Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/11/20032. 3. 4. 5. 6. 10. AGENDA MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD February 11, 2003 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 January 14, 2003 Minutes Unfinished Business: None Scheduled Design Review: a. Ohlson Landscaping - 1949 Atlantic Street Visitor Presentations Board Presentations a. Ms. Longrie-Kline - January 27, 2003 City Council Meeting Staff Presentations a. Community Design Review Board Annual Report b. Community Design Review Board Cablecast - Scheduled to Begin February 25, 2003 c. Representation at the February 24, 2003, City Council Meeting Adjourn WELCOME TO THIS MEETING OF THE Community Design Review Board Minutes 01-14-2003 Ms. Finwall said the office building would house Mr. Tillges' existing prosthetics and orthotic, practice (currently located at 1983 Sloan Place, Maplewood) as well as other medical-typ tenants. Two freestanding signs are proposed for the office building, one along Hazelwood Street and the other along Beam Avenue. Both signs are proposed at 14-feet, 8-inches wide by 20-feet, 2-inches tall. The Hazelwood Street sign will maintain a setback of 10 feet to the right-of-way line and the Beam Avenue sign will be constructed right up to the right-of-way, with no setback. Ms. Finwall said during the subdivision of Mr. Tillges' properly from the Maplewood Cancer Center's property in 1997, the city required a 15-foot-wide by 15-foot-deep sign easement along Beam Avenue on the Maplewood Cancer Center's property. This easement was required in order to allow Mr. Tillges' property to have a freestanding sign on Beam Avenue. The sign easement was created prior to the city's requirement that freestanding signs maintain a 10-foot setback from the right-of-way. Mr. Tillges is requesting a 10-foot sign setback variance in order to construct the Beam Avenue sign right up to the right-of-way, with no setback. Ms. Finwall said staff would be supportive of Mr. Tillges' sign setback variance if a smaller sign were proposed. As it stands, however, a large sign constructed in this location will block traffic visibility and will not be compatible with the surrounding existing office signs. Board member Shankar asked if the main access would be gained on Beam Avenue or on Hazelwood Street? _ Ms. Finwall said there are two accesses to the property, one on Beam Avenue and one on Hazelwood Street. Phase I of Mr. Tillges' development would probably mainly gain access on Beam Avenue and the Phase II would probably mainly gain access on Hazelwood Street. Board member Olson asked if the size of the sign is still 20 feet in height? Ms. Finwall said Mr. Tillges did reduce the width of the sign from 17 feet to 14 feet but the height still remains 20-feet tall. Chairperson Ledvina clarified the height of the sign was not up for discussion because it had already been approved by the city council, is that correct? Ms. Finwall said the height of the sign was approved by the city council in the comprehensive sign plan, with the condition that a 10-foot sign setback from the r-o-w is obtained. Since Mr. Tillges is requesting a variance to that setback, the height of the sign can be addressed. The applicant, Mr. Robed Tillges at 1200 Junction Avenue, addressed the board. Mr. Tillges is the applicant for the Markham Pond Medical Office Building at 1570 Beam Avenue. Mr. Tillges said his medical office building has the potential of eight to ten tenants. He has just learned from staff this evening that he has a 5 ft. by 5 ft. potential for a sign easement. There is space for a 15-foot-wide by 15-foot-deep sign, however, there are setbacks required. Mr. Tillges said~ Community Design Review Board Minutes 01-14-2003 Mr. Tillges brought a photo of the area for board members to show where his sign would be located on Beam Avenue. He feels there is clear visibility down to the street side. He thinks it would be a detriment to set back the sign from Beam Avenue when drivers are going 45 mph and a person suddenly sees the medical office building and quickly tries to stop causing an accident. The majority of his customers are senior citizens and could have a hard time finding his complex if the sign is set back. He said he tried to work with the Maplewood Cancer Center but was unsuccessful in getting a revised sign easement to accommodate them. This is the'reason he is applying for the variance, He said his building has a Beam Avenue address, the building faces Beam Avenue and that was his main intent of purchasing this property. Beam Avenue is a well-known street in this area to people inside and outside the city. Board member Olson asked if the sign on Hazelwood Street would be identical to the sign on Beam Avenue? Mr. Tillges said it is an identical sign structure that they had approval for from the city council. In the process of building this medical office building it was easier setting a jig for the metal structures for the signs to be built only one time. He said this is the reason the metal structures are pre-manufactured and stored on the property already. He had hoped to have the signs in place already. Board member Olson asked how the Maplewood Cancer Center building compared in s~ze to his proposed medical office building? Mr. Tillges said he has no idea what the building size comparison was. However, his building will have multiple-tenants and the Maplewood Cancer Center has only one tenant. Mr. Tillges said his building sits back on Beam Avenue quite a distance and without the visibility of the building the sign becomes a marker for people to find his building. Board member Shankar said even though a setback is being requested you should still have no problem seeing the Markham Pond Medical Office Building sign if the sign were made smaller to fit in with the scale of the Maplewood Cancer Center sign. Mr. Tillges said if you set the sign back a person could be driving down Beam Avenue and almost drive past the sign before they actually realize that's where they needed to go. Mr. Tillges said he had another letter of support from St. John's Hospital to share with the board. Chairperson Ledvina asked him to give the letter to staff. Board member Longrie-Kline asked Mr. Tillges what response was given when he tried to get a different sign easement? Mr. Tillges said a corporation in Texas owns the Maplewood Cancer Center. He said he has been communicating with Mr. Al Hirschler from US Oncology via telephone. Basically Mr. Hirschler said at this time the Maplewood Cancer Center will not pursue any allowance for a sign easement and for this reason Mr. Tillges is requesting a sign setback variance. Community Design Review Board 4 Minutes 01-14-2003 Chairperson Ledvina asked Mr. Tillges if he could get the changes to the sign easement would he go ahead with the signs? Mr. Tillges said he has a lot of time and money invested in this development and he needs to get a sign in place. Anything he can do to expedite this he said he would do. He wants to be a good neighbor in the neighborhood, he has a lot of physician and medical community support and he wants to move forward in a positive way. He feels with this sign variance he should be able to move forward quickly. Mr. Tillges said he wants to get his building up and running. Chairperson Ledvina asked Mr. Tillges if his first approach would be to increase the size of the sign easement? Mr. Tillges said he started this project back in July and every step of the way there have been setbacks and struggles. He said he just wants to be given some consideration in this development. Board member Olson said in the staff report there is a copy of an e-mail from Al Hirschler at US Oncology and in her opinion his words are stronger than "they will not pursue an allowance for a sign easement". Mr. Tillges said there ~s nothing he can do about that. He said it has not been a very positive experience working with the Maplewood Cancer Center representatives and there are a lot of other issues with the planning and development of this project. He said he would like to move forward