Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/11/20032. 3. 4. 5. 8. 9. 10. AGENDA MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD March 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 February 25, 2003 Minutes Unfinished Business: Sibley Cove Apartment Building - South Side of County Road D, East of White Bear Avenue and West of Ariel Street Design Review: a. Kohl's Department Store Building Addition - Maplewood Mall b. Van Dyke Village Townhomes - West Side of Van Dyke Street, North of County Road B c. Countryside Motor's Saab Building Addition and Sales/Storage Lot Expansion - 1180 Highway 36 East Visitor Presentations: None Scheduled Board Presentations Staff Presentations Adjourn WELCOME TO THIS MEETING OF THE COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD This outline has been prepared to explain the review process of this meeting. The review of an item usually follows this format. 1. The chairperson of the meeting will announce the item to be reviewed. 2. The chairperson will ask the applicant or developer of the project up to the podium to respond to the staff's recommendation regarding the proposal. The Community Design Review Board will then discuss the proposed project with the applicant. 3. The chairperson will then ask the audience if there is anyone present who wishes to comment on the proposal. 4. After everyone is the audience wishing to speak has given his or her comments, the chairperson will close the public discussion portion of the meeting. 5. The Board will then discuss the proposal. No further public comments are allowed. 6. The Board will then make its recommendations or decision. 7. Most decisions by the Board are final, unless appealed to the City Council. You must notify the City staff in writing within 15 days to register an appeal. jw\forms\cdrb.agd Revised: 11-09-94 II. Ill. IV. VI. DRAFT MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 2003 CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Ledvina called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Matt Ledvina Craig Jorgenson Diana Longrie-Kline Linda Olson Ananth Shankar Staff Present: Present Present Absent Present Absent Shann Finwall, Associate Planner Lisa Kroll, .Recording Secretary APPROVAL OF AGENDA Ms. Finwall requested that item VI. Design Review for Sibley Cove Apartments and VII. Visitor Presentations for Sustainable Building Design reversed. Board member Olson moved to approve the agenda with changes. Board member Jorgenson seconded. Ayes- Jorgenson, Ledvina, OIson The motion passed. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of the CDRB minutes for February 11,2003. Board member Olson moved approval of the minutes of February 11,2003. Chairperson Ledvina seconded. Ayes ---Ledvina, Olson Abstention - Jorgenson UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS Sustainable Building Design - John Carmody, Director of the Center for Sustainable Building Research Mr. John Carmody, the Director of the Center for Sustainable Building Research, 1425 University Avenue SE, Suite 220, Minneapolis, addressed the board. Community Design Review Board Minutes 2-25-2003 2 VII. Mr. Carmody gave a presentation to the board on sustainable building, the mission and guidelines used, and examples of sustainable building. A handout was given along with the ~ mail address www.csbr, umn.edu @tc.umn.edu for more information. Chairperson Ledvina thanked Mr. Carmody for his time and stated that the community design review board is interested in the sustainable building guidelines to help create quality developments within the City of Maplewood. DESIGN REVIEW a. Sibley Cove Apartments Mr. David Steele, representing MWF Properties, is proposing to build a 100-unit apartment building. He is proposing this project on a 7.1-acre site on the south side of County Road D between White Bear Avenue and Ariel Street. The project would be a 3-story apartment building with underground parking for 100 cars. In addition, the plans show 100 surface parking spaces and 18 future parking spaces on the site. Ms. Finwall said the building would have a mix of 86 two-bedroom units and 14 three-bedroom units and a storm shelter in the garage area of the building. Ms. Finwall said since the original staff report dated February 11,2003, the planning commission and the developers of the Birch Glen apartments have expressed concerns regarding the design of the building for Sibley Cove. The developers of Birch Glen Apartments want the city to require the same level of detail and design in this building as was required of them. Upon further review it appears ti builder could do more with the exterior of the building. In the staff report dated February 21, 2003, staff indicated seven items of change which include changing some of the windows to patio doors and or to bay or bow windows, adding more brick, particularly to the County Road D side, adding gables and or different materials which would include shakes or shingles to the gable ends and adding a band strip between the second and third floor windows. Also adding windows and other details to the north end of the building facing County R°ad D, staggering or breaking the long runs of the building on the west and the south sides to change the plains of the facades and adding other vertical elements. These design elements were shared with Mr. Steele who expressed concerns over three items, including changing some of the windows to patio doors and or to bow or bay windows, adding gables and staggering or breaking the long runs of the building. Staff recommends approval of the design review with the additional building design elements. The landscaping plan does not show any landscaping or ground treatment for the ponding area or any rainwater gardens. Chairperson Ledvina asked staff about the trash enclosures. Ms. Finwall said the applicant indicated that the trash enclosures would be located within the underground parking garage. Chairperson Ledvina asked staff to respond to the 80 units to be built in Phase I and t', additional 20 units to be built in Phase II. He said it appears the building elevations do not show the additional 20 units. .Community Design Review Board Minutes 2-25-2003 Mr. David Steele, representing MWF Properties, 4807 Slater Court in Eagan, addressed the board. Mr. Steele said they would not be building the additional 20 units unless the 80 units are 95% rented out. Phase II could be built in two years, five years or it may never happen at all, depending on how the building is rented out. He said in the easement area on the south side of the development they couldn't have any trees or put any fencing up because of the power lines. He plans on putting a vegetable garden in that area for the residents to use. They will try to do everything.they can to save the trees. Some of the trees are too close to the proximity due to the building. They do not want to plant bushes or trees too close to the people's windows for security reasons. This was a recommendation from the Ramsey County Sheriff's Department. Board member Olson asked Mr. Steele about the parking. Mr. Steele said in Phase i, there would be 82 underground parking spaces, and another 20 parking spaces added in Phase II underground, plus there will be 100 parking spaces outside. Chairperson Ledvina asked Mr. Steele if he had any color renderings or samples of materials to show the board? Mr. Steele said he does not have any samples with him but there is a photo in .the staff report showing the colors they are using. Board member OIson said the colors in the report differ from the colors he submitted tonight, one looked pink and the other looked orange. Mr. Steele said the colors differ because of the coloration problems with copying. He asked the architect to come forward and talk about the colors that would be used on the building. Mr. James McCellan, architect, residing at 1632 Meadowlark DriVe, Stillwater, addressed the board. The colors would be earth-toned colors of rust and cream. Chairperson Ledvina asked how the 20 units to be added in Phase II will look? Mr. McCellan said you would not be able to tell there was an addition added because they would not be changin~g the exterior materials at all. Board member Jorgenson said he wondered what percentage the building had to be rented out before the next phase would begin. You have the tenants who would have to be living next to the building being added, onto. Mr. Steele said he realizes you have to make some concessions to those tenants for the noise and inconvenience during construction. There is no way they would want to start construction until they are filled at least at 95%. Chairperson Ledvina has questions for the. applicant regarding the exterior of the building. Community Design Review Board Minutes 2-25-2003 4 Mr. Steele said he could not change the windows to patio doors and put any decks on thi..~ building. The reason is it could add over $1000 per unit to the project. This is work for~ housing and adding these design elements could price him right out of this project. They have already added the storm shelter and underground parking which has added $500,000 to the project. The planning commission requested that this building be held to the same or similar design standards as the Birch Glen Apartments. There are elements in the Birch Glen Apartment design that he would not want on his building. He agrees the ends of the building need to be dressed up. He does not like their deck design and he does not think it is attractive at all. Decks are a hazard for'kids, people have a tendency to break the law and grill on decks, Birch Glen Apartments have a deck design with a glass enclosUre, he feels it is a bad design for Minnesota because the decks fill up with snow. If you use wood construction'for decks the wood gets rotten. Building off sets could create problems with the parking and the garage design and the expense is huge. Board member Olson asked Mr. Steele if there is anything he can do to add to the vertical enhancements to the exterior of the building to break it up more? Mr. Steele said Birch Glen Apartments added vertical elements by installing decks and he does not want to do that. Mr. McCellan said they could put a horizontal stripe between the second and third floor. He said in terms of the placement of the windows they could put them in a random pattern but he prefers them to be in a symmetrical pattern. Maybe the cement board could be continued in a vertical pattern in some areas but he .does not know if that would enhance the appearance t~ much. They felt the gables on the roof and the different treatments of the horizontal siding make this an attractive product to begin with. Maybe they could do something with the north end on County Road D. Board member Jorgenson said in lieu of decks maybe larger windows could be added to increase ventilation for the tenants? Maybe by having a larger window in the living room area it would give a bit more architectural look to the building. Mr. Steele said that would be a good idea but the issue is the cost. He has to go back to the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency (MHFA) for $500,000 for the extra expense for the garage. They have talked about putting in patio doors with a french balcony. The french balcony is not a deck but has a 6-inch projection with tight verticals on the rails so children cannot stick their heads through it. Safety is a large issue in apartments with children. He said these may have to be custom built and they don't know the cost for something like this. He does not want to .be held to anything right now. Board member Olson asked if these are functioning windows? Mr. Steele said yes. Board member Olson said she does not think having a larger window would make it look nicer: she likes the size of the windows with the muttons on them. It will reduce the size of t interior wall with a larger WindoW size. Chairperson Ledvina asked where the gas and electrical meters would be located? Community Design Review Board Minutes 2-25-2003 5 Mr. McCellan said the meters would be located in the underground garage. Mr. Steele asked if he could bring the changes to the east and north ends of the. building to the city council? Chairperson Ledvina said it is difficult for the board to make a recommendation without all the details and specifics. He feels very uncomfortable about this. He said it is a possibility but not the standard way of operation. Mr. Steele said he does not mean to make this a gray situation for the board. Chairperson Ledvina asked Mr. Steele if it was possible to make the changes, bring in samples of materials and have a more complete presentation for the board to make a recommendation to the city council for the next CDRB meeting? Mr. Steele asked when the next CDRB meeting is? Chairperson Ledvina said Tuesday, March 11,2003. Mr. Steele said no, because the city council meeting is Monday, March 10, 2003, and he said he is under penalty of death to make that city council meeting. Ms. Finwall said it appeared the Phase II portion was not addressed too well in the staff report. She said this apartment building will be approved by the city council as a PUD and any change to the site plan will require a revision. The additional 20 units will have to come back to the CDRB if and when that would happen. The CDRB is just approving the 80 units tonight. The applicant submitted a revised landscaping plan and staff has not had an opportunity to review those plans so she would recommend the board refer to the plans date stamped January 14, 2003. Regarding the additional design elements for the building, the applicant said that he would be willing to make the following changes: patio doors with a French balcony, depending on cost, additional brick, different materials such as shingles to the gables, and vertical design elements, adding windows to the north end of the building. The CDRB could recommend approval with these additional design elements and if the applicant is still unwilling to implement these recommendations he could appeal the decision to the city council. Chairperson Ledvina asked if anyone from the public would like to speak regarding Sibley Cove Apartments? Mr. Bob Bankers, representing Birch Glen Apartments, addressed the board. He said they are not happy with the design of Sibley Cove. They went through this exact thing two years ago for Birch Glen Apartments. The concern two years ago was Birch Glen was going to be three stories tall sitting in an area with single story buildings. He said Sibley Cove is proposing to do what the city would not let Birch' Glen build. Community Design Review Board Minutes 2-25-2003 They broke the building into two pieces, with hip roofs on both sides, they added decks an.,4 they spent a lot of money, because the city told them.they had to. Their building is very now and they are opposed to the Sibley cove owners building a lesser quality building. He said it would have been nice if they could have built their building as it was for less money, but they couldn't and Sibley Cove should not be able to then either. Board member Olson said she thinks Birch Glen Apartments are very attractive and she wishes Sibley Cove had proposed as nice of an apartment building. - Mr. Bankers said Sibley Cove has a building that looks like a warehouse and it has no character to it. Board member Olson asked Mr. Bankers if he thinks they have a higher quality tenant because of the added design features on their building? 'Mr. Bankers said yes, and he thinks they are appreciative for such an attractive looking building. He said there was a lot of concern expressed by the city when they proposed 60 units at Birch Glen and this proposal is going to have 100 units. He said the building has no bump outs, it is flat and straight and it will dominate the whole neighborhood. The architectural details they put on their building accomplished the goal and it makes it less intrusive in the neighborhood. He is sorry if the developers of Sibley Cove have to spend more money, but they had to spend more money for Birch Glen to get a nicer building and it was worth it in the end. He said they want a level playing ground and they don't want a building lesser in quality then the building they built. Board member Jorgenson said he is not comfortable making a decision on. this proposal without knowing more details, There are too many questions in this proposal. If there were time he would like to have more information instead of going ahead and making a quick approval. There is no information on the rainwater gardens. He said it is a large building and it needs more design details added to it. He is happy to see the developer is building underground garages and that will be a huge attraction for people. Board member Olson said she would second that statement. She said there was no discussion about the storm water pond which appears to have moved around on the plans, she would like a better feel for the gardens for the residents, the fencing on the perimeter of the property between the auto mall on the west side is very practical, as opposed to trying to put trees in there. She would like the shingles added and the brick banding added. She is not that crazy about adding another horizontal stripe, it isn't going to solve any vertical problems. She wasn't really thinking of the scope of the building but in looking at the plans, the trees depicted on the illustration make the building look smaller then it will really be. She said the tree size is deceiving, but after seeing the size of Birch Glen, Sibley Cove will have more units. This will be a large building' and' it really needs the elements added. She said the colors of the building are confusing from the illustration copies and: she wishes the applicant would have brought samples of the materials that are being used, There is a lot to be considered before the CDRB can make an approval and she does not feel comfortable making a recommendation to the citv council not knowing complete information. Chairperson Ledvina said he feels the same way. This project is not complete and it could use more work. There are a lot of issues that are not finalized. Community Design Review Board Minutes 2-25-2003 Chairperson Ledvina said Birch Glen Apartments feels Sibley Cove should be held to the same standards and feels this is not a level playing field. He is concerned about the 20 additional units to be added in Phase II and how that works with the 80 units for Phase I. He would like to see plans for that addition or just not approve the 20 additional units. He feels very uncomfortable approving the staff recommendation of the 100 units when they propose 80 units now and 20 later. He does not necessarily like fencing and he thinks berms and plantings can be done in place of fencing. Mr. Steele said he has an extreme time crunch but the board asked if this could be tabled and have it come back for the next meeting. Mr. Steele asked the board to respectfully not table this item. The rainwater gardens are a new concept and they will need guidance on this, they are working with Chris Cavett, Assistant City Engineer. Fencing and tree placement have endless opportunities and that can be discussed. They are willing to make the architectural changes and bring it back to the city council on March 10, 2003. Ms. Finwall said the city is required to act on this proposal within 60 days and the deadline for this proposal is March 24, 2003. If this was tabled, it could come back to the CDRB on March 11,2003, and then go to the city council on March 24, 2003. Chairperson Ledvina stated then it is possible to table this based on the city's time line. Ms. Finwall said yes. Mr. Steele said' if the CDRB tables this proposal it will delay his project by at least one month. He said the earliest they can start this project is April 15, 2003. The MHFA has certain windows of time for their board meetings and waiting for them could hold this project up until May 15. It takes about seven months to build the building and a month delay can make them lose the window of opportunity for paving in the fall. Under the current schedule they want to start building April 15, 2003, and have it completed and paved by the end of November. This way the building would be leased by the beginning of December. He said to table this project would cost this development hundreds of thousands of dollars. Chairperson Ledvina said the board is uncomfortable with the level of detail that has been provided and the amount of work that needs to be done. At the same time the applicant has time schedules to follow. He said this is where the board is with this proposal. Board member Olson said this is a large development and the impact will be substantial and this building will be here a long time. She said the board feels that because of all the issues that have not been resolved they need more than 20 minutes to review this, especially with all of the design elements that have not been finalized. Ms. Finwall said this proposal requires a land use change as well as a CUP for the planned unit development and the design review. If the land use plan and the CUP are in place the design review board has the authority to approve the design elements without being reviewed by city council. She said the only time city council would be involved with the design review is if there was an appeal from the applicant on the design review was brought to the city council as part of a land use proposal. 