HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/12/2002BOOK
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
10.
AGENDA
MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
March 12, 2002
6:00 P.M.
Maplewood City Hall Council Chambers
1830 County Road B East
Call to Order
Roll Call
Approval of Agenda
Approval of the February 12 and February 26, 2002 Minutes
Unfinished Business
Design Review:
a. Hillcrest Animal Hospital - 1320 County Road D
Visitor Presentations
Board Presentations
Staff Presentations:
a. Community Design Review Board Representation at the March 25, 2002,
City Council Meeting
b. Community Design Review Board Vacancy Update
c. Sign Ordinance Discussion
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.
2. The chairperson will ask the applicant or developer of the project up to the podium
to respond to the staff's recommendation regarding the proposal. The Community
Design Review Board will then discuss the proposed project with the applicant.
3. The chairperson will then ask the audience if there is anyone present who wishes
to comment on the proposal.
After everyone is the audience wishing to speak has given his or her comments,
the chairperson will close the public discussion portion of the meeting.
5. The Board will then discuss the proposal. No further public comments are allowed.
6. The Board will then make its recommendations or decision.
7. Most decisions by the Board are final, unless appealed to the City Council. You
must notify the City staff in writing within 15 days to register an appeal.
jw\forms\cdrb.agd
Revised: 11-.09-94
MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA
FEBRUARY 12, 2002
I1.
III.
IV.
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
Staff Present:
Present
Present
Present
Absent
Shann Finwall,
Associate Planner
Recording Secretary: Lisa Kroll
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Chairperson Ledvina suggested moving Unfinished Business after the Design
Review items.
Board member Olson moved to approve the agenda with changes.
Board member Jorgenson seconded. Ayes- Jorgenson, Ledvina, OIson
The motion passed.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Approval of the December 11, 2001, minutes.
Chairperson Ledvina said to change the word plans to panels on page 8 in the
first paragraph.
Board member OIson moved to approve the minutes with changes.
Board member Jorgenson seconded. Ayes- Jorgenson, Ledvina, Olson
The motion passed.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 02-12-2002
V. DESIGN REVIEW
Maplewood Toyota Addition
2873 Highway 61
Steve McDaniel's is proposing to build a 4,972-square-foot addition onto the
south side of Maplewood Toyota. This additional space would be used to
enlarge the service garage. The exterior of the proposed addition would be rock
face concrete block like the existing building and painted to match. The applicant
is also proposing to replace concrete curbing on the south and southeast sides of
the lot, remove a curbed parking island south of the building and patch the
asphalt at this island area. He would also install a new bituminous overlay on the
south parking lot.
On October 8, 2001, the city council approved Mr. McDaniel's plans to expand
Maplewood Toyota. In addition to a new parking lot north of Beam Avenue, the
council approved a conditional use permit (CUP) revision for three small
additions on the dealership building. One was a 375-square-foot lunchroom
addition on the northwest corner of the building (the applicant no longer proposes
to build this addition), a 1,144-square-foot service-write-up area on the north side
of the building and a 3,040-square-foot showroom addition on the southeast
corner of the building. These additions will be constructed at the same time as
the applicant's current proposal for a seven-bay auto service addition to be
constructed to the west of the new showroom.
Mr. McDaniel's is requesting:
A conditional use permit (CUP) revision. The code requires a CUP
revision to enlarge the service area and to enlarge a nonconforming use.
The use is nonconforming because service garages must now be at least
350 feet from a residential lot line. The proposed addition would be 211
feet from the property line of the home to the west, the same as the
existing building.
2. Approval of plans.
There are two sheds in the northwest corner of the site with miscellaneous
materials outside the sheds. The northerly shed also has a broken/splintered
fascia board facing the street. The chain link fence on the west and south sides
of the site has also been damaged from the plowing of the applicant's parking lot.
As a condition of this approval, the applicant should remove the debris and
stored materials near the sheds, repair the northerly shed and repair all damaged
fence sections.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 02-12-2002
The current Maplewood Toyota site does not meet the water runoff standards for
quantity or quality control within the shoreland boundary of Kohlman Lake. The
submitted site proposal makes no effort to begin moving toward meeting these
standards. For this reason, the city engineer, Chuck Ahl has proposed that a
new grading and engineering plan be submitted that shows the proposed new
curbing, the removal of curb islands, added green areas, infiltration areas, and
rainwater gardens, etc. The city engineer does believe that the submittal of
these plans will help bring this facility up to a better standard but would not meet
the current requirements at this time.
The planning commission will review this conditional use permit on February 20,
2002. Staff is recommending that the board approve item 2. on pages 4 and 5
with the condition of signed customer parking as well as a revised grading and
drainage plan be submitted to the city engineer.
Board member Olson asked staff if there is an existing fence between the site
and Kohlman Lake?
Ms. Finwall stated there is a chain-linked fence on the west property line. Snow
has been plowed into the chain-linked fence causing it to collapse. Staff does
propose this fence be repaired or taken out completely.
Chairperson Ledvina said considering the approvals that were given in October
of 2001, for the additions to the building, would the board have looked at this
proposal any differently if those two proposals were combined?
Ms. Finwall said currently the area where the new addition is proposed is a
paved area so they are taking an impervious surface and putting another
impervious surface on top of that. However, because of the removal and
replacement of curbing, the city engineer recommends that improvements be
made to the quality of the water runoff.
Board member OIson said it is her understanding that the improvements that
were approved in October included two additions to the north and now they are
only going to do one addition?
Ms. Finwall said correct.
Chairperson Ledvina said the staff report indicates that there are two sheds in
the northwest corner of the site. He also noted that there is a third shed very
near the addition, are there any issues with these sheds? He understands that
one is in need of repair and that there is an assortment of materials stored
around the sheds.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 02-12-2002
4
Ms. Finwall said there does seem to be an excessive amount of sheds. Perhaps
with the additions there may be room interior to store some of the materials.
Chairperson Ledvina said he will ask the applicant about that possibility.
Chairperson Ledvina said he understands the parking ordinance is not a topic
of discussion for the CDRB. The applicant is opening up their (CUP). Is it
correct that they are not allowed to park vehicles on grassed areas on the site?
Ms. Finwall said that is correct. She asked Mr. Ledvina if he has found that to be
an ongoing problem?
Chairperson Ledvina said in October when the applicant had a proposal before
the board they had a vehicle parked in the northeast corner of the site on the
grass. He mentioned it then, and again he drove by to look at the site before the
meeting and he noticed another vehicle parked there again. It seemed to him if
an applicant is coming before the board to request approvals that they would
take the city ordinances seriously. He will make a note for staff to perhaps check
into that situation.
Ms. Finwall stated that indeed it is against city ordinance to park on the grass.
Staff will look into the parking situation.
Chairperson Ledvina said he understands that it is a very tight site and the
applicant wants to maximize all the space they have and they want to sell
vehicles. He thinks this applicant's situation deserves a little more attention
given the fact that they are within shoreland district and there are strict
requirements for impervious surface. It is an important site and an important
issue that they maintain compliance.
Board member Olson had a question on the drainage. It seems to her that the
site sloPes southwest, and in looking at the grading plan, she is not seeing where
that water is going to go if the curb and gutter are installed?
Ms. Finwall stated the city engineer has required a revised grading and drainage
plan that should address that issue.
Board member Olson said she is not seeing any catch basins and she is
concerned where that water is going to go.
Board member Olson said when the board approved expanded parking on
the north side of Beam, it was her understanding that it was going to address the
employee parking and overflow customer-parking issues. She has seen it used,
but it was not at full capacity. Is the applicant intending to allow employees to
park on the south side or are they going to ask the employees to park on the
north side of Beam Avenue?
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 02-12-2002
Chairperson Ledvina asked staff if the lighting ordinance applies in this instance?
Should the board require a photometric plan for compliance with the lighting code
given the proximity to the residential property?
Ms. Finwall said the current lighting ordinance would require that no light exceed
a .4-foot candle at that residential property line.
Chairperson Ledvina said in the staff report it mentions the directional details on
the lighting, but is the applicant obligated by code to provide a photometric
lighting plan?
Ms. Finwall stated two wall-pack lights are proposed on the west side of the
addition. These lights must comply with the city's lighting ordinance and should
therefore have a photometric plan prior to issuance of a building permit. The
condition should be changed to reflect this.
Fred Richter of Steiner Development, architect and builder representing
Maplewood Toyota, addressed the board.
Mr. Richter said this project is a sequel to the October 8, 2001, approval. This
addition extends the facade of the building to the southwest corner of the
building. In terms of drainage, this is exactly what was approved before, so the
water runoff issue was looked at. The drainage basically drains into a rural
section along Highway 61. There are no catch basins in.the existing project. Mr.