in a positive way in the city granting him a sign setback variance for this projecT. Mr. Tillges said the city had an opportunity to make this right and could have had the planning department help him out, but they didn't. He understands the city is unable to do that, but working with Mr. Hirschler via the telephone does not make it easy when we are trying to help him visually understand this situation, Board member Olson said she does not mean to challenge Mr. Tillges but it seems that he has had a lot of help from the city. She asked him if he knew how many other variances he had received? Mr. Tillges said he is only talking about the issues regarding this sign setback variance. He was hoping he would be able to expedite this situation through the city and he was told it would not be a problem. When he communicated with the city he discovered it was a problem. He said it was not the city's fault only poor judgment on his part with whom he had hired. Mr. Jerry Anderson of LAMB Architects addressed the board. He said one of the items he would like to point out is the property subdivision and the permanent access that was used during the division of this property that was done in October 1997. He said subsequent to that the city's sign ordinance setbacks were changed. Mr. Anderson said one of the things that happened when this property was subdivided was the access to a piece of property that other wise may not have had access if it were again subdivided. A portion of that property was accessible from Hazelwood Street and the remainder of the property would no longer be accessible. He said there was a permanent easement created across the property that was :' feet wide for an access onto Beam Avenue. He said an area 15-feet-wide by 15-feet-deep was established as a sign easement. Community Design Review Board Minutes 01-14-2003 Mr. Anderson said unfOrtunately, the fact that the city's sign ordinance was about to be changed was never taken into consideration with regards to the 15 ft. by 15 ft. area set aside for the sign easement. He said if you look at the attachments and photos of signs provided by staff there are only two signs that would fit the 5 ft. by 5 ft. area to build a sign. Mr. Anderson said that tells him there is something substandard about this particular piece of property. They applied for the signage plan at the time the building plan was submitted for review and approved. They have since redesigned the signs twice. They do meet the request of the CDRB, the planning commission and the city council relating to the size of the sign. Mr. Anderson said they have worked with Mr. Hirschler for four months to try and attempt to obtain additional footage or to have the sign easement revisited which would allow them to meet the 10-foot setback requirement but were unable to do that. They are down to an area 5 ft. by 5 ft. and are back to the CDRB for a variance to utilize the signs. The signage was already approved and nothing was stated to them at that time regarding the setback. It was not until they came in for a sign permit that they realized that there was a problem. The prob',em was associated with both the size of the easement and when it was established. The subsequent change of the signage ordinance required that setback: They feel there is a hardship that exists with the ability to only use the 5 ft. by 5 ft. area in which to place their signs. Mr. Anderson said the signage in the staff report is proof of hardship because there are only two signs in the area that fit in the 5 ft. by 5 ft. area. Board member Longrie-Kline said she read Mr. Hirschler's letter and the main reason the Maplewood Cancer Center was not going to grant the sign easement was because the sign was going to be too large. She asked if anyone asked Mr. Hirschler if the sign were made smaller would they change the sign easement? Mr. Anderson said that was not stated to them, He said they were just refused an extension of the easement. Relative to the size of the sign it meets the sign ordinance. In his opinion it is uncommon for a city to say this sign meets the requirements of the sign ordinance but then they listen to a property owner that says the medical office building sign is too big. That does not make sense to him. He feels this property owner is trying to force them into a situation that is already acceptable to the city with the exception of the sign setback. It is in Mr. Hirschler's benefit to give Mr. Tillges the setback and that was explained to him. He said the farther the sign is setback the less obstruction there is to the Maplewood Cancer Center building. He said by not giving Mr. Tillges the setback and requiring him to come in and apply for a setback, he is creating the same problem that he is arguing about. Chairperson Ledvina said the sign is sitting on the Maplewood Cancer Center's property and Mr. Hirschler has a right to comment and object. Mr. Anderson said Mr. Hirschler said he did set aside an area for a sign set back in 1997. Chairperson Ledvina said back in 1997 a 15-foot-wide by 15-foot-deep sign easement may have occurred but that was before the modification of the sign ordinance. Mr. Anderson said that was his understanding. Chairperson Ledvina asked if there was proof of documentation of that? Community Design Review Board Minutes 01-14-2003 Mr. Tillges said when he purchased the property back in 2001 there was an Estoppl¢, Agreement signed by the Maplewood Cancer Center that an easement was in place and w~ part of the transaction. Board member Longrie-Kline said the 'Estopple Agreement was a notice that gave you information that the easement existed so you would know where it existed at the time you purchased the property. She said Mr. Tillges bought the property knowing what the sign ordinances were at that time in 2001. Mr. Tillges said he did not know the sign ordinance had changed when he bought the property. He was under the assumption that the sign ordinance still existed as it did in 1997. Board member Longrie-Kline said unfortunately that is part of the due diligence of buying property. Dr. Roger Johnson a medical oncologist at the Maplewood Cancer Center addressed the board. He thinks there are two concerns. One is the safety to exit onto Beam Avenue. Visibility is not a factor with the other signs in the area because they are not in the sight line of trying to exit onto Beam Avenue. The second concern is the size of the sign. Dr. Johnson said it does not fit in with the other signs in the area. The Maplewood Cancer Center doesn't understand why the sign needs to list all of the tenants. It could just state the name of the medical office building. He said to move the sign right up to the sidewalk is a danger to the people on the sidewalk as you would not be able to see them at all then. E Johnson asked staff if the problem was that there was only 5 ft. by 5 ft. for Mr. Tillges to put a sign up unless the Maplewood Cancer Center gives him a sign easement to put a sign onto the cancer center's property? Ms. Finwall said correct. Dr. Johnson said if the sign would be reasonably sized like the others in the area he does not think that there would be any problem for the Maplewood Cancer Center to allow the Markham Pond sign to be put on the property. Board member Shankar said he knows the size of the sign was already approved but he feels it is the responsibility of the board to pay due diligence to the size of the existing signs in the area. Board member Longrie-Kline asked staff if there was a sign distinction within the sign ordinance for an office building sign verses a retail sign? Ms. Finwall said no. Chairperson Ledvina said the applicant brought up the issue of visibility with signs. Back in 1997 when the city was considering the setback requirement the board was concerned about this exact problem of signs causing visibility problems. He thinks that was the thrust of ti sign ordinance revision and even though the old signs can't be removed or made smaller, the board can prevent future problems from occurring. He pointed out the concerns expressed by Lieutenant