size, location and species. (2) Planting (instead of sodding) the disturbed areas around the wetland with native grasses and native flowering plants. The native grasses and flowering plants shall be those needing little or no maintenance and shall extend at least four feet from the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) of the pond. This is to reduce maintenance costs and to reduce the temptation of people mowing into the pond. (3) The maple trees must be at least 2 1/2 inches in caliper, balled and burlapped. (4) The plantings proposed around the front of the units shown on the landscape plan date-stamped April 24, 2002 shall remain on the plan. 10 (5) In addition to the above, the contractor shall sod all front, side and rear yard areas (except for mulched and edged planting beds and the area within the wetland easement). (6) No landscaping shall take place in the Castle Avenue boulevard. The contractor shall restore the boulevard with sod. d. Present a color scheme to staff for approval for each building. 3. Complete the following before occupying each building: a. Replace properly irons that are removed because of this construction. b. Restore and sod damaged boulevards. Sod all landscaped areas, except for the area within the easement, which may be seeded. c. Install continuous concrete curb and gutter along all intedor driveways and around all open parking stalls. d. The developer or contractor shall: (1) Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits. (2) Remove any debris or junk from the site. e. Put addresses on each building for each unit. f. Provide ddveway turn arounds for Lots 1 and 2 on Castle Avenue. 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 spdng or summer. c. The city receives an agreement that will allow the city to complete any unfinished work. 5. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 11 CITIZENS' COMMENTS I surveyed the owners of the 44 properties within 350 feet of this site. Of the three replies, one was for the proposal, one was against and one had comments. For Please see the letter from Pat Kinney on page 31. Objections No - please see in your files about drainage problems and building over a natural holding pond - you have all previous maps and letters - also please see your topo maps. (Themnes - Castle Avenue) Comments Because of the nursing home next to us, we are at the bottom of a dam, so to speak. The run-off water from the property in question has nowhere else to go. Therefore, in keeping with the rest of the neighborhood, we feel that single dwelling homes would be the most appropriate and cause the least problems as far as drainage is concerned. We also hope that whatever is built on this property be of equal (or greater) value as the existing homes in this area and not be public (government) assisted housing. (Gehrke- 1917 Cope Avenue) 12 REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Site size: 2.11 acres Existing land use: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USES North: South: West: East: Home Depot across Highway 36 Single and double dwellings on Cope Avenue Houses on Castle Avenue Houses on Castle Avenue PLANNING Existing Land Use Plan designation: M-1 (light manufacturing) Existing Zoning: M-1 (light manufacturing) Proposed Land Use and Zoning: R-2 (single and double dwellings) Findings for Rezoning Section 36-485 of the zoning code requires that the city council make the following findings to rezone property: 1. The proposed change is consistent with the spirit, purpose and intent of the zoning code. 2. The proposed change will not substantially injure or detract from the use of neighboring property or from the character of the neighborhood, and that the use of the property adjacent to the area included in the proposed change or plan is adequately safeguarded. 3. The proposed change will serve the best interests and conveniences of the community, where applicable, and the public welfare. 4. The proposed change would have no negative effect upon the logical, efficient, and economical extension of public services and facilities, such as public water, sewers, police and fire protection and schools. Application Date The city received all the application materials for this request on April 24, 2002. State law requires the city to take action on this request by June 24, 2002, unless the applicant agrees to a time extension. 13 p:sec 1 l~dearborn 2002 (9).mem Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Property Line/Zoning Map 3. Land Use Plan (Existing) 4. Land Use Plan (Proposed) 5. Proposed Preliminary Plat 6. Proposed Grading Plan 7. Proposed Utility Plan 8. Proposed Landscape Plan 9. Typical Unit Landscape Plan 10. Proposed Building Elevations 11. Applicant's Plan Amendment Statement 12. Applicant's PUD Statement 13. Proposed Preliminary Plat (2000) 14. Site Photos 15. Letter from Pat Kinney date-stamped May 8, 2002 16. Comments from Chds Cavett 17. Watershed Distdct Comments 18. Land Use Plan Change Resolution (M-1 to R-2) 19. Rezoning Resolution (M-1 to R-2) 20. Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development (PUD) Resolution 21. Project Plans (separate attachments) 14 Attachment 1 AV~. AW[. ~ AV~_ PR~C[AVF.. A't~-.. NORTH SAINT PAUL 1'4 1700' 3400' 2~ SCALE NORTH SAINT PAUL [ LOCATION MAP 15 Attachment 2 mmmmmmm 7.~ { ~o ,' IRIE ,.wi-, 4, dSS '-* 133.~0 i ~ 07) COPE AVENUE j[ AVE ,, -- . ,_ ~-o-~,,..,,-f-_..,,.,-, --, ~.o ;_ ,oo ~' ~" I' ~ "'.'"' -I~ ~"'~f ~.,e ~ "-vi~-~'~-'/ ..... i .... : ..... '"/ ..... """= o ~ ~ ~+~:~'q {z_ -' - '.F;- -~,~. ';~ '.-) ~ t';:.,' -, ~ R1 = SINGLE DWELLINGS ' ~,m_ ~--~(:~.~4~ ~: '~'?~"""~t~:~' R2 = SINGLE AND DOUBLE DWELLINGSm~ ! ~, ~'-~ ~' Bc = BUS~.ESS COMMERCIAL IE.~ ~ ~') $ E, ~_~ ~.~,,_~_ .=~.~./.. M1 = LIGHT MANUFACTURING ~ _U I[' -- ".. ~,e'- '- " ~.o, :'?? I~ '"'" ""' "~'~'-'~-- ".c~). 16 Attachment 3 ~jc)r y 36 erchan lC R-3( ,rincipal M-1 I ".'.' C6unt' 1 CT"] - ~rest I ,~ I nrteri&l i KEY Ri = SINGLE DWELLINGS R2 = SINGLE AND DOUBLE DWELLINGS R3(M) = MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL R3(H) = HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL LBC = LIMITED BUSINESS COMMERCIAL Mi = LIGHT MANUFACTURING W = WATER LAND USE MAP (EXISTING) 17 '~ ; R-3(H) m'ch&n y 36 -. ~rincipal Attachment 4 E R2 I ".?' O6unl, arterla! - .Fre'st ] KEY 1 = SINGLE DWELLINGS R2 = SINGLE AND DOUBLE DWELLINGS R3(M) = MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL R3(H) = HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL LBC = LIMITED BUSINESS COMMERCIAL M1 = LIGHT MANUFACTURING W = WATER Attachment 5 I HIGHWAY 3 CASTLE AVENUE GRAPHIC SCALE (~) I I I I I I I I I I I L l L___ Attachment ~R~RIC $C ALI~ ALLEY -- ---r .... ,-- .--~ I ! '~ I ' '.- -~ I ~, ',. '.. / ':1 '~'~ ' "'I ,- ' J Attachment 7 HIGHWAY 36 CASTLE AVENUE -'---~---~..:~, J~ '~ ~5 H-- , 1 I I -~ -- ,. _ ~ - , .... ~ ,.~~ ~.. , , , I 7 ~ 6 ~ s I 4 ~~ IT ~ ALLEY _~_ _ _ ~ .... ~ ..... r , ~- - ~, ~.~.- m~ ~~~' ' ~,~ c o Attachment 8 PROPOSED LANDSCAPE PLAN Attachment 9 .............. Attachment l0 m=== PROPOSED BUILDING ELEVATIONS 24 Attachment 11 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION What is the intended use of the property should the City approve the request to change the land use classification of this site from M-1 (light commercial & manufacturing) to R3-M (medium density residential)? The intended use of the subject property, if a change to a residential land use classification is approved, is to construct a town home community of 9 dwelling units consisting of 4 twins and 1 individual structure. The units would be large single level units with basements and attached two car garages. Each homeowner would own their individual unit and only a small strip of land around its perimeter. The remainder of the land, including all of the roads and drainage areas, would be owned and maintained by an owners association. The intended target consumers for these units are people who desire independent living with very little outside maintenance in a location that is close to varied retail services and easily accessible to major public transportation systems such as freeways and bus routes. Why should the City approve the request to change the land use classification of this site from M-1 (light commercial & manufacturing) to R3-M (medium density residential).9 The primary reason why the City should approve a change to a residential land use for the subject property is 'because the land surrounding the site is already being used for residential purposes. Minimizing conflicts between land uses and providing for orderly development are two goals of the City's Comprehensive Plan. Changing the land use designation to provide for a residential use would be in agreement with these goals. In addition, the Comprehensive Plan calls for the provision of a variety of housing types for all residents including apartments, town houses, manufactured homes, and single-family housing. While the intended use of this site is not the exact same residential use as the adjoining property, a transition from one residential use to another residential use would have a much smaller economic and social impact on existing properties than developing the site in accordance with the current land use designation which allows for offices, clinics, day care centers, retail businesses, warehousing, and light manufacturing. APR 2 2002 RECEIVED 25 Attachment 12 P.U.D. APPLICATION What is the intended use of the property should the City approve this P.U.D.? See Comprehensive Plan amendment application. Why should the City approve the request for this P.U.D.? · Developing this site in accordance with the PUD plan would provide a similar land use to adjoining properties. It would not negatively affect the existing or planned character of the surrounding area. Approving this PUD would allow for the construction of a type of housing that the City's Comprehensive Plan strives to provide. Also, this PUD is in line with the initiatives of the Metropolitan Council encouraging urban in-fill housing developments. · The unit density of 4.3 units per acre