McDaniel's wants to remove the fence on the west because it is dysfunctional for
snow removal off the property. Mr. Richter believes the employees will be
parking across the street in the overflow parking lot.
Chairperson Ledvina asked Mr. Richter if he had any specific problems with the
conditions outlined in the staff report?
Mr. Richter said the only issue is that they are not expecting to do a storm sewer
redo, although they will work with staff.
Board member Olson asked Mr. Richter if the two new additions to the south are
going to replace parking of vehicles?
Mr. Richter said the additions would require the removal of 24 spaces.
Ms. Finwall said that Chuck Ahl, city engineer, has reviewed the plan and he
stated that the applicant should work toward improving the shoreland
requirements. Other than that Mr. Ahl did not get into specifics. Apparently the
city engineer has not had the opportunity to discuss this with the developer.
Although item 2. b. states that it would be a revised grading and erosion control
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 02-12-2002
plan and would be required prior to issuing a building permit subject to city
engineer approval.
Chairperson Ledvina said it is an item that is going to have to be worked out
between the city engineer and the applicant, and he would hope that the
applicant is willing to take these additional steps as suggested by the city
engineer.
Mr. Richter said without having Mr. Ahl at this meeting and getting into a detailed
discussion, he was able to comment on the city requirement for a revised grading
and drainage plan. However, it is his understanding that his civil engineer said
the rainwater garden is not a huge area of concern and can be worked out. He d
doesn't see that the applicant and the city are too far apart in an agreement. He
does want to speak on behalf of the applicant, and that this was passed in
October of 2001 and is basically what they had planned on doing other than a
few modifications. But a major redo of catch basins and storm water
management is not what they had anticipated.
Chairperson Ledvina said at that time the board was focusing on the issues with
the northern piece of property and the ponding required there. The applicant did
work with the city in obtaining the additional parcels of land to meet the
requirements for impervious surface. Now focusing on the southern part again,
whether Mr. Richter thinks it is unfair or not, this is where the board and the city
are at: Perhaps if this proposal had been incorporated into the approvals that
had been given in October of 2001, the board may not have required that.
Mr. Richter said for clarity, this proposal had the 3,200-square foot showroom
addition, the northern addition, changed the parking lot, and everything else is
the same.
Chairperson Ledvina said but the applicant is asking for an additional 5,000
square feet of impervious surface.
Mr. Richter said 5,000 square feet of the same surface that is there. So in
principal it is the same storm water loads to runoff and so on. He is not saying
they will not work with staff, but he is pointing out that this is not anything
different than before.
Board member OIson said she believes it is a small flag waving that the applicant
is putting a vehicle automotive service center over an impervious surface that is
going to drain right into the Kohlman collection area. It does not take much
antifreeze to cause problems. She realizes that these are new cars and they
don't leak or drip or anything but it is a potential happening. This is just
something that has her concerned.
Community Design Review Board ?
Minutes 02-12-2002
Board member Olson asked Mr. Richter if both of the southern additions are
going to be maintenance facilities?
Mr. Richter said the addition to the southeast is showroom, the addition to the
north is the entrance into the service aisle for writing tickets up and the new
addition to the southwest is a maintenance facility.
Chairperson Ledvina asked if the applicant is going to eliminate any of the
storage sheds? Mr. Richter said he cannot say for sure what Maplewood
Toyota's plans are.
Chairperson Ledvina said he has no problem with the building design, the
materials and the elevation.
Board member OIson said she agrees, the signage looks good, and the
architectural design looks pleasing. She particularly likes the small windows on
the south side, and overall she has no objections to this plan.
Board member Jorgenson said this plan is an extension of what was looked at in
October 2001 and he was fine with the design then.
Chairperson Ledvina stated just to point out that the board is not approving any
signage at this time.
Ms. Finwall said that is correct. Any proposed signage must comply with the
city's sign code and would require a sign permit.
Board member Jorgenson moved to approve the plans date-stamped January
23, 2002, for a 4,972-square-foot service area addition on the south side of
Maplewood Toyota. This approval is based on the findings required by the city
code. The approval shall be subject to the applicant or owner meeting the
following conditions (CDRB's changes underlined):
a. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit
for this project.
b. Before the city issues a building permit, the applicant shall submit a
grading, drainage, utility and erosion control plan to the city engineer for
approval. All curb removal, curb replacement and paving overlay shall be
subject to the requirements of the city engineer.
c. Before the city issues a building permit, the applicant shall submit a
revised site plan for staff approval showing enough customer parking
spaces on the main Toyota Dealership site north of the building. This
parking shall be signed for "customer parking." The applicant shall
provide written justification for staff verifying that there will be sufficient
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 02-12-2002
customer parking provided. The revised site plan shall provide for all of
the handicap parking spaces to be placed adjacent to the building. There
shall be enough spaces to meet ADA (Americans with Disability Act)
requirements. These spaces shall be striped according to ADA
requirements.
Before the city issues a building permit, the applicant shall submit a
photometric plan for all new exterior lighting proposed on the site.
Before the city issues a building permit, the applicant shall submit a
photometric plan for the new exterior lighting proposed on the site.
f. Complete the following before occupying the addition:
1)
Any new roof-mounted mechanical equipment on the addition shall
be painted to match the building. Any roof top equipment visible
from nearby homes must be screened according to ordinance.
2)
Install fire protection and alarm systems as required by the fire
marshal.
3)
Repair all damaged sections of the chain link fence, repair/replace
the broken fascia on the northerly shed and remove any debris and
stored materials that are in the open. At the applicant's discretion,
instead of repairin.q or replacing the damaqed sections of chain link
.fence, the chain link fence located on the west side of the lot can be
removed entirely.
4)
Patch the parking lot not planned for bituminous overlay, restripe all
customer-parking areas, overlay the south parking lot and install all
proposed new curbing.
5)
Redirect the two wall-mounted lights on the west side of the
building to face directly downward as well as any new west-facing
lights on the addition. The applicant shall comply with the city's
!i.qhtincl ordinance.
6)
The replacement curb shall be continuous concrete curbing, subject
to the design requirements of the city engineer.
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.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 02-12-2002
2)
The city receives cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit for
the required work. The amount shall be 150 percent of the cost of
the unfinished work. Any unfinished landscaping shall be
completed by June 1 if the building is occupied in the fall or winter,
or within six weeks of occupancy if the building is occupied in the
spring or summer.
3)
The city receives an agreement that will allow the city to complete
any unfinished work.
ho
All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community
development may approve minor changes.
The city encouraqes the applicant to remove one or more of the three
sheds on the property.
Board member Olson seconded.
Ayes-Jorgenson, Ledvina, Olson
The motion is passed.
b. Carriage Homes of Maple Hills
Parkway Drive (Maple Hills Golf Course)
Mr. Steve Nelson, representing Bridgeland Development Company and Centex
Homes, is proposing to develop a 100-unit planned unit development (PUD) called
the Carriage Homes of Maple Hills. It will be located on a 20.5-acre site on the north
side of Parkway Drive, on the site of Maple Hills Golf Course.
To build this project, Mr. Nelson is requesting several city approvals including:
A conditional use permit (CUP) for a planned unit development (PUD) for a 100-unit
housing development. The applicant is requesting the CUP because Section 36-
566(a) of the city code (the shoreland district regulations) requires a PUD for
developments with buildings with more than four units when the site is in the
shoreland district of a lake. In this case' the site is in the shoreland zone of Round
Lake and would have 100 for-sale townhouse units in 12 buildings. The 12 buildings
would have a mix of four units, eight units and 10 units. In addition, having a PUD
gives the city and developer a chance to be more flexible with site design and
development details (such as setbacks and street right-of-way and pavement widths)
than the standard city requirements would normally allow.
A variation from the city code to reduce the required street right-of-way width. The
developer is asking to reduce the width of the public street right-of-way from 60 feet
to 50 feet.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 02-12-2002
l0
A variation from the city code to reduce the required street pavement width. The
developer is asking to reduce the width of the street from 32 feet to 24 feet from
gutter to gutter.
4. A preliminary plat to create the lots in the development. (See the enclosed maps
from the Carriage Homes of Maple Hills application materials and the enclosed
project plans.)
5. Design approval of the project plans, including architectural and landscape plans.
The planning commission did recommend approval of the first four items at the
February 4, 2002, planning commission meeting with added conditions. The
community design review board will be looking at item 5 of these conditions for
approval.