'Therefore, staff could bring the land use plan and CUP to the city council on March 10, 2003, and bring back the design review to the CDRB March 11, 2003. Community Design Review Board Minutes 2-25-2003 Ms. Finwall said this way the applicant can meet his timeline and the CDRB's concerns can bp worked through. The only issue is, if the applicant wanted to appeal the CDRE recommendation to the city council it would not be heard until March 24, 2003. Board member Jorgenson moved to table this item until further information is provided to the board for the meeting on Tuesday, March 11,2003. Commissioner Olson seconded. Ayes- Jorgenson, Ledvina, Olson The motion is tabled. This item goes to the city council on March 10, 2003, and it will come back to the CDRB with changes on March 11,2003. Chairperson Ledvina said the board would like the applicant to work with staff in addressing the issues identified in the staff report dated February 21,2003. Recognizing the applicant has a concern with breaking up the fa(;ade, and the issues of patio doors and or bay or bow windows. The board wants to identify that they are looking at 80 units only unless the applicant provides details for the whole 100 units. More detail is needed for preserving the vegetation on the east side of the site near the daycare center. He said they should look at the possibility of varying the size of the windows but maintaining the detail of the windows. Looking at the possibility of french balconies and the applicant should provide samples of materials with color schemes of the materials to show the board. Chairperson Ledvina said he has a concern with the main entrance of the building where the drop off area is. He said the could be an additional architectural element added there like Birch Glen Apartments has done showing a prominent main entrance. Board member Olson wants the applicant to look at the issue of shingles on the gables and staggering the long horizontal runs. Regarding the fencing issue, where is it going to be and what is it going to look like? She said the lighting plan needs to be resubmitted for the driveway and the tot lot, which are for safety. This development needs sidewalks and she would like the sidewalks made clear on the plans, Board member Jorgenson said he wants to see the final landscaping plan, define where the storm water ponding area will be, have a clear plan for the vegetable garden area and the entrance needs to be more prominent. He would also like to know where the entrance to the tot lot will be. VIII, BOARD PRESENTATIONS Board member Shankar was the representative for the CDRB at the February 24, 2003, city council meeting. Mr. Shankar was absent from the meeting so staff gave a brief report. Ms. Finwall said the only CDRB item was the approval of Ohlson Landscaping and the metal storage building. Community Design Review Board Minutes 2-25-2003 IX. STAFF PRESENTATIONS There is no representation needed by the CDRB at the March 10, 2003, city council meeting. b. Community Design Review Board Meeting Revised Cablecast Replay Dates and Times. Ms. Finwall said the CDRB meetings would be broadcast live at 6:00 p.m. on the 2nd and the 4th Tuesdays of the month. It will be rebroadcast on Tuesdays at 2:00 p.m. and 8:00 p.m., Thursday at 2:00 p.m. and Saturdays at noon. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m. MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: APPLICANT: DATE: City Manager Ken Roberts, Associate Planner Sibley Cove Apartments Design Approval County Road D, between White Bear Avenue and AHel Street MWF Properties (David Steele) March 5, 2003 INTRODUCTION Project Description Mr. David Steele, representing MWF Properties, is proposing to build a 100-unit apartment building. He is proposing this project on a 7.1-acre site on the south side of County Road D between White Bear Avenue and Adel Street. (See the location map on page 18, the property line/zoning map on page 21 and the site plan on page 24.) The project would be a three-story apartment building built in two phases - 80 units in Phase One and 20 units in Phase Two. It also would have underground parking for 100 vehicles, 100 surface parking spaces and 18 future parking spaces on the site. The building, when finished, would have 86 two-bedroom units, 14 three-bedroom units and a storm shelter in the garage area of the building. (See the proposed project plans on pages 24-30 and the developer's project statement starting on page 12.) Requests To build the development, the applicant is requesting that the city approve the following: A change in the city's land use plan. This change would be from BC (business commercial) to R-3(H) (residential high density). (See the existing and proposed land use plan maps on pages 19 and 20.) A conditional use permit (CUP) for a planned unit development (PUD) for a 100-unit apartment development. The applicant is requesting the CUP because the existing BC (business commercial) and LBC (limited business commercial) zoning districts limit the uses on the site to commercial, office and retail uses and allows multiple-family residential uses only with a conditional use permit. (See the property line/zoning map on page 21 .) 3. The project design plans. DISCUSSION Note: The city council will be considering the proposed land use plan change and conditional use permit(CUP) for the planned unit development (PUD) at their meeting on March 10, 2003. The CDRB needs to act on the design approval part of this request at their meeting on March 11, 2003. Building Design and Exterior Materials The proposed building (as revised) would be attractive and would have three stories above grade and an underground parking area. As proposed, the building would have horizontal cement- board siding with a bdck wainscot on the first floor, horizontal vinyl siding on the secondand third floors, scale shingles on the gable ends, and the roof would have asphalt shingles. (See the odginal building elevation drawings on page 30 and the new proposed project plans,) The developer has proposed a mix of building colors - pdmadly earth-toned rusts and creams (red, brown and tan). The planning commission and the developers of the Birch Glen Apartments (across Ariel Street from this site) have expressed concerns about the design of this building. They bOth want the city to require the same level of detail and design in this new building as was required of the BirCh Glen development when it went through the review process. To this end, the builder submitted revised civil and architectural plans to city staff on March 4, 2003 that show how they intend to make the proposal look better. The largest area proposed for change is in the details of the extedor of the building. The revised plans now show shingles (instead of horizontal siding) on the gable ends, the addition of French or patio doors with a metal railing on the outside of the units, 1 x 4 colored trim around the windows and doors and more brick on the street-side (end) elevations, in addition, the end elevations have a soldier course of bdck between thefirst and second floors and more windows to improve the appearance of the building from the public streets. The revised plans also show a new entry portico extending out from the front door of the building and a door and patio out to the tot lot on the northeast side of the building. The proposed plans, however, do not clearly show the south elevation with the underground garage door. For comparison, the Birch Glen apartment building across Ariel Street is a 60-unit, three-story building with underground parking on a 3.2-acre site (an average of 18.75 units per acre). In addition, the Cardinal Pointe Co-op on Hazelwood is a 108-unit, three-story building with underground parking on a 6.75-acre site (an average of 16 units per gross acre). It is staff's opinion that this building, with the proposed materials, colors and with the noted design changes, should be compatible with and equal in quality to the buildings in the area, including the Birch Glen apartments. City Engineer's Review Chris Cavett and Erin Schacht of the city engineering department have reviewed the proposed grading, drainage, utility and landscape plans. I have included their memo with their comments on pages 31 and 32. Public Utilities There are sanitary sewer, storm sewer and water in Ariel Street and County Road D to serve the proposed development. Specifically, the storm sewer in Adel Street was designed and installed to accommodate drainage from a large area north of Woodlynn Avenue. The developer's plans will connect their pipes to the existing storm and sanitary sewer pipes. Drainage The developer has designed the storm water drainage for this site to go into a new ponding area on the southeast comer of the site. In times of large storms, storm water may overflow out of the pond into the existing city storm water system. The city will not need a drainage and utility easement over the ponding area, as this will be a pdvate ponding area. This project will need a permit from the watershed district., Landscaping The revised landscaping plan is a good start, but it needs more work. It shows the developer planting at least 50 new large trees including red oaks, maple, ash, linden, Black Hills spruce and Austrian Pine. In addition, the plans show the planting of a variety of ornamental trees and shrubs on the site. The proposed plans (pages 24 through 27 and in the separate plans) show most of the site being graded and the construction of a storm water pond on the southeast comer of the site. This will remove much of the existing vegetation and many of the existing mature trees on the property. The landscape plan, however, does not show any landscaping or ground treatment for the ponding area or any of the rainwater gardens. The city should require the developer to provide a revised landscape plan that would include the landscaping treatments and materials for the ponding area and for the rainwater gardens on the site. The proposed tree plan keeps many of the existing mature cottonwood and box elder trees on the north and east sides of the site. The city should require the developer to preserve most of the existing vegetation along the north and east sides of the site near the daycare center. This existing vegetation in these areas will protect existing slopes and will help provide screening of the building. Site Lighting The applicant provided a revised site lighting plan that shows the expected light spread from the proposed parking lot and tot-lot lights. The proposed poles would be 20 feet tall and would have a sharp cutoff shoebox luminaire with a 250-watt high-pressure sodium light bulb. The city code requires the light fixtures have a design that hides the bulb and lens from view. This plan, however, does not show any of the proposed lighting on the building. In addition, the proposed plan shows little, if any, lighting where the parking lot ddveway would meet Ariel Street. The applicant should revise the lighting plan in several ways. First; the. plan should show how the lighting on the building would, add to the site lighting. Secondly, the plan should have additional lighting near the driveways, where they intersect the public streets, so they are adequately lit. Finally, the plan should show details about the proposed light fixtures to ensure they are a design that hides the bulb and lens from view to avoid nuisances. Sidewalks Staff is recommending that the developer install a six-foot-wide concrete sidewalk on th® west side of Ariel Street between the existing sidewalk, north of Woodlynn Avenue and the south property line of the daycare center. This sidewalk would provide the residents of this building off- street pedestrian access to the shopping area and chumh to the south. A sidewalk along Ariel Street also would provide a pedestrian link to the existing sidewalk along Woodlynn Avenue and to the sidewalk along Ariel Street south of Woodlynn Avenue. The revised plans submitted by the applicant now show this sidewalk. The city installed a new trail along the south side of County Road D in 2002 as part of the County Road D reconstruction. The city needs, however, a ten-foot-wide permanent easement along the south side of the right-of-way (on the project site) to cover the area that the trail is on. 3 Fencing/Screening This site has commercial properties on three of its sides, including an auto repair mall to the west and strip center to the south. It would be prudent for and helpful to the residents of the new apartments if the developer installed screening along the west and south sides of the project to help ensure that the new residents and their vehicles are separated from the adjacent commercial properties. The revised plans submitted by the applicant show them installing a six- foot-tall, board-on-board fence along the west property line. These plans, however, do not specify the materials or colors of the proposed fence nor do they show a fence along the south property line. City staff should approve the design details of the fence, including the materials and colors, before the city issues a building permit for the project. The applicant told me that the easements on the south part of the property for the existing power lines prohibit them from installing any structures or permanent improvements, except the parking lot, in the easement area. As such, they cannot install a fence along the south property line of the site. Other Comments Butch Gervais, the Maplewood Fire Marshal, had the following comments: 1. Install a fire protection system in the building per NFPA 13 2. Install a smoke detection system in the main corridors per NFPA 72 3. Install a monitored fire protection system 4. Include a fire department lock box 5. Maintain a minimum of 20-foot-wide driveways for emergency vehicles. Lt. Kevin Rabbett of the Maplewood Police DePartment noted that theft from vehicles is a chronic problem throughout the area. He suggested that the builder install a quality video surveillance system that would cover the underground garage and its entrance/exit doors. COMMISSION ACTIONS On February 19, 2003, the planning commission recommended approval of the proposed land use plan change and the conditional use permit for the planned unit development for this proposal. On February 25, 2003, the community design review board (CDRB) reviewed the proposed design plans for the project. The CDRB had concerns about the proposed design and materials of the building; After much review and discussion with the applicant, the CDRB tabled action on the design approval for the project. This delaY was to allow the applicant time to make changes to the plans to address the concerns of the CDRB, the neighbors and city staff. The CDRB will be considering revised plans for this project at their March 11, 2003, meeting. RECOMMENDATION Approve the plans date-stamped January 24, 2003 (site plan, landscape plan, grading and drainage plans) and the revised plans (including building elevations) date-stamped March 4, 2003 for the Sibley Cove apartments. This approval is for the 80-unit building and does not include the 20-unit addition on the east end of the site. The city bases this approval on the findings required by the code, and the developer or contractor shall do the following: 1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. 2. Complete the following before the city issues a grading permit or a building permit: a.* Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall include: grading, utility, drainage, erosion control, tree, sidewalk and driveway and parking lot plans. The plans shall meet the following conditions: (1) The erosion control plan shall be consistent with city code. (2) The grading plan shall: (a) Include bui'lding, floor elevation, water elevation and contour information. These shall include the normal water elevation and 100- year high water elevation. (b) Include contour information for the land that the construction will disturb. (c) Show sedimentation basins or ponds as required by the watershed board or by the city engineer. The ponds or basins shall meet the city's design standards and shall include best management' practices and rainwater gardens wherever practical. (d) Show all proposed slopes steeper than 3:1 on the proposed construction plans. The city engineer shall'approve the plans, specifications and management practices for any slopes steeper than 3:1. This shall include covering these slopes with wood-fiber blankets and seeding them with a "no mow" vegetation rather than using sod or grass. (e) Show all retaining walls on the plans. Any retaining walls more than four feet tall require a building permit from the city. Show as little disturbance as possible on the north and east sides of the site (near the daycare center) to minimize the loss or removal of natural vegetation. This is to keep and protect as many of the large trees along the north and east property lines (near the daycare center) as possible. (3)* The:tree plan shall: (a) (b) Be approved by the city engineer before site grading or tree removal. Show where the developer will remove, save or replace large trees. (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) Submit Submit Submit (1) (2) This plan shall include an inventory of all existing large trees on the site. (c) Show no tree removal beyond the approved grading and tree limits. (d) Be consistent with the approved grading and landscape plans. The design of the storm water pond shall be subject to the approval of the city engineer. The developer shall be responsible for getting any needed off-site grading or drainage easements and for recording all necessary easements. All the parking areas and driveways shall have continuous concrete curb and gutter. The driveways shall meet the following standards: 24-foot width-no parking on either side and 28-foot width-parking on one side The developer or contractor shall post the driveways with no parking signs to meet the above-listed standards. The developer shall disturb as little as possible of the area along the north and east property lines near the daycare center. Change the grading plan for this part of the site as recommended by the city engineer. The developer shall install a six-foot-wide concrete sidewalk along Adel Street between the existing sidewalk north of Woodlynn Avenue and the south property line of the daycare center. A storm water management plan, including drainage and ponding calculations, for the proposal. Make all the changes and meet all the conditions noted by the city engineer in the memo dated Februar7 10, 2003. a lawn-irrigation plan to staff showing the location of sprinkler heads. a certificate of survey for all new construction. a revised landscape plan for city staff approval showing: As much of the existing vegetation (including large trees) remaining along the northern and eastern property lines (near the daycare center)as possible. The manicured or mowed areas from the natural areas. This shall include planting (instead of sodding) the disturbed areas on the sOuth side of the parking lot around the storm water pond with native grasses and native flowering plants. The native grasses and flowedng plants shall be those needing little or no maintenance. This is to reduce maintenance costs and to reauce the temptation of mowers to encroach into the pond. Specifically, 6 the developer shall have the natural areas seeded with an upland mixture and lowland mixtures as appropriate. (3) The planting of native grasses, flowedng plants and Iow-level shrubs around the proposed storm water pond. These materials shall extend at least four feet from the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) of the pond. (4) The planting details (including flowering plants and shrubs) for the rainwater garden at the northeast comer of the building. e. Get the necessary approvals and permits from the watershed district. Submit a revised site lighting plan for city staff approval. This plan shall show how the lighting on the building would add to the site lighting, and the plan should have additional lighting near the driveways, where they intersect the public streets, so the driveways are adequately lit. This plan also shall show details about the proposed light fixtures to ensure they are a design that hides the bulb and lens from view to avoid nuisances. The light fixtures must have concealed lenses and bulbs to propedy shield glare from the adjacent street right-of-ways and from adjacent properties. g. The developer shall record the following with Ramsey County: The documentation to combine the properties into one property for tax and identification purposes. (2) A ten-foot-wide permanent easement for public street right-of-way and public utility purposes along the south side of the County Road D right-of- way. h. Have the Saint Paul Regional Water Services.(SPRWS) review and approve the' proposed utility plans. i. The fire chief shall approve the access to the back (northeast side) of the building for firefighting needs. Submit plans for city staff approval for any outdoor trash or recycling containers and enclosures, if the developer wants to build such facilities, the enclosure shall have materials that are compatible with the building., and they shall have gates that are 100 percent opaque. k. A letter of credit or cash escrow for all required exterior improvements. The amount shall be 150 percent of the cost of the work. This approval does not include the 20-unit addition on the east end of the site. The developer or builder shall submit all necessary plans to the CDRB fOr their approval before the city may issue a building permit for this part of the project. 3. Complete the following before occupying the building: a. Replace property irons that are removed because of this construction, bo Restore and sod damaged boulevards. Install reflectodzed stop signs at each exit, a handicap-parking sign for each · handicap-parking space and an address on the building. In addition, the applicant shall install "no parking" signs within the site, as required by staff. Paint any roof-top mechanical equipment to match the uppermost part of the building. Screen all roof-mounted equipment visible from streets or adjacent property. (code requirement) Construct trash dumpster and recycling enclosures as city code requires for any dumpsters or storage containers that the owner or building manager would keep outside the building. Any such enclosures must match the materials and colors of the building. Install and taper the concrete sidewalk along Ariel Street to match the driveways. Install and maintain an in-ground sprinkler system for all landscaped areas. Install continuous concrete curb and gutter along all intedor driveways and around all open parking stalls. Install on-site lighting for secudty and visibility that follows the approved site lighting plan. All extedor lighting shall follow the approved lighting plan that shows the light spread and fixture design. The light fixtures must have concealed lenses and bulbs to properly shield glare from the adjacent street right-of-ways and from adjacent properties. Install a six-foot-high solid screening fence along the west property line of the site. The location,-design and materials of the fence shall be subject to city staff approval. Install a quality video surveillance system that covers the underground garage and its entrance/exit doors. This system shall be subject to the approval of the Maplewood Police Department. The developer or contractor shall: (1) Complete all grading for the site drainage, complete all public improvements and meet all city requirements. (2)* Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits. (3) Remove any debds or junk from the site. If any required work is not done, the city-may allow temporary occupancy if: The city determines that the work is not essential to the public health, safety or welfare. b. The above-required letter of credit or cash escrow'is held by the city for all required extedor improvements. The owner or contractor shall complete any unfinished landscaping by June 1 if the building is occupied in the fall or winter, or within six weeks of occupancy if the building is occupied in the spdng or summer. c. The city receives an agreement that will allow the city to complete any unfinished work. This approval does not include the signs. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes CITIZEN COMMENTS Staff surveyed, the 17 property owners Within 350 feet of the site about the proposal. We received two replies. Comments: 1 .We have no objections to this project. (Hause - Hill City, MN) 2. Please hold this project to the same design standards that you held our project to. (Bob Bankers). (Also see the letter from Mr. Bankers, the developer of the Birch Glen Apartments on Adel Street, on page 33.) REFERENCE Site Description The site is undeveloped. Surrounding Land Uses North: Perkins and Emerald Inn across County Road D. East: A daycare center and Birch Glen apartments across Adel Street. South: Commercial businesses on the north side of Woodlynn Avenue. West: Commercial businesses on the east side of White Bear Avenue. Planning Considerations Existing Land Use Plan Designation: BC (business commercial) Proposed Land Use Plan Designation: R-3(H) (residential high density) CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL Section 25-70 of the city code requires that the CDRB make the following findings to approve plans: That the design and location of the proposed development and its relationship to neighboring, existing or proposed developments and traffic is such that it will not impair the desirability of investment or occupation in the neighborhood; that it will not unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring, existing or proposed developments; and that. it will not create traffic hazards or congestion. That the design and location of the proposed development is in keeping with the character of the surrounding neighborhood and is not detrimental to the harmonious, orderly and l0 attractive development contemplated by this article and the city's comprehensive municipal plan. That the design and location of the proposed development would provide a desirable environment for its occupants, as well as for its neighbors, and that it is aesthetically of good composition, materials, textures and colors. Application Date The city received the original, complete application and plans for this proposal on January 24, 2003. On March 4, 2003, the city received revised civil and architectural plans for the proposal. State law requires that the city take action within 60 days of receiving complete applications for a proposal. City council action is required on this proposal by March 24, 2003, unless the applicant agrees to a time extension. kr/p: Sec 2N/Sibley Cove Apts CDRB 2.doc Attachments: 1. Applicant's Statement 2. Location Map 3. Existing Land Use Plan Map 4. Proposed Land Use Plan 5. Property Line/Zoning Map 6. Area Map 7. Site Survey 8. Site Plan 9. Proposed Utility Plan 10. Proposed Grading Plan 11. Tree Preservation Plan 12. Proposed Landscape Plan 13. Proposed Site Lighting Plan 14. Odginal Building Elevations dated 1-14-03 15. February 10, 2003 memo from city engineering department 16. Letter dated February 28, 2003 from Bob Bankers 17. Letter dated March 3, 2003 from Bob Bankers 18. Project Plans date-stamped January 24, 2003 and March 4, 2003 (Separate Attachments) Attachment t MWF ' roperties 7645 Lyndale Avenue South · Minneapolis, MN 55423 · 612-243-4639 · Fax: 612-243-5010 TO: City Manger FROM: Dave Steele, VP of Development SUBJECT: Sibley Cove Apartments LOCATION: County Road D and Ariel Street APPLICANT: MWF Properties, Inc. DATE: January 6, 2003 INTRODUCTION Project Description MWF Properties LLC, represented by David Steele, is proposing to build a 100 unit apartment building. This apartment building, named Sibley Cove, will occupy approximately 7.12 acres of vacant prairie located at the southeast quadrant of County Road D and Ariel Street in Maplewood, MN. The site will from on County Road D and is two blocks south of Imerstate 694 and one block east of White Bear Avenue. It is notable that this project is planned for 100 apartment units in 2 phases; 80 units in phase I and 20 units in phase II of the development. There will be one parking space per unit located within the underground parking structure and one surface parking space per unit. These ratios will also apply to phase II of the project. (See the location map attached.) The project will be a one building three-story structure with underground parking. The design is somewhat of an "L" shaped single building, which will provide privacy and security while maximizing a two+ acre courtyard for the residents and their children's (Tot Lot) play area. The unit mix will include two- and three-bedroom apartments to meet the demands for work force family housing. (See the proposed building floor plans attached.) The project is bordered as follows: South: West: North: Northwest: East: Small Shopping Center. ... Plaza 3000' Shopping Cemer & Maple Square Small commercial uses i.e. Auto repair County Road D...Perkins restaurant is on the north side of Co Rd D. Children's World Day Care & Learning Center Ariel Street...on the east side of Ariel Street is Birch Glen Apts. APPLICANT'S STATEMENT 12 Requests MWF Properties, Inc. is requesting the city approve the following: A change in the city's land use plan. This change would be from BC (business commercial) to R-3(H) (residential high density). 100 Units on 7.12 acres = 14 units/acre. A conditional use permit (CUP) for a planned unit development (PUD) for a 1013- unit apartment development. The CUP is requested because the current "BC" (Business Commercial) zoning proku'bits multiple-family residential uses. 3. Design approval. DISCUSSION Land Use Plan Change To build Sibley Cove Apartmems, MWF Properties requests the city to change the land use plan for the site. This would be from BC (business commercial) to R-3(H) (residential high density). (See existing and proposed land use maps attached). Land use changes should be consistent with city land use goals and policies. The Comprehensive Plan has eleven general land use goals. Of these eleven, three apply to this proposal. They are: } Provide for orderly development. ~ Minimize conflicts between land uses. ~ Provide a wide variety of housing types. ~ Furthermore, the project maximizes "green space" with over 50% of the site serving essentially as recreation and garden areas. } The site provides for equal distffbution of traffic flow to both Ariel & Co Rd D. } The traffic impact of 100 apartment units will be less than a comparable office building on this site. According to the trip generation comparison (see attached traffic study) the proposed revision from ag0,000 square foot office to a 100-unit apartment complex will reduce the daily site generated.~afficby 328 trips. Provides for compatible use and design with Birch Glen Apartments. The land use plan also has several general development and residential development policies that relate to this project. The include: Transitions between distinctly differing types of land uses should not create a negative economic, social or physical impact on adjoining developments. The city coordinates land use changes with the character of each neighborhood. Include a variety of housing types for all residents...including apartments, town houses, manufactured homes, single-family housing, public-assisted housing, low- and moderate- income housing, and rental and owner-occupied housing. Protect neighborhoods from encroachment or intrusion of incompatible land uses by adequate buffering and separation. The housing plan also has policies about housing diversity and quality that the city should consider with this development. They are: Promote a variety of housing types, costs and ownership options throughout the city. These are to meet the life-cycle needs of all income levels, those with special needs and nontraditional households. The city will continue to provide dispersed locations for a diversity of housing styles, types and price ranges through its land use plan. The Sibley Cove site is ideal for apartment-style housing. The front street, County Road D and the next street to the south, Woodlyn, are major collector streets, while White Bear Avenue and McKnight Road act as arterial streets. The site is also within three miles of numerous schools, day care centers, grocery stores, drag stores, banks, and public services. For instance, The Maplewood Mall is within walking distance of Sibley Cove. Public transportation, another important component, is also within a few hundred yards of the development. Also, changing the land use would eliminate a planned commercial area that would have been next to residential areas (Birch Glen). This would adhere to the Comprehensive Plan by creating a transitional land use between the existing single family residential (to the east and south) and commercial land uses. As proposed, the 100 units on the 7.12-acre site means there would be 14 units per gross acre. This is consistent with the maximum density standard (16.3 units per acre) in the Comprehensive Plan for apartment buildings with more than 50 units. The Sibley Cove development would also add to the long-term stability of Maplewood's tax base by helping insure that a diverse mix of housing styles is available in the city, thus attracting and keeping residents of all ages. In addition, the developer's use of "Smart Growth" principles, such as a convenient entrance and ample surface and secure parking garages, will create very little impact on the surrounding areas. A sunmm~ of these contiguous properties is on page 1 of this report. Conditional Use Permit, Planned Unit Development and Site Plan MWF Properties has applied for a conditional use permit (CUP) for a planned unit development (PUD) for the. 100-unit apartment development. Developer is requesting the CUP because the city code allows multi-family dwellings on land that the city has zoned BC conditional use permit. Section 26-438 of the city's code lists the cky's purpose, intent and requirements for planned unit developments in Maplewood. The code says the intent of this section is to provide a means to allow flexibility by deviations fi:om provisions of this chapter, including uses, setbacks, height and other regulations. Deviations may be granted for planned unit developments provided that: 1) Certain regulations comained in this chapter should not apply to the proposed development because of its unique nature. 2) The PUD would be consistent with the purposes of this chapter. 3) The planned unit developmem would produce a development of equal or superior quality to that which would result fi:om strict adherence to the provisions of this chapter. 4) The deviations would not constitute a significant threat to the property values, safety, health or general welfare of the owners or occupants of nearby land. 5) The deviations are required for reasonable and practicable physical developments and are not required solely for financial reasons. The city may approve'the CLIP since the proposal meets the criteria for a conditional use permit. These criteria include conforming with the comprehensive plan and codes, would not change the character of the area, would not depreciate property values and would generate minimal traffic on local streets. DESIGN APPROVAL Building Design and Exterior Materials Sl'bley Cove would have three stories above grade and an underground parking area. A surface parking lot consisting of 100 spots will also be included in the development. The building exterior would consist of brick, gables, horizontal vinyl siding and a roof incorporating asphalt shingles. (See the elevation drawings attached). Trash dumpsters and recycling enclosures will also be constructed to match the materials and colors of the building. City code will be followed. Public Utilities There is a sanitary sewer in Ariel Street and Woodlyn Avenue to serve the proposed development. The developer's plans will connect their pipes to the existing sanitary sewer pipes. Drainage Instead of storm water ponds, the developer has designed storm water drainage for this site to go into specially designed rainwater gardens. Besides being visually appealing, these rainwater gardens help protect local bodies of water t~om pollution. The gardens will work as filters. They will collect and hold runoff water while it soaks into the ground. There, microbes will use the runoff water, which often contains fertilizer, animal waste, and other harmful substances, as excess fertilizer. The design of the rainwater gardens shall be subject to the approval of the city engineer. Developer will be respons~le for getting any needed off-site grading or drainage easements and for recording all necessary easements. MWF Properties believes these rainwater gardens to be a more environmentally friendly alternative compared to traditional storm sewers. Landscaping The 7.12-acre development is designed for maximum utili?ation of the developable land as "green space", while incorporating areas that are within utility easements for resident garden plots. The site configuration lends itself to a 'hvrapping" building or courtyard design to create a large area of privacy, conceal the effects of building mass, and yet remain accessible to the community and utili~.e the City's bike and walking path on the north side of the development. The site design includes 3+.acres (45%) of green space, "rainwater gardens" for storm water detention, and a Tot Lot area in the center courtyard. The Tot Lot area will be designed into the project to create a sense of corrmatmity and neighborhood, and will incorporate child safety playground equipment. Developer will leave as much of the existing vegetation (large trees) along the northeast property line and around the wetland preserved as possible. In addition, the developer does not plan to disturb the boulevard and slope along the south side of County Road D north of the building. Site Lights MWF properties will provide a lighting plan indicating the light spread and fixture design. The lighting code requires a plan when near homes. The fixtures installed will be a design that hides bulb and lens firom view to avoid nuisances. Sidewalks and Driveways The developer will install a five-foot-wide concrete sidewalk around the south exterior of the building that will continue aroUnd the entire west exterior of the. building. In addition to these exterior sidewalks, and interior concrete sidewalk will be included in the courtyard area that connects the apartment building to the Tot Lot Area, which shall be handicap accessible. Developer shall also install and taper each of the driveways according to city standards. Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for your time and consideration with this project. Sincerely, David T. Steele Vice President - Real Estate Development M~T prOperties 17 Attachment 2 WHITE BEAR LAKE cOUNTy ROAD D WOODLYNN AVE. '1. N. BARTELMY LN. 2. N. CHIPPEWA CT. 3. BRENWOOD J GALL ,AVE. ~1t %~7~/)) ~ ~ II1~~ NORTH ST. PAUL //~ ~ n ~ ~//~ ~ ~ z ~' o ~ O' ~ 700' ~ A~ : SCALE LOCATION.~8 MAP 1[~ interchange County Hd D Lydia Be~m Ave f SITE -t3-rJ~l arterial White R-1 m.3! OS R-3(M) (H) P North LAND USE MAP (EXISTING) 19¸ Attachment 3 Bear Lake 694 St. Paul interchange arterial White R-1 Attachment 4 Bear Lake County D OS 694 Lydia ,© Be~m Av~ BC R-3(M) CH) p ,-, P :::q~::_.q ~ North St Paul LAND U'SE MAP (PROPOSED) 3088 Attachment5 SITE DAYCARE /./5..c CENTER 3050 -- ,r'L', -- WOODLYNN AVENUE . *- ,tm PLAZA 3000 Attachment 6 SIT WOOD£ YNN AVE J PLAZA 3000 ~------i I / AREA.MAP 22 Attachment 7 · "T · DAYCARE CENTER" 2~,02 GRAPHIC SCALE ~,--- -" :~' T EXISTING CON DITION$ I --' r SITE SURVEY 23 Attachment 8 --T -7- COUNTY ROAD DAYCARE CENTER I I I "~"~ '~'"~" I I T..t PARCEL i A 'PA~IGN~ STAI~T 'ttAt~l~ STM. L~' SITE DA TA BOONDARY AREA .................. PROImOSED TOT LOT ~-900 Sq. FL PROPOSED BITUMINOUS PARKING LOT---5c53,452 So. Ft. PROPOSED SIDEWALtC :~ 7,207 TOTAL IMPERWOU$ SURFACE .~93,769 $~.F~. TOTAL OPEN SPACE , :=216.351 So. Ft. NUMBER OF PARKING STALLS (INCLUDES 2 HANDICAPED STALLS) SITE PLAN 24 Attachment 9 ................. COtYNT¥' I~O-AD'-~D~-'- -- DAYCARE CENTER PARCEL PROPOSED UTILITY PLAN 25 Attachment 10 x' DAYCARE CENTER Attachment ll ROAD "D" ~ ASH, COTTONM3ODo AND BOX ELDER ~ 1HAN B' IN TRUNK DiAML"t~R DAYCARE CENTER PRESERVATION TREE TOTALS SAVE 1 · TOTAL 4. (100.0'~ \ \ ROTlrCTION I~E'N C~ TREE LIST ~ PRESERVAllON PLAN ~ ~ .......... MW~ PROPERTIES $16L.E:Y COVE TREE PRESERVATION PLAN 27 Attachment 12 BIT. I LANDSCAPE PLAN LANDSCAPE PLAN 28 Attachment 13 PROPOSED BUILDING DAYCARE CENTER m fNG))IT, SITE LIGHTING PLAN 29 ~OIJTN Attachmentl4 ~A~T ~=L.=VATION-F YtlEDT ELEVAT1ON-B A4 BUILDING ELEVATIONS 3O Attachment 1 5 Engineering Plan Review PROJECT: Sibley Cove PROJECT NO: REVIEWED BY: Erin Schacht and Chris Cavett DATE: February 10, 2003 MWF Properties is proposing to construct a 3-story apartment building at the southwest comer of County Road D and Ariel Street. Drainage from the site would be treated in a pond at the south end of the property. From there, the storm water would outlet into the existing storm sewer on Ariel Street. The storm water eventually drains to the Maplewood Heights Pond at northeast comer of White Bear Avenue and Beam Avenue. The applicant or his ~ngineer shall address the following comments. Grading and Drainage plan: Implement additional storm water BMPs into the design of the storm water management system of the site or revise the pond to meet city ordinances and to meet NUKP designs standards. An important BMP suggestion: The applicant is strongly encouraged to include bio-infiltration basins, (rainwater gardens), around the storm drains north and east of the proposed building and to direct roof and yard drainage to these areas. For more information on bioretention basins please see the Metro council BMP Manual at their web site: http://www.metrocouncil, org/enviroment/Watershed/bmpmanual.htm Rock infiltration sumps can be added to the proposed basins to improve infiltration. The sumps should consist of 1.5" of clean, clear rock wrapped in Type 5 geotextile filter fabric, (felt). The contractor shall place the top of the rock infiltration sumps about 12 inches below the finished bottom of the basin. The project engineer shall provide a detail and description in the plan of how the contractor will prepare the rock sumps. The applicant shall also include a landscaping plan for the infiltration basins, (rainwater gardens) and for the pond. If the project engineer does not include additional BMP's in the drainage design, then the engineer must revise the design of the NURP pond to meet the phosphorus removal requirement of 60% and the TSS removal requirement of 80%. 3. The plans shall show the pond slopes. The pond must have a 1 O-foot bench at a 10:1 wet bench below the NWL. 31 4. Include a silt fence on the east side of the site at the tree preservation line. Revise the proposed grading plan. The proposed plan has an error in the contours at the N.E. area of the site around the tot lot and catch basin. The grades need revising, as storm water cannot be trapped on adjacent property as a result of the grading on this site. (The applicant should consider this area, as well as the nearby inlet drains, for locations for rainwater gardens). 6. Direct all roof drainage into the turf areas to the north and east of the building. Install a 3.0' sump manhole in the boulevard before discharging into the pond. This is so that sediment deposited in the system can be captured and removed before entering the pond. As an alternative, construct another sediment removal system for the pond. In either case, the applicant, as part of the CLIP, must enter into an agreement with the city that the owner will maintain and clean the sump structure or pond as needed or applicable. The BMP maintenance agreement must be signed and executed before the city will grant final occupancy. 8. Provide the City ofMaplewood a 10-foot wide permanent easement for trails, drainage and utilities along the County Road D frontage of the property. 9. Construct a 6-foot-wide concrete sidewalk with a minimum 7-foot-wide boulevard along the Ariel Street frontage. Utility plan: 1. The contractor shall use the sewer service stub on the County Road D side of the building, rather than open cutting into Ariel Street. 2. Obtain approvals from St. Paul Regional Water Service (SPRWS) for the proposed and existing water services on the site. It is our understanding that the SPRWS will not allow the builder to use the private water main on the west side of the site. If that is the case, the builder shall use the water service stubs on County Road D and Ariel Street. Proved water main or utility easements to SPRWS, as they require. Landscape plan: The applicant shall include for city approval a detailed' landscaping plan for the pond. Turf establishment must be with a pre-approved native-grass seed mixture w/forbes, (for upland and low land areas as app?opriate). The plan also must include trees and shrubbery in the landscaping of the pond and the pond area. 32 Attachment 16 irch 28 rebLuary 2003 Ken Roberts City of Maplewood 1830 East County Road B Maplewood, MN 55109 Re: Sibley Cove Apartments We are writing to express our opposition to the Sibley Cove Apartment project. We are owners of the property to the East of the proposed project and we oppose both the size of the project and the change in zoning requested to allow it to be sited in the business commercial area. We regret the lateness of this letter but we were only informed of the project a little over a week ago. I have talked tO several other property owners in the area who were also surprised by the project and are also opposed to it. It appears to us that many of the letters informing the neighboring property owners of the meetings were sent to the property addresses rather than the legal addresses of the property owners. Therefore those of Us who do not have our business offices at the property were not informed. We also believe that addressing the notice to the store manager, the leasing agent, or the Realtor whose sign is on the land is an inaccurate way to inform the property owners. This does not achieve the cities goal of effectively notifying the neighboring property owners. I might add that our tax notices and all legal correspondence, including that from the City of Maplewood, all come to our legal mailing address. When we went through' the .planning process for our project we were told by the city to - find the legal addresses of the surrounding property owners. We supplied the city with a list that had both the property address and the legal mailing address of the property owners. It appears that was not done in this case and therefore many property owners were not informed. I have attached a copy of both the list we supplied for Birch Glen and the list supplied by Sibley Cove. As you can see the legal mailing address of many of the properties is different from the street address. Tkis short notice has put us at a disadvantage in protesting this change to the city land use plan in a timely manner. There for we request that the matter be tabled until all interested parties have a chance to be contacted. Sincerely Chief Manager, Birch Glen Apartments LLC 33 Attachment 17 Kan Robe,'ts City of~plewood ! 830 Ea~ County Road Re: Sibley Cove Aps.'-tmems 3 March., 2003 HAR 0 21:103 RECEIVED We are the owners of the property to the east of the proposed Sibley Cove Apartment complex. We are opposed to the ~z.e of the project, the design, and the change in zoning requested to allow it to be bu/lt in this lrasiness commercial area. Among the reasons we oppose the project are: This is an infill site surrounded by single story, commercial buildings. Building a large three story residential building in the middle w;dl detract fi-om the neighborhood and conflict with the existing retail uses such as the bar, tire store, and auto mall. The requested zoning change will disrupt the natural tra,'~ition that now exists from commercial to single f'amily~property. We feel there ~,s no reason to make an exception for this building. This buildingis huge! The footprint of the building is many times larger than the .surrounding buildings. In a block of single story businesses this building is three stories tall with a pitched roof above it. ~'ust the wall on the side of the L facing White Bear Avenue is longer than a football field. It will be situated on one ofthe highest pieces of ground in Ramsey County and the upper floors and roof will be visible for long distances. There are other sites for this type of project such as the open site on the west side of the audi where there is a large.expanse of open land and the building would' not conflict with aeighboring properties. A building this size and design will produce large numbers of school age children who need room to roam and should not be fenced in by commercial businesses. Will the existing school facilities be able to handle this concentration of new children? The traffic study compares a "previously approved 90,000 square foot office building" with the proposed apartment. According to ci13r planning there has never been an office .building approved for this site. Given the problems associated with the power lines and the pipeline which cross the property we doubt a building that size would ever be built. A more likely use would be a 45,000 to 50,000 square foot office park or office condos. This would generate less traffic at the property than the auartment building. ,~nd, unlike an apartment, this traffic would not be concentrated on evenings and weekends when the area traffic is already at its peak. 34 When we went through the process to get Bkch Glen approved the city was concerned with that large a building in that area. At city request we made many changes designed to make the building appear smaller and more appealing. We broke the building into two sections with a decorative di~'dncfive entry area separating them. We changed the footprint of the building to provide bumped out areas to break up the long lines of the building. We ~lded more decks with donner roofs over them, also to break up the long lines of the building. We even added dormers to our detached garage and bricked the rear of the garage at the specific request of the city. We feel we produced the high quality building the city wanted for this neighborhood. We beii~ve that Sibley Cove should be held to the same standards. At 100 units the proposed building is much larger than our existing 60 unit building and will be much easier to see fi.om White Bear Avenue. The design is a simple L shape with nothing to break up the long massive walls and roof. The wall facing White Bear Avenue is about as long as our entire building and does not contsin anything to break it up. There are no decks, no building protrusions, no roof'line changes, nothL-tg to break up the massive walls. It is exactly the type ofbuilding we were not allowed to build in that area. We feet there is no reason to m~ke an exception to long standing zoning and design r~ltfiremems for this proj~t. Bob Bankers ChiefMansger Birch Glen Apartments LLC 35 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: DATE: City Manager Tom Ekstrand, Assistant Community Development Director DeSign Review - Kohl's Building Addition 3001 White Bear Avenue (Maplewood Mall) February 27, 2003 INTRODUCTION Kohl's is proposing a 10,229-square-foot addition to the west side of their store at the Maplewood Mall. The addition would match the materials and colors of their existing store. They would revise the site plan to direct the ddve lane around the addition and maintain the same traffic flow that currently exists. BACKGROUND The Kohl's store was originally built as MainStreet in 1988. DISCUSSION Building Design The proposed addition would be attractive and would match the design, materials and colors of the existing building. Parking and Traffic Flow Parking compliance was a concern. The applicant has shown, though, by the data on page 6, that they would meet parking requirements. The code requires one parking space'for each 200 square feet of leasable floor area. After the proposed addition, the mall would slightly exceed that. The existing traffic flow will. remain the same with the ddving lane still proceeding around the west side of the proposed addition and connecting to existing ddves. Landscaping The proposed landscaping (Sheet L1) would be a nice accent for the front of the proposed addition. Wall Signs/Comprehensive Sign Plan The sign code requires that buildings with five or more tenants be covered under a comprehensive sign plan. The extedor wall signs at the Maplewood Mall have always been approved on a store-by-store basis. For instance, the existing wall signs for the anchor stores were approved when the community design review board (CDRB) reviewed the building proposals. The existing Kohl's wall signs were approved since they replaced MainStreet wall signs of similar sizes and placement. Kohl's would only be reinstalling the westerly sign due to this proposal. The existing signs on the south and north elevations would remain. Staff finds no issue with the relocation of the westerly sign onto the new west elevation. Site Lighting The applicant has included a site-lighting analysis for the Mall parking lot west of Kohl's. They are proposing to relocate some of the light poles. Occasionally, the readings noted on the lighting analysis indicate points in excess of the .4 footcandles of light intensity at the property line. The lighting code states "if outdoor fixtures are replaced as part of any construction requiring a building permit, the f~ture shall be upgraded to meet the requirements of this ordinance." With this in mind, the applicant should make sure that any new or relocated lighting fixtures do not emit more than the allowed maximum of .4 footcandles of light intensity at the property line. Appeal of CDRB Motion The CDRB decision on this proposal is final unless someone makes an appeal to the city council. Appeals must be made within 15 days of the board's decision. The city staff cannot issue a building permit for this project until the end of the 15-day appeal period or until the city council acts on an appeal. RECOMMENDATION Approve the plans date-stamped February 11, 2003, for the proposed building addition, wall signs, site plan changes and landscaping changes to Kohl's at the Maplewood Mail. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. Staff may approve minor changes. The applicant shall make sure that any new or relocated outdoor lighting fLxtures do not emit more than the allowed maximum of .4 footcandles of light intensity at the property line. P:2N~o hl'sAddition, des Attachments 1. Site Plan - Exisang 2. Site Plan - Proposed 3. Building Elevations 4. Parking Calculations Worksheet 5. Plans date-stamped February 11, 2003 (separate attachment) Attachment 1 i MAPLEWOOD MALL '---}-, .... o ~i KOHL'S~ MARSHALL FIELD'S -- BEAM AVENUE SITE PLAN EXISTING : 3 Attachment 2 N KOHL'S DEPARTMENT STOR .7001 WHIT£ BEAR AVE NORTH MAPLEWOOD, MN 55109 P,~OP£,~TY iD: 022922220008 KOHL'S ,- SITE PLAN PROPOSED l I Attachment 4 Parkin~ Calculations Worksheet A parking count was conducted on November 18th at the Maplewood Mall in Maplewood, MN by Edwards and Kelcey, representative for Kohl' s. All parking spaces were counted as shown in the attached schematic of the mall layout. A tot-al of 4,610 spaces were counted. Based on the folloWing calculations, our analysis has concluded that the projected parking ratio at Maplewood Mall is 1.003, thus meeting the city requirements of 1' parking space/200 sqUare foot leasable area. Variables: Current space total- 4,610. Total of spaces removed by expansion- 67' Total spaces after expansion- 4543 Leasable 'area at Maplewood Mall Mall commons Sears Merv-yn's Marshall Fields Kohl's (current) Expansion area for Kohl's TOTAL LEASABLE AREA 317,854 sq..ft. 172,000 sq. ft. 88,000 sq. ft. 225,000 sq. ft. 93,000 sq. ft. 10,230 sq. ft. 906,084 sq. fL Parking Ratio' 4543 / 906084 = 1.003 spaces/200 sq. ft. Prepared by: SIGNATUR]E Y~~-___ Paul Baumgardt Edwards and Kelcey DATE MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: PROJECT: LOCATION: DATE: City Manager 'Ken Roberts, Associate Planner Land Use Plan Change, Conditional Use Permit and Design Review Van Dyke Village West side of Van Dyke Street, north of County Road B March 4, 2003 INTRODUCTION Project Description Mr. Bruce Mogren is proposing to build a 24-unit town house development on the vacant property on the west side of Van Dyke Street, north of County Road B. Refer to the applicant's statement on page 17 and the maps on pages 18-23. This development, called Van Dyke Village, would be pdmadly for work force, housing for Iow and moderate-income families. There would be on-site management to help monitor and run the property. The proposal would have four, six-unit townhouse buildings. Each town house would have an attached garage and a patio area. There also would be 30 open parking spaces. The buildings would have exteriors of horizontal-lap steel siding with cedar trim boards. (See the plans on pages 24-30.) Requests The applicant is requesting that the city council approve: A change to the comprehensive plan. This change would be from BC (business commercial) and R-3(M) (residential medium density) to R-3(H) (residential high density). Please see the existing and proposed land use maps on pages 19 and 20. A conditional use permit (CUP) for that part of the development that would be on property zoned BC (business commercial). The code allows multi-dwellings on BC-zoned land by CUP. (The easterly portion of the site is zoned R3 [multiple dwelling residential]. The westerly portion is zoned BC.) Refer to the property line/zoning ma p' on page 22. 