The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About03/11/2008 AGENDA CITY OF MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD Tuesday, March 11, 2008 6:00 P.M. Council Chambers - Maplewood City Hall 1830 County Road BEast 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Agenda 4. Approval of Minutes: a. January 22, 2008 b. February 12, 2008 5. Design Review: a. Heritage Square 5th Addition Design Modification (Highway 61 and County Rd D) 6. Unfinished Business: a. On-Site Dynamic Display Sign Code 7. Visitor Presentations: 8. Board Presentations: 9. Staff Presentations: a. New Community Design Review Board Appointments b. Election of Chair and Vice Chair c. Representation at the April 14, 2008, City Council Meeting: Items to be discussed include Heritage Square 5th Addition 10. Adjourn DRAFT MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD 1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, JANUARY 22, 2008 I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Olson called the rneeting to order at 6:01 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Board rnember John Dernko Vice-Chairperson Matt Ledvina Chairperson Linda Olson Board rnernber Ananth Shankar Board rnember Matt Wise Present Present Present Present Present Staff Present: Shann Finwall, Planner III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Board rnernber Ledvina moved to approve the amended agenda moving Item 7-Visitor Presentations to become Item 5 and renumbering the subsequent items and also adding item 9. c.-Environmental Planner to the agenda. Board member Wise seconded. The motion passed. Ayes - all IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a. January 8, 2008 Board member Shankar moved approval of the minutes of January 8, 2008 as submitted. Board member Demko seconded The motion passed. Ayes - all V. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS Ron Cockriel, chair of the Maplewood Preservation Commission and member of the Maplewood Historical Society, informed the board of the groups efforts to secure a Local Governments grant for educating board and commission members about recognizing historical architectural and design issues. Mr. Cockriel informed the board of several training options that are available. Mr. Cockriel gave the grant information to staff to review. VI. UNFINISHED BUSINESS a. On-Site Dynamic Display Sign Code Discussion Planner Shann Finwall presented the staff report and also informed the board that the city council has requested a moratorium on dynamic display signs to allow the CDRB & PC time to draft an ordinance which addresses those types of signs. That moratorium will go to the city council on Monday, January 28 for first reading. Community Design Review Board Minutes 01-22-2008 2 The board discussed with staff how the proposed ordinance would affect some of the city's existing sign age, such as the amount of sign area allowed for conversion to dynamic display and setback requirements near parks and other signs. Board member Wise questioned whether the right-of-way area should be excluded from the sign setback measurement. Mr. Wise said the matter of whether the 600-foot sign setback Is measured from the road or an out parcel should be considered also, since an out parcel typically already has signage. Mr. Wise suggested that site architectural features might be considered in establishing the square footage or percentage display requirement. Board member Ledvina said he feels the allowable zoning districts of BC, M-1 and M-2 are appropriate and that the minimum 20-minute changeover timeline is reasonable. Mr. Ledvina said he is okay with the maximum 50 percent total square-footage requirement. Mr. Ledvina said he does not believe it would be feasible to exclude the right-of-way for setback measurement due to land issues such as easements that would create an unlevel playing field, but that standards do need to be established relating to specific property lines and uses. Mr. Ledvina suggested the proposed 75-foot residential setback is very close and that a setback of between 100 and 200 feet might be better. Mr. Ledvina said he does not have the answer, but he does not agree with the 600-foot setback concept which would allow the first property owner who can afford it to be able to install the sign and he feels this will be a problem. Staff said the board should consider including an additional side-yard setback requirement which would help to eliminate signs being too close together and should also consider allowing only one dynamic display sign on a property. Board member Olson said only one pylon sign should be allowed per property and should have additional restrictions. Ms. Olson said she feels signs attached to buildings will need a separate set of language. Ms. Olson mentioned she feels the minimum display of 20 minutes is too long and could be shortened to 5 minutes. Ms. Olson said she agrees with increasing the 75-foot residential setback to 100 feet, but should also include the setback to include any residential structure, park, nature preserve, wetland or historic area. Board member Demko suggested including a requirement to remove an existing sign for any new dynamic display sign installed. Mr. Demko said he agrees that the proposed 75-foot residential setback needs to be increased. Board member Olson discussed whether to allow free-standing dynamic signs as opposed to dynamic wall signs. Board member Shankar suggested that wall signs might be allowed only for businesses exceeding 100,000 square feet. Board member Wise suggested that 100,000 square feet would allow wall signage only at the Maplewood Mall and that reducing the square footage to 50,000 to 60,000 square feet might be more reasonable. Mr. Wise also suggested that businesses should be encouraged by the city to enter into shared sign agreements. Board member Ledvina said he favors limiting dynamic display signs to free-standing signs only and yet allow larger commercial properties that have comprehensive sign plans to propose alternate designs for wall signs. Community Design Review Board 3 Minutes 01-22-2008 The board made suggestions to staff for revisions to the dynamic sign code draft. Chairperson Olson suggested the board table this discussion until the next meeting and asked staff to review the board's comments and suggestions and prepare a draft of the on-site ordinance for the next meeting. VII. DESIGN REVIEW None VIII. BOARD PRESENTATIONS None IX. STAFF PRESENTATIONS a. 2007 Community Design Review Board Annual Report Planner Finwall presented the staff report and draft copy of the board's 2007 annual report. The board suggested the following revisions to the report: (1) move CarMax Auto and The Shores Tree Preservation and Landscape Plan items to "Miscellaneous Reviews", (2) add "off-site" to the Dynamic Display Sign Ordinance item, (3) add one joint meeting with the environmental and natural resource commission and add the CDRB chair attending their meeting, (4) request feedback to number two under 2008 Recommendations, (5) add information regarding the feedback submitted concerning the Comprehensive Plan review. Board member Ledvina moved the Community Design Review Board forward their 2007 annual report to the City Council to include the revisions discussed at this meeting. Board member Shankar seconded Ayes - all b. Update on Board Member Interviews Planner Finwall reported that board terms expired at the end of 2007 for board members Ananth Shankar and Matt Wise, who have reapplied and will be interviewed by the city council in February. Board members thanked these members for their service. c. Environmental Planner Planner Shann Finwall informed the board that she has been hired by the city as an environmental planner to take effect February 11. Ms. Finwall explained the possible administrative changes that this change entails. X. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:00 p.m. DRAFT MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD 1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 12, 2008 I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Olson called the meeting to order at 6:04 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Board member John Demko Vice-Chairperson Matt Ledvina Chairperson Linda Olson Board member Ananth Shankar Board member Matt Wise Present Absent Present Present Absent Staff Present: Tom Ekstrand, City Planner III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Board member Shankar moved to approve the agenda as presented. Board member Demko seconded. The motion passed. Ayes - all IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a. January 22, 2008 Chair Olson suggested tabling the minutes until board members Ledvina and Wise are present, since they had a lot of input into these minutes. Board member Demko moved to table the minutes of January 22, 2008 until the absent board members are present. Board member Shankar seconded The motion passed. Ayes - all V. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS None VI. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None VII. DESIGN REVIEW a. St. Paul's Monastery, 2675 Larpenteur Avenue City planner Tom Ekstrand presented the staff report for the request for plan review for a new monastery building at St. Paul's Monastery property. Community Design Review Board Minutes 02-12-2008 2 Jim Johnson of Pope Associates, the architect for this project, gave an overview. Mr. Johnson explained that the stone materials proposed for the building will be the same stone used on the existing building. Mr. Johnson said there will not be a fence installed as part of this proposal. Mr. Johnson explained that the storm water will be treated through the existing pond system. The board discussed with Mr. Johnson and staff the planned roads and curb and gutter construction and also questioned plans for lighting. Board member Shankar questioned whether a dormer could be added on the south to enhance the roof on the three-story building. Mr. Johnson responded that the long roof was designed to emphasize the bell tower and cross. Board member Shankar asked Mr. Johnson to submit to staff a copy of the dormer planned for the west elevation of the building for staff approval. Board member Olson said that the design to emphasize the bell tower and cross seems reasonable for constructing the long roof on the south elevation and that she is okay with this. Board member Shankar moved to approve the plans date-stamped January 4, 2008 for the St. Paul's Monastery. Approval is subject to the applicant doing the following: 1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. 2. Before getting a building permit, the applicant shall provide cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit in the amount of 150 percent of the cost of completing exterior improvements like landscaping, in-ground lawn irrigation, parking lot striping and the like. 3. Meet all requirements of the building official, assistant fire marshal, police and city engineering staff. 4. Comply with the May 14, 2007 city council conditions. 5. Provide a site and design plan for the screening of any trash and recycling containers if they would be kept outside. Should a trash enclosure area be proposed in the future, it shall not be placed in any parking space. 6. Provide additional parking if the proposed number of spaces becomes insufficient. 7. Provide a lighting-fixture plan to staff for approval prior to getting a building permit. 8. Provide in-ground lawn irrigation as required by the city code. 9. The community design review board shall review major changes to these plans. Minor changes may be approved by staff. 10. The parking lot and driveways shall have continuous concrete curbing unless exempted by the city engineer to facilitate drainage. 11. The applicant shall submit a revised sketch of the west side showing the dormer. Board member Olson seconded The motion passed. Ayes - all Community Design Review Board Minutes 02-12-2008 3 b. Maplewood Town Center Remodel and Comprehensive Sign Plan Amendment, 1845 County Road D City planner Tom Ekstrand presented the staff report for the request from H. J. Development, Inc. for approval of plans to remodel the exterior of this shopping center. The applicant is also requesting approval of a comprehensive sign plan amendment to replace and improve the two existing pylon signs on the site. Gary Janisch and Angie Jasperson were present representing H. J. Development, Inc. Mr. Janisch explained that their design upgrade proposal to remodel the exterior of the shopping center would be done in two phases and this plan is the first phase. Board member Shankar asked Mr. Janisch to comment on the plan for the roof parapet. Mr. Janisch responded that the height of the roof parapet would be increased to more attractively screen the roof units. Ms. Jasperson displayed the colors to be used and discussed them with the board. Board member Demko moved to approve the plans date-stamped January 4, 2008 for the proposed building upgrades and signage changes to the Maplewood Town Center shopping center located at 1845 County Road D East. Approval is subject to the applicant complying with the following conditions: 1. Repeating this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. 2. Providing trash enclosures for all trash and recycling containers that are on site. Trash enclosures shall be of a material and color that matches the building. The applicant shall submit site and design plans for staff approval. These enclosures shall be constructed as part of the Phase One work. Any future trash containers for the old Best Buy store space shall also be kept in enclosures as required by this approval and city ordinance. 3. Providing cash escrow in the amount of 150 percent of the cost of constructing the trash enclosures prior to getting a building permit for the proposed shopping center upgrades. 4. The Phase One pylon sign replacement is approved as proposed. Within the next six months, if the applicant can reach an agreement with Best Buy to remove the freeway- frontage sign, that sign shall be removed and replaced with the proposed design. 5. The community design review board shall approve major changes to these plans. Minor changes may be approved by staff. 6. The Phase Two building design shall be submitted to the review board for approval when the time comes for that remodeling phase. Board member Shankar seconded The motion passed. Ayes - all VIII. BOARD PRESENTATIONS None Community Design Review Board Minutes 02-12-2008 4 IX. STAFF PRESENTATIONS City planner Tom Ekstrand said that he is replacing planner Shann Finwall as the staff liaison with the review board. Mr. Ekstrand said that Ms. Finwall will continue to work with the board on the dynamic display sign code amendment until it is completed. Mr. Ekstrand asked for a board volunteer to attend the February 25 city council meeting to discuss the review board's 2007 annual report submitted to the council. Mr. Shankar volunteered to attend. Mr. Ekstrand also gave board members a copy of a proposal circulated by Ken Roberts and asked the board for their review and comments regarding the entryway/bathroom addition to the Bruentrup Farm. X. ADJOURNMENT Board member Shankar moved adjournment of the meeting at 7:32 p.m. Board member Demko seconded Ayes - all MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: DATE: Acting City Manager Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner Preliminary Plat Revision and Design Review-Heritage Square 5th Addition County Road 0 Extension March 1, 2008 INTRODUCTION Project Description K. Hovnanian Homes is proposing to redesign their Heritage Square 4th Addition housing development to incorporate a third style of town house in this project. The redesign would change the building placement of the remaining four buildings and, consequently, would require a replat of the current lot/building pad configuration. This change in layout would also result in a reduction in density. Under the current plan, the applicant can build 48 more units in the remaining four, 12-unit buildings. The proposed plan would have eight buildings with four to six units per building. Refer to the attachments. The applicant is proposing to complete the development with town homes that buyers have shown considerable interest with in their Heritage Square First Addition neighborhood at Legacy Village. This style of building is called the HomeTown Collection. Requests The applicant is requesting the following approvals: 1. A revised preliminary plat. 2. Site, landscaping and building design plans. BACKGROUND July 12, 2004: The city council approved a land use plan change to R3M (medium density residential) for Heritage Square 4th Addition. April 25, 2005: The city council approved the preliminary plat, a five-foot parking lot setback variance and the design plans for this project. Refer to the attached conditions. August 8, 2005: The city council approved the final plat for Heritage Square 4th Addition, subject to the following conditions: . Providing cash escrow, in the amount to be determined by the city engineer, to guarantee the dedication of the trail easements. The city will not sign the plat