The proposed development will have a two-way public road that will wrap around the
existing wetland. The developer is proposing an 8-foot wide trail from the north end
of the new street up to' the Gateway Trail. In addition there will be a 6- foot wide
concrete sidewalk that will be located between the wetland and the new street. All
units will have two-car garages with a small private 10 X 12 foot patio and entrance.
The parking on the site meets the city's parking code with a total 224 parking spaces
that includes a two-car garage for each unit. The driveways will be a minimum of 24
feet in length. The exterior materials used in these town homes include horizontal
vinyl siding with a wood-grain finish. There will be four to five different colors for the
12 buildings all in neutral tones. It will also include vinyl trim and shutters, brick
wainscot on all elevations and asphalt shingle roofs.
The price range for this development ranges from $130,000 to $190,000. It will also
preserve many of the natural features on the site. For these reasons staff is
recommending approval of this project.
Board member Olson said she has questions about the traffic flow. Cars are going
to come in and drive around this ponding area and access the garages from the
center radiating out. Is that correct?
Ms. Finwall said that is correct.
Chairperson Ledvina asked if staff had seen the elevation drawings for the various
4,8, and 10-unit buildings?
Ms. Finwall said staff has not seen all building elevations.
Chairperson Ledvina said they have not been submitted up to this point?
Ms. Finwall said no.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 02-12-2002
Chairperson Ledvina said staff mentioned brick wainscoting on all four elevations of
each of the buildings completely around the building is that correct?
Ms. Finwall said perhaps the applicant could answer that question. She was under
the impression it was proposed on all four sides of the buildings.
Chairperson Ledvina clarified that the board is looking at item E. on page 13 through
16 for approval?
Ms. Finwall said correct.
Peter Knable of Terra Engineering, 6001 Glenwood Avenue, Minneapolis, is
representing the developer and the builders.
Mr. Knable stated the pond is an open man-made pond. In addition, as part of the
landscape revisions it was recommended to incorporate rainwater gardens that they
will do. They will be added between the buildings and the street and additional
areas that the topography will allow them. Those will be incorporated before the city
council meeting. The proposed Carriage Homes development is at about half the
density of the Bennington Woods. Carriage homes will be 5-units-per acre verses
Bennington Woods 10-units-per acre. The impervious surface comparison is at 31%
for Carriage Homes and 56% for Bennington Woods. Mr. Knable said they are
· proposing narrower streets, minimizing the impervious area and will have closer
setbacks to shorten the driveways.
Board member Olson said she did notice a comment regarding off street parking.
Has the applicant addressed that issue?
Mr. Knable said they tried to minimize the number of spots based on Centex's
experience with similar developments and the number of guest parking stalls.
However, there are some guest spaces shown on the site plan with additional
spaces shown as proof of parking.
Steve Volbrecht with Centex homes at 12400 Whitewater Drive, Hopkins, MN 55343
addressed the commission. Mr. Volbrecht showed the board photo boards of the
proposed development. The board discussed the proposed elevations with Mr.
Knable.
Mr. Knable said the development is zoned for high density residential and the
applicant is proposing medium density residential. The largest 10-unit building is
10,000-square feet in footprint. The units in Bennington Woods are about 8,000-
square feet in footprint.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 02-12-2002
Chairperson Ledvina said he noticed there are meters on the front of the proposed
buildings. He knows that this is a concern because the meters become unsightly
and they tend to stick out.
Mr. Volbrecht said typical construction for these units is the electrical meter bank is
on one end in between the two patios. That is also the entrance point for the cable
TV. and telephone. The opposite end is where the water and sewer come in. The
individual gas meters are located in front where the garages are.
Board member Jorgenson said he likes the look of the development and he is glad
they kept the ponding area. He also likes the path connecting to the Gateway Trail
and the benches. His only concern is the traffic and the access to the development.
He drives that area every day and he is aware of the congestion and traffic situation.
Board member OIson asked if a fire truck could get into the development? It looks
very tight.
Chairperson Ledvina said for the benefit of the board members that item was
discussed at the planning commission meeting regarding emergency vehicles
access to the property. The city's fire marshal has reviewed the development and
approved the plans.
Chairperson Ledvina said he thinks the units will look nice. They are one of the
nicer elevations for a development the board has seen in a while. In terms of
building design he likes the building colors, and that they are neutral colors. He also
likes that there will be some variation in colors amongst the proposed development
as opposed to having all one color in the whole development. Chairperson Ledvina
asked staff if there was an opinion regarding the monument design that was
presented. From what he saw, he liked the design, it has some limestone and
masonry and he doesn't have any issues. He is not sure if they would approve
signage with this proposal.
Ms. Finwall said the sign code would allow one freestanding sign. Therefore, the
monuments should be included in the planned unit development (PUD). Her only
concern would be the traffic visibility, sign easement and maintenance of these
monuments.
Board member Olson commented that the stone monuments, with the printed panel,
and the stone cap would be keeping with the look of the parkway area. It will be a
very attractive feature.
Chairperson Ledvina said he would like to see brick wainscoting on all four
elevations. He thinks that is appropriate for this especially as it relates to the
elevations along Maple Hills Drive. For appearance and consistency it would be
important to have that. He would make it a condition subject to staff approval and he
Community Design Review Board :t3
Minutes 02-12-2002
doesn't think it would take too much to add that brick wainscoting to all four sides of
the buildings.
Board member OIson said she would agree that looking at the illustration it looks
funny to her where the brick wainscoting doesn't make it around the corner.
Chairperson Ledvina is concerned about the utilities, the gas meters, and the air
conditioning units. You look at these elevations and they look great with the
landscaping. Then the pipes and gray boxes are added, and it doesn't look very
attractive. Then he would like the applicant to work with staff to reduce visual impact
of such things as meters.
Board member Olson moved to approve the development plans (date-stamped
January 22 and January 23, 2002) for the Carriage Homes of Maple Hills. The city
bases this approval on the findings required by the code. The developer or
contractor shall do the following (CDRB changes are underlined):
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 the grading, utility, drainage, erosion control,
tree, sidewalk and driveway and parking lot plans. The plans shall meet
the following conditions and requirements of the assistant city engineer
outlined in his memo dated 1-29-02 and the following:
(1) There shall be no parking on either side of Maple Hills Drive or on the
private driveways. The developer or contractor shall post the street
and the driveways with no parking signs.
(2) The tree plan shall:
(a) Show where the developer or contractor will remove, save or
replace large trees.
(b)
Show the size, species and location of the replacement and
screening trees. The new screening trees shall be grouped
together. These planting areas shall be along the south and east
sides of the site to help screen the development from the existing
properties to the south and east. The deciduous trees shall be at
least two and one half (2 1/2) inches in diameter and shall be a
mix of red and white oaks, ash, lindens, sugar maples or other
native species. The coniferous trees shall be at least eight (8)
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 02-12-2002
14
feet tall and shall be a mix of Austrian Pine, Black Hills Spruce
and other species.
(c)
Show the planting or transplanting of at least 74 trees after the
site grading is done.
(d) Show no tree removal beyond the approved grading and tree
limits.
(e) Include for city staff a detailed tree planting plan and material list.
(f) Group the new trees together. These planting areas shall be:
(1) near the ponding areas
(2) on the slopes
(3) along the trail
(4) along the north and east sides of Maple Hills Drive to help
screen the proposed buildings from the neighbors
(5) along the south side of the site to screen the development
from the existing town houses to the south
(3) All the parking areas and driveways shall have continuous concrete
curb and gutter.
(4) The site, street, driveway, sidewalk and utility plans shall show:
(a)
A six-foot-wide concrete sidewalk between Maple Hills drive and
the pond in the center of the site. The public works director shall
approve the location and design of the sidewalk.
(b) A water service to each unit.
(c)
The repair of Parkway Drive (street and boulevard) and the
driveways in Bennington Woods after the developer connects to
the public utilities and builds the private driveways and public
street.
(d)
The coordination of the water main locations, alignments and
sizing with the standards and requirements of the Saint Paul
Regional Water Services (SPRWS). Fire-flow requirements and
hydrant locations shall be verified with the Maplewood Fire
Department.
(e) The plan and profiles of the proposed utilities.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 02-12-2002
(f) The entry road into the site (Maple Hills Drive where it meets
Parkway Drive) as far south on Parkway Drive as possible with a
left-turn and a right-turn exit lane.
bo
Submit a certificate of survey for all new construction and have each
building staked by a registered land surveyor.
c. . Revise the landscape plan for city staff approval showing:
(1) The planting of additional native evergreens and shrubbery on the site
to provide additional screening and privacy between the proposed
town houses and the existing single dwellings and town houses. The
additional trees should include Austrian Pine, Black Hills Spruce,
Eastern Red Cedar and Eastern Arborvitae. These additional trees
should be located as follows:
(a)
(b)
(c)
Along the north property line of Bennington Woods.