Rabbett regarding the traffic visibility and public safety issues. Community Design Review Board 7 Minutes 01-14-2003 Chairperson Ledvina said in his opinion, it is a negotiation between a property owner and an individual who wishes to have an easement on that property. He said he supports the staff's recommendation. Unfortunately for the applicant, it does not appear that the conditions for hardship would exist in this situation. Board member Olson said in her opinion both the engineers and the architects should have picked up on the sign setback requirement during the initial phases of planning. They should have done the research and these things should have come up as the design was being done. In the due diligence process of the transfer the sign setback should have been noted as well. She also remembers the discussion was regarding the height of the sign in the previous CDRB meeting with Mr. Tillges. She said the only reason the height of the sign was approved was because the board had no reason to disapprove it. She remembered the CDRB told Mr. Tillges the city was looking at revising the sign ordinance again and the city probably would never grant approval of a 20-foot tall sign again. She thinks there needs to be a compromise here and the sign could be made smaller and pushed closer to the sidewalk. If the sign needs to remain the same height then it would need to be setback. Board member Longrie-Kline said we are talking about a variance for putting up a sign that meets the signage requirements on your "own" property verses granting a variance for a sign that meets the requirements but the land is "somebody else's" land. Ms. Longrie-Kline said it is between two property owners. It sounds like the Maplewood Cancer Center is willing to work with Mr. Tillges and the easement. Ms. Longrie-Kline said perhaps modifying the sign so the metal caps can still be used but decrease the height. She said the philosophy of giving each tenant their own name on the sign could be changed. In her opinion it looks more like a retail sign rather than an office sign. She said once a person has found the location for their appointment they will know where they are going next time. Board member Shankar moved to deny Robert Tillges' request for a 10-foot sign setback variance in order to construct a 14-foot, 8-inch-wide by 20-foot, 2-inch-tall freestanding sign up to the Beam Avenue right-of-way for his development at 1570 Beam Avenue. The city is denying this request because: 1. The construction of such a large sign will block traffic visibility for drivers turning out of the driveway onto Beam Avenue. 2. A large office sign constructed in this location will not be compatible with the surrounding office signs. 3. There are no unique hardships or circumstances that warrant approwng the proposed 10-foot sign setback variance. Board member Olson seconded. The motion carried. Ayes - Jorgenson, Ledvina, Longrie-Kline, Olson, Shankar This item goes to the city council Monday, January 27, 2003. Community Design Review Board Minutes 01-14-2003 VII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS No visitors present. VIII. BOARD PRESENTATIONS Chairperson Ledvina said he has been in contact with a person at the Center for Sustainable Building Design and Research through the University of Minnesota School of Architecture in regards to giving a presentation to the CDRB. A date will be set for a presentation in February or March. Board member Shankar said the recent issue of the Architecture Minnesota magazine has examples of sustainable architecture that he will bring to the next meeting. Board member Olson asked staff how the sign ordinance was coming along? Ms. Finwall said it was her intention to wOrk with the Environmental Officer, DuWayne Konewko on the sign ordinance, however, due to the workload that has been difficult. Ms. Finwall and Mr. Konewko have been working on doing a comparison of six other cities' sign ordinances to the City of Maplewood's sign ordinance. With this information a table of all sign ordinances will be compiled for the board, at which time it will show how lenient the City of Maplewood's sign ordinance is. Ms. Finwall said she would like to hire an intern from the University of Minnesota over the summer to help with the sign ordinance revisions. · IX. STAFF PRESENTATIONS a. Community Design Review Board Annual Report Ms. Finwall asked board members to review the 2002 CDRB Annual Report and bring any changes to the next CDRB meeting on January 28, 2003. Ms. Finwall said Mr. Ledvina, Ms. Longrie-Kline and Ms. Olson's CDRB terms have expired and they should let her know if they are interested in having the city council reappoint them for another two-year term. Mr. Ledvina, Ms. Longrie-Kline and Ms. Olson said they would like to remain on the board for another two-year term. Board member Longrie-Kline will represent the community design review board at the January 27, 2003, city council meeting. The Markham Pond Medical Office Building sign setback variance will be the CDRB item to discuss. Community Design Review Board Minutes 01-14-2003 C= Community Design Review Board Cablecast. Ms. Finwall said she would be interviewing two candidates for the video technician position-to cablecast the CDRB meetings The meetings should begin to be cablecast in March of 2003. X. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 6:55 p.m. TO: FROM: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: LOCATION: DATE: MEMORANDUM Richard Fursman, City Manager Shann Finwall, Associate Planner Conditional Use Permits for Ohison Landscaping, Inc. Erik Ohlson and Stephanie Jacques 1949 Atlantic Street February 4, 2003 INTRODUCTION Project Description Erik Ohlson and Stephanie Jacques are proposing to construct a 6,800-sq uare-foot metal building at 1949 Atlantic Street. The building will house two businesses to include Ohlson Landscaping and Oehrlein Lawn and Landscape, with two office units and two separate service bays. Requests To build this development, the applicants are requesting that the city approve the following: 1. A conditional use permit for extedor storage within the Business Commercial zoning district. 2. A conditional use permit for the co nstruction of a metal building within the Business Commercial zoning district. 3. Design review. DISCUSSION Previous Use of Land In 1993 the city council approved a conditional use permit (CUP) for a lumber storage yard on the property at 1949 Atlantic Street. Monette Construction proposed a 2,560-sq uare-foot building to house their construction company, with the remainder of the lot utilized as a lumber storage yard. Monette Construction never constructed the building or utilized the lumber storage yard, and the CUP eventually expired. Erik Ohlson purchased the land approximately four years ago. At that time, Mr. Ohlson removed debris and scrub vegetation from the lot. Mr. Ohlson then began storing equipment for his landscape business on the property. This type of storage yard should have received a CUP from the city, but the city was unaware of the use. In 2000, Mr. Ohlson constructed a 6-foot-high chain-link fence around the perimeter of the property for security and to prevent dumping. Proposed Use of Land The proposal includes a 6,800-square-foot metal building. The building is 23-feet, 6 inches in height to the top of the roofline. The exterior of the building will have metal panel siding and a standing seam metal roof. Four paved parking spaces are proposed in front of the building, with five paved parking spaces on the east side of the lot. The remainder of the lot, excluding landscaped areas, will consist of rock. ~' Four open bins for excess landscape matedal are proposed on the north side of the lot, and two outdoor enclosed storage bins are proposed on the west side of the lot. In addition, to this exterior storage, several landscape vehicles and equipment are proposed to be stored outdoors. The storage of the landscape material and outdoor bins require a CUP for exterior storage. Possible Redevelopment The building and use of the land is