documents until this escrow has been paid. . Completing the trail-easement dedication before the city will issue the second building permit for this project. October 10,2005: The city council dropped the requirement that the applicant must build the southerly trail along the Lydia Avenue alignment. In lieu of that, they required the developer provide $20,000 in a park dedication payment for future park/trail amenity improvements for the northerly trail. See the discussion below. October 16, 2006: City staff approved a design revision for the remaining buildings in this development to allow the applicant's change to one-level units. These condo-style buildings were to replace the previously-approved multi-story units on the same building footprint. At this time, only the 18-unit northerly building has been built. DISCUSSION Preliminary Plat City staff engineer, Jon Jarosch, reviewed the proposal. Mr. Jarosch listed several revisions to be made that relate to grading, drainage stormwater management, erosion control, sanitary sewer, trails and landscaping. None were serious concerns and the final details will be worked out with the city. Refer to Mr. Jarosch's report. Trail Easements In 2005, the developer was required to dedicate trail easements and drainage/utility easements for connection to the Lake Links Regional Trail System and also required to provide a trail from their project to the single dwelling neighborhood to the west via the vacated Lydia Street alignment. The developer was required to construct these trails. Prior to the original project approval, the council reconsidered the need for the southerly trail. On October 10, 2005, after considering input from staff, they dropped the requirement for the south trail. (Refer to the attached council minutes.) It was found that the trail would have been difficult to build due to grades and, also, neither the neighborhood to the west or the applicant (in consideration of their future residents) desired the trail. The council required that the developer pay $20,000 as a park dedication fee toward park trail corridor improvements (benches, ornamentation, drinking fountain and signage) for the existing Highline Trail from Labore Road to County Road D. The council required that the developer dedicate a trail easement on their property, however, in the event the city decided to build the trail in the future. The applicant, then Town & Country Homes, did provide the $20,000 payment as well as dedicate the trail easement. At this time, in consideration of the fact that the trail is not desired by residents and there will be a completed trail to the north, not to mention the difficulty of grade limitations, staff recommends that this southerly trail be eliminated. The council already determined that the applicant would not be required to build this trail, however, they did, on October 10, 2005, require that they dedicate a trail easement just in case. If the council still desires that this option be kept open, the applicant should be required to rededicate this trail easement based on the revised plat layout. Northerly Trail Requirement/Need The applicant should still be required to construct the northerly trail connection as previously conditioned by council. The pedestrian easement is in place and the applicant has paid $20,000 toward trail amenities. As a condition of this approval, the applicant should be required to provide sufficient escrow to cover this trail construction before the next building permit is issued. 2 Neighborhood Comments and Neighborhood Meeting Staff surveyed the surrounding property owners within 500 feet for their input. Staff received two replies. One neighbor noted pros and cons and the other had no comment. ~ 1) I am opposed to reduction in guest parking spots. 2) Row housing design reduces aesthetic appearance. 3) Impact of density reduction 48 to 40 is positive for traffic in area. Robert Kranz, 1264 Highridge Court. Neiqhborhood Meetinq Mr. Shawn Siders, with K. Hovnanian Homes, held a neighborhood meeting to show the surrounding property owners their plans for this development. Mr. Siders gave the following overview of that meeting: At our neighborhood meeting, we had six different property owners attend. Three were from our existing community and three were from the single family community to the west. These were the residents most closely abutting our community. Overall the context of the meeting was very positive. Their primary questions were focused around the lower heights of the proposed Hometown style units and opening up views which the previous plans were going to be blocked. There were questions with respect to landscaping that we were able to address at the meeting (schedule, species, etc...) There were also questions as to the type of fence that we will install on the top of the retaining wall and I think we have a solution that will satisfy the neighbors (we will propose to use a black chain link as opposed to a typical split rail). There were questions as to the trail connection that we were unable to respond to because the city does not have an easement for the installation. There were also questions regarding the installation of additional open space/site amenities. We shared with the homeowners that the already lower than approved density and lack of number of homes on this site makes it impossible to accommodate that type of request. There were questions as to pricing and at this point, we are able to provide a range, but nothing too specific because it has not been determined. Finally, there were questions as to the composition of the HOA which all were satisfied with once we explained how this conversion would work. Once again, we were able to respond to a majority of the questions and in general all were left with a positive impression of the project. Design Considerations Though the building design would change, the exterior materials are consistent with the two previous designs. These remain to be brick accent detailing, vinyl lap siding and vinyl shakes. Staff feels the buildings would be attractive and would fit in with the current building design styles in this development so far. Landscaping Plan The proposed landscaping would be very attractive and would be compatible with that of the existing buildings. The proposed landscape screen or buffer on the west side, however, would not be as thick of a planting screen as it should be. Staff recommends increasing the number of trees in this area, especially in the areas by driveways to screen headlights. The plan meets 3 tree-replacement requirements. The original site was nearly devoid of trees prior to any construction so the tree replacement needs are being met. One further recommendation from the city's naturalist is that the proposed barberry bushes should be replaced with a non-invasive shrub. Fire Marshal's Comments Butch Gervais, the assistant fire chief, had the following comments in his initial review in 2005 which still apply. The applicant shall: . Install fire protection per code. . Install mini sounders in each unit to alert occupants in case fire protection is activated. . Monitor fire protection system per code. . Provide 20 foot wide emergency access road. . Install fire department lock box. . Keep all permits, inspection cards and approved plans on site. Police Considerations Lieutenant Rabbett gave the following comments: I have reviewed the proposal and have no significant public safety concerns. There appears to be no significant changes from the original proposal from a public safety perspective. Building Official's Comments Dave Fisher, the Maplewood Building Official, has the following comments: . The city will require a complete building code analysis. . Separate building permits are required for each unit. . All exiting must go to a public way. . Provide adequate fire department access to the buildings. . All buildings over 9,250 square feet must be fire sprinklered. . A pre-construction meeting with the building-inspection department is recommended. RECOMMENDATIONS A. Approval of the preliminary plat date-stamped February 1, 2008 for the Heritage Square 5th Addition, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall provide escrow in the amount of 150 percent of the cost of completing the pedestrian trail connection between their northerly trail and the existing power line trail to the west. This escrow shall be in a form acceptable to the city engineering department and shall be provided before the issuance of the next building permit. The applicant shall be responsible for constructing this trail, subject to the specifications of the city, before the end of construction season 2008. 