In Outlot D, on the north and east sides of Maple Hills Drive.
Along the south side of Lot 12, east of the driveway to the
new building.
The trees in these locations shall be at least six feet tall, in
staggered rows (if possible.) and are to provide screening that is at
least 80 percent opaque.
(2) Also show the areas noted in (1) above planted with a variety of shrubs
(including Alpine Current, Yew, Glossy Black Choke Berry, American
Cranberry (short cultivar), Purple Leaf Sand Cherry and Dogwood) to
provide a variety of colors and textures.
(3)
All lawn areas shall be sodded. The city engineer shall approve the
vegetation within the ponding area and on the steep slopes. On slopes
steeper than 3:1, the developer shall prepare and implement a
stabilization and planting plan. These slopes shall be protected with a
wood fiber blanket, be seeded with a no-maintenance vegetation and
be stabilized before the city approves the final plat.
(4) Having in-ground irrigation for all landscape areas (code requirement).
Show city staff that Ramsey County has recorded the deeds and all
homeowner's association documents for this development before the city
will issue a certificate of occupancy for the first town house unit.
e. Submit a photometric plan for staff approval as required by the city code.
f. Submit revised elevations for staff approval showing the fo owing:
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 02-12-2002
(1 .)
(2.)
The brick wainscotinq on all four elevations of each building.
A screeninq plan for all mechanical units and meters.on or near the
buildin.qs.
The monument si.qn plans submitted by the developer at the February 12.
2002, CDRB meetinq is conceptually approved. The applicant shall submit
final siqn plans, including the location, height, and materials for staff
approval.
h. Submit samples of all buildinq materials and the color schemes for tho,
buildin.qs to the city for staff approval.
3. Complete the following before occupying the buildings:
ao
Replace property irons that are removed because of this construction and
set new property irons for the new property corners.
Restore and sod damaged boulevards and sod all turf areas outside of the
ponding areas.
C°
Install a reflectorized stop sign at the Parkway Drive exit, no parking signs
along both sides of Maple Hills Drive and the private driveways and
addresses on each building for each unit. In addition, the applicant shall
install stop signs and traffic directional signs within the site, as required by
staff.
do
Construct a six-foot-wide concrete public sidewalk between Maple Hills
Drive and the pond in the center of the site. The Maplewood Public Works
Director shall approve the location and design of the sidewalk.
eo
Install the trail between Maple Hills Drive and the DNR Gateway Trail.
The Maplewood Public Works Director shall approve the location and
design of the trail.
fo
Complete the site grading and install all required landscaping (including
the foundation plantings), ponding areas and an in-ground lawn irrigation
system for all landscaped areas (code requirement).
g°
Install continuous concrete curb and gutter along all interior driveways and
around all open parking stalls.
Install on-site lighting for security and visibility, subject to city staff
approval.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 02-12-2002
17
4. If any required work is not done, the city may allow temporary occupancy if:
The city determines that the work is not essential to the public health,
safety or welfare.
The city receives cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit for the
required work. The amount shall be 150 percent of the cost of the
unfinished work. Any unfinished landscaping shall be completed by June
1 if the building is occupied in the fall or winter, or within six weeks of
occupancy if the building is occupied in the spring or summer.
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.
Board member Jorgenson seconded. Ayes- Jorgenson, Ledvina, OIson
The motion is passed.
VI.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
a. Outdoor Lighting Ordinance
Ms. Finwall said the board has been working on the outdoor lighting ordinance
for the past year or so. Mr. Ekstrand has outlined the final comments in the staff
report. The largest change to the ordinance is the foot-candles cannot exceed .4
of light intensity at al/property lines not just at residential property lines. The
lighting ordinance also covers signs. Staff is looking for any additional comments
and once that is received, staff can bring it to the city council for the first reading
of this ordinance amendment.
Chairperson Ledvina said overall he is fine with the outdoor lighting ordinance.
Board member Jorgenson said there is room to grow with the ordinance but the
city can't take giant steps to change the lighting ordinance. But it is a good start.
Chairperson Ledvina said let's see how this ordinance works and the board will
get feedback from staff and they can see if anything needs to be added or
changed.
Board member Olson said she would assume that there are no other
metropolitan cities that have this type of lighting ordinance to compare to?
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 02-12-2002
Chairperson Ledvina said he would not go that far.
Board member Olson said she would like to know if maybe Minneapolis or larger
cities have anything similar to what the City of Maplewood has adopted. Tom
Ekstrand found out about cities close to Maplewood but she would like to know
about larger areas. She would also like to know if Maplewood is the first city to
have this type of lighting ordinance. She doesn't want the city of Maplewood to
have the heaviest hammer in the whole state for a lighting ordinance.
Chairperson Ledvina said if the board approves this ordinance, he would like to
have some background information for the city council in their staff report. The
board did review other cities.
Board member Jorgenson asked if it would be possible to have staff ask Tina if
she would be available for a small discussion before the city council
meeting as a workshop. This would give the council a background on this
ordinance and maybe a packet as well.
Board member Olson said she would agree that would be an excellent idea.
Chairperson Ledvina said he would agree but he wonders if the council will give
Tina 15 or 20 minutes of council's time or not.
Board member Olson said she is anticipating that somebody is going to say that
here is another layer of government and more regulations. She wants to give the
lighting ordinance some type of background or support ahead of time.
Chairperson Ledvina said he anticipates that many of the city council
members will say the city doesn't need it and it will cost money. He genuinely
feels that the changes and additions to the lighting ordinance far outweigh the
additional burden that it places on the development community and the people
that bring proposals to the city.
Ms. Finwall said she thinks the comments are good regarding the background
and ensuring that the city council understands there are other cities out there
doing similar things. She will revise the staff report and include background
information. Perhaps inviting Tina to the actual public hearing and to give a few
comments if she would like to.
Board member Jorgenson moved to approve the changes to the outdoor lighting
ordinance recommended by community design review board.
Board member Olson seconded.
Ayes- Jorgenson, Ledvina, Olson
The motion is passed.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 02-12-2002
19
VII.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS
VIII.
IX.
No visitors present.
BOARD PRESENTATIONS
a. Election of Chair and Vice Chair for 2002
Board member Olson moved to elect for another term the Chair as Matt
Ledvina and the Vice Chair as Ananth Shankar. This is conditional to Mr.
Shankar accepting another term because he was absent to place a vote.
Board member Jorgenson seconded. Ayes- Jorgenson, Ledvina, Olson
The motion is passed.
STAFF PRESENTATIONS
a. 2001 Community Design Review Board Annual Report
Ms. Finwall said the annual report is submitted to the city council as an
informational report, letting the council know the past actions of the community
design review board. Included in the report could be any areas of concern that
the board would like to look at in 2002.
Chairperson Ledvina said he doesn't have any issues with the report. He feels it
is accurate. Under recommendations/areas of concern the Hillcrest Village
overlay plan is mentioned in the report but he feels the city is not moving ahead
with the Hillcrest Village plan.
Ms. Finwall said as an update on the Hillcrest Village Plan, the Metropolitan
Council would be presenting the finalized Hillcrest Village Plans at a public forum
at the end of April. Prior to that staff will present to the community design review
board, planning commission, and city council an update on the Hillcrest Village
Plan. Included in that report will be design suggestions for development. Staff is
proposing to wait for the Metropolitan Councils and consultant's report and work
on an overlay district based on that report. Staff would like comments from the
board as the overlay district is created. The moratorium on development within
that area ends in November so this new ordinance will have to be completed by
then.
Chairperson Ledvina said that answered his question about the Hillcrest Village
Plan and it sounds like it is in the works and there is a plan to develop an
overlay district. He is excited about that and the possibility of providing input as it
relates to design features.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 02-12-2002
20
Ms. Finwall suggested that the board review the city's sign ordinance.
Chairperson Ledvina said he would like to see that the sign ordinance gets
updated as well. He feels many of the signs in Maplewood need to be
changed, and are considered in his opinion, eye pollution.
Board members Jorgenson and Olson agree.
Chairperson Ledvina said he would be willing to modify a recommendation
in areas of concern to review potential modifications and updates to the
sign ordinance. If there is a 20 to 30 year old sign code than the city
should be looking at modifying that, and it will be a huge undertaking.
Board member Olson would like to know more about sidewalks. She
asked staff if there is a comprehensive sidewalk plan?
Ms. Finwall said as far as she is aware of there are no written procedures
for a sidewalk plan but they are reviewed in developments and as part of
the city's capital improvement plans.