compatible to existing buildings and uses in the area. As an example, George's Auto Body at 1225 Frost Avenue was approved for a 1,600-square-foot, 25-foot tall, metal building by the city council in 1988. While a metal building may have been appropriate for the area in 1988, it may not be appropriate today. After the construction of the city's first roundabout on the intersection of Frost Avenue and English Street last fall, the city is now considering redevelopment options for the area. While there is no formal plan for redevelopment, the city should be sensitive to the possible future land uses in the area while reviewing this proposal, which may include multi-family housing and architecturally superior office and retail space. In addition, because there is no formal plan in place for redevelopment, the city is also bound by the current zoning regulations, which allow a metal building within the Business Commercial zoning distdct with a CUP. To balance the possible redevelopment with the existing code, staff recommends two changes to the proposal. First, no exterior storage should be allowed on the site. Exterior storage would not be compatible to future multi-family housing and the existing single-family housing Iocatedto the north of the property, on the other side of the Gateway Trail. In addition, exterior storage adjacent the Gateway Trail would be an unsightly proposition. If the applicant requires storage bins for landscape material, these bins could be stored in the metal building, or a separate structure could be designed to store this material. Second, some architectural design should be added to the building. Staff recommends a bdck or stone wainscot be added to at least the north, east, and south sides of the building, and that four false dormers be added to the roof (similar to dormers recently added to the Keller Golf Course maintenance building). In addition, earth-tone colors should be used in the metal panels and roof. Landscaping/Lighting The landscape plan includes 18 arborvitaes for the southeast comer of the lot. The code requires that only 20 percent of a metal building be visible from the road and adjacent residential property. In addition, Suzann Willhite, Area Trails and Waterways Supervisor, states in her letter on page 23 that the Department of Natural Resources has concerns which include the visual quality of the site from the Gateway Trail. Ms. Willhite recommends native vegetation along the shared property line of the site and the Gateway Trail to help mitigate the visual impact of a metal building. Also, Chds Cavett, Assistant City Engineer, recommends in his memorandum on pages 24 and 25 the addition of rainwater gardens and a turf-establishment plan. For these reasons, additional landscaping will be required to include more substantial evergreen screening on the southeast side of the lot, native trees and shrubs on the north side of the lot adjacent the Gateway Trail, rainwater gardens with water tolerant plants, and a turf establishment plan for the remainder of the green space. Ohlson Landscaping 2 February 4, 2003 An exterior lighting plan was not submitted with this proposal. City code requires all commercial developments to submit a photometric lighting plan to ensure that illumination from exterior lights does not exceed .4-foot candles at all property lines and that any light pole does not exceed 25 feet in height. Lieutenant Banick states in his memorandum on page 26 that proper lighting and an alarm system would be advantageous in decreasing the opportunity for criminal activity on the site. Therefore, proper lighting that adds security while not causing negative impacts to the adjacent residential properties will be important. Other Comments Police: In addition to the above-mentioned comments, Lieutenant Banick suggests limiting the hours of operation to ensure no noise complaints from adjacent residential properties. This concern was also expressed by an adjacent residential property owner, as outlined in the citizen comments on page 7. Staff concurs with these concerns and recommends that there be no noise-making business activity conducted in the lot, or made by vehicles entering or leaving the lot, between 7 p.m. and 7 a.m., Monday through Saturday, or all day Sunday as required by code. Building Department: Dave Fisher, Building Official, states in his memorandum on page 27 that a metal building of this size must be fully sprinklered. This information was shared with the applicants, who are willing to install a sprinkler system. Fire Department: Butch Gervais, Fire Marshal, states in his memorandum on page 28 that a metal building of this size must have fire protection. Again, the applicants are aware of this requirement and are willing to install a fire alarm. Committee Action On February 3, 2003, the planning commission reviewed the applicants' two CUP requests. The planning commission unanimously recommended approval of both CUPs, including the CUP for exterior storage. The planning commission felt that denial of the CUP for exterior storage would cause an undue hardship on a landscape business. Conditions were added and revised in the planning commission recommendation to include: Conditional Use Permit for Exterior Storage: Added condition - The applicant must submit a detailed site plan that involves the location and screening of all outdoor storage. Conditional Use Permit for Metal Storage Building: Revised condition - Strike staff's proposed condition that no extedor storage be allowed, including equipment and supplies associated with the business. Planning Commissioner Matt Ledvina expressed concerns over the fact that the applicants' site plan did not match the grading plan. In addition, Mr. Ledvina stated that the proposed screening of the extedor storage should be depicted on the landscape plan pdor to the Community Design Review Board's (CDRB) review of the design elements. Mr. Ohison explained in a'telephone conversation with staff after the planning commission meeting that he was revising all plans including the grading/drainage, site, landscape, building elevations, and Ohlson Landscaping 3 February 4, 2003 lighting plans to comply with all recommendations outlined in the staff report. These revised plans should be available for review at the Tuesday, February 11, 2003, CDRB meeting. Summary During the February 3, 2003, planning commission meeting existing exterior storage at surrounding business locations was discussed. Several planning commissioners felt it would be unfair to restrict the applicants from having exterior storage, when surrounding businesses are allowed to. Staff agrees that the area is riddled with less than attractive buildings, cellular towers, and exterior storage. Many of these buildings and land uses were pre-existing to the city's current code, and are now considered n°nconforming uses. The city should not be held to these past development practices when reviewing a new land use application. We should strive for improvement. During the planning commission meeting the applicants discussed the fact that their business is growing, and in a few years could even outgrow this site. The growth of this business could lead to the growth of exterior storage. Staff is concerned that once the door is open to the approval of exterior storage; the limited extedor storage proposed now will increase in size and quantity. Staff again would like to reiterate that exterior storage is not compatible to a future mixed-use development that may include multi-family housing or to the existing single-family housing located to the north of the property, on the other side of the Gateway Trail. In addition, exterior storage adjacent the Gateway Trail would be an unsightly proposition. For these reasons, staff continues the recommendation that no extedor storage be allowed on the site, excluding landscape vehicles. Because of the discrepancies between staff's and the planning commission's recommendations, it is difficult to determine what the city council will ultimately approve. For this reason, the CDRB should proceed with a