2. The applicant shall comply with all requirements of the city's engineering report dated February 27, 2008. The applicant shall enter into a developer's agreement if required by the city's engineering department and shall be subject to their requirements. 4 3. The previous requirement for the dedication of the Lydia Avenue alignment trail shall not be required with this replat because of the resident's wishes that there be no trail here and due to the grade difficulties. B. Approve the plans date-stamped February 1, 2008 for the Heritage Square 5th Addition. The developer shall comply with the following conditions: 1. Comply with the requirements of the city engineering departments report dated February 27, 2008. The applicant shall enter into a developer's agreement if required by the city's engineering department and shall be subject to their requirements. 2. The applicant shall provide escrow in the amount of 150 percent of the cost of completing the pedestrian trail connection between their northerly trail and the existing power line trail to the west. This escrow shall be in a form acceptable to the city engineering department and shall be provided before the issuance of the next building permit. The applicant shall be responsible for building this trail, subject to the specifications of the city, by the end of construction season 2008. 3. Meet all requirements of the building official and fire marshal. 4. Obtain all required permits from the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District. 5. Any retaining wall that exceeds a height of four feet must be engineered and have a building permit. Retaining walls that are four feet tall or more shall also have a protective fence of black chain link fence on top. 6. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. 7. The applicant shall install an inground irrigation system for all landscaped areas. 8. The landscaping plan shall be revised to provide a substitution for the barberry bushes since they are an invasive species. The landscaping plan shall also be revised for staff approval to provide a denser planting screen for the neighbors to the west. In particular, the areas west of driveways must have a thicker planted buffer. 9. The applicant shall provide a lighting plan for staff approval before getting a building permit for the first building. 10. The planning staff may approve minor changes to these plans. 5 REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Site Size: 12 acres (total project area) Existing Land Use: The first three buildings of this housing development SURROUNDING LAND USES North: The northerly 18-unit building in this development South: Car dealerships West: Single dwellings East: Gulden's Roadhouse, Venberg Tire, Sparkle Auto and two proposed auto dealerships PLANNING Land Use Plan Designation: R3M Zoning: The property is zoned R-3 APPLICATION DATE/APPROVAL DEADLINE The city received the preliminary plat and design review applications on February 1, 2008. State law requires that the city take action within 60 days of receiving complete applications for a land use proposal. Council action, therefore, is required by April 1 ,2008. p:sec4:Heritage Square 5th Addition Pre Plat 3 08 Attachments: 1 . Location/Zoning Map 2. Existing Approved Heritage Square 4th Addition Development Plan 3. Proposed Building Layout Revision 4. Landscaping Plan Reductions 5. Building Elevation Reductions 6. Engineering Report by Jon Jarosch dated February 27,2008 7. City Council Minutes dated October 10, 2005 8. Plans date-stamped February 1, 2008 (separate attachment) 6 Attachment 1 HERITAGE SQUARE 4TH ADDITION <,,;~0t ,~:,r/ I ,'.,. ~ L .~:, ,!is~~i'~,~oth~~' " ! III m I ~,~:~~.:;~; '.::" , LOCATION I ZONING MAP J= I H~zelwood I / J I-- ! J ;1 ;LR-1L' ! ,~'/ / "!~ : !'-, /'" !/ i-Y/ " I ~ 1 ~? I , ~ ~~. . . i i r-< ~. N~~ . ? ~~q 2 l... /" / <.,,' ::.: r-;.;.:---- I I ::) I . ,t~~====J I I I I I \ I I \ I I I I I I I \ I I -r------. I I I ..J....______. EXISTING 18-UNIT TOWN HOUSE BUILDING , , , , o. , > \, '/' , , v II -< -< ~ n > r " ~ ~~ rO ~~ ~ ~ > ... '.. z ;l?~ ~ " ~ ~ ': --~-- I I I , i i ! I l 12-UNIT CONDO BUILDING UNDER CONSTRUCTION ::j ..~-- :i: EXISTING 12-UNIT CONDO BUIILDING j" ~! Ji i~ .i . , ' " ~.~ ~ ~ . . I . . J"'!I"'! '!I!"'""'!"'l" ~1"!T a Ii ili !i i Ii; ~l 'i,',!jl ,II;,! jiil!! ~ !il!!d ~ '1- .~ t fh!~ ..! "!1~iJ .iF,.. f; iji:~ I~~ ~ Ii ili ~! II :ii !!ill'lllll, 'i',':! ~ :'i~:II. ~. it! ~;t ~ :; ill! !i~t i i,lIii !~ ~ 'I!~ii Ii '!&!!!!ill~l~iii !l!; 1ill gli:!ll; n I; ,Ii ! 'f -,11 ' ',-l 1-" II/Ii! . !l;i;:! 'li!il! I j=I'!l<j ji'l;' i Ill: I II., 1:1" I lid i~I" 'ilil: . . .0 i II I . 'i' ,-, !'i"J "E ~~ i J =W!..! ~ !~~I il!; iaJi :. ~J" l '!d~.: ! ~!I~f ~~i,~ i;l=dl I! ~ I: :;_ 11 ~; ..!! t. I ; n 'r/ldC~~ FjEli! ~ 1!1!!~ !JII!~ 'I'! "21gB"'! 11 1 If. is fil1J:z "v. "II~::2g~~ rfa' ;1Jt5!Pi . !i! I ~ ;, 1111 i O:s~ ~;!g ~~ M~ f'l["11 r II; ililll/!i: 'II'~ nio:8"'o .."r.l ;rT:ilJJP' o>rr:I "<-( Uc: ~I; i !d!n~r r'" f;!:;o~ ~ 'E~IISOT~~A~:~~~~~ ~~~RITA~E 4TH AD~i;~;~N'i 'ifffi~!~. DEVELOPMENT PLAN Attachment 3 ~ , , , "€I €l @ @ €Ie ",":~ ~ il:~:U~ ~~ ~j '! ;.~o ~ '" . - ~ ~- ~- - ~~~ ~ ;~g!%~ ;~ g a ~" 1~~ ~ ~~~~~~ ~~ ~! ~~ ~ ~I~ ~ ~i~~~~ ,t~ ~~ ~t Q ~i a ~l~~~~ ~~ l~ ~. ! ;g )Ii! : ~~~~:~ ~~ !~ g ~ IJ .2 !. ~,!~~~ <~ ,,~ "~ i! rn a ; ;~;dt j~ ~ij ~~ i ~ ~~ ~ g~;!~~" ~~ ~~ ~~ : ~ ~; ~ li~!:~ !i ~a it ! z ~; ~ ;.i~~.. ~,< ~~ .,~ ~ ~ ~ 5b"~~. ~~ t~ () "~; ~~~~~ ~IJ ~,1 ~. ~ ~~_ ~~~~~,~~. B~ 01 t~ ~ s~~~~ ~ ii~ ~;! "~ ."~~Q~ ~~. ~~l ~ ~n ~~~n ri ~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~i ~~ ~ ~i~~~ E. ; ~~ s<~~~ l ~ 5~ ~~~~~;t j ji ;i!i~: 3~ ~~" r 'J ,.J o \) ~ m ~ m ~ r r m -< o ~ iiI ". ! n~Hild a ~e;.1J Hi i!l ~ ~ ,. ~ :;w II I I I .' " ~~~ ~ ,."""" r~ ~, ~i 'ffi'fl ~ r, ~ ~ pn ~ -q: Ii!i ~ , '.' ~ ,," " j I !! ~ ij~~ ~'_~.: m ~~i ,,~~ ~ i~~ ~l , ~ , III , ., ~ s ".>I 0GGGGElBElElB "''''''''1 qHI'lni~ l! 0 ~ Q 0 ~ ~ ~ 'l''''''H H'linn .. ,'.;,,," ~ ~~ ~1~~[;I ,. L ". q~~~n ~ ,i.'''' ~ ~ ... '" - - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ; ~ ~ tI i ~ i q~ ~ ;~e ~~ ~~p,t ~~ ~ ~ ~~a ;~ ~i~l~~ +~ '" ~ :'1 Ii "1., .!, < ~ ~~~. ~~~~. ~~. :~~~~~~.~; '" . 'I' , ~ ,.~, ~. ~g ~ a ~~>~~~~- ~ ~!t ~ ~;:8," ~ l ;.~ ., l~1J ~ 'ill; ni I .! i ~~&& ~ !1 ~ ~a2~ 1 ~~ ~ ~~i~ ~ ;;! ;?~l; ~~ ;;hl'- ~j ~~~~ ~~ a~~ii !' i~ ~:l Eli! ~ " 5 "Il! lll~! m q ~ ~ i 'TJ ~. ,~~ m ~ i ~ Ii", 51- .~ -II' 'll" n ~ ,1,1 ~ .... ~. !"j " ~' ~ ~ >- . > ~l' It ., j !V L'II' ~E;~ ~~ j'!j , '. -II ! - ~ 8sai3 J~~ ;g~ I' l'fi l ~ ~I! Um ~ .0...., c:: !l! ~ ~'~l .' n 'ill '$:-> "':j "~~~ !I a~ 'l~ It tt 2Zl:"1 ~!~ -,-- I /" / i I I I / I / / I , ./ " I I I \ '. , \ \ \ \ .~ ~ -i ------- -;l1 2J j/ \' .....\ ill" ~~ , (' - -'. -----------------~----- <> "'. ~' !ij~ .. I .J I I I j~# ,/~ ~~~~. 1/ ~~Q~"'''- '1,;/ i~~~ \~ I; 0 '\\ iiJ p . ~ E~~~;;gg~ ~~~~~-"~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ ! 1~~ .~~ '. g l ! ill~'1 ~"'>; I "'i5:1I ~ i II! I'.' !'" Ii l , I ~I fii I $ r) ~) 0 0 ~J , I (9 i;.';j 0 ~,~" ! I , , ~ ,; 16 " " . , I , " i i " I ", , ~ G.1 6.1 e~;1: ~~ 6 ~;1: 6 j;f 6 ;~ 6 &! 6 ,. G ~~ ., " , ~ :~ i! , , , , . I . ~ i i~ !I ~~ "Ii !' i I ~~ , I , ! ; ! , ! ~~ , , I ~~ ~i , I n !I I , , , ! , '~ I I , I , , ~ , , ~ ~ ! , , i , , , . ~! f~ i ~ .~~ II . , 'I , I , , " .. ~~ ! 11 ~~ !~ " ~~ ~~ , , ~i , , , ; ,. 11" ::~ '" I ~~ ~-~ ; ! ~~ i I, i , H II i! , .. ., ., ~i ,. 5~ I .~ , , , , ! , , 1 ~~. 'I ~I , ~-~ I , " ! l , , " 'I I ~ , , , I , , , , ! I . I I ! ~ . l , I , , ~ I . , I , , i , I , l ~ l ~a U ~n~ n " ~~ IE ~ll i! '" I ~~ II I! [~ n .' ~~ iH ~~ ~~ ~g ,. ini ~~ ~j ~~ " ~~ ,,~ I; Ii _T:~ ~~ ,. ~~ ,,' Ii ~" g! .Ii ii i~ n ~~ Il 'ji 'i. .; ~~ ~n~ " .. i :1' .. ~~ '! " i~ !l Ii '. ~~ n ", i ~~ , " n ~~ , ~~ ~~ , i~ ., II !"' ~~ " i ~~ " -:~ , " .. 1 !~ , a;. r 'p 03 ~~ ~! ~~ I ! if ~~ !~ , ~~ ~~ s s~ j ., H ~~ ;J " l I: I ! I ., j ._~ ~~ ~~ , f ~" ~~ , ! ; .j ,. ,. " n~ , , j " i i~ , " , " " l , , , , ! , ! , I I I I " , 0 0 0 . . . . . , , . , . , , , , , , . , , , , , I , , ., j I e G ~ 6 ~ ~ ~ ~ 6 G i e ~/i e ~f ~ ~~ ~ ~~ 6 ~~ ~ !!' ~ " e ~ ~f e ~f! , I I , n .' ~ s~ I " " " , I' F " i~ .~: ., ~i , ,,= ~i !i " H I , " ,I ii I, 'I I " . " <I ~~ ~~ ! ~~ ~~ , ~~ ~ , , " , i~ ~~ ~~ " <! I ! I ~ , l , ! 1 ! I ~ ~f ~~ I I ! ; 1 , i ; " , , "Ii! F " " , " H !! " ~~ ~~ if U H ~~ ~~ a~ " ~g !i , I' " i~ I! I , ., ~~ H il 'i ,. n ,- i! H 5g ~~ I; , jl l , ,l;, , I ~~ " ti , " I ! , " "~ g; , I ~6 ~& I .~ I , I ! ~ i ! t >1 ~~ I ,< I ~ , l , , , , , i , , i , I. I i . . , , , , , , . , , , , , , , , . , . , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . , , , , ! i ~~ ~5 ~I ~~ ~~ " ~~ ~! n ~i !l F ~~ " ~~ ,. ii " " U " " ~~ p n ~~ !