3. The building, site and landscape plans. BACKGROUND The property where Mr. Mogren is proposing this development went tax-forfeit in the early 1990's. In 1995 or 1996, the city acquired use deeds on these properties from the State of Minnesota. The city originally thought that the new Gladstone Fire Station might go on these properties or that the city would use part of the property for drainage or open space purposes. On March 27, 2000, the city council directed city staff and the Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) to buy from Ramsey County the four tax-forfeited properties on the west side of Van Dyke Street for the development of Iow to moderate or mixed income housing. On June 22, 2000, the city council adopted'a resolution authorizing the reconveyance and the purchase of the tax-forfeited properties on the west side of Van Dyke Street for the development of Iow to moderate or mixed income housing. City staff, based on this council approval, bought this property from the county for the city. On October 22, 2001, the city council, during the council/manager workshop, reviewed the proposed purchase agreement from Mr. Mogren to buy the subject property. The council was generally supportive of the proposal, subject to the applicant making changes to the purchase agreement as recommended by the city attorney. On December 17, 2001, the city council authorized city staff to finalize and prepare for signature the purchase agreement for Bruce Mogren to buy the city-owned properties on the west side of Van Dyke Street between County Road B and Cope Avenue. DISCUSSION Land Use Plan Change To build the proposed town houses, Mr. Mogren wants the city to change the land use plan for the site. This change would be from BC (business commercial) and R-3(M) (residential medium density) to R-3(H ) (residential high density), (See the existing and proposed land use maps on pages 19 and 20.) The city intends R-3(H) areas for a.variety of housing including double dwellings, town houses or apartments of up to 16.3 units per gr~ss acre. For BC (business commercial) areas, the city plans for offices, clinics, restaurants, day care centers and retail businesses and R-3(M) areas are intended for residential developments with up to 6 units per gross acre. Land use plan changes do not require specific findings for approval. Any change, however, should be consistent with the city's land use goals and policies. There are several goals in the Comprehensive Plan that apply to this request. Specifically, the land use plan has eleven general land use goals. Of these, three apply to this proposal including: Provide for ordedy development. Minimize conflicts between land uses. Provide a wide variety of housing types. The land use plan also has several general development and residential development policies that relate to this project. They include: Transitions between distinctly differing types of land uses should not create a negative economic, social or physical impact on adjoining developments. · The city coordinates land use changes with the character of each neighborhood. Include a vadety of housing types for all residents.., including apartments, town houses, manufactured homes, single-family housing, public-assisted housing, Iow-and'moderate- income housing, and rental and owner-occupied housing. Protect neighborhoods from encroachment or intrusion of incompatible land uses by adequate buffedng and separation. The housing plan also has policies about housing diversity and quality that the city should consider with this development. They are: · Promote a variety of housing types, costs and ownership options throughout the city. These are to meet the life-cycle needs of all income levels, those with special needs and nontraditional households. The city will continue to provide dispersed locations for a diversity of housing styles, types and pdce ranges through its land use plan. This is a good site for town houses. It is between two collector streets (Cope Avenue and County Road B), is near an arterial street (White Bear Avenue) and is near shopping and other services. In addition, this property would not be a great site for a commercial or retail business as it is hidden from the main commercial area along White Bear Avenue. A reason this property went tax-forfeit and has not yet been developed is poor soils. There are areas of poor soils on the property that the builder will have to correct as part of the development - of the site. This is an expense that any developer would have to consider when puffing a project together for this area. Mr. Mogren, while working with the city and the county on preparing the development proposal, told me that having at least 24 town houses is necessary to make the project feasible in financial terms. As proposed, the 24 units on the 3.56-acre site means there would be 6.74 units per gross acre. This project density is higher than the currently allowed density of six units per acre but significantly less than the maximum density standard (10.4 units per acre) in the comprehensive plan for town houses in high-density residential areas. However. for consideration of the increase in density and the PUD, the city should require the developer to construct the town houses with the same or a better level of architectural design and landscaping elements as Emma's Place, This would include the view of the development from Van Dyke Street and the size and quantities of the landscape materials: Workforce Housing Many of the neighbors who contacted me expressed concerns about the proposed housing and the residents who would live there. Mr. Mogren is proposing to have 75 percent (18) units within this development for workforce housing, which is for Iow-to-moderate income residents. To qualify as a resident, Ramsey County sets the income levels based on the household size and their percentage of average median income of the Twin Cities area. For example, a three-person household at the 50 percent median income level has an annual income of about $34,500 per year and a three-person household at the 60 percent income level earns about $41,000 per year. These could be people working at the Maplewood Mall, Saint John's Hospital, teachers, police officers or others starting out in their careers. It is these types of working families that this development would serve. The proposed 24 town house units would have a mix of sizes and bedrooms -16 would have 3- bedrooms and 8 would have 2-bedrooms. Each unit will have a patio on the rear, will have a 1-car attached garage and have its own washer and dryer. As a note of comparison, Emma's Place is supportive housing. This is housing f°r persons with many needs and who need support services. This may include help with chemical dependency, money management issues, abusive relationships or other problems. This is not the type of housing Mr. Mogren is proposing with these town houses. The city's long-term stability of its tax base depends upon its ability to attract and keep residents of all ages and incomes. To do so, the city must insure that a diverse mix of housing styles is available in each stage of the life cycle to meet housing needs. 3 Conditional Use Permit As proposed, there would be 24 town houses on the 3.56-acre site (for an average of 6.74 units per acre). The. proposed density is consistent with the city's high-density residential guidelines and slightly above the density standard for medium density development in the comprehensive plan. For comparison, Emma's Place to the south of the site has 13 town houses on a 2.24-acre site for and average of 5.8 units per gross acre. The comments we received from the neighbors were concerns about compatibility with the adjacent single-family neighborhood, the potential for nuisances, increased traffic, effects on property values, loss of open space and concerns relative to the management of this complex. (See the summary of the comments on page 14 and the letters on pages 34-35.) Compatibility Staff does not find a problem with compatibility in terms of land use. Townhomes are often built next to or across the street from single dwellings. A recent example is with .the New Century Addition in south Maplewood. The developer, Robert Engstrom, is presently developing this neighborhood with a mix of single dwellings and townhomes. We have many other examples in Maplewood (including Southwinds along Beebe Road and Crestview Forest on Mailand Road) where this is the case as well. Nuisances A concern of some of the neighbors is unsupervised children hanging around the neighborhood. The neighbors told me that there have been more children loitering in the area and looking for places to play in their neighborhood since Emma's Place opened in 2002. This is a potential concern with children from any development. Monitoring this depends on parental and management supervision. The developer is proposing a tot-lot and on-site management to help with this situation. Traffic' Traffic-generation data from the Institute of Traffic Engineers indicates that residential units like townhomes generate an average of seven vehicle trips per day. In this case, with 24 town houses, there would be about 168 vehicle trips per day generated by the site. In a 12-hour period, the 168 vehicle trips would mean an average of 14 vehicles per hour or one vehicle (on average) every 4.3 minutes. This would not be a large increase to the number of vehicles added to this neighborhood nor would it cause a large impact to the area. Property Values The Ramsey County Assessor's Office has told us in the past that multiple dwellings adjacent to single dwellings are not a cause for a negative effect on property values. If propedy maintained and kept up, this development should not be detrimental to the neighborhood. The required annual review of the conditional use permit is a built-in safeguard to ensure that the city council will regularly review this development. As stated above, it is common that residential developers mix single dwellings and townhomes in their projects. This is an indication of their compatibility. Loss of Open Space Preserving this property as open space is not feasible. In 1992, Maplewood citizens voted to approve a $5 million referendum to purchase land throughout the city to hold as open space. This 4 property was not one of the target sites that the city council and open space committee considered to save for open space. DESIGN AND SITE ISSUES Building Design and Exterior Materials The proposed buildings should be attractive and would have two stodes above grade and each unit would have an attached garage. As proposed, the buildings would have an exterior of horizontal steel siding with cedar tdm boards and vinyl-clad windows, and the roof would have asphalt shingles. (See the building elevation drawings on pages 27-29 and the proposed project plans). The developer has not yet proposed colors for the buildings. I would recommend that the colors of the buildings be primarily earth-toned rusts and creams (red, brown and tan) to closely match those of Emma's Place. City staff, however, is still concerned about the look of the development from Van Dyke Street. The applicant could do more with the buildings to make them look more interesting and more aesthetically pleasing (especially the building sides visible from the street). Such changes could include adding shutters, window grids and dormers in the roof area, having the second floor of the units extend out past the first floor at least one foot (to breakup the vertical face or Wall of the building), add windows to both the first floor and the second floor, having the first floor and second floor each with a distinctive color and having more distinct vertical features at the common wall between the units. Since the initial submittal, the applicant's architect sent me a revised side elevation plan (page 29) that shows additional windows on the east elevation of the buildings. These windows are a welcome addition to the plans and should be required by the city. In addition, the architect told me that the buildings would have a two-tone color scheme with the lower floors having a different color than the upper floor (much like Emma's Place). These additions to the plans are good steps toward improving the looking of the development. in addition, having more landscaping near the street and around the foundation would help enhance the appearance of the building and the site. The building styles, with the proposed materials and recommended changes and colors, should be compatible with and equal in quality to the buildings in the area, including Emma's Place. City Engineer's Review Chds Cavett of the city engineering department has revieWed the proposed grading, drainage, utility and landscape plans. I have included his memo with his comments on pages 32 and 33. Public Utilities There are sanitary sewer, storm sewer and water in Van Dyke Street to serve the proposed development. Specifically, the storm sewer in Van Dyke Street was designed and installed to accommodate drainage from a large area north of County Road B. The developer's plans will connect their pipes to the existing storm and sanitary sewer pipes. Drainage The developer has designed the storm water drainage for this site to go into three rainwater gardens on the east side of the site (near Van Dyke Street). In times of large storms, storm water may overflow out of these gardens into the existing city storm water system. The city will not need clrainage and utility easements over the ponding areas, as they will be pdvate poncling areas. This project will need a permit from the watershed district. Sidewalk The applicant's plans do not show a sidewalk along Van Dyke Street. The city should require the developer to install a six-foot-wide concrete sidewalk from the sidewalk at Emma's Place to the north property line of the site (near the day care center). This sidewalk would facilitate pedestrian traffic from this development to County Road B and then to the Oasis Market and VVhite Bear Avenue. In addition, the sidewalks should have pedestrian ramps where they intersect a driveway. Landscaping/Trees The applicant had his surveyor identify the large (greater than 8-inch) trees on the site. Most of the identified trees are cottonwood and elm, with a few willow and aspen as well. None of the trees that the surveyor identified meet the city's definition of a.large tree that the city would have a developer try to save. The proposed site plan, however, does show the applicant saving some of the existing trees on the south, west and north sides of the site. The city should require the developer to preserve most of the existing vegetation along the north, west and south sides of the site. This existing vegetation in these areas will help provide screening of the existing businesses for the new residents. The proposed landscaping plan is a good start but it needs more work. It shows the developer planting at least 11 new large trees including 8 Balsam Fir and 3 Red Maple trees, in addition, the plans show the planting of a variety of ornamental trees and shrubs on the site and the landscaping for the three proposed rainwater gardens. The proposed plans (pages 27 through 29) show most of the site being graded and the construction of three rainwater gardens along Van Dyke Street. This will remove much of the existing vegetation and many of the existing mature trees on the property. The landscape plan does not show any planting around the units -whether in trees, shrubs or foundation plantings. In addition, the plans do not show any screening of the site and the buildings from Van Dyke Street. The city should require the developer to provide a revised landscape plan that would include the landscaping treatments for the areas around and near the town houses and to increase the landscaping/screening (including additional trees) between the proposed buildings and Van Dyke Street. Fencing/Screening This site has commercial properties on two of its sides, including an auto repair facility-and a bar to the west and the Goodwill Store and parking lot and a daycare center to the north. It would be prudent for and helpful to the residents of the new town houses if the developer installed screening along the west and north sides of the project to help ensure that the new residents and the outdoor play areas are separated from the adjacent commercial properties. This fence should be solid, be constructed of Iow-maintenance materials and-be six-feet high. In addition, the fence should run along the north and west property lines, subject to staff approval. Site Lighting The applicant had a site lighting plan prepared for the development that shows the expected light spread from the proposed parking lot lights. The proposed poles would be 20-feet tall and would have a sharp cutoff shoebox luminaire with a 175-watt high-pressure sodium light bulb. The city code requires the light fixtures have a design that hides the bulb and lens from view. This plan, however, does not show any of the proposed lighting on the buildings or any lighting in or near the proposed tot let. In addition, the proposed plan shows little, if any, lighting where the two driveways on the site would meet the public streets. The applicant should revise the lighting plan in several ways. First, the plan should show how the lighting on the buildings would add to the site lighting. Secondly, the plan should have additional lighting near the tot lot and the driveways, where they intersect Van Dyke Street, so they are adequately lit. Finally, the plan should show details about the proposed light fixtures to ensure they are a design that hides the bulb and lens from view to avoid nuisances. Other Comments Fire Marshal's Comments Butch Gervais, the Maplewood Fire Marshal, stated that emergency vehicles must have clear passage to the site and to buildings. This includes having the driveways at least 20 feet wide. He also noted that the buildings and the individual units must have clear addressing to direct people to the buildings and within the site. Police Department Comments Deputy Chief John Banick reviewed the proposed plans. His comments are on page 31. Watershed District Permit Required The Ramsey/Washington Metro Watershed Distdct noted that this development requires a permit from their office. The applicant must contact Karl Hammers of the watershed district at (651) 704-2089 to find out about their plan review and permitting requirements. RECOMMENDATIONS Ao Approve the resolution on page 36. This resolution changes the land use plan from BC (business commercial) and R-3 (M) (residential medium density) to R-3(H) (residential high density) for the 3.6-acre site of the Van Dyke Village town house development. The city bases these changes on the following findings: 1. This site is proper for and consistent with the city's goals, objectives and policies for high-density residential land use in the comprehensive plan. This includes: a. Creating a transitional land use between the existing residential and commercial land uses. b. Being between two collector streets, near an artedal street and would be near shopping and services. 