for the site would be well below the maximum city code of 7.3 units per acre for medium density residential development. Due to the fact that each homeowner will own their individual unit and only a small strip of land around its perimeter, the actual square footage of each individual lot does not meet the city square footage code requirements for single and double dwellings. No current zoning designation exists in Maplewood for the classification of similar developments where an owners association owns and maintains all of the common areas. It is for this reason that the development is being proposed as a PUD. The city should approve this request because the deviation from city code is not being used to increase unit density of the site above acceptable standards nor is the deviation required for financial reasons. Grading of the site in accordance with the PUD development plans will minimally affect adjoining properties. In fact, storm water runoff to most surrounding properties will actually be reduced and all storm water will be filtered utilizing an existing wetland area before it enters the city's storm sewer system. The Ramsey County Watershed District has already approved the preliminary plans. This PUD would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services. The road servicing the town home units would actually be owned and maintained by an owners association - not the City of Maplewood. In addition, all of the extensions of the utility service infrastructure necessary for the construction of the project will be paid for by the developer, including the provision of utility service for future development on property to the east of this site. The increased traffic on Castle Avenue as a result of constructing this PUD would be only minimal and would not create traffic congestion. The street is now primarily used by the existing homes in the area. Therefore, the existence of this PUD would meet the goal in the City's Comprehensive Plan of having similar uses fronting on the same street. APR 2 2002 RECEIVED 26 Attachment 13 GRAPHIC SCALE / Attachment 14 28 30 Attachment 15 Mr. Ken Roberts City of Maplewood 651-770-4560 Mr. KenRobe~s, I met recently with Mike Ackerman and discussed the planning for his Town Home site, Dearborn Meadows, behind two properties I currently own and 1949 and 1953 Cope. I am pleased with the plan and especially the rezoning from commercial to residential housing. I walked the site and am in agreement with the site plan and I do prefer the layout how it's currently designed, I think it compliments my properties in it's present state. Thanks, Patrick J. Kinney 1949 and 1953 Cope Ave. 651-773-2569 31 MAY 0 2002 Attachment 16 Engineering Review PROJECT: PROJECT NO: CHECKED BY: Date: DEARBORN MEADOWS 00-02 Chris Cavett and Erin Schacht, Maplewood Engineering Department May 14, 2002 DRAINAGE SUMMARY There have been some dreinage concerns expressed from residents in the area about this development. We have included a dreinage map of the area. The existing conditions allow 9.5 acres of runoff to flow to the west. The proposed development will intercept and redirect 5.7 acres of that runoff into the proposed storm sewer and pond. The applicant is proposing to enhance and enlarge the existing wetland to provide storm water treatment and detention. The watershed distdct as approved this proposal. The owner of the property at 1937 Cope Avenue has expressed concerns about this development. The development as now proposed would have virtually no impact on the property at 1937 Cope Avenue. There currently is 1.1 acres of area that drain to a Iow point at 1937 Cope Avenue. The proposed development will not contribute any additional runoff to that property. However, there are several design elements that the developer can include to reduce what impact there is. These include: Part of the 1.1 acres that does drain to 1937 Cope Avenue is included in the proposed development and is shaded on the drainage map. It is recommended that the applicant construct drainage swales and a rain garden with storm sewer near the southwest comer of the development to capture that runoff that would normally flow south. · The city engineer proposes to have an independent engineering consultant evaluate the conditions that are of concern to the residents in that area. There is nothing as part of this proposal that should be considered to contribute to the problems experienced in this area. In fact, for most properties directly west of the site, there should be an improvement to the existing condition. This is because this development will intercept and control 5.7 acres of tributary drainage area. An independent review should identify any isolated drainage issues and should identify ways to mitigate any such problems. PRELIMINARY UTILITY PLAN REVIEW 1) Reverse the location of the sanitary sewer main and the storm sewer to provide easier access for future connection to sanitary sewer. 2) Provide plans and profiles for all utilities. 3) Add a manhole structure with open grate near flared end section to provide a redundant outlet and emergency outlet for high water in pond. 4) Realign the storm sewer under the street past Unit 9. 5) Stub the storm sewer to the east property line for future connection. 6) Verify sanitary sewer depth for future connection. 32 GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN 1) Add swales on the west and east sides of the site and add a rainwater garden at the southwest comer of the site. These are to capture any runoff that would flow off the property to the southwest. Provide an overflow pipe from the rainwater garden to the proposed storm sewer. 2) Provide a detail of the garden basin, including a detailed landscaping plan. Rock Infiltration Sumps can be installed below the bottom of the basin to facilitate infiltration. Provide a detail in the plan. Rock infiltration sumps should 1%" clean clear rock wrapped in type 5 geotextile filter fabric, (felt). The plans shall show the top of the rock infiltration sump being placed about 12 inches below the finished bottom of the basin. Provide details and a description on the plan of how the contractor will prepare the basin. 3) A landscape plan for the rainwater garden is required as part of final plan approval. More information on bioretention basins/rainwater gardens can be found on the Metropolitan Council web site and viewed in their BMP Manual at: http://www, metrocouncil.or,q/environment/Watershed/bmp/manual, htm MISC: 1) All mainline storm, sanitary and water systems on this development will be required to be public utilities, as these utilities are planned to provide to service to other properties. 2) Final plans shall meet the requirements of the Maplewood Engineering Standards. 3) The city engineer will require plans and profiles for all utilities. 4) The developer must sign a developer's agreement before the city will approve a final plat. 5) The applicant shall provide easements for all public utilities as well as a drainage and utility easement over the ponding area. 33 Ramsey-Washington Metro District Attachment 17 1902 East County Road B Maplewood, MN 55109 (651)704-2089 fax: (651)704-2092 emaih office@rwmwd.org 5/8/02 Ken Roberts City of Maplewood 1830 County Road B East Maplewood, MN 55109 HAY ! I) 2002 RECEIVED Dear Mr. Roberts, This letter is in response to your request for a review on the Dearborn Meadows Project. The Watershed District has issued an amended permit for this project and have no comments or concerns. The amended permit gives permission to excavate the wetland on site to create a larger detention pond. Please call me if you have any questions. Sincerely, Karl Hammers District Technician 34 Attachment 18 LAND USE PLAN CHANGE RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Mike Ackerman and Maplewood city staff proposed a change to the city's land use plan from M-1 (light manufacturing) to R-2 (single and double dwellings). WHEREAS, this change applies to: 1. Lots 16 and 17, Block 6, Lots 27, 28, 29 and the east half of Lot 26, Block 7, Lots 1, 2, and 3, Block 10, Lots 14 and 15, Block 11, all in Dearborn Park, together with adjacent alleys and streets, in Section 11, Township 29, Range 22, Ramsey County, Minnesota. (The property to be known as Lots 1-10 of the proposed Dearborn Meadow) 2. Lots 18 through 22, Block 6, Lots 9 through 13, Block 11, all in Dearborn Park, together with adjacent alleys and streets, in Section 11, Township 29, Range 22, Ramsey County, MN. 3. Lot 4 and the east half of Lot 5, Block 7, all in Dearbom Park, in Section 11, Township 29, Range 22, Ramsey County, Minnesota. WHEREAS, the history of this change is as follows: 1. On May 20, 2002, the planning commission held a public headng. 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 heating a chance to speak and present wdtten statements. The planning commission recommended that the city council ~ the plan amendment. 2. On ,2002, the city council discussed the proposed land use plan change. 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 change for the following reasons: 1. It would be consistent with the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan. 2. This area would eliminate the planned commercial area that would have been between two residential areas. 3. This site is proper for and consistent with the city's policies for medium-density residential use. This includes: a. Creating a transitional land use between the existing Iow-density residential and commercial land uses. b. It is on a collector street and is near an artedal street. c. Minimizing any adverse effects on surrounding properties because there would be no traffic from this development on existing residential streets. 4. It would be consistent with the proposed zoning and land uses. The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on ,2002. 