~ l, ~.~ "I ;! " ~~ ~i <." , " ~~ .5 . 'I p~ :a " " i " '. ~.~ ~~ " i! <, .' " i! ~~ " 6-~ ~~ i " H !l l ~~ n " ~l " ~~ i! ~~ " g~ ., !' .. Ii; ~~ ! " ,I I ~? " ~~ ~i ~~ i , , , ii ~j 'I ~~ , , I ., II , , , .' I' ii ! ! ~~ I , 5~ , " I !! \. I I j ~ , ~~ , ~I ~ , ; , ! , , ~~ , i il i I ; i 1 , I .; ! "I ~ ! ; ! , I !I ! , , I ! I , 1 I , , ~ ~ , , " I , ~ , I ! ~ " I , . ! ~ , , .. '. '1"Jl'l1"Jl'l ' .. . .~ %~~ ~ ~;: ~ e~ u ~ ~~~ "," BH~ I ~ ~!i~ .- ~~ ~ ~~ ~~ : ~~~,' J~ ~H~ i! ,,~~ I ~~ ~ .$ -,'~ ~l i8 ~S~ ~s~! ~ i;~ ;~ ~ ~~ n- ~ ~6~ ~~~ ~~~~ . ; ~~~ ~ R~ ~ l~ ~~ s f~~ a5 s~~~ I" ~ g~~~~ih ~~~~~~~~ ~;~ 8 ~ r.!':~~~-~ ~~~~~~nh~~ 3" ! i ~ j" i i ~ ~ ~h ~~~ R~~~ ~ i &>~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~.~~o C'j < :~~ ;- ~ ~~li?~~. ~f~~::! 'I ~ ~ f ~ "p :~t c~~ ~;;~~ !i ~ ~ ~ s 6 ~, ~~- Blii .8~,,' ~ ;. ~ ~ 3 ~ ,~~;~ ~,i'~ f~~& ~." ~. ~ ~ i'! -~~ .~~ ~li ~ ii~ ~i" i~i~~~~~hij~ i in'. ,I.,; 1",j, ~~~lt ~~~~~~i~m ~~ln~ !~:i~~~~~";'1l: ~~ ~~~~2~~~~~itdS i~ ~ g ~ I ~ ~ _~f,; t~ ;1~~S ~ F~ ~ ~. ~ ~ fi~ .' '6-" R~ g ~ ~.~ IS .. ~ ~~- ~~ ~~\!~ ~~ t ; 2 ~ ~ 1! ~"~ ~~ ~i1:~ ~~! ~ ~. ;; ~i~ :!i~~~ c, ~. ~ ~ R~~ ~~ u-~i~ ~~;; ij s ~~. ;:fl~t3~ '",' " "1 ~ll,.' ~H ~ ~ ~~ ~~ -~~~ ~f' 2 ,! ~" ~~, ~~ & f '::~f, ~~~ ~~ . i I , , , ~ , , " , I t:J~ t:J~ t:Jj I ~l ~l~' 11 ,. , I !i~ , I l I , , II !' II I !~ , , I , . , I , ~ i~ " 'I " l~ I' 0' ; ~~ .! II ! , II . ! D~ ! ~ ! i , ~ B. "Ii 'I!/II t r<"~ I illl N~~ I N~II "lil z z II II~! ~ ~~~! . ~lj q ~ ,. ", -uti} ~ i oJ ":;j ::; ~~ 'ii~ i I ~. !'-. ilin1 ~>g:; '"'~ .~!~ ~~ ~~Ii r.' 00'" ~ll ! ~~ ., 00'" ;;~ Zfi ., ~ 0-.0 h hj ~Ij .-lc: 'I!! ~oi!o ~ ~l " Z'" > " r Attachment 4 ~ Il,lll,:l ~ il!l 1\:', '\, Ii . I' \I' \" , ~ ~ ~l;l 1\: \ \ ' ~ MI.Jli \ 'm.. . In I! ~-\;-------, ~I~~I :: y~,J"~ \\ l'lil. '" \, 'l!l ") '\\ ! "I' ':) , " I,; '" ~,', ~fi I, ., .i! lil'! :l \ 'I' '. \ ~~~ -'-1'r-.J ~: I a ~ I: * : I .i[~CC~--------r------~1 / ~I! r // "/ .:\ //, .:' / / /1\ ~__~;. -::__ ::..__ ___ J '// ";~ L ,. L-:::-::::>~/ -- -: .~~~.,' ~. //'1 y"" ~J[~____~._~:~~_~::~~~Z-2_~l_: : I ,! . ,'l ~ -/.1 ~ " ", <1 ii' Il"~ c-.. I / I /'-1 j I , I t , , , , : r-h.l -i r cb ~ : I r~ , \ : 1\ -t: '\ j,g} , \ \.J._.i/I -1 \ I I I \1.' : '~.' ,/ I :',j -, I \'-- , , , , t , -r I ....---~--.~~"""-~~.~{.~'~/:.._:.:.J ~" r I:' ~ h- i I~,-- .1 I' _ /.(-' I""" e'~ I L__n_ 1 - ---- "C--"~'Jni:! l :: ~c>.-,,::,=-. "li6l~1 : I - - El _ ~ : I '~ D. I -:-1 -- -~~ I II ,.1 ! I Ii 't , -,- I J I u ---L e;i,:' I :/1 I "I , r , , : t -1- : , t , . t L _ ~-~-~-c=-=-=-=-=-= _ _ _ _ _ _ __ ___ J , ~. , , \ , , li.i~~'....,' II Il! I E~~ I' !I! I' I. . .--, 0' m z r ]0 ~ m o ~ r ]. z ~ ~ ~ r ] z ~,. . ~..' ....- =- - ...:'-' """'" r~ ~. ~t filii i I~~I~ i , lliis' , .1 11!J I lll,l,! I Ihl!11 I llltl! I Illd ii" '-',,,;'"" Il,' '# ~'- po <:j.{": c0 ,:",c;'-~ j ., '), "~;i;d~'"l_. '" . '" c'" m z r p ~ m o ~ r ~ ~ z o ~ r ] z I 8 ! I . " 0 0 I 0 . ! , .. , ~ , 0 - , . ! ! , 6F 6~ l.:J~ ~ ~ e I~ ~ I I IJg eJ~ lJ~ e ~~ e ~~ ~ ~~ e " e H n -, . i I ! I '. II i I~ ~~ ~i " ~i ., I' I lj , ~~ " f.~ ., , , i , ! , " , , ! j " , ~ . i I ~ i , i I , ! !' I' I. !l ! I' , l\ II , " ~~-~~~~ .! ,- ., , il 'I ~^ " ~g ; ~~ . i!~ ~~ , S1! ~> k~ ~~ I !5 , ! , ! , , l ] " ~5 ~ ~~ I, , , ~ , ~ ! . !. "i i ~; I , , , ! t . 'k , o , ;i,-' ;' , p .,;',; "...~t'. _'._. _ / ~ !l I .',",. ,;r;J,~,~,'9I{..;.-- ,.". ~ ~~' "~F;; ~_ ." Q ~~ ~~<I ,.i\~.p RWi ~~ ~ ~~- ;~ ~~ i' .i~ ~~ ~i&h ,.l,-~.:!, ii!~: ~~ ~! ! ;~~ ji~ ~~m ~ ;5 ~ ..~ ~~ ~ ~ .~! ;:;55 ~~~~ ~~~ ~; ~ ~! ~I ~i ~ ~~~ ~~: m~ ~~~ ,~- ~;, .~-~"". ~r 'i~~ ~n ~ $~ n ~~H~~ ~~~i 1~8 ~! ~!)j ~ ~ k'.~<>~~ ~L~ _~> ; ~ a ;; g ~ €."~ @~~ ~~~~ ~i&,~ ~ ~ ~ ? i i g~~ ~~~ ~~p ?; ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~"~~49~~ RQ~~ e ~~ ~~ ~ i !hP~~ ~h~ i' ~~ _~ ~ i-~~~~s- -~~!l ~a ~ ; l' ~ ~~~ _~~~ ~gH ~? ~~ ~~~~~!~i .-ii~ ~ i~ i~~~~-L ~~,-:;~ li:l ;~ ~~ t',.~~ 1I~ ~._~~ S ~~~~ !Hh~~~m: ~~ i ~ H ~i~ i~ ~iji ~;; ~ ~ ~ ~i~ f.~ ~g~~ ~~ ~ : r.~ ~~ ~~!, i~ ~ ! ~i~ U ~~~i ~~ ~ ~~"~ ~~&~ ~ ~ ~ . !! ~. , i r< "~ !'.l ~~ ...., ~~ i ~ i! .1 '1111 Ilii!l illll Ill,' 41' ~t ~:cli1i! ~ i; JHf{ '! p "T1::oq ~Ii~ llr' " t"~=i ~~ ~'ll ! ""'> " ..... ~ !i!t~ ~1 ~>'" ~~ ,;li , 0""" ! 0"'" ~. ~!~~ fiI! H ~ 0-,0 ~~ ~m oJ. ....,c: ~!l ~oS; ~ ". ZZ", ~ gt H l~~ ,~ '. . . ! !II'I' 11< I' I " , ia~ !~.11 "~~ IR . I, u', ~.~ HI! ~o '. · ;~1 ~l . I ill ~I i ~ IiI ~ i! , ' ~ ~ i a~~~uu{. oa~~~n~~~ ~ I /!Z V [i Iii ~ -~~ -,,@ l' ffi JiJI~- ~ '" ., ~ --"- @J ~ -\ z .., n' >- ill 1I. \\"""""1 I ~ I ~ "n ! ~ i & I " " ~ , !i ~ I ;;:;;;-."::;-""ru-- , , ~ ~ / i " \ I ,--~- \ ---T-/ \ / I I \ i ~ \ ~ I I' i 'I I: It i" Ifl~ ;l:il I' . I! II it ,n f" ! I' Iii tl In ft:;! ~zz ',',1 !:;'" <o~ .,-, ;:;; <> ;::.f= ci 't;~' .' g-", 8 !:" liilli .......... !~;l r;;~ t5~~ l!~! g~ <::clll ii:!."~ t:E-~ "j';' 'ffi"" ;- if i::I: E: ~ Attachment 5 ~ Hili! II ~o: ,11I'. i . ~.C'l ~, I '"N jo ~ Ill!!! ~~u '" I.~ lot P. I ;hfj, I' ! , 01 ,,',_.;-M,' """" ,~."'" ------- o o i ! ,,~-<>-=> 00""'.""'" ----- " " z Q ~ u i# Bl i ai. I I \ """"'''\''-- I I I \ / I I \ I I I / I ~ , ~ 1 ~ , , "0'"'''''''' ------- o o i , , 8 " <i: z Q ~ u i# "O~....,,"'" U;;:::;:"""".;;:;;;-- \ I \ I ""","~",,,J__ I \ I I \ I \ / \ ,I / 1\ Attachment 6 Page 1 of3 Enl!:ineerinl!: Plan Review PROJECT: Heritage Square 5th Addition PROJECT NO. 08-02 REVIEWED BY: Jon Jarosch, Civil Engineer 1 (Maplewood Engineering Department) DATE: 2-27-2008 K. Hovnanian Homes is profosing a revised building design and site layout for the previously approved Heritage Square 4 Addition located west ofT.H. 61. The stormwater for Heritage Square 4th edition was to be treated via the pond to the south. The proposed Heritage Square 5th edition has a slight increase in the amount of impervious surface over the previous site layout and therefore requires additional treatment capacity. Since rainwater gardens and other infiltration methods will not work on this site due to poor soils, the current design accounts for this increase in runoff via an underground sand-filtration system. Stormwater Management 1. Catch-basin #208 shall have a 3' sump to capture sediment prior to discharge into the pond. 2. A storm sewer maintenance agreement must be signed by the owner for the maintenance of the sump structures and the filtration trench. Grading 1. The retaining walls proposed for this site are over 4' in height in many locations and will require a building permit and fencing. 2. Structural design information shall be provided to ensure that the existing wall on the southerly lot is sufficient to support the proposed building layout. 3. At the southwest comer of the northerly lot there is a swale that captures runoff and conveys it downhill into a swale near the existing building to the south. More information is needed to ensure that the runoff in this swale will not impact the existing building 4. The swale mentioned in item 3 requires a permanent stabilization blanket to protect against erosion. 5. The berm around the existing catch basin near the retaining wall in the southwest comer of the southerly lot has had issues with erosion in the past. This area will need to be regraded and permanently stabilized with an erosion control mat. 6. There are opposing driveways at 9% slopes on all of the private drives. Revisions should be considered. Page 2 of3 Erosion & Sediment Control Plan 1. Include a maintenance schedule of all erosion and sediment control devices used throughout the phases of construction (including building construction). 2. A stabilized rock construction entrance is not displayed for the northerly unit on the north lot. 3. Silt fencing shall follow contour lines to prevent an area of concentrated flow. It is currently shown to go downhill on the south end of the northerly lot. 4. IdentifY the quantity of materials to be imported or exported from the site (cu-yd). Landscaping The landscaping plan has been reviewed by city naturalist Virginia Gaynor as noted below. 