recommendation .on the design elements of the project, including screening of any proposed extedor storage. As stated above, the applicants are proposing four open bins for excess landscape matedal on the north side of the lot, and two outdoor enclosed storage bins on the west side of the lot. These items should be screened from the Atlantic Street right-of-way and the Gateway Trail. RECOMMENDATIONS Deny Erik Ohlson's and Stephanie Jacques' request for a conditional use permit for exterior storage at 1949 Atlantic Street. The city is denying this request because: Exterior storage will negatively impact the adjacent recreational trail (Gateway Trail) and residential properties. Exterior storage is not compatible to the proposed redevelopment opportunities currently being studied by the city council for the surrounding properties. Approve the attached resolution on pages 29 and 30. This resolution approves a conditional use permit for Edk Ohlson and Stephanie Jacques to construct a 6,800-square-foot metal building within the Business Commercial zoning district at 1949 Atlantic Street for a landscaping business. The city council bases the permit on the findings required by code, and the conditional use permit is subject to the following conditions: Ohlson Landscaping 4 February 4, 2003 No exterior storage is allowed, including equipment and supplies associated with the business. There shall be no noise-making business activity conducted in the lot, or made by vehicles entering or leaving the lot, between 7 p.m. and 7 a.m., Monday through Saturday, or all day Sunday as required by code. All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city. The director of community development may approve minor changes. d. The conditional use permit shall be reviewed by the city council in one year. Approve the plans date-stamped December 31, 2003, for a 6,800-square-foot metal building for the Ohlson Landscaping, Inc. business located at 1949 Atlantic Street. Approval is based on the following conditions: ao Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. bo Provide the following for City staff approval before the city issues a grading or building permit: 1) A detailed grading, drainage and erosion control plan and a detailed utility plan, subject to the city engineer's approval. 2) A revised site plan coinciding with the approved grading, drainage, and erosion control plan. The site plan must also show the ddveway with a width of at least 20 feet that is paved between the street and the parking lot. 3) Revised elevations showing the following: a) Bdck or stone wainscoting on the north, east and west elevations. b) Four dormers on the roof facing Atlantic Street. c) The metal panels and standing seam roof must be constructed of natural colors. 4) Building samples of metal panels, standing seam roof, trim, doors, and wainscot. 5) A revised landscape/screening plan that shows the following: a) Additional evergreen trees for screening of the building from Atlantic Street to be located on the southeast side of the lot. b) Screening of any approved extedor storage. c) Native plantings along the north side of the property, adjacent the Gateway Trail. Ohlson Landscaping 5 February 4, 2003 Co do d) Turf establishment plan. e) Landscaping within any proposed rainwater garden. If the basin area will only be seeded, the area must be vegetated with native grasses and forbes. The mix design must be preapproved by the city in advance of seeding. f) The size and species of all plantings. g) Underground irrigation for all landscaped areas, excluding rainwater gardens. 6) A detailed photometric plan for all proposed outdoor lighting, subject to staff approval. 7) Plans for a trash-dumpster enclosure. The gates shall be 100 percent opaque and the materials and colors of the enclosure shall be compatible with those of the new metal building. This plan shall be subject to staff approval. 8) A letter of credit or cash escrow for all required exterior improvements. The amount shall be 150 percent of the cost of the work. Complete the following before occupying the metal building: 1) Install all required extedor improvements. 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 above-required letter of credit or cash escrow is held by the City of Maplewood for all required exterior improvements. The owner or contractor shall complete any unfinished extedor improvements by June 1 if occupancy of the building is in the fall or winter, or within six weeks of occupancy of the building if occupancy is in the spdng or summer. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. Ohlson Landscaping 6 February 4, 2003 CITIZEN COMMENTS Staff surveyed the property owners within 350 feet of this site to get their opinions of this proposal. Out of the 20 properties surveyed, five responses were received as follows: For Ray and Agatha Troffer, 1202 E. Ryan Avenue, Maplewood: "Groat place for a garden center. I'm looking forward to using their services and products." Against Maplewood Ventures LLC, 18465 lxonia Avenue, Lakeville, MN (Deleano Benjamin, Maplewood Bowl Maplewood Ventures, LLC): "1 would normally be supportive of any form of improvement on the site in question. However, in all fairness to the City of Maplewood, and to Mr. Ohlson, I believe the following should be taken into account. 1) I am not suro a metal building with outSide storage of landscaping equipment and supplies would be that much of an improvement; and 2) Far more importantly, we need to take into account that this construction would not work at all properly into the future planning for rebuilding a revitalized new downtown Maplewood. I am prepared to make my presentation for a European Style Centrum to the City Planners and hope to have a preliminary meeting this week or next." Bernard E. & Jeanne M. Kelcher, 1210 Ryan Avenue E., Maplewood: "The noise levels in our residential aroa are already extremely high from other nearby industrial-type businesses adjoining the proposed structure. We're already subjected to loud car noises and barking guard dogs from the existing businesses at all hours of the day and night. The proposal should include a fence (such as on freeways) that lowers noise levels and will not distract from the natural beauty of the Gateway Trail and surrounding areas like one more additional metal structure will." Concerns Stephen M. & Nora J. Oerter, 1224 Ryan Avenue E., Maplewood: "1 have no problem with the buildings. However, I do have some issue with late evening - night noise. Perhaps a compromise can be achieved." Timothy S. & Terri Kershaw, 1250 Ryan Avenue E., Maplewood: "As long as the trees on the trail aro undisturbed, I support their plan. To have their vehicles and machinery out of sight will improve the overall look of the aroa." Ohlson Landscaping 7 February 4, 2003 REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Site Size: Existing Land Use: 31,578 square feet (.72 acres) Landscape Business Vehicle Storage SURROUNDING LAND USES North: South: East: West: Gateway Trail and Single Family Homes George's Auto Body/Car Wash/Apartment Maplewood Bowl Al's Auto Service/D & D Towing/Cellular Tower PLANNING Land Use Plan: Zoning: B-C (Business Commercial) B-C (Business Commercial) ORDINANCE REQUIREMENT Section 36-151(b)(4) requires a CUP for the exterior storage of goods or materials within the Business Commercial zoning district. Section 36-151 (b)(6) requires a CUP for a metal building within the Business Commercial zoning distdct if the following findings are met: No more than 20 percent of the building would be visible from streets or the highest topographical point of the nearest residential lot lines. The building would not be of lesser quality than surrounding development. If the screening is removed or dies and the owner does not replace it, the city council may require that the owner remove the building. If the value of the building exceeds $25,000, the city council shall allow at least a five-year amortization period. CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL See attached CUP requirements and standards on pages 