35 Attachment 19 RESOLUTION' ZONING MAP CHANGE WHEREAS, Mike Ackerman proposed a change to the zoning map from M-1 (light manufacturing) to R-2 (single and double dwellings). WHEREAS, Maplewood city staff proposed a change to the zoning map from M-1 (light manufacturing) to R-2 (single and double dwellings) for two undeveloped parcels adjacent to the proposed development. WHEREAS, these changes apply to the undeveloped property on the south side of Castle Avenue, north of Cope Avenue. WHEREAS, the legal description of these properties are: Lots 16 and 17, Block 6, Lots 27, 28, 29 and the east half of Lot 26, Block 7, Lots 1, 2, and 3, Block 10, Lots 14 and 15, Block 11, all in Dearborn Park, together with adjacent alleys and streets, in Section 11, Township 29, Range 22, Ramsey County, Minnesota. (The property to be known as Dearborn Meadow) Lots 18 through 22, Block 6, Lots 9 through 13, Block 11, all in Dearborn Park, together with adjacent alleys and streets, in Section 11, Township 29, Range 22, Ramsey County. Lot 4 and the east half of Lot 5, Block 7, all in Dearborn Park, in Section 11, Township 29, Range 22, Ramsey County, Minnesota. WHEREAS, the history of this change is as follows: 1. On May 20, 2002, the planning commission recommended that the city council change. this 2. On ,2002, the city council held a public hearing. The city staff published a notice in the Maplewood Review and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The council gave everyone at the headng an opportunity to speak and present written statements. The council also considered reports and recommendations from the city staff and planning commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above-described change in the zoning map for the following reasons: The proposed change is consistent with the spirit, purpose and intent of the zoning code. The proposed change will not substantially injure or detract from the use of neighboring property or from the character of the neighborhood, and that the use of the property adjacent to the area included in the proposed change or plan is adequately safeguarded. The proposed change will serve the best interests and conveniences of the community, where applicable, and the public welfare. The proposed change would have no negative effect upon the logical, efficient, and economical extension of public services and facilities, such as public water, sewers, police and fire protection and schools. 36 5. The owner plans to develop this property for single and double dwellings. The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on ,2002. 37 Attachment 20 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Mr. Mike Ackerman, representing Ackerman Construction Company, applied for a conditional use permit (CUP) for the Dearborn Meadow residential planned unit development (PUD). WHEREAS, this permit applies to the Dearborn Meadow development plan the city received on April 24, 2002. The legal description is: Lots 16 and 17, Block 6, Lots 27, 28, 29 and the east half of Lot 26, Block 7, Lots 1, 2, and 3, Block 10, Lots 14 and 15, Block 11, all in Dearborn Park, together with adjacent alleys and streets, in Section 11, Township 29, Range 22, Ramsey County, Minnesota. (The property to be known as Lots 1-9 of the proposed Dearborn Meadow) WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: On May 20, 2002, the planning commission recommended that the city council approve this permit. On June ,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: 1. The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be in conformity with the city's comprehensive plan and code of ordinances. 2. The use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area. 3. The use would not depreciate property values. The use would not involve any activity, process, materials, equipment or methods of operation that would be dangerous, hazardous, detrimental, disturbing or cause a nuisance to any person or property, because of excessive noise, glare, smoke, dust, odor, fumes, water or air pollution, drainage, water run-off, vibration, general unsightliness, electrical interference or other nuisances. 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. 7. The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services. 8. The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and scenic features into the development design. 38 9, The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. All construction shall follow the plans approved by the city. The city council may approve major changes to the plans. The Director of Community Development may approve minor changes to the plans. Such changes shall include: a. Revising the grading and site plans to show: (1) The developer minimizing the loss or removal of natural vegetation. (2) All driveways at least 20 feet wide. If the developer wants to have parking on one side of the main drive (Castle Place), then it must be at least 28 feet wide. (3) All parking stalls with a width of at least 9.5 feet and a length of at least 18 feet. 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. 3. Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall meet all the conditions and changes noted in the engineer's memo dated May 14, 2002. 4. The approved setbacks for the principal structures in the Dearborn Meadow PUD shall be: a. Front-yard setback (from a public street or a private driveway): minimum - 30 feet, maximum - 35 feet b. Front-yard setback (public side street): minimum - 30 feet, maximum - 35 feet c. Rear-yard setback: 30 feet from any adjacent residential property line d. Side-yard setback (town houses): minimum - 20 feet from a property line and 20 feet minimum between buildings. 5. 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. 6. The city council shall review this permit in one year. The Maplewood City Council approved this resolution on 2002. 39 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: DATE: MEMORANDUM City Manager Tom Ekstrand, Assistant Community Development Director S. P. Richards Building Addition -- Design Review and Parking Waiver 2416 Maplewood Ddve May 22, 2002 INTRODUCTION Proposal The S. P. Richards Company is proposing to build a 47,440-square-foot, two-story addition onto their building at 2416 Maplewood Ddve. The proposed addition would have an extedor of fiat concrete block with fluted-block accents like the existing building. The only difference between the addition and the existing building is there would not be any windows in the addition. Refer to the maps starting on page five and the enclosed plans. The applicant would use the proposed addition for warehousing. The city allows warehousing as a permitted use in the M1 (light manufacturing) distdct (the zoning for this location). Requests 1. The applicant is requesting, that the community design review board approve the 'site, architectural and landscape plans. 2. Staff is requesting that the city council approve a parking waiver. The 20 proposed parking spaces are not needed. BACKGROUND March 21, 1974: The city council approved the plans for the existing building. April 14, 1974: The CDRB approved the landscape plan. July 17, 1975: The CDRB approved a proposal for a new loading bay. DISCUSSION Building Design The proposed addition would match the existing building in design and materials with two exceptions--there would be no windows and no fluted-block accents (which are between the windows). To enhance the design of the proposed addition, staff suggests that the applicant include the same window and block accents on the addition that are on the existing building. The builder should provide these changes on the south elevation. In addition to windows and block work, staff suggests that the applicant revise the landscape plan to increase the amount of landscaping in front to "soften" or screen this large building fa(~ade. The CDRB recently approved a landscape plan for Menard's that used plantings to break up a large concrete elevation on their new addition. Parking Waiver The applicant is proposing to install 20 new parking spaces with this addition (see the plans on pages 8-10). There would then be a total of 121 spaces on site, which would meet code requirements. Upon inspection, staff found that S. P. Richards has a very small parking demand. In fact, them are about 75 parking spaces on the south side of the building that the business does not currently use. Staff is recommending that the city council grant a parking waiver so that the city would not require the owner to install any additional parking with the proposed addition. The proposed parking spaces would eliminate green space and be an unnecessary expense. The applicant should revise the proposed site plan to show these 20 spaces as "proof of parking." The owner should not install these spaces unless there is a need for them in the future. Lot Combination City staff recently approved a lot division for the property to the east of this site. This split will create the property for the proposed expansion area from the larger lot to the east. However, the owner of the property to the east has not yet recorded the deed to create the new legal description for the new lot. The CDRB should require that the city not issue a building permit until the owner combines the existing property and the lot for the proposed expansion into one property for tax and identification purposes. Landscaping In addition to the above comments about enhancing the landscaping south of the building, the applicant should restore the damaged areas on the site. As an example, trucks have damaged the grass edge on the north side of the site. To correct this damage, the owner should widen the pavement as needed (while maintaining a five-foot minimum setback) to better accommodate truck maneuvering. In addition, the owner should install concrete curbing along the north edge of this parking ama to meet current code requirements. The owner also should restore the grass and build a retaining wall (if needed due to grades) behind the new curb. Engineering Comments Chris Cavett, the Maplewood Assistant City Engineer, reviewed the applicant's proposal. Mr. Cavett's comments are on pages 12 and 13 and include suggestions for grading, drainage and erosion-control improvements. The applicant should show these changes on the final project plans. He also noted several issues with the current site including the condition of the pavement and the existing drainage facilities. Police Comments No comment or concern. Fire Marshal Comments 1. The proposed addition must be equipped with proper fire protection. 