Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/26/2002BOOK 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. AGENDA MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD February 26, 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, 2002 Minutes Unfinished Business Design Review: St. Jerome's Catholic School - 380 Roselawn Avenue East Visitor Presentations Board Presentations Staff Presentations: a. Community Design Review Board Representation at the March 11, 2002 City Council Meeting b. Mall Area Traffic Study Discussion c. Sidewalk Discussion d. 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. 4. After everyone is the audience wishing to speak has given his or her comments, the chairperson will close the public discussion portion of the meeting. 5. The Board will then discuss the proposal. No further public comments are allowed. 6. The Board will then make its recommendations or decision. 7. Most decisions by the Board are final, unless appealed to the City Council. You must notify the City staff in writing within 15 days to register an appeal. jw\forms\cdrb.agd Revised: 11-09-94 MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA FEBRUARY 12, 2002 II. 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: Recording Secretary: APPROVAL OF AGENDA Present Present Present Absent Shann Finwall, Associate Planner Lisa Kroll 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, Olson 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 Olson 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. Finwail 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 shoreiand 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 5 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 Olson 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 OIson 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 Olson 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): ao Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. 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. 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, repaidreplace 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 repairing or replacing the damaged sections of chain link fence, the chain link fence located on the west side of the lot can be go 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 li_qhtina 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. 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. 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 l! 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 Olson 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 ]3 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 Olson 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: ao 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) (b) Show where the developer or contractor will remove, save or replace large trees. 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 15 (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. 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). d. 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 showin.q the following: Community Design Review Board Minutes 02-12-2002 16 (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 buildings. The monument siqn plans submitted by the developer at the February 12, 2002, CDRB meetinq is conceptually approved. The applicant shall submit final sign plans, including the location, height, and materials for staff approval. h. Submit samples of all buildinq materials and the color schemes for the buildings to the city for staff approval. 3. Complete the following before occupying the buildings: Replace property irons that are removed because of this construction and set new property irons for the new property corners. Restore and sod damaged boulevards and sod all turf areas outside of the ponding areas. Co 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. 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. 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. 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). 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 4. If any required work is not done, the city may allow temporary occupancy if: a. The city determines that the work is not essential to the public health, safety or welfare. b. The city receives cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit for the required work. The amount shall be 150 percent of the cost of the unfinished work. Any unfinished landscaping shall be completed by June 1 if the building is occupied in the fall or winter, or within six weeks of occupancy if the building is occupied in the spring or summer. c. The city receives an agreement that will allow the city to complete any unfinished work. 5. All work shall follow the approved plans. may approve minor changes. Board member Jorgenson seconded. The director of community development Ayes- Jorgenson, Ledvina, Olson 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.._Jl 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 2! Xm c. Schedule Interviews for Community Design Review Board Vacancy. The interviews for the community design review board vacancy will be held sometime in March. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:37 p.m. MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: LOCATION: DATE: City Manager Shann Finwall, Associate Planner Expansion of Preschool St. Jerome's Catholic School 380 Roselawn Avenue East February 13, 2002 INTRODUCTION Project Description 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. Recent Approvals February 26, 1990: The city council approved two conditional use permits for the expansion of a church and for a daycare facility. Requests 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. DISCUSSION Preschool 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, 2 % hour sessions a week. The addition will allow Kid's Korner to expand from 29 to 80 children. Addition Design 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. Fire Safety The city's fire marshal, Butch Gervais, and building official, Dave Fisher, are working with St. Jerome's to ensure that their safety concerns are addressed (see attached St. Jerome's letter on page 13). St. Jerome's proposes to sprinkler the new addition and west wing of the school immediately, with the entire building having sprinklers installed within five years. In addition, St. Jerome's will install new smoke and fire detection alarms for the entire school immediately. Screening and Landscaping The city's screening ordinance requires a 20-foot landscaping and screening buffer when a nonresidential use abuts a residentially zoned property. The addition will follow the existing building setback of 30 feet to the adjacent westerly residential lot line and will therefore comply with the code. Three large trees and shrubs must be removed during