29 and 30 for approval. Ohlson Landscaping 8 February 4, 2003 APPLICATION DATE The city received a corn plete CUP application for this request on December 31, 2002. Minnesota Statutes, Section 15.99 requires that the city take action within 60 days of receiving a complete application for a land use proposal. Therefore, city action is required on this request by March 1, 2003. P: Sec 16\Ohlson Landscaping CDRB Report Attachments: 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. Erik Ohlson's Letter Dated September 27, 2002 City Location Map Location Map Land Use Map Zoning Map Site Plan Grading Plan Elevations Floor Plan Pictures Dept. of Nat. Resource's Letter Dated January 21, 2003 Assistant City Engineer Chds Cavett's Memorandum Dated January 28, 2003 Lieutenant Banick's Memorandum Dated January 23, 2003 Building Official Dave Fisher's Memorandum Dated January 3, 2003 Fire Marshal Butch Gervais' Memorandum Dated January 3, 2003 Conditional Use Permit Resolution Plans (Separate Handout) Ohison Landscaping 9 February 4, 2003 Attachment 1 1706 Barclay Street Maplewood, MN 55109 (651) 748-1566 Fax: (651) 779-4246 September 27, 2002 City of Maplewo0d 1830 County Road B East Maplewood, MN 55109 Dear Sharm: Included are the items and documents requested to begin processing our request for improving our property at 1949 Atlantic Street, Maplewood, MN 55109. Currently, we are using this property as a meeting place for our employees in the mornings and where they leave their vehicles. After reviewing that days specific job, we and our employees load up the necessary tools and equipment and leave in the company vehicle(s) needed to perform that days duties. To date, this land has been used for company vehicle and equipment storage, as well as excess landscaping materials, which are stored until needed at a later date. We do have a storage container on the property to securely lock up our smaller tools and equipment. Our business has been steadily growing at a rate that requires us to conduct our business in a more professional environment. Our employees need an enclosed building to conduct their general maintenance on equipment (i.e. tire changes, oil changes, small engine tune-up, etc.), instead of attempting to perform these duties in the rain, mud or freezing temperatures. We are proposing to build a building approximately 50'd x 100'1. This building will include an area for (2) two office personnel sealed offfrom the maintenance and service area. This building is strictly to be used as a working space for 2 to 4 office staff and 3 vehicle bays, each separated fi'om the other. ' We are fortunate to experience phenomenal growth in our company, and have strived for years to get where we are today. That is why we desperately need to utilize this property in a manner, which is functional and appealing. Being in the landscape and property maintenance service, we will be designing the property as appealing to the eye and to blend with the area surrounding it. We look forward to hearing from you and working with you to create an exceptional addition to the Lincoln Park area. Most Sincerely, Erik M. Ohlson CEO, Pres./Ohlson Landscapes, Inc. 10 Attachment 2 Little Canada 1949 Atlantic Street St. Paul North St. Paul St. Paul S City Location Map 11 Attachment 3 City Open Space N Location Map 12 ,Attachment 4 1949 Atlantic Street ;nue City Open Space Location of New Roundabout Legend Light Manufacturing Heavy Manufacturing Neighborhood Commemial Commercial Office Limited Business Commercial Business Commemial Modified Business Commercial Smell Lot Single Dwelling Resi Single Dwelling Residential Double Dwelling Residential Low Multiple Dwelling Resident Medium Multiple Dwelling Resid High Multiple Dwelling Residen 30000 Residential Es~a~e 4000~ Residential Estate Park Open Space School ~ c~ ~ Govemment Library ~ Cemetery g "L'Jrch ~ Fire Station Land Use Map 13 Attachment 5, Frost Avenue N S Legend Light Manufacturing Heavy Manufacturing Neighborhood Commemial Commercial Office Limited Business Commercial Business Commercial Modified Business Commercial Shopping Center Small Lot Single Dwelling Residential Single Dwelling Residential Double Dwelling Residential Low Mulitple Dwellings High Multiple Dwelling Residential Condo Planned Urban Development Residential Estate (30,00 sq It) Residential Estate (40,00) sq It) Farm 14 Zoning Map Attachment 6 lq' Site Plan S 15 N Grading Plan Att. 7 16 Attachment 8 Elevations 17 Floor Plan s Attachment '9 18 Attachment 10 19 Attachment 11 Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Area 3B Trails & Waterways 1200 Warner Road, St. Paul, MN 55106. Office (651) 772-7937; Fax (651) 772-7977 January 21, 2003 City of Maplewood Office of Community Development Atto: Shann Finwall 1830 East County Road B Maplewood, MN 55109 Subject: Response to Ohloson Landscaping, 1949 Atlantic Street - Neighborhood Survey This letter is in response to a Neighborhood Survey for Ohlson Landscaping sent on January 2, 2003 to the State of Minnesota Department. of Natural Resources (DNR) from the City of Maplewood. The DNR, Trails & Waterways Division manages the Gateway State Trail that is adjacent to the proposed development at 1949 Atlantic Street in Maplewood. The DNR Gateway State Trail wants to be a good neighbor and have good neighbors along the trail corridor. Concerns for the trail include encroachment, trespass, visual quality, and dumping from adjacent landowners. For this proposed development the DNR requests that the business respect the property boundary. We would prefer a fence to define the property line and to retain the business materials. All bins and buildings need to retain the desired contents as intended. There should be no grading, or construction of facilities that negatively affect the vegetation or water drainage on the Gateway State Trail. it would be preferred if there was some native vegetation to visually buffer the trail corridor from the business site. Eventhough this is an urban environment, it is the intent Of the DNR to manage for native plants and animals along the trail and we encourage and appreciate when adjacent landowners add to the "green corridor". Thank you for asking for our comments on this proposed development. If you have any questions, please contact me. Sincerely, Suzann Willhite Area Trails and Waterways Supervisor suzann.willhite~dnr.state.mn.us enc: 23 Attachment 12. Engineering Plan Review PROJECT: Ohlson Landscapes, Inc. PROJECT NO: REVIEW'ED BY: Chris Cavett and Erin Schacht Maplewood Engineering Department, January. 28, 2003 Ohlson Landscaping is proposing to construct a metal pole building at 1949 Atlantic Street. The proposal includes resurfacing the parking area with bituminous for 10 parking stalls and leaving the remainder of the parking area as a .gravel surface. The applicant has proposed to treat runoff from the site with two on-site ponds. The applicant's engineer should discuss this review and their revisions with Chris Cavett, Assistant City Engineer before re-submittal. The following issues shall be addressed: 1. Site plan and grading plan do not agree with each other. No consideration has been given to the ponding areas on the site plan. The city would be open to the applicant constructing a single larger treatment/detention basin that extends partially into the Atlantic Street right-of-way. Maintain a minimum distance of 20-feet from the centerline of Atlantic with any grading. Consider creating what in essence will appear as a broad, shallow ditch from the drive to the property line. The proposed pond on the north could be eliminated with a vegetated swale, (or infiltration trench), that would drain towards the east then turn south under the drive and into this larger east basin. Construction and discharge of the north basin will require that the applicant obtain an easement and permit from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, (Gateway Trail). 