2. The access road around the addition must be at least 20 feet wide. TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: DATE: MEMORANDUM City Manager Tom Ekstrand, Assistant Community Development Director S. P. Richards Building Addition m Design Review and Parking Waiver 2416 Maplewood Drive May 22, 2002 INTRODUCTION Proposal The S. P. Richards Company is proposing to build a 47,440-square-foot, two-story addition onto their building at 2416 Maplewood Ddve. The proposed addition would have an exterior of flat concrete block with fluted-block accents like the existing building. The only difference between the addition and the existing building is there would not be any windows in the addition. Refer to the maps starting on page five and the enclosed plans. The applicant would use the proposed addition for warehousing. The city allows warehousing as a permitted use in the M1 (light manufacturing) district (the zoning for this location). Requests 1. The applicant is requesting, that the community design review board approve the site, architectural and landscape plans. 2. Staff is requesting that the city council approve a parking waiver. The 20 proposed parking spaces are not needed. BACKGROUND March 21, 1974: The city council approved the plans for the existing building. April 14, 1974: The CDRB approved the landscape plan. July 17, 1975: The CDRB approved a proposal for a new loading bay. DISCUSSION Building Design The proposed addition would match the existing building in design and materials with two exceptions--there would be no windows and no fluted-block accents (which are between the windows). To enhance the design of the proposed addition, staff suggests that the applicant include the same window and block accents on the addition that are on the existing building. The builder should provide these changes on the south elevation. In addition to windows and block work, staff suggests that the applicant revise the landscape plan to increase the amount of landscaping in front to "soften" or screen this large building facade. The CDRB recently approved a landscape plan for Menard's that used plantings to break up a large concrete elevation on their new addition. Building Official Comments 1. The building must have an automatic sprinklering system. 2. There must be at least 60 feet of open space around the building. 3. The design of storage racks must be approved. 4. In general, meet all building code requirements. Current Conditions Staff noted the following site and building maintenance problems while reviewing this proposal: 1. The paint on the existing building is peeling. 2. Much of the parking lot needs replacement and restdping. 3. There are dead and overgrown trees. 4. There are parking lot lights needing repair or replacement. 5. There are heaved sidewalk sections on the south side of the building. 6. The owner could remove the unused tank racks on the south side of the building. 7. Trucks have damaged the grass north of the parking lot. RECOMMENDATION Approve the plans date-stamped April 29, 2002 for the proposed S.P. Richards building addition at 2416 Maplewood Drive. Approval is subject to the applicant doing the following: 1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. 2. Before getting a building permit, the applicant shall submit the following to staff for approval: a. A revised grading, drainage and erosion-control plan addressing the issues in the memo from Mr. Cavett. b. A revised landscape plan showing additional trees on the south side of the building addition directly in front of the building and in the front lawn area. c. A revised south elevation for the addition that shows windows and fluted-block detailing that match the existing building. d. Evidence that the owner has recorded the deeds with Ramsey County that combine the existing lot and the expansion area into one property for tax and identification purposes. e. A revised site plan showing the 20 proposed parking stalls as "proof of parking." 3. Before obtaining a certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall do the following: a. Complete all required landscaping and site improvements for the proposed addition. b. Complete the following on the existing site: (1) Repaint the existing building so it matches the addition. 3 (2) Reconstruct the existing parking lot and restripe to meet current code standards. (3) Replace dead landscaping. (4) Repair or replace damaged parking lot lights. (5) Replace heaved sidewalk sections. (6) Remove the unused tank racks south of the building. Restore this area with landscaping. (7) Widen the parking lot north of the building for truck maneuvering while maintaining a five-foot minimum setback. The owner shall install a concrete curb along this edge to meet the current code standards for parking lots. (8) Restore the grass along the north edge of the parking lot and build a retaining wall if the grades dictate. Provide a trash enclosure with gates for any outdoor trash containers. Install continuous concrete curbing along all parking lot and driveway edges. e. Install in-ground lawn irrigation for the addition site. If the contractor has completed any required work, the city may allow temporary occupancy if: a. The city determines that the work is not essential to the public health, safety or welfare. b. The city receives a cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit for the required work. The amount shall be 150 percent of the cost of the unfinished work. Any unfinished landscaping shall be completed by June 1 if the building is occupied in the fall or winter or within six weeks if the building is occupied in the spring or summer. p: sec9\SPRichards memo 5-21.doc Attachments 1. Location Map 2. Property Line/Zoning Map 3. Site Plan (Existing) 4. Site Plan (Proposed) 5. Proposed Grading Plan 6. Proposed Landscape Plan 7. Building Elevations 8. Chds Cavett's Comments dated May 22, 2002 9. Plans date-stamped April 29, 2002 (separate attachment) Building Official Comments 1. The building must have an automatic sprinklering system. 2. There must be at least 60 feet of open space around the building. 3. The design of storage racks must be approved. 4. In general, meet all building code requirements. Current Conditions Staff noted the following site and building maintenance problems while reviewing this proposal: 1. The paint on the existing building is peeling. 2. Much of the parking lot needs replacement and restriping. 3. There are dead and overgrown trees. 4. There are parking lot lights needing repair or replacement. 5. There are heaved sidewalk sections on the south side of the building. 6. The owner could remove the unused tank racks on the south side of the building. 7. Trucks have damaged the grass north of the parking lot. RECOMMENDATION Approve the plans date-stamped April 29, 2002 for the proposed S.P. Richards building addition at 2416 Maplewood Drive. Approval is subject to the applicant doing the following: 1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. 2. Before getting a building permit, the applicant shall submit the following to staff for approval: a. A revised grading, drainage and erosion-control plan addressing the issues in the memo from Mr. Cavett. b. A revised landscape plan showing additional trees on the south side of the building addition directly in front of the building and in the front lawn area. c. A revised south elevation for the addition that shows windows and fluted-block detailing that match the existing building. d. Evidence that the owner has recorded the deeds with Ramsey County that combine the existing lot and the expansion area into one property for tax and identification purposes. e. A revised site plan showing the 20 proposed parking stalls as "proof of parking." 3. Before obtaining a certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall do the following: a. Complete all required landscaping and site improvements for the proposed addition. b. Complete the following on the existing site: (1) Repaint the existing building so it matches the addition. Gervais Lake Attachment 1 ,ti ~: ~U,,,,,,,,- COUNTRYVlEW CIR. COUNTY AVE. BELMONT LOCATION MAP Attachment 2441 SITE 2464 (~ oo~) PROPOSED 2416 q----- __ __ ., · ~.i' 16 '- CO GERVAIS AVENUE ~o~' ~ ~- ~0-~9~ FL/ND ,SE'~V/CE /NC. 22 (si 1140 t &o LOB e,t 1167 HIGHWAY 36 PROPERTY LINE / ZONING MAP Lake PLAZA C/R ~LYAPADO DR BEL~GREb'T D~ DE4JJ~LE OR" ~4E'R/DtAN DR CC). RD. B2 Attachment 1 LYDIA ~ 2. COUNTRYVIEW CIR. 5. DULUTH CT. COU~ lIST. BLVL ~.VE. AVE. AVE. AVE. I BELMONT SKILL: II LOCATION MAP "II II Il II t{ Attachment Attachment 4 PARKING COUNTS w~ous£°rnc£~r~. (2.~oo s.r.) ~ ~. GERVAIS A VENUE ~1 SITE NOTES DATA LOT AREA BUILDING COVERAGE 62.400 lo9.84o $.F. (38,7~ OF TOTAL sn~ GREEN SPACE SITE PLAN (PROPOSED) 8 Attachment.3 -- ,~m~m,~m,m, 8.P I~CHARD~ CO. SITE PLAN (EXISTING) 7 Attachment 5 A VENUE Attachment 6 ~ GERVAIS A VENUE Attachment 5 , ] , GERVAI$ VENUE ~,.~ :~'~ -'- ~"~' ) ~ ~8'P' RICHARDS /[ WAREHOUSEuA~.~ooo,ADDITIONm ~ ~ ~ (~) ~ ~ ~ ~OR~ ~B2 ~Y P~N S.U.I. PR~E~ NO. 65757-001 SHE~ 2 OF 5 SHE~ PROPOSED GRADING PLAN Attachment 7 11 Attachment 8 Engineering Plan Review PROJECT: PROJECT NO: CHECKED BY: Date: S.P. RICHARDS, WAREHOUSE ADDITION Erin Schacht and Chris Cavett, Maplewood Engineering Department May 22, 2002 S.P. Richards is proposing to expand their warehouse and parking lot at the northeast intersection of Highway 61 and Gervais Avenue. They are proposing an additional drive connecting to Gervais Avenue. To compensate for the additional runoff, due to more impervious surface area, they have proposed a dry pond on the east side of the site. The pond would detain on-site runoff and slowly release the flow into the existing storm sewer on Gervais Avenue. Some storm water treatment is provided by this system as proposed and can be enhanced by encouraging infiltration methods. Flow from the storm sewer in Gervais Avenue enters the regional system and an existing wetland, north of Gervais Avenue, (Gerten Pond). The following changes are recommended: SHEET 2 - Grading, Drainage & Erosion Control Utility Plan 1) Grade between CB-3 and FES 2 is 0.11%. Revise CB-3 invert elevation to allow for more grade on pipe. 2) "Connect to existing" invert elevation is higher than FES 3 invert elevation. Revise invert elevation to allow for positive flow. 3) Add (TYP.) to hay bale note so it is clear that all CB's will be protected. 