Chairperson Ledvina said he knows the planning commission is very
concerned about sidewalks and how it relates to functionality of sites and
land use. It is also on the minds of community design review board
members and is something both commissions are interested in.
Board member Olson said she liked the annual report that Ms. Finwall
wrote and she wanted to know if staff could add something in the
conclusion as follows: "In 2002, the CDRB will continue its dedication to
quality design for buildings and developments and to the quality of life for
the citizens in the City of Maplewood".
Board member Jorgenson moved to approve the 2001 Community Design
Review Board Annual Report with changes.
Board member Olson seconded. Ayes-Jorgenson, Ledvina, Olson
The motion is passed.
Community Design Review Board Representation for February 25,
2002.
Matt Ledvina will be the representative at the city council meeting on
February 25, 2002.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 02-12-2002
21
c. Schedule Interviews for Community Design Review Board Vacancy.
The interviews for the community design review board vacancy will be
held sometime in March.
X. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 8:37 p.m.
MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST,. MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA
FEBRUARY 26, 2002
II.
CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Ledvina called the meeting to order at 6:08 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Matt Ledvina
Craig Jorgenson
Linda OIson
Ananth Shankar
Present
Absent
Present
Absent
Staff Present:
Shann Finwall, Associate Planner
Lisa Kroll, Recording Secretary
III.
IV.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Because there was not a quorum the agenda could not be approved,
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Approval of the February 12, 2002, minutes.
Because there was not a quorum the minutes could not be approved and will be
deferred until the next community design review board meeting.
DESIGN REVIEW
a. St. Jerome's Catholic School (380 Roselawn Avenue East)
Ms. Finwall stated St. Jerome's Catholic School is proposing to expand their
preschool and daycare facility from 29 children to 60 children. A 3,800-
square-foot addition is proposed on the northwest corner of the elementary
school to accommodate the expanded facility as well as a new entry
vestibule. The exterior of the addition will be constructed of face brick to match
the existing elementary school. On February 26, 1990, the city council
approved two conditional use permits for the expansion Of a church and for a
daycare facility.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 02-26-2002
To expand the preschool, the applicant is requesting that the city approve the
following:
Conditional use permit to expand an existing preschool and daycare
facility;
Design approval for exterior improvements
St. Jerome's preschool and daycare (Kid's Korner) have been in operation and
licensed through the State of Minnesota since 1987. The daycare's hours of
operation are from 7 to 5:30, Monday through Friday, and include children from
3 to-12 years old. The preschool is operated four days a week, with 3 and 4 year
olds attending two, 2½-hour sessions a week. The addition will allow Kid's Korner
to expand from 29 to 60 children.
The one-story addition proposed will be constructed of 4-inch face brick. The
addition includes a new entry door with overhead canopy, several new windows,
and a 3-foot-high parapet wall constructed of a stucco-like material to screen the
rooftop mechanical units. The addition is attractive and will be compatible with the
existing brick building.
There are currently 53 striped parking stalls and room for an additional 97 striped
parking stalls on the lot. With the addition, 16 additional parking stalls will be
striped in front of the school. The city's parking ordinance does not address school
parking specifically, but there should be adequate parking stalls for employees and
guests. They have 26 employees and all the students are bussed in or dropped off,
therefore, parking for the school and expanded daycare is adequate on this site.
With the addition, three large trees and shrubs must be removed during the
construction of the project. To comply with the city's tree preservation ordinance
staff recommends that three ornamental trees be planted along the west side of the
addition as well as additional landscaping along the sidewalk. St. Jerome's was
proposing to replace only one tree near the back of the church with no additional
landscaping planted.
.The assistant city engineer states that there are no engineering and drainage
~ssues with this proposal. Drainage in the area was looked at extensively with the
neighboring housing development.
A neighborhood survey was sent to surrounding properties and all comments
received were positive for the daycare and preschool addition. Staff recommends
approval of St. Jerome's conditional use permit (CUP) with three standard
conditions.
Ms. Finwall stated that the planning commission recommended approval at the
February 20, 2002, meeting. '
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 02-26-2002
Ms. Finwall ~ecommends approval of plans date stamped January 9, 2002, for a
3,800 square foot addition to St. Jerome's Catholic School. The city is approving
these plans based on the findings required by 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.
b. Complete the following before the city issues a building permit.
(1)
Provide a revised landscape plan to be approved by staff showing: three
ornamental trees of at least 1¼ caliper inch to be planted on the west side
of the addition, across the drive aisle; and Iow-maintenance shrubbery or
perennial plants to be planted along the new sidewalk, around the
proposed bollard lights.
(2) Submit a grading drainage, utility and erosion control plan to the city
engineer for approval.
c. Complete the following before occupying the building:
(1)
(2)
Screen all new roof-mounted equipment visible from streets or adjacent
property.
St. Jerome's School is exempt from the dumpster screening requirements
as long as the dumpsters are stored on the southwest corner of the lot, in
between the school and the garage and remains screened by surrounding
mature trees.
(3) All exterior lighting installed must comply with the city's lighting ordinance
and must not exceed a 0.4-foot candle at the property line;
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
required
work.
receives a cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit for the
work. The amount shall be 150% of the cost of the unfinished
(3)
The city receives an agreement that will allow the city to complete any
unfinished work.
e. All work shall follow the approved plans. The Director of Community
Development may approve minor changes.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 02-26-2002
4
Board member Olson asked staff if she is correct in understanding that staff is not
requesting screening for the dumpsters because the dumpsters are not in view
from the street?
Ms. Finwall said that is correct. This was also requested by St. Jerome's
Catholic School. Staff agrees that the location of the dumpsters on the south west
corner of the lot is screened by trees and the school itself screens the
dumpsters from the roadway and the parking lot.
Board member OIson asked if St. Jerome's School is worried about children or
animals getting into the dumpsters or having access to them?
Ms. Finwall said perhaps the applicant can answer that question.
The applicant in the audience said they have never had a problem with that
happening.
Mr. Eric Ketelsen of 1439 Blair Avenue, St. Paul, MN, addressed the board. He is
the architect of McGuire Courteau Lucke Architects, Inc. He asked the board if
there were any questions of him.
Chairperson Ledvina asked how the brick will match or compliment the existing
structure?
Mr. Ketelsen said they had a consultant come out and look at the building and he
offered a color to match the existing brick. It is a combination of yellowish brick
with some darker rust tones mixed in.
Chairperson Ledvina said he reviewed this site and he has no issues with the
quality of the design, the addition and how it will be constructed on the existing
structure. He agrees with staff that a dumpster enclosure is not necessary.
Board member Olson said she has driven by there many times and she has no
objections to this addition at all. She is glad that staff is recommending
replacement of trees and shrubbery.
Chairperson Ledvina said they cannot make a recommendation because of a lack
of quorum but the board will leave it up to staff in terms of how they want to handle
this proposal. This item will go to the city council at the meeting on March 11,
2002.
Mr. Ketelsen asked if this will delay the process at all for not being able to make a
recommendation tonight?
Chairperson Ledvina said he did not believe so.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 02-26-2002
Ms. Finwall apologized for lack of a quorum and the confusion this evening. The
board's comments will be reflected in the minutes for the March 11, 2002, city
council meeting and the council will see that the comments are positive.
VI. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
None.
VII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS
No visitors present.
VIII. BOARD PRESENTATIONS
Chairperson Ledvina attended the city council meeting on Monday, February 25,
2002. The city council was agreeable to the design presented for Maple Hills.
Overall the multiple family structures were fairly well designed with some details
required for staff approval.
Board member Olson said the grading in a ponding area really bothers her.
Chairperson Ledvina said it was a condition of the planning commission
recommendation and it was not discussed at the city council meeting. He has a
very strong concern over the long term of 50 years that there will be problems
with flooding in that area.
Board member Olson said the problem with flooding was brought up by one of
the residents at a past meeting
Chairperson Ledvina said correct. It does drain now but that area will
continue to silt in and the permeability of that basin will decrease and the
infiltration that you are able to get will decrease over time. It will fill in so there
will be less storage and it is a wetland so you can't go in and dig it out.
Apparently that doesn't matter because they will go in and dig it out anyway.
Board member Olson stated when they showed one of the maps at the city
council meeting the 100-year flood level from a lake on the other side of Highway
61 was shown as encroaching on that space. It does seem to her that is a pretty
serious red flag to consider. She would like staff to address these concerns the
city engineer and determine if this is really unacceptable.
Chairperson Ledvina said the concept of putting a pump in when there is a
flooded scenario does not really go well with him because everything else is
going to be flooded as well. The capacity to receive the additional water from
that development is going to be very limited
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 02-26-2002
Ms. Finwall said hopefully your question regarding the grading within the wetland
can be addressed.