2. This development will minimize any adverse effects on surrounding properties because: a. The on-site ponding and landscaping will help separate the town houses from the properties to the east and from the town houses to the south. There should be no significant increase in traffic from this development on existing local residential streets. The existing street pattern directs the traffic from the town houses to two nearby collector streets. There should be less traffic from this development than from a commercial development on the same site. Bo Approve the resolution starting on page 37. This resolution approves a conditional use permit for a planned unit development for the Van Dyke Village town house development on the west side of Van Dyke Street, north of County Road B. The city bases this approval on the findings required by code. (Refer to the resolution for the specific findings.) Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. All construction shall follow the plans for 24 town houses as approved by the city. The city council may approve major changes to the plans. The Director of Community Development may approve minor changes to the plans. Such changes shall include: a. Revising the grading and site plans to show: (1) The developer minimizing the loss or removal of natural vegetation. (2) All driveways at least 20 feet wide. If the developer wants to have parking on one side of the driveway, then it must be at least 28 feet wide. (3) All parking stalls with a width of at least 9.5 feet and a length of at least 18 feet. (4) Revised storm water pond locations and designs as suggested or required by the watershed distdct or city engineer. The ponds shall meet the ci~s design standards. (5) The developer minimizing the loss or removal of natural vegetation including keeping and protecting as many of the trees as possible. 2. The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the permit shall end. The -council may extend this deadline for one year. Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall meet all the conditions and changes noted in the engineer's memo dated February 24, 2003. These shall include: a. Include grading, utility, drainage, erosion control, streets, trails, sidewalks, tree, retaining walls, driveway and parking lot plans. b. Include a storm water management plan for the proposal. The design of all ponds and rainwater gardens shall meet Maplewood's design standards and shall be subject to the approval of the city engineer. If needed, the developer shall be responsible for getting any off-site pond and drainage easements. 5. The developer or contractor shall: Co a. Complete all grading for the site drainage and the ponds, complete all public improvements and meet all city requirements. b.* Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits. c. Remove any debds or junk from the site. The approved setbacks for the principal structures in the Van Dyke Village PUD shall be: a. Front-yard setback (from a public street): minimum - 30 feet, maximum - 40 feet b. Rear-yard setback: 50 feet from any adjacent residential property line c. Side-yard setback (town houses): minimum - 40 feet from the west property line and 50 feet from the south property line. 7. The developer or builder will pay the city Park Access Charges (PAC fees) for each housing unit at the time of the building permit for each housing unit. 8. The developer shall close on the purchase of the property with the city before the city will issue a grading or a building permit for the project. 9. ~ The property owner shall see that the site is well maintained and properly managed. 10. The city council shall review this permit in one year. Approve the plans date-stamped February 12, 2003 and the revised side elevation date- stamped February 24, 2003 for the proposed Van Dyke Village town house development at the west side of Van Dyke Street, north of County Road B. The city bases this approval on the findings required by the code. The developer or contractor shall do the following: 1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. 2. Complete the following before the city issues a building permit: a. Have the city engineer approve the final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall include grading, drainage, sidewalk, utility, driveway, parking lot and erosion control plans. These plans shall meet the following conditions: (1) .The erosion control plan shall be consistent with the city code. (2) The grading plan shall: (a) Include building, floor elevation, water elevation and contour information. These shall include the normal water elevation and 100-year high water elevation. (b) Include contour information for'the land that the construction will disturb. (c) Show sedimentation basins or ponds as required by the watershed board or by the city engineer. 9 (d) Show all proposed slopes steeper than 3:1 on the proposed construction plans. The city engineer shall approve the plans, specifications and management practices for any slopes steeper than 3:1. This shall include covering these slopes with wood fiber blankets and seeding them with a "no mow" vegetation rather than using sod or grass. (e) Show all retaining walls on the plans. Any retaining walls more than four feet tall require a building permit from the city. Show as little disturbance and tree removal as possible on the north, west and south sides of the site (near the businesses and the daycare center), (3)* The tree plan shall: (4) (5) (6) (8) (a) Be approved by the city engineer before site grading or tree removal. (b) Show where the developer will remove, save or replace large trees. This plan shall include an inventory of all existing large trees on the site. In addition, this plan shall show the planting of at least 15 replacement trees on the site. (c) Show no tree removal beyond the approved grading and tree limits. (d) Be consistent with the approved grading and landscape plans. · The design of the rainwater gardens shall be subject to the approval of the city engineer. The developer shall be responsible for getting any needed off- site grading or drainage easements and for recording all necessary easements. All the parking areas and driveways shall have continuous concrete curb and gutter. The driveways shall meet the following standards: 24-foot width-no parking on either side and 28-foot width-parking on one side The developer or contractor shall post the driveways with no parking signs to meet the above-listed standards. The developer shall disturb as little as possible of the area along the north, west and south property lines near the daycare center and businesses. Change the grading plan fbr this part of the site as recommended by the city engineer. The developer shall install a six-foot-wide concrete sidewalk along Van Dyke Street between the existing sidewalk north of County Road B and the south property line of the daycare center to the north. The contractor shall taper the sidewalk to match the driveways. 10 b. Submit a lawn-irrigation plan to staff showing the location of sprinkler heads. c.. Submit a certificate .of survey for all new construction. d. Submit a revised landscape plan for city staff approval showing: (1)As much of the existing vegetation (including the trees) remaining along the northern, westerly and southerly property lines as possible. (2) The manicured, or mowed areas from the natural areas. This shall include planting (instead of sodding) the disturbed areas around the rainwater gardens with native grasses and native flowering plants. The native grasses and flowedng plants shall be those needing little or no maintenance. This isto reduce maintenance costs and to reduce the temptation of mowers to encroach into the gardens. Specifically, the developer shall have the natural areas seeded with an upland mixture and lowland mixtures as appropriate. (3) Foundation plantings near and around the buildings and additional screening (with trees and other materials) between the proposed buildings and Van Dyke Street. (4) The planting of at least 15 replacement trees on the site that meet the city's minimum size requirements. e. Get the necessary approvals and permits from the watershed district. Submit a revised site lighting plan for city staff approval. This plan shall show how the lighting on the buildings would add to the site lighting, and the plan should have additional lighting near the tot lot and driveways, where they intersect the public street, so the driveways are adequately lit. This plan also shall show details about the proposed light fixtures to ensure they are a design that hides the bulb and lens from view to avoid nuisances. The light f'D(tures must have concealed lenses and bulbs to properly shield glare from the adjacent street right-of-ways and from adjacent residential properties. g. The developer shall record the following with Ramsey County: (1) 10-foot-wide drainage and utility easements for the areas along the east and west property lines and five-foot-wide drainage and utility easements for the areas along' the north and south property lines. (2) The documentation to combine the properties into one property for tax and identification purposes. h. Have the Saint Paul Regional Water Services (SPRWS) approve' the proposed utility plans. i. The fire chief shall approve the access to the back (north and south side) of the buildings for firefighting needs. Submit plans for city staff approval for any outdoor trash or recycling containers and enclosures. If the developer wants to build such facilities, the enclosure shall have materials that are compatible with the buildings, and they shall have gates that are 100 percent opaque. k. A letter of credit or cash escrow for all required exterior improvements. The amount shall be 150 percent of the cost of the work. Submit for staff approval revised building plans and elevations that include (but not limited to) adding windows to the east elevations, adding shutters and window gdds, having earth-toned colors (red, brown and tan) and having the second floor of the units extend out past the first floor at least one foot (to breakup the vertical face or wall of the building). m. The developer shall close on the purchase of the property with the city before the city will issue a grading or a building permit for the project. 3. Complete the following before occupying the buildings: a. Replace property irons that are removed because of this construction. b. Restore and sod damaged boulevards. Install reflectodzed stop signs at each exit, a handicap-parking sign for each handicap-parking space and an address on each building. In addition, the applicant shall install "no parking" signs within the site, as required by staff. Paint any roof-top mechanical equipment to match the uppermost part of the building. Screen ali roof-mounted equipment visible from streets or adjacent property. (code requirement) Construct trash dumpster and recycling enclosures as city code requires for any dumpsters or storage containers that the owner or building manager would keep outside the building. Any such enclosures must match the materials and colors of the building. f. Install and taper the concrete sidewalk along Van Dyke Street to match the driveways. g. Install and maintain all required landscaping and an in-ground sprinkler system for all landscaped areas (code requirement). h. Install continuous concrete curb and gutter along all interior driveways and around all open parking stalls. Install on-site lighting for secudty and visibility that follows the approved site lighting plan. All extedor lighting shall follow the approved lighting plan that shows the light spread and fixture design. The light fixtures must have concealed lenses and bulbs to propedy shield glare from the adjacent street right-of-ways and the nearby homes and residential properties. j. Install a six-foot-high solid screening fence or additional landscaping along the west and north property lines of the site where the vegetation does not adequately 12 screen the town houses from the businesses. These additional materials are to ensure there is at least a six-foot-tall, 80 percent opaque screen on these sides of the site. The location, design and materials of the fence or the additional · landscaping shall be subject to city staff approval. k. The developer or contractor shall: (1) (2) * Complete all grading for the site drainage, complete all public improvements and meet all city requirements. Place tempOrary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits. (3) Remove any debris or junk from the site. If any required work is not done, the city may allow temporary occupancy if: a. The city determines that the work is not essential t° the public health, safety or welfare. bo The above-required letter of credit or cash escrow is held by the city for all required exterior improvements. The owner or contractor shall complete any unfinished landscaping shall be completed by June 1 if the building is occupied in the fall or winter, or within six weeks of occupancy if the building is occupied in the spring or summer. c. The city receives an agreement that will allow the city to complete any unfinished work. This approval does not include the signs. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor cha~ges. CITIZENS' COMMENTS I surveyed the' 21 surrounding property owners within 350 feet of this site for their comments. Of the seven replies, two had no comment, four objected and one had a miscellaneous comment. Opposed I do not want this townhome project here because of too much traffic, more people, cars, depreciation of home value, loss of wildlife, seclusion and pdvacy. (Miller, 2172 Van Dyke Street.) We would have no problem with the proposed development or its location if not for the fact that in our area we already have a battered woman's shelter (2 mile), a troubled boys home (1/4 mile), and the housing projects by Phalen Lake (3 miles). We think it may become counterproductive to place so many havens for people with problems so close together, and despite assurances, we have some concern over the ability of management to control or evict troublesome tenants. (Hardwick, 2182 Van Dyke Street.) 3. Refer to the letter on pages 34-35 (Bjork, 1849 County Road B.) A summary of the concems expressed in the letter and in telephone calls is: The added number of living so close together. Would the property go off of the tax rolls? How would more kids in the area affect the community center?. Effect of trespassing on neighboring property. This development would hurt property values. This development will put a burden on the local schools. Save the trees. Townhomes are not compatible with the single dwellings in the area. Kids hanging around, loitering, being noisy, causing disturbances. They need to supervised and not getting into trouble. Preserve this space. There should be a better use of this property than this proposal. Miscellaneous Comment Well, well! Mr. Mogren has found a nice piece of property to hopefully build on. I have been waiting for years for someone to develop this space (eyesore). Best wishes, good luck and no hassles. (Art Engstrom - 2525 Highwood Avenue) REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Site size (project area): 3.56 acres Existing land use: Undeveloped SURROUNDING LAND USES (surrounding the proposed facility) North: Goodwill and undeveloped property owned by the adjacent daycare center South: Emma's Place town houses West: Finalube, N^PA Auto Parts and Auto body shop on White Bear Avenue East: Single dwellings across Van Dyke Street PLANNING Land Use Plan designation: R3-M (medium density residential) and BC (business commercial) Zoning: R3 and BC Land Use Plan Provision The land use plan provides that most of the land use plan categories coordinate with the city's zoning categories. The uses permitted in these land use categories are the same as those in the corresponding zoning district. Ordinance Requirements Section 36-151(b)(1) allows multiple dwellings in a BC district by CUP. Section 25-70 of the city code requires that the CDRB make the following findings 'to approve plans: That the design and location of the proposed development and its relationship to neighboring, existing or proposed developments and traffic is such that it will not impair the desirability of investment or occupation in the neighborhood; that it will not unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring, existing or proposed developments; and that it will not create traffic hazards, or congestion. That the design and location of the proposed development is in keeping with the character of the surrounding neighborhood and~is not detrimental to the harmonious, orderly and attractive development contemplated by this article and the city's comprehensive municipal plan. That the design and location of the' proposed development would provide a desirable environment for its occupants, as well as for its neighbors, and that it is esthetically of good composition, materials, textures and colors. 15 Findings for CUP Approval Section 36-442 states that the city council must base approval of CUPs on the nine findings listed in the resolution on pages 37 and 38. Application Date We received the complete applications and materials for this proposal on February 12, 2003. State law requires that the city take action within 60 days of receiving complete applications for a proposal. As such, the city council must act on these requests by April 14, 2003, unless the applicant requests a time extension. p:krlsecl 1\Van Dyke Village housing.doc Attachments: 1. Applicant's Statement 2. Location Map 3. Land Use Map (Existing) 4. Land Use Map (Proposed) 5. Area Map 6. Property Line/Zoning Map 7. Site Survey 8. Site Plan 9. Landscape Plan 10. Proposed Utility Plan 11. Building Elevations 12. Building Elevations 13. Revised Side Elevation 14. Floor Plans 15. 2-21-03 Memo from John Banick 16. 2-24-03 Memo from Chds Cavett 17. Letter from Susanne Bjork 18. Land Use Plan Change Resolution 19. Conditional Use Permit Resolution 20. Project Plans (separate attachments) Attachment 1 FEB ! 