4) Design the "pond" as a bioretention basin, (rainwater garden). The applicant needs to' make several changes to the plans to accomplish this. These include identifying the methods to enhance infiltration and showing an appropriate landscape plan. Rock Infiltration Sumps can be installed below the bottom of the basin to facilitate infiltration. Provide a detail in the plan. Rock infiltration sumps should 1 ½" clean clear rock wrapped in type 5 geotextile filter fabric, (felt). The top of the rock infiltration sump should be placed about 12-inches below finished bottom of the basin. Provide details and a description on the plan of how the contractor will prepare the basin. A landscape plan and a native turf establishment plan for the bioretention basins/rainwater gardens shall be required as part of final plan approval. More information on bioretention basins can be found on the metrocouncil web site and viewed in their BMP Manual: http://www.metrocouncil.org/environment/Watershed/bmp/manual.htm 12 Attachment 7 11 SHEET 3 - Preliminary Landscape Plan 1) The seed type needs to be specified 2) Provide additional landscaping in the pond area and on the slopes of dry pond. Utilize plants that can withstand temporary submersion. Miscellaneous - Related to the existing building and site 1) 'Much of the existing parking lot is well beyond any basic repair, especially the north loading area. The existing storm sewer from the parking lot tis unacceptable by current standards. The owner should completely reconstruct the storm sewer when they do something with the existing parking lot. Submit a plan to address the upgrades to and the management of storm water from the existing parking lot. 2) The owner should completely reconstruct the north parking and loading area. That includes the removal of the existing pavement and base material, placement of new aggregate and pavement to meet strength demands for large tracks and a warehouse loading area. In addition, the plans must prOperly address the drainage from this area. This shall include the use of best management practices (BMP's) to treat storm water. 3) The south parking lot is in poor condition and it appears that it is under utilized. The owner and the city should consider actually removing some of that parking area and placing turf in the area. The city would have to approve a variance (a parking reduction authorization) to reduce the amount of parking. The owner could show this area as proof-of-parking and have it available for more parking if the use of site ever changed. 4) In addition to improvements to the inlet systems, the plans should use some form of best management practices (BMP's) to treat storm water. 13 SHEET 3 - Preliminary Landscape Plan 1) The seed type needs to be specified 2) Provide additional landscaping in the pond area and on the slopes of dry pond. Utilize plants that can withstand temporary submersion. Miscellaneous - Related to the existing building and site 1) Much of the existing parking lot is well beyond any basic repair, especially the north loading area. The existing storm sewer from the parking lot is unacceptable by current standards. The owner should completely reconstruct the storm sewer when they do something with the existing parking lot. Submit a plan to address the upgrades to and the management of storm water from the existing parking lot. 2) The owner should completely reconstruct the north parking and loading area. That includes the removal of the existing pavement and base material, placement of new aggregate and pavement to meet strength demands for large trucks and a warehouse loading area. In addition, the plans must properly address the drainage from this area. This shall include the use of best management practices (BMP' s) to treat storm water. 3) The south parking lot is in poor condition and it appears that it is under utilized. The owner and the city should consider actually removing some of that parking area and placing turf in the area. The city would have to approve a variance (a parking reduction authorization) to reduce the amount of parking. The owner could show this area as proof-of-parking and have it available for more parking if the use of site ever changed. 4) In addition to improvements to the inlet systems, the plans should use some form of best management practices (BMP' s) to treat storm water. 13 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: LOCATION: DATE: City Manager Shann Finwall, Associate Planner Tillges Medical Office Building - Vacation of Sewer Easement and Design Review Robert Tillges South of Beam Avenue and East of Hazelwood Street May 22, 2002 INTRODUCTION Project Description Robert Tillges is proposing to develop a 3.57-acre lot located south of Beam Avenue and east of Hazelwood Street. The proposal includes two phases of development. The first phase is a 23,094 square foot office building that will house Mr. Tillges' existing prosthetics and orthotics practice currently located at 1983 Sloan Place, Maplewood, as well as other medical-type tenants. The second phase, to be constructed in the future, is an 11,778 square foot office building that will house medical-type tenants as well. The property is zoned Business Commercial (Modified). Refer to maps on pages 13 through 20. Requests To build this development, the applicant is requesting that the city approve the following: 1. The vacation of an unused sewer easement (see the map on page 16). 2. A comprehensive sign plan for a multi-tenant building with five or more tenants. 3. Design review (site plan approval of overall development and architectural, landscaping, and lighting approval for the Phase I building). BACKGROUND On October 31, 1997, the city administratively approved a lot split to subdivide a 6.09-acre parcel into two lots. The subdivision created the Maplewood Cancer Center lot (2.53 acres), 1580 Beam Avenue East, and the Tillges property (3.57 acres). On January 2, 2002, the Ramsey/Washington Metro Watershed District approved the Tillges Medical Office Building proposal. On April 8, 2002, the city council approved the Markham Pond outlet public improvements for utility and storm sewer. The storm sewer improvement will include the construction of a culvert within the Tillges property in order to channel storm water through an existing drainage waterway. On May 20, 2002, the planning commission approved the vacation of an unused sewer easement located along the south property line of the site. DISCUSSION Sewer Easement Vacation As part of approving the proposed plans, the city needs to vacate a 10-foot wide, unused sewer easement. The easement runs along the south property line of the site (see the map on page 16.) The easement has never been used or developed for its original purposes and is not required for this development. Because the proposed Phase I building will be constructed 5 feet from the south property line, which is 5 feet into the existing easement, the vacation of the sewer easement is required. Wetland and Waterway Issues Watershed District Approval There is a waterway that runs through the middle of the property. The Ramsey/Washington Metro Watershed District states that the waterway was historically called Kohlman Creek that ran between the Hazelwood wetlands to Markham Pond. The portion of the creek that runs through the applicant's property was ditched and altered with riprap years ago to ensure water discharge into the detention pond (Markham Pond). It also has eroding banks, a concentrated flow of water, and experiences a high degree of turbulence. For these reasons, the watershed district states that the portion of the waterway that runs through the applicant's property has little or no ecological value. However, the extension of the waterway on the other side of Hazelwood Street within the Kohlman Creek Neighborhood Preserve, is a viable stream and should not be altered. A watershed permit has been issued for the project that includes approval of a 215-foot-long underground culvert to be constructed within the site to accommodate the applicant's proposed parking lot and driveway. The watershed district requires that the pipe be sized to accommodate the 100-year storm event (see attached watershed letter on page 21). Wet/and Ordinance Stream: The city's wetland ordinance requires a 50-foot minimum setback from a stream. The ordinance defines a stream as follows: "Those areas where surface waters produce a defined channel or bed. A defined channel or bed is land that clearly contains the constant passage of water under normal summer conditions. This definition shall not include drainage swales or ditches that channel intermittent stormwater runoff." During the May 20, 2002, planning commission meeting Commissioner Rossbach inquired about the watershed district's classification of the waterway. He stated that because the waterway has water in it year round, and not intermittently, it may actually require the 50-foot wetland buffer. City staff depends on the expert opinion of the watershed district to accurately classify a waterway. Because the watershed district classified this waterway as a manmade ditch, a "stream" buffer was not required with staff's review. The waterway is legally classified as County Ditch No. 18. Markham Pond also has a manmade control structure that restricts flow to Tillges Medical Office Building 2 May 22, 2002 the waterway in dry weather conditions, making the waterway flow intermittently. Staff concludes these facts further support the waterway as a manmade drainage ditch. If