4. Storm sewer must be extended between the east pond/basin to the existing storm sewer on Atlantic Street. The pond(s) must meet NURP design requirements and NURP calculations shall be submitted to the city for review. An alternative to the NURP pond is to incorporate other Best Management Practices (BMPs) in the design to adequately treat storm water. For more information on alternative BMPs, please see the Metrocouncil BMP Manual at their web site: http://www.metrocouncil.org/enviroment/Watershed/bmpmanual.htm NOTE: Because of the sandy soils generally found in this area, the applicant is strongly encouraged to consider constructing the basin(s) as bio-infiltration basins (rainwater gardens). The basins should be designed to infiltrate runoff from a 1.5" storm event. Rock infiltration sumps should be added to the basin along with appropriate landscaping in and around the basin(s). Rock infiltration sumps can be added to the proposed ponds to improve infiltration. The sumps should consist of 1.5" of clean, clear rock wrapped in Type 5 geotextile filter fabric, (felt). The top of the rock infiltration sumps shall be placed about 12 inches below 24 10. 11. 12. 13. the finished bottom of the basin. Provide a detail and description in the plan of how the contractor will prepare the rock sumps. Provide a turf establishment plan and landscaping plan for the site. A perennial or shrub rainwater garden design may be proposed. If the basin area is only intended to be seeded, the area must be vegetated with native grasses and forbes. The mix design must be preapproved by the city in advance seeding. Maintain a minimum 3:1 .grade on the basin slopes. For slopes steeper than 3:1, specific permanent erosion control measures must be addressed on the grading and landscape plans. The slopes to the basin(s) must be protected from erosion. As proposed there has been no consideration on how the basin slopes will be prevented from eroding. Consider, including catch basin pickups in the storm sewer design to convey runoffto the basin(s). The applicant has proposed to maintain the storage area as a gravel surface. No consideration has been given in the design to address sediment and fmcs from being washed into the basin(s) and into the city storm system. Provide an adequate vegetated filter strip between the gravel surface and the inlet to the basin(s), or consider using a sump design in a structure that precedes the outlets to the basin(s). Periodic cleaning of the sump would be required. A maintenance agreement would be required by the city. Any stockpile areas must be adequately contained to prevent contamination to the storm sewer system. All stockpiles must be housed internally or a treatment structure must be included in the storm sewer design. Provide silt fence -along the entire north and east sides of the lot to prevent erosion and sedimentation in the low areas. If this property is to be served by public utilities, 6" water main must be extend north from the existing stub at the north side of Frost Avenue. Water main can be installed privately by the applicant through a developer's agreement, or be petitioned and assessed back to the benefiting properties through a public improvement process. In either case, coordination, review and approval must be made through St. Paul Regional Water Services. Submit revised plans to include all utility work (sewer, water and storm). The city engineer shall approve restoration plan of the street. Minimum trench pavement restoration for Atlantic Street shall be with 8-inches of aggregate base and 2-inches of bituminous. (This is less than the existing street standard due to the condition of Atlantic Street.) 14. The drive entrance shall be paved between the street and parking lot. Attachment 13 Memo To: Fron~: CC: Date: Re:. Shann Finwall, Associate Planner -- Lieutenant John Banick ~ Chief Thomalla 1/23/2003 PROJECT REVIEW- Ohlson Landscapes, Inc. I have reviewed the attached project proposal and currently have the following concems: 1. Will this property have adequate lighting? 2. Will the building have an alarm system? What are their hours of operation and will they be using heavy equipment to load trucks? As you know, this property is in a desolate location. Therefore, I am concemed about the potential increase in theft, cdminal damage, burglary, and other incidents that our department will be required to respond to and investigate. During 2002, our department handled seventy-three theft, twenty-eight damage to property, and fifteen burglary incidents in this neighborhood (gdds 52 and 53). Obviously, proper lighting and an alarm system would be advantageous and decrease the opportunity for cdminal activity. However, my main concern is the hours of operation and use of heavy equipment. This type of business has the potential to create a considerable number of noise complaints during the peak .season. Frequently, landscape workers start very early in the moming and work as late as possible. With a quiet established neighborhood just north of this property, I am concerned about the increase in noise that could adversely affect our current residents. Can we restrict the hours of operation at this location? If you have any questions, please contact me at extension 4502. 26 Attachment 14 MEMO To: From: Date: Shann Finwall, Associate Planner David Fisher, Building Official 01-03-03 RE: Proposed project at 1949 Atlantic Street, a 6,800 square foot building. Based on the information provided there would be a flammable waste interceptor required and Chapter 1306 of the State Building Code would require the building to be fully sprinklered. There may be a one-hour firewall required between the office and the service garage depending upon the use. Bathrooms would also be required. The building and parking would be required to meet all the accessibility requirements of Chapter 1341 of the State Building Code. Also the rules for the architects and engineers will require a design professional to submit plans for the building permit. 27 Attachment 15 Project Review Comments Date: From: Project: Planner: Comments: January 3, 2003 Butch Gervais, Fire Marshal Ohlson Landscape Building Shann Finwall According to the information provided this building would need to have fire protection installed. The owner states that the building will be 6,800 square feet and used as a service area and business office. So with this information under the code (1306) service garages of 3,000 square feet or more needs fire protection and parking garages of 5,000 square feet or more needs fire protection. This building appears to be falling under the code requirements (1306). Maintain fire department access road of not less than 20 feet and needs to be a surface that can be driven on all year round. 28 Attachment 16 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Erik Ohlson and Stephanie Jacques applied for a conditional use permit for the construction of a metal storage building that is 6,800 square feet in area and 23 feet, 6 inches in height within the Business Commercial zoning district; WHEREAS, this permit applies to property located at 1949 Atlantic Street, Maplewood, Minnesota. The legal description is: Vacated alley adjacent and accruing and except the South 10 feet, the East 8.57 feet of Lot 14; also, the East 8.57 feet of Lots 11 through 13; also Lot 6, except the South 10 feet of that part West of the East 103.57 feet of said Lot 6; and all of Lots 7 through 10, all in Block 3, Lincoln Park, Ramsey County, Minnesota. WHEREAS, the Ramsey County Property Identification Number for this property is 16-29-22-14-0089; WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: 1. On February 3, 2003, the planning commission recommended that the city council approve the conditional use permit. 2. On ,2003, the city council held a public hearing. City staff published a notice in the Mapiewood 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 wdtten 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: 1. The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be in conformity with the city's comprehensive plan and Code of Ordinances. 2. The use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area. 3. The use would not depreciate property values. 