IX. STAFF PRESENTATIONS
Community Design Review Board representation for the March 11,
2002, city council meeting.
Board member Olson will be the representative at the March 11,2002, meeting.
Ms. Finwall said items to be discussed will be St. Jerome's Catholic School and
the annual report.
Board member Olson wanted the board to know that in December 2002, she will
be going to Guatemala for a month and will be unable to attend any meetings.
b. Mall Area Traffic Study Discussion
Ms. Finwall stated that Chris Cavett, the assistant city engineer stated that a task
group was formed as part of this study. The task group included representatives
from Maplewood, Vadnais Heights, North St. Paul, White Bear Lake, Ramsey
County, and MnDot. As part of the recommendations and findings of this study
the City of Maplewood will adopt the traffic study as a supplement to the
comprehensive traffic plan. Maplewood and Ramsey County will prepare
preliminary layouts this year of the White Bear Avenue/694 area and work with
MnDot to get preliminary layout approval. URS will be the consultant on this.
Preliminary layout approval would put the project on the radar screen and make it
eligible for federal funding. Such a project will likely take place in a decade or so
when 694 is upgraded.
c. Sidewalk Discussion
Board member Olson asked staff if it is possible for anyone within the city to
undertake a sidewalk study of the White Bear Avenue corridor between Hillcrest
and the Maplewood Mall? To see what we can do about improving the paths
where the sidewalks are interrupted?
Ms. Finwall asked if that was addressed at all with the White Bear Avenue
Corridor study?
Chairperson Ledvina said not that he is aware of.
Ms. Finwall stated Chris Cavett, the assistant city engineer, stated currently it is
our position that pedestrian ways should be constructed on all new
reconstructions of collector streets that include state-aid streets. The city has
recently taken a position to remove snow from sidewalks on those routes that
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 02-26-2002
7
shows commitment to pedestrian accesses. We have also identified a need to
complete sidewalk links around the city and plan to add that to the city's capital
improvement plan. Where the priorities will be, and how long it takes to
accomplish this task, we have yet to determine. Unfortunately we have been
working for years with an old suburban mentality that sidewalks would equal a
big city that has made promoting sidewalks rather difficult. In his opinion,
sidewalks have not been high on the political priority list.
Board member Olson said she is primarily concerned about the area between
Maplewood Mall and Hillcrest Area for sidewalk access. She would like to see
completed sidewalks on both sides of that roadway.
Board member Olson asked staff how Discount Tire and Burger King managed to
move into those spaces without accepting any responsibility for the sidewalks in
their space? When Tires Plus and Boston Market were constructed they were not
required to put in a sidewalk. How did they manage to escape putting those
sidewalks in?
Chairperson Ledvina said that was before his term.
Ms. Finwall said she would look into that and e-mail the information to member
Olson.
d. Sign Ordinance Discussion
Ms. Finwall stated the sign ordinance had minor changes in 1997. The original
sign code dates back to 1977. In working with the sign ordinances within the last
year, she came up with a few areas that could use some addressing, and she
has listed them for the board's review. She has also copied the entire sign
ordinance for the board to review.
Board member Olson asked staff if she could get some copies of comparable
sign ordinances from other cities so the board has something else to look at and
work from?
Ms. Finwall said yes.
Chairperson Ledvina said he thinks it is very helpful to review those ordinances.
There is interpretation and a lot of paper that goes with the sign ordinance. He
would like to have staff do the reviewing of the sign codes and summarize how
they differ. What would be the reaction of the city council to modify the sign
code, does anybody know?
Ms. Finwall said no she doesn't. Back in 1997 they ran into a lot of opposition.
The mayor at the time, Mayor Bastian, was opposed to many of the changes they
attempted to make.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 02-26-2002
Board member Olson asked staff if she could get a copy of some of the changes
that they attempted to make that didn't pass?
Ms. Finwall said the memo that is included tonight for the board's review was
from 1997 along with the changes that were eventually made. One area for
instance, was temporary-window signs. Staff proposed only taking up 25% of the
window and Mayor Bastian changed that to 75% of the window. There is a new
council now who do not deal with the sign code very often and may not be aware
of some of these issues and maybe they are not aware of the city's sign code.
Chairperson Ledvina said it's time to take a serious look at the code because it
has been since 1997. There is more need for a stricter sign code now than there
was 25 years ago. He is not sure how the city council will react to the sign
ordinance being changed.
-Ms. Finwall asked Mr. Ledvina to explain how they made changes to the sign
ordinance in Chanhassen when he served on the board?
Chairperson Ledvina said they did not bring in consultants. Staff worked on the
ordinance, they surveyed other communities that had done recent updates to
their sign ordinances, they developed draft language, got right to the heart of
things like window signage, because that is the most offensive signage.
Searchlights are considered a sign permit and there is nothing in the code
regarding that.
Ms. Finwall asked if they formed a task group in Chanhassen?
Chairperson Ledvina said yes the city council had work sessions with the
planning commission and the chamber of commerce. They went through each of
the ordinance sections change by change and discussed the rational and the
practical aspects and limitations.
Board member Olson asked if they ever discussed murals on buildings in the
ordinance?
Chairperson Ledvina said that would be considered a sign. He asked staff if she
could incorporate what was given to members tonight into the next packet for Mr.
Shankar and Mr. Jorgenson who were not at the meeting? He said members
can start talking about what the priorities should be for the sign code at the next
meeting.
Ms. Finwall said she would mail the sign code to the other members.
X. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 6:42 p.m.
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
PROJEGT:
LOGATION:
DATE:
MEMORANDUM
City Manager
Ken Roberts, Associate Planner
Conditional Use Permit and Design Review
Hillcrest Animal Hospital
Southwest Comer of Highway 61 and County Road D (1320 County Road D)
March 5, 2002
INTRODUCTION
Project Description
Dr. Jennifer Bouthilet, representing the Hillcrest Animal Hospital, is proposing to build a 7,000
square-foot animal hospital at the southwest comer of Highway 61 and County Road D. Refer to
the maps on pages 6-10. This proposal includes constructing a new animal hospital to replace
the current animal hospital and a former house on the site. Specifically, the owners recently
demolished a house on the property, will construct the new hospital (if approved), and then will
demolish the existing hospital after completing the new hospital.
The proposed building would be constructed of decorative rock-faced block and stucco and would
have asphalt shingles. Refer to the building elevations on pages 11 and 12 and the project plans.
Requests
The applicant is requesting approval of the following:
A conditional use permit (CUP) to build the new building closer than 350 feet to a residential
zoning district. The nearest residential district is immediately to the west of the site. The
proposed building would be 229 feet from the west property line of the site.
2. Approval of site, landscape and architectural plans.
DISCUSSION
Conditional Use Permit
The intent of the code, which requires a CUP for buildings closer than 350 feet to a residential
district, is to give the city an opportunity to review proposals and to require additional buffering to
protect homeowners. The existing animal hospital is a legal nonconforming use since it has been
operating from this site since the 1940's. In addition, the new animal hospital would be an
improvement over the existing facility as it would be 124 feet further from the residential district to
the west,
The proposed building also would be 300 feet from the nearest house to the west. The proposed
future addition would be 256 feet from this house. The city may want to consider methods like
hours of operation, screening and light-glare control to protect the nearby residents from
disturbances.
Engineering Department Comments
Chris Cavett, the Assistant City Engineer, did a review of the proposed drainage/storm water and
grading and erosion control plans. His comments are on pages 15 and 16. He has many concerns
with the proposed plans and will be requiring many changes to the plans before the city will issue a
grading permit or a building permit for the project.
An issue that needs to be resolved with this request is that of water to serve the property. The city
council ordered a feasibility study to determine where and how to serve this property and the area
with water. The city and the owner will need to agree to a plan for providing water to site before
the city issues a building permit for the new animal hospital.
Lot Combination
The proposed site now has two separate lots. The former house was on one parcel and the
existing animal hospital is on the other parcel. The city should require the owner to combine the
two parcels into one property as a condition of approval of this project.
Design Review Comments
Building Design
The proposed building would be attractive and would have decorative rock-faced block, stucco and
asphalt shingles. The proposed colors are brown, cream and beige. As proposed, the building
would fit the character of this highway-frontage business location.
The proposed site plan shows a future addition on the west side of the hospital building. The
location of the addition should not cause any problems. In fact, the proposed future addition would
be farther east than the existing animal hospital. The design of the addition, however, should be
reviewed by the city before the city approves a building permit for the addition.