the watershed district's classification and staff's interpretation of the waterway is challenged, however, it should be noted that the city's wetland ordinance further states that the city council may waive the buffer requirements for the construction of public and semipublic utilities or trails, whether built by a public agency or private developer. Wetland: Markham Pond is located to the south of the site, within Hazelwood Park. The watershed district has classified Markham Pond as a Class 4 wetland. The city's wetland ordinance requires a 20-foot minimum setback from this class of wetland, with an additional 10- foot setback for building foundations. The proposed Phase I building meets this setback requirement and will come within 33 feet of the wetland. Land Acquisitions City Property: There is a separate 50-foot by 75-foot piece of land located on the southwest corner of the applicant's property. This land is owned by the City of Maplewood and was the site of an old pump station. The applicant has negotiated the purchase of this land from the city to be combined with his property. Right-of-Way: The city proposes to upgrade Hazelwood Avenue in 2003 to include paving, curbing, and gutters. The upgrade also includes the widening of the Hazelwood Avenue and Beam Avenue intersection. Because of this, the city needs to acquire a 100-foot triangular piece of property from the applicant. The acquisition of these properties is being negotiated by the city engineer in conjunction with the expenses required under the developer's agreement. Grading and Tree Preservation Requirements The entire site must be graded in order to construct the Phase I building and parking lot. With the grading of the entire site, 18 large trees will be removed. The city's tree preservation ordinance requires that all large trees removed on a property be replaced one for one, with a maximum of ten replacement trees per acre. A large tree is defined as a tree with a diameter of 8 inches measured from a 4-foot trunk height, excluding box elders, cottonwoods, and poplars. The applicant's landscape plan for both phases shows a total of 42 replacement trees, with 23 trees replaced with Phase I and 19 trees replaced with Phase II. Phase I will be constructed this year and Phase II will be constructed in the future, as the market bears. Because the entire site is being graded, the soil on the Phase II portion of the development must be stabilized. As a condition of approval, the applicant should be required to sod or hydro seed the Phase II portion of the development within 14 days of completion of the Phase II grading. The grading plan shows a grading onto the Maplewood Professional Building's property to the north. The owners of the Maplewood Professional Building have agreed to allow this grading and are willing to sign a temporary grading easement with the applicant. In addition, the grading plan shows grading onto the city-owned property to the south, adjacent the Hazelwood Avenue right-of-way. Grading in this area will remove 11 cottonwood trees and 1 poplar tree, 9 of which Tillges Medical Office Building 3 May 22, 2002 are within the city-owned land. As stated above, cottonwood and poplars are not considered a large tree in the city's tree preservation ordinance. Nevertheless, as a condition of allowing the grading on the city-owned property, the applicant should be required to replace all 12 trees on the city property. The city engineer has approved this grading, which will also be negotiated and addressed in the required developer's agreement. Building and Site Design Parking Lot and Driveways During the subdivision of the applicant's property from the Maplewood Cancer Center property to the north, a 30-foot driveway easement was platted on the west side of the Maplewood Cancer Center's lot. This easement serves as access from Beam Avenue into the applicant's lot. The original site plan submitted for this development showed an expanded and shared parking lot with the Maplewood Cancer Center to the north. This proposal was originally turned down by the Maplewood Cancer Center. Therefore the applicant resubmitted the site plan with a 7-foot parking lot setback from the Maplewood Cancer Center's property. After reconsideration, the Maplewood Cancer Center is now willing to work with the applicant to construct a shared parking lot. Staff supports a shared parking lot for several reasons. First the Maplewood Cancer Center seems to be experiencing a shortage in parking for their existing building. Second the shared parking lot will allow for an additional access point for the Maplewood Cancer Center property from Hazelwood Avenue. Third the shared parking lot would create additional parking in front of the Tillges Medical Office Building and would be the best use of space within both developments. If the shared parking lot scenario is proposed in the future, design review by the Community Design Review Board will be necessary. Thero aro a total of 179 parking stalls proposed for the development, 107 parking stalls constructed with Phase I and 72 parking stalls constructed with Phase II. The 23,094 square foot Phase I building is broken down into office, laboratory, and storage space with 100 parking stalls required per city code. Assuming the 11,778 square foot Phase II building is all office space, 59 parking stalls are required. The Tillges' development exceeds the required number of parking stalls by 20 parking stalls. Building Placement Within the Business Commercial (Modified) zoning district, all commercial buildings must maintain a 30-foot front yard setback. However, there are no required side and rear yard setbacks, unless a commercial property is adjacent a residential lot line. In this case the side or rear yard setback adjacent the residential lot line is increased to 50 feet. The city-owned property to the south is zoned Farm Residence and is guided in the city's land use plan as Park. The city's definition of "residential lot line" is: "The lot line of any property with a residential building on it or any property that the city is planning for residential use on its land use plan." Because the city-owned property is planned as park and not residential, there is no setback requirement for the Phase I building from the south property line. Tillges Medical Office Building 4 May 22, 2002 In order to accommodate the building and parking lot on the narrow southeast leg of the property, the applicant is proposing to construct a portion of the Phase I building within 5 feet of the south property line. As stated above, the construction of the building in this location requires the vacation of an unused sewer easement. In addition, the city's building official states that the placement of the building 5 feet from the property line would require that the south wall be fire rated with no openings (no windows or doors). The south elevation of the Phase I building has a series of windows and doors. The applicant proposes this design to take advantage of the views of the pond and city-owned open land to the south. The building official has agreed to this design as long as a 15-foot no build easement is granted by the city (see site plan on page 17). The no build easement will ensure that no structure will be constructed within 20 feet of the Phase I building, negating the need for a fire rated wall with no openings. As stated above, the city-owned land is guided as Park. The city's park director does not object to granting the 15-foot no-build easement within this area. The proposed south elevation with doors and windows is attractive. Because of this and the fact that the shape of the lot creates difficulties in developing, staff recommends that the 15-foot no-build easement be granted to the applicant. The no-build easement will be negotiated and addressed in the required developer's agreement. Building Design The Phase I building is attractive with an exterior of two types of face brick, clear glass windows with prefinished aluminum frames, and a timberline shingled roof. The roofline is broken in the middle to give the appearance of two buildings, with an entryway constructed of brick pillars and a decorative metal trellis. Individual tenant entryways are constructed of EFIS (a stucco-look product), brick and sill cap pillars, with a standing seam metal roof. The east elevation includes a rock face block retaining wall up to 4 feet in height. The retaining wall is proposed to level a picnic/break area on the east side of the building. Landscaping The landscape plan is an attractive amenity to the building with a variety of plants proposed along the foundation of the building. Throughout the Phase I portion of the development, 23 trees and additional plantings are also proposed. Lighting The lighting plan shows seven pole-mounted lights within the Phase I portion of the development. The pole lights are proposed at an overall height of 27.5 feet. The maximum light illumination is shown at the property line of up to 5.1-foot candles. The lighting plan must be revised to comply with the city's lighting ordinance which requires that freestanding lights have a maximum height of 25 feet as measured from the ground grade to the top of the luminary and that the maximum illumination at the property line not exceed .4-foot candles. Tillges Medical Office Building 5 May 22, 2002 Comprehensive Sign Plan The city's sign ordinance requires all multi-tenant buildings with five or more tenants to have an approved comprehensive sign plan. The Phase I building of the development will have up to eight tenants, with additional tenants proposed in the Phase II building. Tenant wall signage proposed is 16 square feet in area and will be placed within a dormer, above the tenant windows. The wall signs will be limited to the north and east elevations. Two 20.5-foot-high freestanding signs are also proposed. One sign will be placed along Hazelwood Avenue and one along Beam Avenue. The two freestanding signs will match the exterior of the building with brick columns and a decorative metal trellis. The sign will display the name