1. Please update seed mix to correspond to current MNDOT mixes. Instead of SB, one of the following should be used: a. #30S-Woodland Edge (if the area receives at least Y, day of shade) b. #3S0-Native General Roadside (sunny area, at least Y, day of sun) 2. For native seedings, in addition to using certified seed, the city requires. a. Seeding shall be done by contractor that is experienced in prairie restoration. (We strongly recommend using a contractor that specializes in native seedings.) b. Contractor must enter into a 3-year management contract for site (seeding year plus two full seasons) to ensure natives establish. c. 3-year management plan shall include mowing maintenance and weed control of species that threaten success of the restoration (ex: Canada thistle, yellow or white sweet clover, red cover, etc.) d. Native seeding may NOT be done July IS-October 15. (Ifirrigation is provided, seeding dates can be extended to include July IS-August 10.) e. Plans should specify type of mulch and mulch method for seeded areas. Clean straw mulch, crimped in, is fine for flat areas. Blanket is required for steep slopes. Trails 1. A trail shall be installed connecting the trail approximately 300 feet west of the property line with the existing trail north of the existing terrace building (near BP Pipeline and Xcel overhead lines). The developer shall be required to post a cash escrow in an amount to cover the cost of constructing said trail if the trail is not constructed prior to building permit application. Sanitary Sewer Page 3 of3 1. The existing service stubs to the north lot shall be removed and capped closer to the mainline, as allowed by the proposed pavement removals. This is will help prevent damage to the stubs during building construction. Agency Submittals 1. A set of plans must be submitted to Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District for their review and approval. 2. A set of plans must be submitted to Saint Paul Regional Water Services for their review and approval. Miscellaneous 1. The developer or project engineer shall submit a copy of the MPCA's construction stormwater permit (SWPPP) to the city before the city will issue a grading permit for this project. 2. The owner and project engineer shall satisfy the requirements of all permitting agencies. 3. A letter of credit shall be provided to the City prior to the issuance of a grading permit in an amount reflecting 125% of the cost of site improvements. Attachment 7 Councilmember Koppen moved to approve the intoxicatinq liquor license for Cheryl Lynn VVolf for Smiley's Restaurant at 2425 Hiqhway 61. . Seconded by Councilmember Rossbach Ayes-All 5" Heritage Square Fourth Edition--bydia.Avenue. Trail a. City Manager Fursman presented the report. b. Parks Director Anderson presented specifics from the report. Councilmember Rossbach moved that the city not put in the trail at this time and approved the followinq staff recommendations: a. Provide a park dedication fee to the city of Maplewood in the amount of $20,000 to be used for trail corridor improvements from Labore Road to County Road D. b. The trail easement would remain in place for ten years and should the trail be deemed necessary, it would be developed at the city of Maplewood's expense with the monies coming from the park development fund. c. Adopt the trail easement agreement. Seconded by Councilmember Koppen Ayes-All 6. Springs ide Drive Extension, City Project 03-36, Approve Resolution Authorizing Special Assessment Settlement a. City Manager Fursman presented the report. b. Public Works Director Ahl presented specifics from the report. Council member Koppen moved to adopt the followinq resolution for Sprinqside Drive Extension. City Proiect 03-36. authorizinq the Reduction of Special Assessment: RESOLUTION 05-10-153 AUTHORIZING SPECIAL ASSESSMENT SETTLEMENT BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Maplewood as follows: WHEREAS, the City Council of Maplewood, Minnesota adopted Resolution No. 05-04-050 authorizing the levy of special assessments to benefited property for the Springside Drive Extension-West of Sterling Street, Project Number 03-36; and WHEREAS, the property owners Bradley Fedorowski and Dawn Fedorowski (hereinafter, collectively the "Fedorowskis") own properly subject to the aforementioned assessments located at 2437 Springside Drive and further identified by Parcel Identification Number (PIN) 122822340072 (hereinafter "Subject Property"); and WHEREAS, the Fedorowskis objected to the assessment on the basis of no perceived benefit from or disparity thereto the Subject Property; and WHEREAS, on May 9, 2005, the City Council of Maplewood, Minnesota adopted Resolution No. 05-05- 072 denying cancellation of assessment; and WHEREAS, the Fedorowskis further objected to the assessment and expressed their intent to appeal to district court as aggrieved persons pursuant to Minnesota Statute ~429.081; and /0/; ojd '7" MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: Charles Ahl, Acting City Manager Shann Finwall, AICP, Planner On-Site Dynamic Display Sign Ordinance Discussion March 5, 2008 for the March 11 CDRB Meeting INTRODUCTION City staff is requesting feedback from the community design review board (CDRB) on the creation of an on-site dynamic display sign ordinance. Recent advances in the sign industry have introduced a variety of technologies to the outdoor advertising arena, including the use of light emitting diode (LED) signs (dynamic displays). These signs are becoming a highly sought-after means of advertising for businesses and are also becoming increasingly affordable. As such, the city will likely see more requests for these types of signs in the near future. It is important that the city review this new technology as it relates to on-premise signs, as we did for off-premise signs in 2007, to ensure there are no negative impacts to the surrounding properties and to protect the public health, safety, and welfare of the city as a whole. BACKGROUND November 27 and December 4, 2007, the CDRB and the planning commission recommended approval of a prohibited and dynamic display sign ordinance amendment based on a settlement agreement with Clear Channel on the installation of an LED billboard sign in Maplewood. The board and commission recommended that staff bring back information on on-site dynamic display signs for a possible ordinance amendment in the near future. January 8, 2008, the CDRB discussed on-site dynamic display signs. The CDRB expressed support for allowing on-site dynamic display signs with restrictions and directed staff to draft an ordinance for review and requested an update on ordinances existing in the cities of Woodbury, Oakdale, and St. Paul for comparison. January 22, 2008, the CDRB continued discussions regarding on-site dynamic display signs. The CDRB requested additional information on setbacks, size, and message display time. DISCUSSION Prohibited Signs The city's prohibited sign ordinance prohibits signs that have blinking, flashing, or fluttering lights unless the sign is used primarily for public service messaging. Since the CDRB is supportive of allowing on-site dynamic display signs within the city that will give businesses an opportunity to utilize this new technology, staff recommends that the prohibited section of the ordinance be amended to prohibit signs that blink, flash, or flutter regardless of messaging. Following is the proposed amendment (text that is crossed out and in bold was amended by the city council in December 2007, text that is crossed out is an amendment to the existing code): Section 44-737. Prohibited signs generally. Signs that are not specifically permitted in this article are hereby prohibited. The following signs are specifically prohibited: (3) Signs that have blinking, flashing or fluttering lights or that Ghange in brightness er Geier. Signs that give Ilublic service information, such as time and tcmlleF::Jturc arc exempt. Temporary Signs The temporary sign ordinance allows portable temporary signs that are less than 16 square feet in area without a permit and without any other regulations on size, number, or duration. It allows portable temporary signs that are over 16 square feet with a permit and with the restriction that it can be installed for a maximum of 30 days per year, per business. City staff recently witnessed the use of a large dynamic display temporary sign in Minneapolis. The proposed prohibited sign code amendment as specified above would allow temporary signs in Maplewood to have a dynamic display, as long as that display did not blink, flash, or flutter. For this reason the CDRB should discuss the use of temporary dynamic display signs as well as permanent signs during the on-site dynamic display sign ordinance discussion. As currently proposed by the board, the on-site dynamic display sign code would allow dynamic display signs in the BC, M-1, and M-2 zoning districts if they met the required setbacks to residential, etc. It would be difficult to require the same restrictions for temporary signs because they are easily installed anywhere at any time. For this reason, city staff recommends prohibiting dynamic displays on temporary signs