Landscaping
The proposed landscaping west of the parking lot and driveway is a good start, but the owner
should develop this plan further. (See the plans on pages 8 and 9). The city code requires that the
developer screen the parking lot from the home to the west by a six-foot-tall, 80 percent opaque
screen. The owner may accomplish this screening by berming, fencing, plantings or a combination
of these. As proposed, the plan does not meet the code requirement for screening. ,As such, the
applicantShould expand the landscape plan to meet this code requirement. If the applicant wants
to use trees to meet the screening requirement, the trees should include six-foot-tall ,Austrian
Pines, Black Hills Spruce or a combination of these or other similar species of trees.
The applicant has not proposed any plantings on the north or east sides of the building. In
addition, the proposed plans show a dog run on the north side of the building. The applicant
should further develop the landscape plan for these parts of the site by adding no-maintenance
plantings on the north and east sides of the building. These plantings also should include
provisions for screening the dog run from views to the north and west with opaque fencing or
trees. There is a house on the Sparkle Auto property to the south. The city code, however, does
not require screening on this side of the site since the city has planned and zoned this property
light manufacturing.
Site Lights
The applicant should provide a lighting plan indicating the light spread and fixture design. The
lighting code requires a plan when near homes. The fixtures installed should be a design that
hides the bulb and lens from view to avoid nuisances.
Fire Marshal's Comments
1. The applicant should place a fire hydrant at the driveway and County Road D.
2. A sprinkler system is required.
Other Comments
The RamseyANashington Metro Watershed Distdct had no comment about this proposal. The
MapleWood Police department did not note any public safety concerns with this proposal. They
also noted that it is desirable that the applicant would remove the steep driveway on the east side
of the site to County Road D.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Adopt the resolution on pages 17 and 18. This resolution approves a conditional use permit to
build a new animal hospital that would be closer than 350 feet to a residential distdct at 1320
County Road D. The city bases this approval on the findings required by the ordinance and
subject to the following conditions:
All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city. The director of community
development may approve minor changes. This approval also includes the proposed future
addition shown on the west side of the new hospital.
The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of council
approval or the permit shall become null and void. The council may extend this deadline
for one year.
3. The city council shall review this permit in one year.
4. The owner shall combine the two properties into one parcel for tax and identification
purposes before the city issues a building permit.
5. The city and the owner shall agree to a plan for providing water to site before the city
issues a building permit for the new hospital.
6. There shall not be any outdoor storage unless the city council approves a conditional use
permit for outdoor storage.
7. The applicant meeting all the conditions and plan changes required by the city engineer.
B. Approve the plans date-stamped Februa~ 12, 2002 for the proposed Hillcrest Animal Hospital
at 1320 County Road D. The owner shall do the following:
1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this
project.
2. Submit the following for staff approval before the city issues a building permit:
Grading, drainage, utility and erosion control plans. The plans shall meet all the
requirements of the city engineer. The utility plans shall provide a fire hydrant where the
new ddveway of the hospital meets County Road D.
b. A site lighting plan showing the light spread and fixture design. The light fixtures must
have concealed lenses and bulbs to propedy shield glare from the residents.
A revised landscape plan for CDRB approval. This plan shall include additional landscaping
on the north and east sides of the building and the code-required screening on the west
side of the parking lot and driveway.
Complete the following before occupYing the building:
a. Restore and sod damaged boulevards.
b. Install a handicap-parking sign for the handicap-parking space.
c. Install and maintain an in-ground sprinkler system for all landscaped areas.
d. Stripe all customer parking spaces at a width of 9 1/2 feet and the employee spaces at 9
feet.
5. If any required work is not done, the city may allow temporary occupancy if:
a. The city determines that the work is not essential to the public health, safety or welfare.
The city receives 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.
Signs are not part of this approval. The applicant shall apply for sign permits with staff.
This design approval does not include the future addition on the west side of the hospital.
This addition must be approved by the city before the city issues a building permit for the
addition.
All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may
approve minor changes.
CITIZENS' COMMENTS
I surveyed the 17 property owners within 350 feet of this site. We received two replies that were
both for the proposal.
REFERENCE INFORMATION
SITE DESCRIPTION
Site size: 78,590 square feet (1.8 acres).
Existing land use: Hillcrest Animal Hospital and a single dwelling
SURROUNDING LAND USES
North: New offices across County Road D
South: A house planned and zoned M-1 owned by Sparkle Auto
West: Single dwellings along County Road D
East: Highway 61
PLANNING
Land Use Plan and Zoning designations: M-1
Code Requirements
Section 36-.187(b) states that no building or exterior use, except parking, may be erected, altered
or conducted within 350 feet of a residential district without a CUP.
Criteria for CUP Approval
Section 36-442(a) states that the city council may grant a CUP, subject to the nine standards for
approval. Refer to the resolution on pages 17 and 18.
Application Date
We received this application on February 12, 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 Apdl 11, 2002.
p:sec3~hillcrest animal.cup.doc
Attachments:
1. Location Map
2. Property Line/Zoning Map
3. Site Plan
4. Landscape Plan Details
5. Proposed Grading Plan
6. Building Elevations
7. Building Elevations
8. Conditional Use Permit Narrative dated February 12, 2002
9. Chds Cavett comments dated February 27, 2002
10. CUP Resolution
11. Project Plans date-stamped February 12, 2002 (separate attachment)
VADNAIS HEIGHTS
COUNTY
ROAO D
Attachment 1
;,6~. WHITE BEAR
CO~
COUNTY
SEXTANT
HIGHR
/
AVE'.
SHERREN
LOCATION
6
MAP
Attachment 2
VADNAIS HEIGHTS
COUNTY ROAD Dc
R1
.0
'~'3065
GULDENS
VOLVO-
¢
LEXUS
3110
"3090
1420 A
E
Attachment 3
I~¥ NOTES:
O51TI= ~'L ~,N
SITE PLAN
Attachment 4
I LANO,~C. APE NOTE,G I
Attachment 5
CURB PA.~T CB
/
/
/
/
/
/
/" / ,/ /
i / /I
2
PROPOSED
GRADING
10
PLAN
Attachment 6
........ ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
tC.E'I' NOT~ TO tELEV~,TION,~
O,5~UTN ELEV,~TION
(~ NO~TI-I ELEVATION
BUILDING ELEVATIONS
11
Attachment 7
........................... :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: /.:~
QU JEST ELE'v",,~T ION
t¢-,.E',r' NOTE~ TO ELEVATION,~
BUILDING ELEVATIONS
12
Attachment 8
HILLCREST ANIMAL HOSPITAL
NARRATIVE FOR PROPOSED FACILITY
1320 East County Road D
Maplewood, MN 55109
February 12, 2002
COMPANY BACKGROUND
Hillcrest Animal Hospital is one of the oldest small animal veterinary facilities in Maplewood
and the surrounding area. It concentrates on offering top quality care and service at competitive
prices. Dr. Jennifer Bouthilet purchased the hospital in 1992 from Dr. Conway J. Rosell. Over
the past ten years, Dr. Bouthilet has grown the business 5% annually. That growth along with
additional staffhas put a toll on the existing facility. The 60-year-old facility was designed for
only one veterinarian. Now up to three veterinarians work there each day. The work areas are
crammed into small spaces and there are roof, plumbing and electrical problems. This-hampers
Hillcrest's ability to deliver all the services it would like to offer to ks clients.
Based on a demographic survey completed in 2000 and on listening to clients' needs, Dr.
Bouthilet is proposing a veterinary hospital that will be a "one stop shop" for their clients.
Included will be hospital facilities, boarding, grooming, training, sports medicine and
rehabilitation services. In order to accomplish this goal, the hospital needs to be rebuik.
PROJECT SITE / PHASES
The hospital's current site is an excellent location for the facility. The size of the parcel also
allows the new hospital to be built while the existing hospital remains operating. Overall, the
project will be completed in several phases. The first phase, purchase of the land and buildings,
was recently completed. The second phase, removal of the existing house and design of the new
facility, is currently underway. The third phase, construction of the hospital and boarding
facility, will be completed by summer 2002. The fourth phase includes moving into the new
facility, demolishing the existing structure and completing the site amenities; scheduled to be
completed fall 2002. The fifth phase, scheduled for 2003 - 2004, will be an addition to the
facility to accommodate a training and rehabilitation center.
UTILITIES
The site design and storm water drainage system is designed to balance the pre- and post
development hardsurface / runoff, therefore a retention pond is not required. There are three
existing sanitary sewer stubs to the site. The new building will connect to one of the existing
services, as shown on the drawings. Water is provided to the existing building from a well. In
November, 2001, Dr. Bouthilet petitioned the City to extend municipal water service to the site.
The City Council has directed staff to complete a feasibility study for the water service
extension. Resolution of the water service extension will be done concurrently with this
application.