of the development and the individual tenants. The applicant should be required to revise the landscape plan to include landscaping around the base of each sign. A sign easement for the Tillges property is located along Beam Avenue, within the Maplewood Cancer Center property. This easement was a requirement of the original subdivision of the two properties. In order to ensure a 10-foot setback for the freestanding sign from the Beam Avenue right-of-way as required by the city's sign code, the easement must be increased in size. The applicant is working with the owners of the Maplewood Cancer Center to revise this easement. Other Comments Engineer: See attached memorandum on pages 22 and 23. Fire Marshal: A fire hydrant must be located within the development area. The fire access aisles must be maintained at 20 feet in width (including the shared access easement from Beam Avenue to the development). Police Department: See attached memorandum on page 24. SUMMARY The property has proven to be a difficult property to develop because of the shape and location of the lot and the waterway that runs through the lot. The applicant has overcome many of the development difficulties and is proposing an attractive development that will be an asset to the city. RECOMMENDATIONS Approve the resolution on page 25. This resolution is for the vacation of an unused sewer easement on the south side of the property. The reasons for the vacation are: ao It is in the public interest. The sewer easement is unused. The sewer easement is not needed for the proposed Tillges Medical Office Building development. Tillges Medical Office Building 6 May 22, 2002 Tillges Medical Office Building Approve Robert Tillges' comprehensive sign plan for the Tillges Medical Office Building with the following conditions: a. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a sign permit or parking lot permit for this project. b. Prior to issuance of a sign permit, the applicant will submit or complete the following: 1) A revised sign easement for the proposed freestanding sign on the Maplewood Cancer Center property at 1580 Beam Avenue. The revised easement must encompass the proposed placement of the sign with a 10-foot setback from the Beam Avenue right-of-way. 2) A revised landscape plan showing landscaping around the base of both freestanding signs to include Iow-maintenance perennial shrubs and flowering plants. 3) A revised freestanding sign plan showing the footing detail and verification of an 80-mile-per-hour wind load capacity to be approved by the building official. c. The tenant wall signs for the Phase I building (Tillges Medical Office Building) are limited to the north and west elevations only. d. The tenant wall signs are limited to 2 feet in height by 8 feet in width and must be placed within the dormer above the tenant's window space. e. The tenant wall signs for the Phase II building are not approved with this proposal. f. Two freestanding signs are approved (overall size is 20.5 feet in height, 20 feet in width). One freestanding sign to be located with a 10-foot setback to the Hazelwood Avenue right-of-way. The second freestanding sign to be located within a sign easement located on the Maplewood Cancer Center property at 1580 Beam Avenue East, with a 10-foot setback to the Beam Avenue right-of- way. g. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. Approve the plans date stamped January 25, February 12, February 18, April 11, and May 8, 2002 for the overall site plan and the Phase I architectural, landscaping, and lighting portion of the Tillges Medical Office Building development. The city is approving these plans based on the findings required by the code. The applicant shall do the following: a. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. 7 May 22, 2002 The Phase II building and landscaping is not approved with this approval. Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit, the applicant shall submit or complete the following: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) A signed developer's agreement and cash surety to the city which covers the following: assurance of construction of the sanitary sewer, storm sewer, and water main; temporary grading easement for grading conducted on city property; acquisition of city property; and engineering review charges. 7) A survey completed by a registered land surveyor showing the following: existing conditions, all easements located on the property (identify the extent and interest for each easement, and location of the Phase I building and parking lot. A registered land surveyor must also stake the location of the building on the property. 8) A revised grading, drainage, utility and erosion control plans which meet conditions and requirements of the assistant city engineer outlined in his memorandum dated April 11, 2002. A revised landscape plan that shows 12 replacement trees to be installed on city property within the area of the approved temporary grading easement. The revised plan should also identify the planting species, sizes and quantities. City code requires deciduous trees to be at least 2 ~ inches in caliper, balled and burlapped. Coniferous trees must be at least six feet tall. A revised lighting plan that shows all pole lights to be a maximum of 25 feet in height, measured from ground grade to the top of the luminaries, and the maximum light intensity at all property lines not to exceed .4-foot candles. A temporary grading easement for all proposed grading on the Maplewood Professional Building property at 1560 Beam Avenue East. An agreement that authorizes the construction of a portion of the parking lot within the storm water drainage easement located along the north property line of the southern leg of the property (Easement Document Number 3031096). The agreement must be signed by the Maplewood Cancer Center property owner at 1580 Beam Avenue East, and all other parties with interest to the easement. The vacation and relocation of portions of the County Ditch No. 18 easement to match the proposed culvert extension (Ditch Easement Document No. 2207724). The new easement must be recorded with Ramsey County and shall be subject to the approval of the city engineer. Tillges Medical Office Building 8 May 22, 2002 so fo 9) A revised utility plan showing the location of a fire hydrant to be approved by the city's fire marshal. 10) Place temporary orange safety fencing at the grading limits, including around all trees to be preserved (construction fence to the drip line of the trees). The applicant shall complete the following before occupying the building: 1) Install an in-ground lawn irrigation system for all landscaped areas. 2) Install all required Phase I landscaping on the site and install 12 replacement trees on the city property located to the south of the site. 3) Sod or hydro seed the Phase II portion of the development within 14 days of completion of the Phase II grading. 4) Install continuous concrete curb around the parking lots and drives, including installing concrete curb along the two proposed driveway extensions into the Phase II portion of the development. 5) Pave all driving surfaces. 6) Install a fire hydrant. If any required work is not done, the city may allow temporary occupancy if: 1) The city determines that the work is not essential to the public health, safety _or welfare. 2) The city receives a cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit for the required work. The amount shall be 150 percent of the cost of the unfinished work. Any unfinished landscaping shall be completed by June 1 if the building is occupied in the winter or within six weeks if the building is occupied in the spdng and summer. 3) 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. Tillges Medical Office Building 9 May 22, 2002 CITIZEN COMMENTS I surveyed all owners within 350 feet of this site. Of the 13 surveyed, no property owners responded. Tillges Medical Office Building 10 May 22, 2002 REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Site Size: 3.57 acres Existing Land Use: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USES North: South: East: West: Maplewood Cancer Center and Maplewood Professional Building (Zoned Business Commercial - Modified (BC-M)) City of Maplewood Property (Zoned Farm and Planned Park) Maplewood Office Park (Zoned Business Commercial - Modified (BC-M)) City of Maplewood Property Across Hazelwood Street (Zoned Single Dwelling Residential and Planned Open Space) PLANNING Existing Land Use Plan: Existing Zoning: Business Commercial- Modified (BC-M) Business Commercial - Modified (BC-M) CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL Public Sewer Easement Vacation There are not formal criteria for approval of a sewer easement vacation. However, the vacation of the easement should be in the best interest of the public at large. Design Review Section 25-70 of the city code requires that the community design review board 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, ordedy and attractive development contemplated by this article and the city's comprehensive municipal plan. That the design and location of the proposed development would provide a desirable environment for its occupants, as well as for its neighbors, and that it is aesthetically of good composition, materials, textures and colors. Tillges Medical Office Building 11 May 22, 2002 Application Date The city received complete applications and plans for this development on April 15, 2002. State law requires that the city take action within 60 days of receiving complete applications for a land use proposal. As such, city action is required on this proposal by June 14, 2002. P:\sec3\tillges Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Zoning Map 3. Land Use Map 4. Existing Conditions Map 5. Site Plan 6. Elevations 7. Floor Plan 8. Signage 9. Watershed Letter Dated May 9, 2002 10. Engineering Memorandum Dated May 14, 2002 11. Police Memorandum Dated Apd125, 2002 12. Vacation Resolution Tillges Medical Office Building 12 May 22, 2002 Attachment 1 Hazelwood Park Neighborhood Preserve