as follows (text that is underlined is an amendment to the existing code): Section 44-807. Temporary signs. ill Temporarv siqns with blinkino. flashinq. or f1utterinq Iiohts or with dvnamic displavs are prohibited. On-Site Dynamic Display Signs Zoninq Districts The CDRB agreed during the last meeting that on-site dynamic display signs should be allowed in the Business Commercial and Heavy and Light Manufacturing zoning districts only. Freestandinq Sions The CDRB agreed during the last meeting that on-site dynamic display signs should be allowed on freestanding signs and that only 50 percent of the freestanding sign face could be utilized for a dynamic display. The maximum size of a freestanding sign would be based on the maximum size allowed in the city's existing andlor proposed code as follows: 2 Zoning District Existing Code/Dynamic (50%) Proposed Code/Dynamic (50%) BC/M-1/M-2 150-300 s.f./75-150 s.f. (depending on lot size) 80-180 s. f./40-90 s.f. (depending on street frontage) The CDRB also agreed that the placement of the dynamic display freestanding signs should require setbacks to residential, park, open space, and side property lines. For this reason the proposed setbacks are as follows: 200 feet to residential, park, or open space (this will ensure no negative impacts from dynamic display signs from these types of uses) and 100 feet to a side property line (this will ensure an adequate distance between dynamic display signs). Wall Siqns The CDRB discussed whether or not to allow dynamic display signs on walls. The board determined that it would be difficult to address adequate setbacks for wall signs to side property lines or other dynamic display wall signs on the property. For this reason the board agreed during the last meeting that dynamic display wall signs would only be allowed through the comprehensive sign plan process. Currently the city's sign code requires that all multi-tenant buildings with five or more tenants obtain comprehensive sign plan approval from the CDRB. The intent of this requirement is to ensure that all signs located on a multi-tenant building are architecturally compatible to the building and to each other. By requiring a comprehensive sign plan review for all dynamic display wall signs the CDRB can review each proposal separately to determine if the existing and proposed signs would be compatible and to ensure that the location of the dynamic display wall sign would not cause a nuisance to surrounding properties. Messaqe Displav Time City staff originally recommended a message display changeover of 20 minutes, which was based on the Minnetonka and Eagan dynamic display ordinances. The board discussed this requirement at length with no resolution. The League of Minnesota Cities' July 2007 executive summary on dynamic displays referred to in previous staff reports quotes studies that describe the Zeigarnik effect in regard to dynamic displays. The Zeigarnik effect is a psychological need to see a task through to its end, so that a driver will want to read an entire dynamic display message before it changes. In order to do this a driver may not slow down or may change lanes, causing a traffic safety issue. The League of Minnesota Cities states that cities should address this issue by imposing a minimum message display duration which will vary depending on community preference and traffic conditions. In addition, the June 7, 2007, SRF traffic study referred to in previous staff reports states that the message display time should allowing at most one image transition during the time that the sign is visible to a driver traveling at the operational speed. In the proposed ordinance, on-site dynamic display signs are proposed for properties which are zoned BC, M-1, and M-2. These properties are located mainly on principal or minor arterial roads. These roads are described in the city's comprehensive plan as follows: principal arterial - roads carrying the highest volume of traffic with speeds from 40 to 55 mph; minor arterial - roads that connect sub regions that are the closest routes parallel to the principal arterials and allow moderate to high travel speeds of 35 to 50 mph. 3 Clear Channel and other billboard companies who utilize the dynamic display technology have an industry standard of message display changeover every 8 seconds. This allows a driver traveling at speeds from 55 to 70 mph to see one to two images as they pass by. While not a scientific method, staff would recommend that the board compare the highway dynamic display changeover time to the principal and arterial road changeover time with speeds ranging from 35 to 55 mph. When comparing these times, consideration should also be placed on the stop signs and traffic signals which also slow traffic on these roads. For this reason staff recommends the length of the message display changeover to be at least 1 minute up to one hour. In my research of 11 dynamic display ordinances passed in the Minnesota over the last year, three of those ordinances allow message display changeovers of 20 minutes, one allows 5 minutes, one allows 6 seconds, one allows 4 seconds, and the remaining prohibit the signs altogether. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Amend the prohibited sign code at section 44-737 as follows: Signs that are not specifically permitted in this article are hereby prohibited. The following signs are specifically prohibited: (3) Signs that have blinking, flashing or fluttering lights. Sign!; that give public service information, !;uch LIS timo and temperatura Llrc oxempt. 2. Amend the temporary sign code at section 44-807 as follows: .ill Temporarv siqns with blinkinq. flashinq. or flutterinQ Iiqhts or with dvnamic displavs are prohibited. 3. Amend the comprehensive sign plan code at section 44-736 as follows: A comprehensive sign plan shall be provided for the followinq:. (1) business premises which occupy the entire frontage in one or more block fronts or for the whole of a shopping center or similar development having five or more tenants in the project: and (2) dvnamic displav wall siqns. Such a plan, which shall include the location, size, heights, color, lighting and orientation of all signs, shall be submitted for preliminary plan approval by the city; provided that, if such comprehensive plan is presented, exceptions to the sign schedule regulations of this article may be permitted in the sign areas and densities for the plan as a whole are in conformity with the intent of this article and if such exceptions results in an improved relationship between the various parts of the plan. Comprehensive sign plans shall be reviewed by the community design review board. The applicant, staff and city council may appeal the community design review board's decision. An appeal shall be presented within 15 days of the review board's decision to be considered. 4. Adopt an on-site dynamic display sign code as follows (text underlined has been added to the proposed off-site dynamic display sign code amendment which was recommended for approval by the CDRB and planning commission): a. Findings. Studies show that there is a correlation between dynamic displays on signs and the distraction of highway drivers. Distraction of drivers can lead to traffic accidents. Drivers can be distracted not only by 4 a changing message, but also by knowing that the sign has a changing message. In such a case, drivers may watch a sign waiting for the next change to occur. Drivers also are distracted by messages that do not tell the full story in one look. People have a natural desire to see the end of the story and will continue to look at the sign in order to wait for the end. Additionally, drivers could be more distracted by special effects used to change the message, such as fade-ins and fade-outs. Finally, drivers are Generally more distracted by messages that are too small to be clearly seen or that contain more than a simple message. Time and temperature signs appear to be an exception to these concerns because the messages are short, easily absorbed by those observing them, and are only accurate with frequent changes. Despite these public safety concerns, there is merit to allowing new technologies to easily update messages. Except as prohibited by state or federal law, sign owners should have the opportunity to use these technologies with certain restrictions. The restrictions are intended to minimize potential driver distraction, to minimize their proliferation in residential districts where signs can adversely impact residential character, and to protect the public health, safety, and welfare. Local spacing