HILLCREST ANIMAL HOSPITAL
NARRATIVE FOR PROPOSED FACILITY
February 12, 2002
Page 2 of 2
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CRITERIA
The proposed facility requires a conditional use permit because the site has residentially zoned
property adjacent to the west. This application for conditional use permit is for all phases of
construction shown on the drawings, including the future 3,300 sq. ft. addition for a training
center. The following are responses to the criteria for approval ora conditional use permit.
1. The proposed facility maintains the current use on the site and the design conforms to the
City's zoning ordinance requiremems.
2. The proposed facility will enhance the character of the surrounding area.
3. The combination of a new facility and removal of the existing 60-year old building would not
depreciate property values.
The primary use of the new facility remains as a veterinary clinic, with pet boarding
facilities. The future addition would include a training center. None of the proposed uses
would cause a nuisance, or disturbance, to any person or property.
The vehicular traffic generated because of the new facility would only be a minimal increase.
Access to / fi.om County Road D would be improved, because the existing steep driveway
access near the intersection of D and Highway 61 would be abandoned and the remaining
driveway will be rebuilt with a flatter slope.
6. The new facility would be served by adequate public facilities. Refer to discussion of
utilities on previous page.
The use does require extension of public water service to the site, per City requirements.
This cost would not be considered excessive relative to this use, because the City would be
extending this service anyway, in the future.
The site design was carefully planned to maintain most of the large, healthy trees on the site;
the new trees being planted are on the west side of the property to buffer the adjacent
residential property. The significant change in elevation on the site is maintained with this
proposal.
9. The use would cause minimal, if any, adverse environmental effects.
r:4
Attachment 9
Hillcrest Animal Clinic- Engineering Plan Review
Chris Cavett, February 27, 2002
Drainage/Storm Water Treatment / Rainwater Gardens:
1. The storm water management plan as proposed is unacceptable. Earlier discussions
with the owner and architect regarding drainage were not incorporated into the
grading and drainage plans. It was staff s understanding that drainage and treatment
of the storm water would be done in the north west part of the site through the use of
bioretention basins, (rainwater gardens) that would overflow to the County Road D
ditch.
2. Install catch basins on the new driveway to direct as much flow from the parking lot
as possible into the bioretention basin. As designed, the entire parking lot will flow
dkectly into County Road D. This is unacceptable.
3. Design and construct a large bioretention basin, (rainwater garden) in the vicinity of
the existing bituminous surface at the in front of each building. Rainwater gardens
can be situated around the site to capture, store and infiltrate water directed from the
parking lot, drive areas and roof down spouts. Grade swales and provide spillways to
direct this flow into the rainwater gardens.
4. The F, etent~on t'on on the east side of the site shall be designed as a bioretention
basin.
5. Rock Infiltration Sumps must be installed below the rainwater gardens to facilitate
infiltration. Provide a detail in the plan. Pock infiltration sump should be a
minimum of 4' Dia. X 3' tall. 1 ~A" clean clear rock wrapped in type 5 geotextile
filter fabric, (felt). The top of the rock infiltration sump should be placed
approximately 12-inches below finished bottom of the rainwater garden.
6. Provide details and a description on the plan of how the rainwater garden area will be
prepared. The garden area should be sub-cut to provide 12-inches of bedding
material. The bedding material should consist of a mixture of 50% salvaged on-site
topsoil and clean 50% organic compost. The subsoils in the rainwater garden should
be scarified to a depth of 12-inches before the bedding material is placed. The
rainwater garden should be protected with silt fence after grading to prevent silting
into the area, as well as compaction of the soil by construction equipment. The
rainwater garden area should be topped before or after planting with "shredded" wood
mulch. "Woodchips" are NOT acceptable mulching material.
7. A landscape 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 view their BMP Manual:
http://www.metrocouncil.org/environment/Watershed/bmp/manual.htm or contact
Chris Cavett, Maplewood Assistant City Engineer, 651-770-4554.
15
Gradim, and Erosion Control:
1. Erosion control matting is required on all slopes 3:1 or steeper. These locations
should be called out on the plans.
2. Heavy duty, monofilament silt fence shall be required at the base of the eastern slopes
and in the County Road D ditch, near the entrance. Revise silt fence detail.
Specify the seeding miXtures to be used on the eastern slopes. Does the applicant
intend to use a low-maintenance native grass mix on these slopes9 Or do they intend
to mow these slopes? '
4. A rock entrance pad is required. Include a detail of this pad.
Existing trees to be saved on the Landscape plan do NOT correspond with the
proposed grades on the grading plan. Trees to be removed shall be indicated on the
grading and site plans.
6. A structural engineer shall certify final plans of the retaining wall. A building permit
issued by the city is required for all walls 4-feet or higher.
7. Escrow for erosion control and the retaining wall shall be required before the grading
permit will be issued.
8. Please submit to the en ineerin de artment the followin information before
requesting of a grading permit.
a. Revised Grading, Drainage, Erosion control and Landscaping plans.
b. Cubic Yards of material to be moved on site and imported.
c. Square footage of area to be disturbed and graded.
d. Square footage of retaining wall to be constructed.
9. Site disturbance of 1-acre or more requires a permit from the Ramsey-Washington
Metro Watershed District.
Utility Plan:
1. Utility plan details for water service are still pending the outcome of the feasibility
study.
16
Attachment 10
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, Dr. Jennifer Bouthilet, of Hillcrest Animal Hospital, applied for a conditional use
permit to construct a building in the M-1 (light manufacturing zoning district) closer than 350 feet to
property zoned for residential.
WHEREAS, this permit applies to the property on the southwest comer of Highway 61 and
County Road D. The legal descriptions are:
1322 County Road D Legal Description
SUBJECT TO HWY & ROAD: PART NLY OF A LINE BEG ON WL OF NW 1/4 OF SEC 3
183.55 FT S OF NW CORNER TO POINT ON CL OF HWY 61 323.36 FT SWLY FROM INT
OF HWY 61 & NL OF SAID NW 1/4 & THERE TERMINATING AND EASTERLY OF LINE
BEGINING ON SAID DESC LINE 183 FT SELY FROM WL OF SAID NW 1/4 TO POINT ON
NL OF SAID NW 1/4 257.50 FT EAST OF SAID NW 1/4 CORNER & THERE TERMINATING
IN SECTION 3, TOWNSHIP 29, RANGE 22 (PIN 03-29-22-22-0008)
1320 County Road D Legal Description
SUBJECT TO ROAD: THE NORTH 223 FEE'IT OF E 5 FEET AT N TO 15 FEET AT S OF N
741 FT OF SECTION 4, ALSO PART NLY OF A LINE BEG ON W L OF NW 1/4 OF SECTION
3 183.55 FT S NW CORNER TO POINT ON CENTERLINE OF HWY 61 323.36 FT SWLY
FROM INT OF HWY 61 & NL OF SAID NW 1/4 & THERE TERMINATING AND WLY OF LINE
BEG ON SAID DESC LINE 183 FT SELY FROM WL OF SAID NW 1/4 TO POINT ON NL OF
SAID NW 1/4 257.50 FT E OF SAID NW 1/4 CO R & THERE TERMINATING IN SECTION 3,
TOWNSHIP 29, RANGE 22 (PIN 03-29-22-22-0009)
WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows:
1. On March 4, 2002, the planning commission recommended that the city council approve
the conditional use permit for the proposed animal hospital.
The city council held a public hearing on March 25, 2002. City staff published a notice in
the paper and sent notices to the surrounding property owners as required by law. The
council gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements.
The council also considered reports and recommendations of the city staff and planning
commission.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above-described
conditional use permit, because:
1. The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be in
conformity with the city's comprehensive plan and code of ordinances.
2. The use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area.
3. The use would not depreciate property values.
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
17
to any person or property, because of excessive noise, glare, smoke, dust, odor, fumes,
water or air pollution, drainage, water runoff, 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.
The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services.
The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and scenic
features into the development design.
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. The director of community
development may approve minor changes. This approval also includes the proposed future
addition shown on the west side of the new hospital.
The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of council
approval or the permit shall become null and void. The council may extend this deadline
for one year.
3. The city council shall review this permit in one year.
4. The owner shall combine the two properties into one parcel for tax and identification
purposes before the city issues a building permit.
5. The city and the owner shall agree to a plan for providing water to site before the city
issues a building permit for the new hospital.
6. There shall not be any outdoor storage unless the city council approves a conditional use
permit for outdoor storage.
7. The applicant meeting all the conditions and plan changes required by the city engineer.
The Maplewood City Council approved this resolution on
,2002.
18