construction of the addition. The city's tree preservation ordinance requires that all large trees be replaced one for one, not to exceed ten trees per acre. St. Jerome's proposes to replace only one tree near the back of the church, with no additional landscaping planted. To comply with the city's tree preservation ordinance, staff recommends that three ornamental trees be planted on the west side of the addition, rather than just one to the rear of the church as proposed by St. Jerome's. Because the addition will be constructed right up to the sidewalk, there is no room for foundation plantings. However, staff recommends that additional shrubbery be planted on the east side of the sidewalk (see site plan on page 10 for staff's recommended plantings). Lighting Four wall-pack lights are proposed with the addition, three on the north elevation and one on the east elevation. All wall-pack lights will be mounted 12 feet in height and will be directed downward to prevent glare onto adjoining properties. In addition to the wall-pack lights, two 3-foot-high bollard lights will be added near the new entryway. Dumpster Enclosure The city's ordinance requires that all dumpsters be screened in a 100 percent opaque enclosure, but allows the community design review board to waive the required screening if the dumpsters are not visible from surrounding properties or the street. Two dumpsters are currently stored on the southwest corner of the lot, in between the school and a garage. Because the trash enclosures are completely screened from the adjacent properties and the street, St. Jerome's has asked the city to waive this requirement. Staff concurs and recommends that no dumpster enclosure be required for the school's two existing dumpsters. St. Jerome's Catholic School 2 February 13, 2002 Parking The church and the school share the parking lot. There are currently §3 striped parking stalls and room for an additional 97 striped parking stalls on the lot. With the addition, 18 additional parking stalls will be striped in front of the school. Parking on the lot will be more than adequate to accommodate the school and proposed preschool/daycam addition. Neighborhood Comment All comments received from the surrounding residential properties were positive. In general, most residents felt that the expanded preschool/daycare would be an asset to the community. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Adopt the resolution on pages 14 and 15. This resolution grants a conditional use permit for the expansion of a preschool at St. Jerome's Catholic School. This permit is based on the standards for approval required by Code and subject to the following conditions: a. All construCtion shall follow the site plan approved by the City. The Director of Community Development may approve minor changes. b. 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. c. The City Council shall review this permit in one year. 2. Approve the 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 1% 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. St. Jerome's Catholic School 3 February 13, 2002 c. Complete the following before occupying the building: (1) Screen all new roof-mounted equipment visible from streets or adjacent property. (3) 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. 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% of the cost of the unfinished work. (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. St. Jerome's Catholic School 4 February 13, 2002 o CITIZEN COMMENTS I surveyed the owners of the 40 properties within 350 feet of this site. Of the 8 replies, all were in favor of the proposal: 1. Christopher McDonnell, 379 Ripley Avenue E: I have no concerns about the proposed construction. 2. Donald Zettel: 334 Roselawn Avenue E: It is okay with us. 3. Audrey Duellman: 1843 Desoto Street North: Good project, we are in favor of it. · 4. John Thomas, 328 Roselawn Avenue E: The proposed construction sounds okay to us. We do not attend St. Jerome's, so do not know a lot about it, but see no problems. They probably do need the space. D.H. schroepfer, 314 Bellwood Avenue East: We have no objections to this addition. James H. Keultjes, 334 Bellwod Avenue EaSt: I have no objections to this plan. The extra daycare and preschool will be good for our area. 7. Marlin and janine Frans, 1866 McMenemy Street North: Building the preschool would be a great idea -go ahead with the plans. 8. Roger and CYnthia Chinander, 328 Bellwood Avenue East: We have no problem with proposed addition. February 13, 2002 St. Jerome's Catholic School 5 REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Site Size: Existing Land Use: 10.65 Acres Church, Elementary School, and Preschool SURROUNDING LAND USES North: South: East: West: PLANNING Single Family Homes and Open Space 12-Unit, Multi-Dwelling Complex Rosotto Senior Apartments Single Family Homes and Parish Zoning: Land Use Plan: Farm Residence School CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL Section 36-436(3) requires a CUP for any daycare facility or school within any zoning district. Section 25-70 of the city code requires that the CDRB make the following findings to approve plans: 1. That the design and location of the proposed development and its relationship to neighboring, existing or proposed developments and traffic is such that it will not impair the desirability of investment or occupation in the neighborhood; that it will not unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring, existing or proposed developments; and that it will not create traffic hazards or congestion. 2. That the design and location of the proposed development is in keeping with the character of the surrounding neighborhood and is not detrimental to the harmonious, orderly and attractive development contemplated by this article and the city's comprehensive municipal plan. 3. That the design and location of the proposed development would provide a desirable environment for its occupants, as well as for its neighbors, and that it is aesthetically of good composition, materials, textures and colors. Findings for CUP Approval Section 36-442(a) states that the city may approve a CUP, based on the nine standards as specified in the resolution on pages 14 and 15. St. Jerome's Catholic School 6 February 13, 2002 Application Date We received the complete applications and plans for St. Jerome's expansion on January 15, 2002. State law requires that the city take action within 60 days of receiving complete applications for a proposal. City action is required on this proposal by March 16, 2002. Attachments: 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Location Map Zoning Map Site Plan Elevations M.C.L. Architect's December 22, 2001, Letter St. Jerome's January 17, 2002, Letter Conditional Use Permit Resolution St. Jerome's Catholic School 7 February 13, 2002 Attachment 1 Location Map 8 Attachment 2 · 'S :St. Jerome Catholic Church and School Farm Residence Multiple Dwelling Residential (R-3) Zoning Map Attachment 3 N Site Plan S 10 Attachment 4 --; .:~ ~~ ........ ~ ; "~:; "L 3~ ~~ ,. ~== ~~ ~~ No~h E~eg~ion ~- - ................ 7 :'-'r~ ..... ~ ..... ~ .... ~ ..... :=[Z_Z~ - ~ , ~.:_z ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: N '-'eva" : :IONS S 11 Attachment 5 ARCHITECTS, INC. MEMORANDUM New Addition and School Renovation Church of St. Jerome 380 Roselawn Avenue East Maplewood, MN 55117 Project No. 40506.000 22 December 2001 Response to Item 2, City of Maplewood Conditional Use or PUD Application: "A written statement describing the intended use of the property and why the City should approve your request." St. Jerome's Catholic Church and School have been operating at their current location since before 1951-52 when the first wing of the present K-8 school building w/preschool program was constructed. The proposed preschool addition of approximately 3,800 square feet is consistent with the present use of the building and property. The character and location of the addition will not negatively change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area. Since the proposed addition is a relatively small expansion of the existing program and use, it should not depreciate property values or create any community disturbances mentioned in criteria number four. The childcare program will increase from a current attendance of 29, to an attendance of up to 60 children at any one time. The small addition should have a minimal effect on vehicular traffic and would be served adequately by public facilities and services withOut excessive additional costs. The size and location of the addition has minimal impact on the site's natural features and the environment in general. The addition is essential to the school's future vitality. As a feeder program to the K-8 Grade School, the preschool addition will serve both the parish and greater community, insuring the church's future presence in the City of Maplewood. McGUIKE COURTEAU LUCKE ARCHITECTS, INC. Eric J. Ketelsen EJK:pas 12 McGUIRE COURTEAU LUCKE ARCHITECTS, INC. 400 St. Paul Building, 6 West Fifth Street, St. Paul, MN 55102 TEL (651) 222-8451 FAX (651) 222-5414 Januaryl 7, 2002 Att_achment 6 Fire Marshal Maplewood Fire Department 1830 E. County Rd. B Maplewood, MN. 55109 Subject: St. Jerome School Addition Att: Butch Gervais Gentlemen, St. Jerome Parish is in the process of expanding their child care center (Kid's 'Korner) by adding on to the existing school building and providing some upgrades to the existing facility. An ambitious proposal for site and building improvements was made more than a year ago and a fund campaign was initiated and completed by mid summer. Unfortunately, we were not able to raise the funding necessary and the project has been substantially down sized. We have submitted plans to the city for an addition of about 3900 square feet and some internal building upgrades such as handicap access and toilet facilities. We will add sprinkler protection for the new areas and the entire west wing. We have included new smoke and fire detection and alarms for the entire school facility. We do not have adequate funding to complete the sprinklers in the center or east wing but adequate sizing and stub-off will be provided so that that area can be completed in the future. We should be able to complete this campaign and reduce our financial debt sufficiently to add the remaining sprinklers within five years. We hope you will support our efforts to improve the St. Jerome School facility at this time and within our financial constraints and timetable. If you have any questions or comments, please contact us immediately as we are trying to schedule most of the construction work this summer to avoid conflict with class scheduling. Thank you for your help. Sincerely, Pastor X~rflliam J. Tronsen project leader CC. Dave Fisher - Building Official Maplewood Community Development. 13 Attachment 7 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION WHEREAS, St. Jerome's Catholic School applied for a conditional use permit for the expansion of a preschool; WHEREAS, this permit applies to property located at 380 Roselawn Avenue East, Maplewood, Minnesota. The legal description is: The East % of the NW Quarter of the NW Quarter of the SW Quarter of Section 17, Township 29, Range 22; and also the N 233 ft of the E 160 ft of the W 327.31 ft of the SW N of Section 17, Township 29, Range 22; and also the S 75 ft of the N 433 ft of the W ~ of the NW N of the NW Quarter of the SW N, Section 17, Township 29, Range 22; and also the W % of the NE ¼ of the NW N of the SW Y~, Section 17, Township 29, Range 22, except that part deeded to Ramsey County as shown by a deed in Book 750 of Deeds on page 634, and except an easement for highway purposes; and also S 125 ft of the N 358 ft of the W 327 and 327.31 ft of the N Quarter of the NW Quarter of the SW Quarter of Section 17, Township 29, Range 22, subject to the rights of the public in highways, according to the United States Government Survey thereof. WHEREAS, the Ramsey County Property Identification Number for this property is as follows: 17-29-22-32-0004. WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: On ,2002, the planning commission recommended that the city council approve the conditional use permit. On ,2002, the city council held a public hearing. City staff published a notice in the Maplewood Review and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The council conducted the public hearing whereby all public present were given a chance to speak and present written statements. The city council also considered reports and recommendations from the city staff and planning commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approves the above- described conditional use permit based on the building and site plans. The city approved 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. The use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area. 3. The use would not depreciate property values. 14 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 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. 7. The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services. The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and scenic features into the development design. 9. The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects. Approval of the conditional use permit is subject to the following conditions: All construction of St. Jerome's Preschool addition shall follow the site plan approved by the city. The director of community development may approve minor changes. The proposed preschool addition 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 Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on ,2002. 15