requirements could interfere with the equal opportunity of sign owners to use such technologies and are not included. Without those requirements, however, there is the potential for numerous dynamic displays to exist along any roadway. If more than one dynamic display can be seen from a given location on a road, the minimum display time becomes critical. If the display time is too short, a driver could be subjected to a view that appears to have constant movement. This impact on drivers would be compounded in a traffic corridor with multiple signs. If dynamic displays become pervasive and there are no meaningful limitations on each sign's ability to change frequently, drivers may be subjected to an unsafe degree of distraction and sensory overload. Therefore, requiring a longer display time on dynamic signs is in the public interest. A constant message is typically needed on a sign so that the public can use it to identify and find an intended destination. Changing messages detract from this way-finding purpose and could adversely affect driving conduct through last-second lane changes, stops, or turns, all of which could result in traffic accidents. In conclusion, the City of Maplewood finds that dynamic displays should be allowed on off-premise signs but with significant controls to minimize their proliferation and their potential threats to public health, safety, and welfare. b. Dynamic display sign means any sign designed for outdoor use that is capable of displaying a video signal, including, but not limited to, cathode- ray tubes (CRTs), light-emitting diode (LED) displays, plasma displays, liquid-crystal displays (LCDs), or other technologies used in commercially available televisions or computer monitors. c. Standards for all dynamic display signs: 5 (1) The images and messages displayed on the sign must be complete in themselves, without continuation in content to the next image or message or to any other sign; (2) Every line of copy and graphics in a dynamic display must be at least seven inches in height on a road with a speed limit of 25 to 34 miles per hour, nine inches on a road with a speed limit of 35 to 44 miles per hour, 12 inches on a road with a speed limit of 45 to 54 miles per hour, and 15 inches on a road with a speed limit of 55 miles per hour or more. (3) Dynamic display signs must be designed and equipped to freeze the device in one position if a malfunction occurs. The displays must also be equipped with a means to discontinue the display if it malfunctions, and the sign owner must stop the dynamic display within one hour of being notified by the city that it is not meeting the standards of this ordinance; (4) Dynamic display signs must meet the brightness standards contained in subdivision f. below; (5) Dynamic display signs existing on (insert the effective date of this ordinance) must comply with the operational standards listed above. d. On-Site Dynamic displav siqns are allowed subiect to the followinq additional conditions: (1) Located in the Business Commercial (BC) or Heavv or Liqht Industrial (M-2 and M-1) zoninq districts onlv. (2) The imaqes and messaqes displaved on the on-premise dvnamic displav siqn must be static and each displav must be maintained for a minimum of 10 minutes: and the transition from one static displav to another must be instantaneous without any special effects; (3) Are allowed as part of a permanent freestandinq siqn. provided that the siqn comprises no more than 50 percent of the total square footaqe of said siqn face. (4) Must be located at least 200 feet from anv residential land use district on which there exists structures used for residential purposes or anv residential structure: or from anv park or open space land use district. (5) Must be located at least 100 feet from any side propertv line. e. Off-Site Dvnamic display siqns are allowed subiect to the followinq additional conditions: (1) A dynamic display sign is allowed by conditional use permit approved by the city council. 6 (2) The images and messages displayed on the sign must be static and each display must be maintained for a minimum of 12 seconds, and the transition from one static display to another must be instantaneous without any special effects; f. Incentive. Off-premises signs do not need to serve the same way-finding function as do on-premises signs and they are distracting and their removal serves the public health, safety, and welfare. This clause is intended to provide an incentive option for the voluntary and uncompensated removal of off-premise signs in certain settings. This sign removal results in an overall advancement of one or more of the goals set forth in this section that should more than offset any additional burden caused by the incentive. These provisions are also based on the recognition that the incentive creates an opportunity to consolidate outdoor advertising services that would otherwise remain distributed throughout Maplewood. Reduction of Sign Surfaces (1) A person or sign operator may obtain a conditional use permit for a dynamic display sign on one surface of an existing off-premises sign if the following requirements are met: (a) The applicant agrees in writing to reduce its off-premise sign surfaces by one by permanently removing, within 15 days after issuance of the permit, one surface of an off- premises sign in the city that is owned or leased by the applicant, which sign surface must satisfy the criteria of parts (2) and (3) of this subsection. This removal must include the complete removal of the structure and foundation supporting each removed sign surface. The applicant must agree that the city may remove the sign surface if the applicant does not do so, and the application must identify the sign surface to be removed and be accompanied by a cash deposit or letter of credit acceptable to the city attorney sufficient to pay the city's costs for that removal. The applicant must also agree that it is removing the sign surface voluntarily and that it has no right to compensation for the removed sign surface under any law. Replacement of an existing sign surface of an off- premises sign with a dynamic display sign does not constitute a removal of a sign surface. (b) The city has not previously issued a dynamic display sign permit based on the removal of the particular sign surface relied upon in this permit application. (c) If the removed sign surface is one that a state permit is required by state law, the applicant must surrender its permit to the state upon removal of the sign surface. The sign that is the subject of the dynamic display sign permit cannot begin to operate until the sign owner or operator 7 provides proof to the city that the state permit has been surrendered. (2) If the applicant meets the permit requirements noted above, the city will issue a dynamic display sign permit for the designated off- premises sign. This permit will allow a dynamic display to occupy 100 percent of the potential copy and graphic area and to change no more frequently than once every 12 seconds. The designated sign must meet all other requirements of this ordinance. f. Brightness Standards. (1) City staff shall approve the following brightness standards for all dynamic display signs: (a) No sign shall be brighter than is necessary for clear and adequate visibility. (b) No sign shall be of such intensity or brilliance as to impair the vision of a motor vehicle driver with average eyesight or to otherwise interfere with the driver's operation of a motor vehicle. . (c) No sign may be of such intensity or brilliance that it interferes with the effectiveness of an official traffic sign, device or signal. (2) The person owning or controlling the sign must adjust the sign to meet the brightness standards in accordance with the city's instructions. The adjustment must be made within one hour upon notice of non-compliance from the city. (3) All dynamic display signs installed after (insert the effective date of this ordinance) will have illumination by a means other than natural light must be equipped with a mechanism that automatically adjusts the brightness in response to ambient conditions. These signs must also be equipped with a means to immediately turn off the display or lighting if the sign malfunctions, and the sign owner or operator must turn off the sign or lighting within one hour after being notified by the city that it is not meeting the standards of this section. (4) In addition to the brightness standards required above, dynamic display signs shall meet the city's outdoor lighting requirements (section 44-20(1)). p:ordlsign codeI3-11-08 CDRB 8