4. The use would not involve any activity, process, materials, equipment or methods of operation that would be dangerous, hazardous, detrimental, disturbing or cause a nuisance 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. 5. The use would generate only minimal vehicular traffic on local streets and would not create traffic congestion or unsafe access on existing or proposed streets. 6. The use would be served by adequate public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, water and sewer systems, schools and parks. 7. The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services. 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: No extedor storage is allowed, including equipment and supplies associated with the business. There shall be no noise-making, business activity conducted in the lot, or made by vehicles entedng or leaving the lot, between 7 p.m. and 7 a.m., Monday through Saturday, or all day Sunday as required by code. All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 4. The conditional use permit shall be reviewed by the city council in one year. The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on ,2003. 30 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: Community Design Review Board Shann Finwall, Associate Planner 2002 Community Design Review Board Annual Report February 4, 2003 INTRODUCTION The city's community design review board (CDRB) ordinance requires that the CDRB submit a report to the city council once a year. The report is intended to outline the CDRB's actions and activities during the preceding year. Also, the report may include recommended changes, including, but not limited to, ordinance and/or procedure changes. RECOMMENDATION Review the attached draft of the CDRB annual report and be prepared to make recommendations and comments on the report at the February 11, 2003 CDRB meeting. P:\cdrb~002 Report Attachment: 2002 Community Design Review Board Annual Report TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: MEMORANDUM Richard Fursman, City Manager Matt Ledvina, Community Design Review Board Chair DRAFT Community Design Review Board Annual Report February 4, 2003 INTRODUCTION Yearly the community design review board (CDRB) outlines the board's actions and activities for the city council. In 2002 the CDRB reviewed 27 items as follows: Type of Proposal Number Reviewed New Development Proposals 11 · Cardage Homes of Maple Hills - Parkway Drive (Maple Hills Golf Course) · Hillcrest Animal Hospital - 1320 County Road D · Kline Nissan Automobile Dealership - 3090 and 3110 Maplewood Drive · 3M Building ~277 - Conway Avenue East of McKnight Road · Dearbom Meadow Townhomes - Castle Avenue · Tillges Medical Office Building - Hazelwood Street · Washington County Bank - 2520 White Bear Avenue · Access Power- 1832 Gervais Court · Beaver Lake Townhomes - South of Maryland Avenue, between Sterling Street and Lakewood Drive · Keller Lake Golf Course Maintenance Building - 2166 Maplewood Drive · Jiffy Lube - Maplewood Mall Ring Road (Old Pizza Hut Site) Expansions and Remodeling 6 · Maplewood Toyota Addition - 2873 Highway 61 · St. Jerome's Catholic School Addition - 380 Roselawn Avenue East · Lexus Automobile Dealership Addition - Highway 61 · S.P. Richards Addition - Gervais Avenue · Sinclair Gas Station Addition - 223 Larpenteur Avenue East · Hmong Alliance Church Parking Lot Expansion - 1770 McMenemy Street Sign Reviews · Tillges Medical Office Building - Hazelwood Street Special Projects 4 · Hillcrest Village Redevelopment Plan · Quality Restoration Extedor Storage- 1160 Frost Avenue · English Street- Frost Avenue Roundabout Streetscaping (Gladstone Neighborhood) · Maplewood Imports Storage Lot- Gervais Avenue, West of English Street Miscellaneous TOTAL 27 COMPARATIVE INFORMATION Year Number of Items Reviewed 1994 54 1995 57 1996 31 1997 53 1998 35 1999 28 2000 44 2001 31 2002 27 There is a decrease in the number of items reviewed by the CDRB from 2001 to 2002. The source of the decrease comes in the number of new developments as opposed to the number of expansion/remodeling developments. In 2001 the CDRB reviewed 8 new developments and 13 expansion/remodeling developments. In contrast, in 2002 the CDRB reviewed 11 new developments and 6 expansion/remodeling developments. COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEMBERS Board Member Membership Began Term Expiration Matt Ledvina, Chair 3/10~97 1/1/05 Craig Jorgenson 8~23/99 111/04 Linda Olson 3/26/01 1/1103 Ananth Shankar 8/8/94 111/04 Diana Longde-Kline 5~28/02 1/1/05 The CDRB's most recent board member, Diana Longfie-Kline, was appointed on May 28, 2002. Ms. Longrie-Kline was appointed to fill a vacancy left by Tim Johnson, whose appointment ended January 1, 2003. In addition to Ms. Longrie-Kline's term expiration on January 1, 2003, Chair Matt Ledvina's and Linda Olson's terms expired on January 1, 2003. On January 27, 2003, the city council reappointed Ms. Longde-Kline, Mr. Ledvina and Ms. Olson to an additional two-year term ending January 1, 2005. DISCUSSION 2002 Actions/Activities In 2002 the CDRB reviewed 11 new commercial developments, which added a total of 133,684 square feet of new commercial space within the city. In addition to new commercial developments, the CDRB reviewed 6 commercial expansions/remodels, which added an additional 59,176 square feet of commercial space within the city. Also reviewed were new residential developments, which added a total of 257 new multi-dwelling households within the city including: Carriage Homes of Maple Hills (100 units), Beaver Lake Townhomes (148 units), and Dearborn Meadow Townhomes (9 units). CDRB 2002 Annual Report 2 February 4, 2003 The CDRB briefly began discussions on proposed sign code revisions. Maplewood's current sign code was adopted in 1977, with minor revisions made in 1996. The sign code is outdated and allows for excessive signage within the commercial and industrial zoning districts. Because of this, the CDRB recommended in their 2001 annual report that the city's sign code be reviewed for potential modifications and updates. Major revisions to the sign code will require a large amount of staff time and review by the CDRB. The CDRB is committed to continued review and recommendation on the existing sign code to ensure that the city has an updated, fair, and comprehensive sign code. Another area of special concern mentioned by the CDRB in the 2002 annual report was the need to evaluate the site and design cdtefia as it relates to the Hillcrest Village Redevelopment Area. Since that time, the Hillcrest Village Redevelopment Area has been formally adopted by the city council, and further direction has been received from the city council to review site and design criteda as it relates to the Gladstone Neighborhood where the city's first roundabout was constructed in 2002. The design criteria for both areas should be complete by October 2003, which is when the city's moratorium on development within the Hillcrest Village Redevelopment Area ends. In 2003, therefore, the CDRB will spend considerable amount of time and effort reviewing proposed design cdteria for these areas in order to make a recommendation to the city council. 2003 Recommendations/Areas of Concern The CDRB will work with staff on recommended site and design criteria for the city's proposed Hillcrest Village Redevelopment Area and the Gladstone Neighborhood. The CDRB will review and make a recommendation on potential modifications and updates to the city's sign ordinance. The CDRB looks forward to reviewing possible development plans for the 80-acre Robert Hajicek property near the Maplewood Mall. The CDRB is interested in gaining a better understanding of sustainable building design concepts. The board hopes to support the implementation of these concepts for projects that are reviewed and approved by the city. CONCLUSION In 2003, the CDRB will continue its dedication to the quality design of buildings and developments, ensuring a high quality of life for the citizens of Maplewood. CDRB 2002 Annual Report 3 February 4, 2003