st. John's Hospital Beam Avenue Maplewood Cancer Center ~.,,~ Proposed Tillges Medical Office Building N Location Map S Attachment 2 Beam Avenue Bc-M Proposed Tillges Medical Office Bldg. S ZONING ~ Light Manufacturing (M-l) Business Commercial Modified (BC-M) IIIIIIIIIIIllllllll[lllllllll Business Commercial (BC) -- Single Dwelling Residential (R-l) ~ Farm (F) 14 Zoning Map Attachment 3 Beam Avenue Proposed Tillges Medical Office Building P LAND USE ~ Light Manufacturing (M-l) Business Commercial Modified (BC-M) jijjJllJJj~ljJjj~j Business Commercial (BC) Single Dwelling Residential (R-l) .... Park (P) ~ Open Space (OS) Land Use Map lB' N J / / / / / I I tI Attachment ,:~ -- T- 426.19 I I I ? Existing Conditions Map 16 Attachment 5 1--STORY BUILDING 1 2~o~4 N Site Plan S 17 Attachment 6 Elevations 18 Attachment 7 m[ ...................... Imb~mF .........Y Floor Plan 19 Attachment 8 Signage 2O Attachment 9 Ramsey-Washington Metro District 1902 East County Road B Maplewood, MN 55109 (651)704-2089 fax: (651)704-2092 emaih office@rwmwd.org 5/9/02 Shann Finwall Maplewood Community Development 1830 County Road B East Maplewood, MN 55109 Dear Shann, This letter is in response to the project review request you sent for the Tillges Medical Office Building Building. A permit has been issued for this project. We have required that the pipe from the pond south of the project to the creek within the project be sized to accommodate the 100-year storm event. I have also asked the engineer to turn the storm sewer inlets to the creek so they are not discharging into the opposite bank. The proximity of the grading to the creek is also a concern. We will carefully monitor the grading operation to ensure the creek is not impacted. Please contact me if you have any questions or comments. Sincerely, Karl Hammers District Technician 21 Attachment l0 Tillges Medical Office Bldg.- Engineering Plan Review Maplewood Engineering Department Chris Cavett, May 14, 2002 Plan reviewed: Revision date 4/11/02 Storm Water Management/Storm Water Treatment & Misc~ drainage issues: Sunm~ary: The site is in an area served by regional storm water treatment and drainage systems. Most of the site is proposed to drain into a drainage ditch, (County ditch 18), which flows between Markham Pond and the treatment wetlands south of Beam Avenue, between Hazelwood and T.H. 61. The applicant's plan, however, has not proposed any on-site storm water Best Management Practices, (BMP's). The city is proposing to do a public ilnprovement to install a large storm sewer culvert within the existing drainage ditch and across a portion of the applicant's property. The cost for that work will be recovered by the city- through a developer's agreetnent between Mr. Tillgis and the city. The large culvert will provide for improved access and use of the applicant's property'. The applicant should address the following drainage related issues: 1. Applicant shall install a storm water treatment structure, (i.e.: stormceptor, V2B 1, or equivalent), down stream of CBMH-2. Under the Phase 2 construction, a similar system would be required downstremn of CB-4. The applicant shall provide the city a maintenance plan to have the structures cleaned mmually when the parking lot is swept. 2. Applicant shall consider other similar BMP's treatments, such as rainwater gardens for any roof drainage that would be directed towards the parking lot and the proposed storm sewer. h~formation on other BMP applications can be found On the Metropolitm~ Council Website: http://www.metrocouncil.orWenvironrnenffWatershedPorap/manual.htrn 3. Provide the City Engineer with the drainage areas and rm~off calculations for the site. Include information regarding the BMP methods to be utilized. No permits will be issued m~til this information has been submitted, reviewed and approved by the city engineer. 4. Coordinate with the city's contractor during the installation of the culvert in County Ditch 18. 5. Provide the necessary drainage and utility easements over the culvert area. h~ addition, a portion of the ditch alibmment can be vacated. Plan Sheet C2, (Site Layout): I. A commercial concrete apron would normally be required for this site, as shown on the plans, however with the proposed reconstruction of Hazelwood Street in 2003, we recommend that only a temporary bituminous apron be constructed at this time. The Gopher State One Call local' number referenced on this and a number of other sheets is actually a 651 prefix not 612. Plan Sheet C3~ (Grading, Drainaee and Erosion Control): Temporary grading easemems are required from the adjacent properties where the grading is proposed to extend beyond the property line. The over flow swales do not need to be constructed with riprap, as they will only be used under very heax3, rain events. Construct the overflow swales in the same mmmer, however utilize permanent stabilization blanket (Et~mnat, Miranmt, NAG C350 or equal). Cover the 22 permanent soil stabilization blanket with a thin layer of topsoil and seed and cover with a wood fiber blanket to protect the seed. 3. What are the W, E and S symbols on the plan at Hazelwood Street? One might assume they are water, sewer and electric utilities? However there is no legend, nor any indication of those utilities on the plan. It appears that an existing utilities layer has been turned off?. Show all existing utilities on the plan. h~clude a plan legend if necessary. 4. The storm sewer schedule notes a 24" CB for CB-1 w/a 3067-V casting. The structure would appear to be a 2'x3' box. 5. Review all notes. Many appear to be poorly edited from another project. ·#27 refers to a benchmark in St. Paul. · #18 refers to removal of existing curb and gutter mad hydrm~t on Hazelwood. Where is this? We cmmot fred this on the plans. Provide proper call-outs for such an item. · This sheet mad other sheets refer to "Maplewood Temporary Traffic control guidelines". Plans and specifications should refer to the Minnesota Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices, MnMUTCD, which all contractors should be fanfiliar with. 6. This plm~ sheet is referenced as an "Erosion Control" plan, yet there is little to no reference to the erosion control to be used on the site. · Where is the silt fence? Monofilament silt fence shall be used along the ditch. · Inlet protection to be used? · Turf Establishment? - Phasing and types? Plan Sheet C4, (Utilities Plan): 1. NSP's name was changed to Xcel two years ago. 2. All references to Maplewood Water Departmem should be changed to St. Paul Regional Water Services, SPRWS. Maplewood does not owa the water system. The applicant should coordinate may private water main work with SPRWS. Contact Bill Tschiede at 651-266- 6265. SPRWS persomael would do all wet taps on live lnains. 3. The street reconstruction project on Hazelwood Street has been postponed until next year. The sewer and water service stubs on the no~Xh Phase 2 property would be done at that time. 4. A complete bituminous patch would be required on Hazelwood, as the project has been postponed matil next year. 5. Comments 3 & 6 refer to a "Trim Place" - What or where are that? 6. Where are the existing utilities? 7. Cmmection to the existing sanitary mm~hole will be done with a core bore opening for positive seal gasket, (Kor-n-seal boot by NPC or approved equal - see Maplewood Standard Plate 403). 8. Again as in C3 #2 above, riprap is not required in the overflow swale. 9. Again as describe above, BMP treatment structures will be required on the do~xa~stream side of the last catch basin before they discharge into the ditch 23 Attachment ll MEMO To: FrOm: Subject: Date: Shann Finwall, Associate Planner j Lieutenant John Banick~'"/~ PROJECT REVIEW - Tillges Medical Office Building April 25, 2002 I have reviewed the attached project proposal and I have only one concem. How much will the vehicular traffic increase in the residential area south of this development? I believe most of the traffic will use Beam Avenue, however, there will be an increase in the traffic count on Hazelwood Street south of the development. Can Hazelwood Street south of this proposed development adequately accommodate an increase in traffic? Currently the police department handles many traffic complaints each year. How many additional complaints would be generated from this area? I do not anticipate a large increase in other police calls for service from this development. Therefore, once they assessed the traffic concems, I would recommend the approval of this project. cc: Chief Winger Lieutenant Rabbett 24 Attachment 12 VACATION RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Robert Tillges applied for the vacation of the following: A portion of a 10-foot wide unused sewer easement (Ramsey County, MN, Document No. 1584253) located along the south property line of the property located south of Beam Avenue and east of Hazelwood Street, Maplewood (Property Identification Number: 03-29-22-42-0009) and described as follows: Legal Description: South 10 feet of East 543.35 feet of Northwest Quarter of Northwest Quarter of Southeast Quarter of Section 3, Township 29, Range 22 WHEREAS, the history of this vacation is as follows: 1. On May 20, 2002, the planning commission recommended that the city council approve the public vacation. 2. On ,2002, the city council held a public hearing. The city staff published a notice in the Maplewood Review and sent a notice to the abutting property owners. The council gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The council also considered reports and recommendations from the city staff and planning commission. WHEREAS, after the city approves this vacation, public interest in the property will go to Robert Tillges for the above-mentioned property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above-described vacation for the following reasons: 1. It is in the public interest. 2. The sewer easement is unused. 3. The sewer easement is not needed for the proposed Tillges Medical Office Building development. ,2002. The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on - 25