2 2003 RECEIVED Van Dyke Village Planned Unit Development The intended use of this property is for the development of twenty-four townhomes. This proposed development has been approved by the Minnesota Housing Financing Agency for the financing of "Workforce" housing. It is the intention of this developer to reserve many of the townhome units for tenants who qualify for the "Workforce" housing income criteria. The property that is under consideration in this. proposal is approximately 3.62 acres. This property is currently planned "medium density residential" which allows for six housing units per acre or 21.72 units for the entire site. The developer is requesting an amendment to the comprehensive plan that would change the allowed density on this site from medium density to high density. The site plan, which is being submitted to the City of Maplewood, shows 24 units or an increase of 2.28 units over the number of units allowed under the current density. The developer feels that the extra 2.28 units do not pose a significant additional impact on the neighborhood. The subject property is bordered on the North and West by commercial businesses and on the South by another multi-family development. Other than the request of an amendment to change the comprehensive plan from medium to high density, no other special land use or development approvals are being requested. 37 AVF.. AVE. AVF_ LOCATION. MAP 18 Attachment 2 NORTH SAtA O' 1700' Ox 1~ NORTH AVE, i ~ Attachment' 3 · ,i~,i--__T,~," --'"' 'M-1 1 -;1 '1 '3(M 1 R-: 1 R-2 LEGEND r LAND USE MAP I/ S,TE (EXISTING) itl j ~_~ R-3(M) -- RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM DENSITY R-3(H): RESIDENTIAL HIGH DENSITY R-1 -- SINGLE DWELLINGS BC -- BUSINESS COMMERCIAL LBC -- LIMITED BUSINESS COMMERCIAL Attachment 4 1 R-: R-S{M) !: (H. R-l' LBC = LIMITED BUSINESS COMMERCIAL R-2 I. ko C ,~.~ '~.~/-I mi R-3(M) = RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM DENSITY -3(H): RESIDENTIAL HIGH DENSITY I R-1: SINGLE DWELLINGS ' -J BC: BUSINESS COMMERCIAL mmm 1766 1797 23O3 LJ 2271 ~ / // / ?/ / / / ? / // /// / // // // / // 1/ / / Attachment 2241 / I I / / /BLEACHER'S I I'1 ,7 / ~ PROJECT SITE /,',,?'_L... ! .......... .......................... ~1 I " ri____~ .... L. :i' I 21~ 0 : I ~ iu:~ ,/~ ~ - ~" : ' ~ I '1 ~/~ 'OASIS EMMAS P~CE 2215 2201 1758 ~ 1774 BURKE AVE E COUNTY ROAD B E AREA MAP 1858 21 Att nchm~.n~ , ~ I " ~ " .'" ~ ~, d ~ ~ ~ , - ........ ~_ . ~. ~8~ _.:.:_ _,. < O ~ ~ ..' ,~ ,~ ' ' ' , ~-: .... {~ , mmmmmmm~ ~ m '~ ~ LARK BL~CHER'S 2230 'AUTOBODY 8HOP, ~2 ~", [ ~. -~] ~] ~0~) - ~.e ~ ~ANDHU ~ ~,o~ t~ ~ ~ "~TS_~~ ' ."~ l- ~ EMMA'SP~CE = ~..,~' Z~z~,'fi ~' ' ~ ~ ,-- - -- C O U -- COUNTY ROAD B Attachment 7 SURVEY FOR: BRUCE MOGREN SITE SURVEY 23 Pm'cd Attachment 8 ':~/',v ..Lg~FIHdNVg SITE PLAN 24 Attachment 9 PLANTING SCHEDULE 6 UNITI21 2 e. 4 3BR LANDSCAPE PLAN 25 Attachment ~IST~C BUlL.DING KINDER NAR~ 6 UNIT FF. .,.-J F.F. ~Z4.~ 2 ffi (4 3 6 UNIT~21, ~ COIICRETE BUILDING PAD pARKING ~A~S (TY~IC.&L) (TYPICAL) BASIN 12' HOPE · 2.0g W~ 912,¢* (F1ELD ~UTlgR Attachment ll BUILDING ELEVATIONS 27 Attachment 12 BUILDING ELEVATIONS Attachment 13 ARC~T Bulletin No. 2 Date: 2121t0~ 29 Attachment 14 FLOOR PLANS 30 Attachment 15 Memo T~ D~te: / Mr. Ken Roberts "' Deputy Chief John Banick~'"~ Chief Dave Thomalla 2/21/2003 VAN DYKE VILLAGE - Van Dyke north of Emma's Place FEB 2 1.2 3 RECEIV[D I have reviewed the attached project proposal and currently have the following thoughtS regarding it: I am concerned about the increase in vehicle and pedestrian traffic in the area. Recently, two police department employees commented about how unsafe it has become to tum out of the City Hall entrance onto County Road B. However, the accident history at the intersection of County Road B and Van Dyke Street is remarkably Iow. A search of police records indicates that only three reported accidents have occurred at that intersection between 19982002. Additionally, I don't believe that the design of the intersection of White Bear Avenue and Cope Avenue to the north of this project was designed to handle much more traffic than it currently does. To improve pedestrian safety in this area, I recommend that a sidewalk on the west side of Van Dyke Street be included in this project. This project has the potential to increase police and medical calls for service in this area. The population density of an area generally has a direct correlation on the amount of cdme in the area. We should consider the potential increase in calls for service to the surrounding area (e.g. Maplewood Cammunity Center, local businesses, and the entire neig .hbprh(x3d) that will be generated from the residents whom will reside at this location. However, the police department has not experienced a large increase in calls for service in this area due to the addition of Emma's Place. Lastly, since this complex will be rental property, I recommend that the owner of this property 'be encouraged to participate in our local Crime Free Multi-Housing Program. To obtain further information about this program, the owner may contact me directly at 651-770-4502. If you have questions, you may contact me at extension 4502. 31 Attachment 16 Engineering Plan Review PROJECT: Van Dyke Village PROJECT NO: 03-11 REVIEWED BY: Chris Cavett, Assistant City Engineer DATE: February 24, 2003 The applicant or his engineer shall address the following comments: Grading and Drainage Plan: The applicant's engineer should discuss the following drainage issues with Chris Cavett, Assistant City Engineer, 651-770-4554. Volume calculations provided by the applicant for the rainwater gardens are acceptable. However, the applicant appears to have overlooked the fact that runoff appears to be draining from of the Goodwill site. Though the applicant is not expected to treat the volume of runoff coming from the Goodwill site, the applicant should take measures to ensure that the rainwater garden, overflow pipe and the subsequent site are not unnecessarily impacted by that amount of flow. Verify that there is not already some type of inlet structure akeady located at the spillway from Goodwill. It would seem odd that a connection was never made in the past with the storm sewer at that exact location. Maybe it has been covered over by trash and sediment? This will have to be investigated in the spring. If heavier soils are located on this site, there is the likelihood of water standing in the rainwater gardens more than the 24-48 hours that the city prefers. If this is a concern, it is recommended that the bottom of each g. arden be raised,.by placing ½ -foot layer of sand on top of the scarified subsoil in the bottom of the garden before placing the bedding material and shredded mulch. This would permit a depth of only 1.0-foot before water is able to drain out 3. Provide instruction on the plan for the proper preparation of the Rainwater Gardens: Provide a comment on the grading plan about staging, preparation and protection of the garden areas. Once the contractor has prepared the rainwater garden areas, the cOntractor shall mulch and protect them with heavy-duty silt-fence. Provide a comment on the grading plan that the entire garden area must be thoroughly and deeply scarified before the contractor places the bedding material and the shredded mulch. Scarifying must be done with a "toothed" backhoe. 32 · On city projects, Maplewood has used a mixture of 50% salvaged topsoil and 50% clean organic compost as bedding material. Revise the two items on the rock infiltration sump detail: revise to shoTM geotextile "Filter'' fabric, "(Felt)", as there has been cOnfusion in the past. And correct "slumps" to read "sumps". Submit for approval the detail of the curb cut/concrete spillway. Design is critical to ensure runoff can be diverted to the rainwater gardens in all seasons. The applicant must sign a best management practices (BMP) maintenance agreement with the city. This agreement is to ensure that the applicant/property owner will maintain the storm water facilities, including the rainwater gardens. The maintenance agreement will be made part of the utility permit and must be signed and returned to the city before final site approval. Site Plan Install 6-foOt-wide concrete sidewalk along the Van Dyke Street frontage. Typically the sidewalk is located 7-feet behind the curb and it must be at least 5 feet behind the curb. This may require shiffing the gardens slightly to the west. Utilities Sanitary sewer between the two northerly buildings extends further to the west according to the city base maps. Confirm the existing location with record drawings and field observations. The applicant's proposal to relocate the manhole west of the two buildings may not be possible. Consider shifting the northern two buildings slightly to the' south to provide more clearance between the sewer main and the building. There shall be a minimum of 10-feet between the main and the comer of the proposed building on the south side of the existing main. City records, (resolution 66-11-318, Nov. 29, 1966), indicate that the easement was "vacated subject to the granting of an easement to the Village for maintenance of the sanitary sewer main constructed in the street right-of-way". Provide or verify from title records that the appropriate easement exiSts over this sewer main. If there is not an easement or the main must be relocated, the applicant shall provide the city with a utility easement for the sanitary sewer 33 Attachment 17 The following are questions we have for the developer: 1. why do you need so many units compared to what it is zoned for? Is it your [zEB 2 1 2003 profitability that you are worded about? IF THE SPACE COULD ADEQUATELY ACCOMMODATE THE EXTRA NUMBER OF PEOPLE, 1~ E C l~ ~ ¥ E~ ~ WOULD HAVE BEEN ZONED THAT WAY ORIGINALLY. TRAFFIC HAS ALREADY INCREASED DUE TO EMMA'S PLACE ON VAN DYKE- ANOTHER DEVELOPMENT SO CLOSE WILL REALLY CAUSE PROBLEMS. 2. what kind of tax breaks are you getting for developing this type of housing and when can you take them? 3. Are you entering into a contract with the city that you cannot sell the property or change tenant structure without city council approval? THE PROPOSAL LOOKS GOOD ON PAPER NOW, BUT WHO' S TO SAY THAT IN A YEAR OR TWO SOMEONE ELSE BUYS THE PROPERTY AND IT TURNS INTO A DUMP. 4. How many of the units are going to be owner occupied? 5. Are you going to have a full time person on staff for problems and emergencies? Who will be the contact person for the issues and problems that come up? 6. What is the number of vehicles (cars, tracks, boats, snowmobiles, etc.) residents can have? 7. Maximum amount of people per unit? Max number of kids? 8. How many guests can they have over at one time? What about overflow parking? 9. Are residents going to have to go through a background check? 10. What are the qualifications to live in these units? 11. How will residents that don!t follow the roles be dealt with? 12. Could I get a copy of the rules? 13. Are you requesting road improvements because of this development? What will this mean to residents that live on Van Dyke? 14. what is the rent range? Association fees? Are there any subsidies that will be given to residents? 15. Plans for construction crew and garbage that they generate and leave behind? THIS WAS A MAJOR PROBLEM WITH EMMA'S PLACE 16. Are you having a playground? Hours? 17. Who will take care of the unit outside as far as the lawn, plowing, etc.? General concerns and thoughts for Maplewood planners: AS RESIDENTS IN THE AREA, WE ARE REALLY CONCERNED WITH THE ADDED NUMBER OF PEOPLE LIVING SO CLOSE TOGETHER. WE ALREADY HAVE ISSUES WITH EMMA'S PLACE AND THE MANY DISTURBANCES THE KIDS ARE CAUSING. I CAN'T IMAGINE THAT THIS DEVELOPMENT WOULD BE ANY DIFFERENT. WHAT IS THE CITY OF MAPLEWOOD~-~-~ 1 GOING TO DO TO ENSURE THAT THE KIDS IN THESE UNITS ARE SUPS? 2 o Az - 34 . CAUSING TROUBLE? ONCE EMMA'S KIDS AND THE KIDS IN THIS DEVELOPMENT GET TOGETHER, IT IS GOING TO BE DOUBLE THE TROUBLE. I FIND IT HARD TO BELIEVE THAT I WII'L GET A DECENT NIGHT'S SLEEP ONCE THE WARM WEATHER COMES AND MY WINDOWS ARE OPEN. I ALREADY BATTLED THIS LAST SUMMER WITH EMMA'S PLACE. 35 FEB 2 1 2003 LAND USE PLAN CHANGE RESOLUTION Attachment 18 WHEREAS, Mr. Bruce Mogren, applied for a change to the city's land use plan from BC (business commercial) and R-3(M) (residential medium density) to R-3(H) (residential high density), WHEREAS, this change applies to the undeveloped property located on the west side of Van Dyke Street, north of County Road B and east of White Bear Avenue for the Van Dyke Village town houses. WHEREAS, the history of this change is as follows: On March 3, 2003, the planning commission held a public headng. The city staff published a hearing notice in the Maplewood Review and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The planning commission gave everyone at the hearing, a chance to speak and present wdtten statements. The planning commission recommended that the city council approve the plan amendments. On March ,2003, the city council discussed the land use plan change. They considered reports and recommendations from the planning commission and city staff. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above-described changes for the following reasons: This site is proper for and consistent with the city's goals, objectives and policies for high-density residential land use in the comprehensive plan. This includes: ao Creating a transitional land use between the existing residential and commercial land uses. bo Being near a collector street, being between two arterial streets and is near open space and shopping and services. 2. This development will minimize any adverse effects on surrounding properties because: a. The on-site pond and large setback from Woodlynn Avenue will separate the apartment building from the properties to the south. There should be no significant traffic increase from this development on existing local residential streets. The existing street pattern keeps the apartment traffic separate from the existing single dwellings and other residences: c. There should be less traff~c from this development than from a commercial development on the same site. The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on March ,2003. 36 Attachment 19 ' CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Mr. Bruce Mogren applied for a conditional use permit to build a 24-unit town house development known as Van Dyke Village. WHEREAS, this permit applies to the property at the west side of Van Dyke Street, north of County Road B and east of White Bear Avenue. The legal descriptions are: Parcel 1: That part of the West 90 feet of the East 360 feet of Lot 2, Block 20, Smith and Taylor's Addition of North St. Paul, lying East of the West 41 feet thereof; including that part of the North half of adjoining Sandhurst Avenue, vacated, lying between the extension and across said street of the East line of the West 41 feet of the East 360 feet of Lot 2, and the West line of the East 270 feet of said Lot 2. Parcel 2: The East 270 feet of Lot 2, Block 20, together with the North 2.65 feet of said Lot 2, Block 20, except the West 233.14 feet thereof, and the South 2.65 feet of Lot 1, Block 20 except the West 233.14 feet thereof, all in Smith and Taylor's Addition to North St. Paul, accruing thereto by reason of vacation thereof. Parcel 3: All that part of Lot 1, Block 20, Smith and Taylor's Addition to North St. Paul, except the South 2.65 feet thereof, and except that part described as follows: Commencing at a point on the West line of said Lot 1, distant 2.65 feet North of the Southwest comer of said Lot 1; thence East parallel to the South line of said Lot 1 a distance of 271.49 feet; thence North on a straight line to a point on the North line of said Lot 1, distant 272.06 feet East of the Northwest comer of said Lot 1; thence West along said North line of Lot 1 a distance of 272.06 feet to said Northwest comer of said Lot 1; thence South along the West line of said Lot 1 a distance of 121.38 feet to the point of beginning, and except the South % of vacated Laurie Avenue lying adjacent to the North of the excepted tract and herein described. Parcel 4: All that part of Lot 2, Block 13, Smith and Taytor's Addition to North St. Paul including the North half of vacated Laurie Avenue, lying adjacent to and South of the tract herein described, except that part of Lot 2, Block 13, described as follows: 'Commencing at the Southwest comer of said Lot 2, thence East along the South line of said Lot 2 a distance of 272.33 feet to a point, thence Northerly on a straight line to a point of the North line of said Lot 2, a distance of 272.01 feet to the Northwest comer of said Lot 2; thence southerly along the West line of said Lot 2, to the point of beginning and excepting .there from that part taken for widening of White Bear Avenue, and except the North % of vacated Laurie Avenue lying adjacent to and south of the excepted tract herein deScribed. WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: 1. On March 3, 2003, the planning commission recommended that the city council approve this permit. ¸2. On March ,2003, the city council held a public headng, City staff published a notice in the paper and sent notices to the surrounding ~property owners. The council gave everyone at the headng a chance to speak and present wdtten statements. The council also considered reports and recommendations from the City staff and planning commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above-described conditional use permit, because: 1. The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be in conformity with the city's comprehensive plan and code of ordinances. 2. The use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area. 3. The use would not depreciate property values. The use would not involve any activity, process, materials, equipment or methods of operation that would be dangerous, hazardous, detrimental, disturbing or cause a nuisance to any person or property, because of excessive noise, glare, smoke, dust, odor, fumes, water or air pollution, drainage, water 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. The use would be served by adequate public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, water and sewer systems, schools and parks. 7. The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services. 8. The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the siteCs natural and scenic features into the development design. 9. The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects. Approval is subject to the following conditions: All construction shall follOw the plans for 24 town houses as approved by the city. The city council may approve major changes to the plans. The Director of Community Development may approve minor changes to the plans. Such changes shall include: a. Revising the grading and site plans to show:. (1) The developer minimizing the loss or removal of natural vegetation. (2) All driveways at least 20 feet wide. If the developer wants to have parking on one side of the driveway; then it must be at least 28 feet wide. (3) All parking stalls with a width of at least 9.5 feet and a length of at least 18 feet. (4) Revised storm water pond locations and designs as suggested or required by the watershed district or city engineer. The ponds shall meet the city's design standards. (5) The developer minimizing the loss or removal of natural vegetation including keeping an(~ protecting as many of the trees as possible. 2. The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the permit shall end. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 3. Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall meet all the conditions and changes noted in the engineer's memo dated February 24, 2003. These shall include: a. Include grading, utility, drainage, erosion control, streets, trails, sidewalks, tree, retaining walls, ddveway and parking lot plans. b. Include a storm water management plan for the proposal. 4. The design of all ponds and rainwater gardens shall meet Maplewood's design standards and shall be subject to the approval of the city engineer. If needed, the developer shall be responsible for getting any off-site pond and drainage easements. 5. The developer or contractor shall: a. Complete all grading for the site drainage and the ponds, complete all public improvements and meet all city requirements. b.* Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits. d. Remove any debris or junk from the site. 6. The approved setbacks for the principal structures in the Van Dyke Village PUD shall be: a. Front-yard setback (from a public street): minimum - 30 feet, maximum - 40 feet b. Rear-yard setback: 50 feet from any adjacent residential property line d. Side-yard setback (town houses): minimum - 40 feet from the west property line and 50 feet from the south property line. 7.The developer or builder will pay the city Park Access Charges (PAC fees) for each housing unit at the time of the building permit for each housing unit. 8. The developer shall close on the purchase of the property with the city before the city will issue a grading or a building permit for the project. 9.The property owner shall see that the site is well maintained and propedy managed. 10.The city council shall review this permit in one year. The Maplewood City Council approved this resolution on ,2003. MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: DATE: Richard Fursman, City Manager Shann Finwall, Associate Planner Countryside Motors - Conditional Use Permit and Variance 1180 Highway 36 East March 4, 2003 INTRODUCTION Project Description John Schmelz is proposing to remodel and expand the existing Saab sales/showroom building located within his Countryside Motors automobile dealership at 1180 Highway 36 East. The addition will be 8,61 O-square-feet in area and will have an automobile repair and service facility. In addition, Mr. Schmelz proposes to expand his automobile sales/storage lot into a vacant lot next to the Ember's Restaurant. (Refer to the applicant's statement on pages 14 through 16 and the maps on pages 17 through 28 attached;) Requests Mr. Schmelz is requesting that the city council approve: A ten-foot setback variance from a right-of-way for the new sales/storage lot. The expanded sales/storage lot is proposed to be five feet from the frontage road right-of- way. City code requires all parking areas to be located at least 15 feet from any right-of- way. A conditional use permit (CUP) revision for the expansion of a nonconforming automobile repair facility and automobile sales (both located closer than the required 350 feet to residential property). 3. Design review. BACKGROUND Minor Subdivision' On December 23, 2002, the city staff approved a minor subdivision to alloW the back and east portions of the Ember's lot to be. subdivided from the northwest portion (location of Ember's Restaurant and parking lot). John Schmelz purchased the new lot from the Ember's owners in order to expand his sales/storage Jot. A land survey reflected that the vacated Cop® Avenue right-of-way, located on the south side of the property, was not part of the new lot. City and county records, however, reflect that it was vacated by the city years ago. Mr. Schmelz's attomey is currently filing a quite title action to clear the title and ensure the right-of-way is legally part of the lot. The site plan for included with this proposal includes the vacated right-of-way. Therefore, a condition of approval should be that the resulting order from the court reflects that Mr. Schmeiz is the fee owner of the vacated right-of-way. PAST ACTIONS January 9, 1995: The city council granted a CUp for the expansion of Countryside Motor's automobile dealership facility. February 12, 1996: The city council reviewed this CUP and scheduled review again in one year. November 23, 1998: The city council reviewed this CUP and decided to review it again if a problem developed or if the applicant proposed any changes. October 23, 2000: The city council revised the CUP to allow the expansion of the facility including a front setback variance for an addition to the Volkswagen showroom. October 22, 2001: The city council reviewed the CUP and scheduled review again in one year. After this meeting, Mr. Schmelz questioned the wording of a condition, that stated, "The property owner shall instal/and maintain screening along all south lot lines to meet the city code. The community design review board (CDRB) must review the screening plan. ~ Mr. Schmelz had understood that it had been determined that additional screening was not needed. November-13, 2001: The city council determined that additional screening was, in fact, not needed to the south due to buffering by existing trees and grade differences. They amended Condition 4 of the CUP to clarify that additional screening was not needed to the south. October 14, 2002: The city council reviewed the CUP and scheduled review again in one year. DISCUSSION Conditional Use Permit The property is zoned Light Manufacturing (M-l). Within this zoning district automobile sales is a permitted use and automobile repair requires a CUP. The code further states that both of these types of uses must be located at least 350 feet from residential property. Countryside Motors was constructed before these requirements and is closer than 350 feet from residential property along the south property line. Since 1995, the city council has approved several CUPs for the expansions to both the automobile sales and automobile repair nonconforming uses. The existing automobile sales/storage lot is located 20 feet and the existing automobile repair facility is located approximately 70 feet from the adjoining residential property line. The new proposal includes expanding the sales/storage lot into the new lot located to the south and east of Ember's. Restaurant. The new sales/storage lot will maintain a 30-foot setback from the residential property to the south, a lO-foot setback from the residential property to the east, and a 5-foot setback from the commercial property to the east. As stated above, the existing sales/storage lot comes within 20 feet of residential property. This also is the city's minimum required screening and buffer distance for a commercial property Countryside Motors 2 March 4, 2003 adjacent residential property. The city council may approve the new sales/storage lot with a 10- foot setback to the eastern residential property as part of the CUP. However, staff feels that it is important to maintain the 20-foot buffer from the residential property and recommends that the applicant revise the site plan to increase the sales/storage lot setback along the residential property to the east from 10 feet to 20 feet. In addition to the expansion of the nonconforming sales/storage lot, Mr. Schmelz is proposing to construct an automobile repair facility closer than the required 350 feet to residential property. The new repair facility, if approved, would be approximately 170 feet from residential property. As such, it would not be closer to the residential property than the existing repair facility that is approximately 70 feet away. Both the sales/storage lot and the repair/service.facility require CUPs, as they would both be an expansion of a nonconforming use. VaHance The expanded sales/storage lot is proposed with a 5-foot setback to the frontage road right-of- way. City code requires a 15-foot setback. Mr. Schmelz states in his CUP statement on pages 14 through 16, that because his existing parking lot is located 5. feet to the frontage road, the expansion of his new sales/storage lot with a 5-foot setback to the frontage road as well should be considered as part of the expansion of the nonconforming use. The proposed sales/storage lot would be separated from the existing dealership by the Ember's Restaurant. It would not be a continuation of the dealership's existing parking lot setback and therefore, as proposed, requires a setback variance. Staff finds no hardship for this vadance proposal and recommends denial. Increasing the setback of the sales/storage lot to the required 15 feet will also be consistent with the adjacent property's parking lot (Ember's), and will allow for more landscaping to improve the curb appeal of the sales/storage lot from the frontage road. St. Paul Regional Water Services There is a water main that runs through the back portion of Mr. Schmelz's new lot and his existing lot. Staff notified the St. Paul Regional Water Services of Mr. Schmelz's proposal to expand his dealership. Bill Tschida and Mike Anderson of the St. Paul Regional Water Services have expressed several concerns about the proposal including: The proposed retaining wall and Subsequent grading for the new sales/storage lot is located too close to the water main. Verification of easements for all water mains located on Mr. Schmelz's property is' necessary. 3. Access to all water mains located on Mr. Schmelz's property must be maintained. Verification of the water services to Ember's Restaurant and the grading over those water services needs to be reviewed. Staff recommends that the above-mentioned concerns be addressed with conditions of approval of Mr. Schmeiz's CUP. These conditions are outlined in the recommendations on page 7. Countryside Motors 3 March 4, 2003 Site Improvements Saab Buildinq Addition The applicant is proposing an 8,610-square-foot addition for the south side of the Saab showroom/sales building. The addition will have a new automobile repair/service facility for the Saab dealership. The dealership is currently servicing these automobiles in .an existing building located behind the Volkswagen and Saab buildings. If the city approves the addition, the dealership will use the existing repair facility as overflow repair and service for types of vehicles. The construction of the addition will remove 39 parking stalls. The parking stalls will be replaced by the addition of the new sales/storage lot next to Ember's, which will accommodate up to 200 automobiles. The front and side exteriors of the existing Saab showroom/sales building will be remodeled to include pre-finished aluminum copings with a sea shell colored EIFS (stucco-like material), an extedor blue composite metal panel, a new pre-finished aluminum wing canopy, a new entry vestibule, and aluminum storefront windows. The addition will be constructed of pre-cast concrete panels with integral color to match the new EIFS. Expanded Automobile Sales/Storaqe Lot .Sales/Storage Lot: The new sales/storage lot will be used for the sale and storage of automobiles. It will be constructed of bituminous and concrete curb and gutter. The sales/storage lot will not be stdped, but will hold about 200 automobiles. City code does not require that an automobile sales/storage lot have striped parking stalls unless there are parking stalls for employees or customers. There is no employee or customer parking stalls proposed, but in order to ensure adequate ddve aisles, a striping plan must be submitted that shows ddve aisles of at least 24 feet in width. Retaining Walls: The vacant lot where the applicant is proposing the new sales/storage lot slopes upward from the frontage road to the south side of the property. For this reason, the applicant is proposing to install a retaining wall along the southeast comer of the new lot (see site and grading plan and retaining wall elevation on pages 20, 21 and 24). This retaining wall will start at ground grade and extend upward to 8 feet, 8 inches at its highest point on the southeast comer of the lot. Therefore, much of the automobile sales/storage lot will be lower than the surrounding residential properties, and will be hidden from view. Fence: The applicants are proposing to extend their existing 6-foot-high chain-link fence, with three strands of barbed wire along the top, around the entire new sales/storage lot. A matching gate is proposed in front of the new driveway to the frontage road. Staff finds the prospect of a new parking lot surrounding Ember's oversized parking lot an unattractive proposal in itself. The addition of a 6-foot-high chain-link fence with barbed wire surrounding the new sales/storage lot is unacceptable. In order to make the new sales/storage lot more attractive, staff recommendS that the new fence and gate along the frontage road be constructed of wrought' iron with decorative brick or stone columns and that the remaining fence portions be constructed of a black vinyl-coated chain-link fence up to 8 feet high. Countryside Motors 4 March 4, 2003 Tree Preservation:. The city's tree preservation ordinance requires that all "large" trees removed from a site be replaced one-for-one, up to 10 trees per acre. A large tree is defined as a tree with a diameter of 8 inches at a 4-foot trunk height, excluding boxelder, cottonwood, and poplar. The applicant proposes removing two "large" trees with the grading of the new automobile sales/storage lot. Therefore, the applicant must plant at least two replacement trees on the site. Landscaping: The landscape plan calls for six Colorado blue spruce and 22 Isanti dogwoods to be planted on the south side of the property, above the retaining wall. Again, in an attempt to create a more attractive sales/storage lot, staff recommends additional landscaping to include: trees and shrubs to be planted in front of the sales/storage lot, along the frontage road; a row of columnar trees (narrow trees such as arborvitae or lindens) between Ember's parking lot and the new sales/storage lot; extending the row of Colorado blue spruce and Isanti dogwood along the top of the entire retaining wall (both south and east, adjacent both residential properties). In addition, Chds Cavett, assistant city engineer, is recommending in his engineering plan review on page 29 that a landscape plan be submitted for the pond. The pond should be vegetated with native grasses with Forbes and native shrubbery and trees should be planted on the upland portion of the pond. All landscaped areas, excluding landscaping within the pond, must have an underground irrigation system. Site Lighting: The city's lighting ordinance requires that all new freestanding lights be a maximum of 25 feet in height. In addition, the maximum light illumination from any outdoor light cannot exceed .4 foot candles at all property lines. The applicant's proposal includes relocating four existing 30-foot-high freestanding lights, installing one new 20-foot-high freestanding light, and installing four new wall .pack lights (see attached outdoor lighting plan on page 28). The lighting ordinance allows .for the relocation of the taller freestanding lights as part of design review, based on appropriateness for a specific proposal. Staff feels that the relocation of the 30-foot-high freestanding lights into the expanded and existing sales/storage lot is appropriate, as long as a revised photometdcs plan is submitted by the applicant that shows the light illumination at all property lines does not exceed .4 foot candles as required by code. Other Comments John Banick, Deputy Police Chief, states that he has no public safety concerns regarding the proposal at this time. Dave Fisher, Building Official, states that handicap accessible parking stalls and bathrooms are required and that the Saab building must be fully spdnklered. BUtCh Gervais, Fire Marshal, states that the following fire protection items will be required: fire protection system must be installed, including existing building; monitor fire protection system; fire department lock box; minimum of 20-foot access road for emergency vehicles; horn/strobes in service garage area and any normally occupied space in the showroom/office area. RECOMMENDATIONS Deny John Schmelz's request for a 10,foot parking lot setback vadance from a public right-of-way for the expansion of the sales/storage lot at his Countryside Motors automobile dealership at 1180 Highway 36 E. The city is denying this request because: Countryside Motors 5 March 4, 2003 a. There is no hardship associated with the variance request. · The proposed 5-foot sales/storage lot setback will not be consistent with the adjoining property's parking lot (Ember's). The proposed 5-foot sales/storage lot setback will leave no room for landscaping between the lot and the frontage road. Landscaping is needed to improve the curb appeal of the sales/storage lot. Adopt the resolution on pages 30 and 31. This resolution approves a revision to the conditional use permit for John Schmelz's Countryside Motors automobile dealership located at 1180 Highway 36 East. The revision is for the expansion of the nonconforming automobile repair and automobile sales (both located closer than the required 350 feet to residential property). Approval is based on the findings required by the code and subject to the following six conditions (additions are underlined; deletions are crossed out): All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city. The director of community development may approve minor changes. The construction of the proposed addition to the Saab building must be started within one year of city council approval or the approval for this addition shall end. The city council may extend this deadline for one year. There shall be no automobile access, except emergency vehicles, to or from Duluth Street. d. The Ioadinq or unloading of automobiles on the public d,qht-of-way is prohibited. Automobiles shall only be parked on designated paved or engineered porous surfaces. The city council shall review this permit in one year. Countryside Motors 6 March 4, 2003 Approve the plans date-stamped January 24, 2003, for the proposed Saab building addition and sales/storage lot expansion to Countryside Motors automobile dealership at 1180 Highway 36 East. Approval is subject to the property owner doing the following: Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. b= Signs shown on the site plan and building elevations are r~ot part of this approval and will require separate sign permits. Submit the following for staff approval before the city issues a grading or building permit: (1) Final grading, paving, drainage, utility and erosion control plans. These plans shall meet the requirements of the city code and the city engineer. (2) .Address all of the concerns (mentioned below) to the'satisfaction of the St. Paul Regional Water Services: (a) Vedfy location of all water mains within the property. (b) Vedfy that the necessary easements exist for all water mains. (c) Relocate the proposed retaining wall and subsequent grading for the new sales/storage lot so that it is no closer than 15 feet from the centedine of the existing water main in the vacated Cope Avenue right-of-way. (d) Ensure the St. Paul Regional Water Services has access to all water mains on the property. (e) Verify the location of the water services to Ember's Restaurant and any grading over the water services. (3) Verification that John Schmelz is the fee owner of the 30-foot wide portion of the vacated Cope Avenue right-of-way that runs along the south portion of the expanded sales/storage lot property. (4) A stri ping plan for the new automobile sales/storage lot. The plan must include drive aisles that are at least 24 feet in width. (5) A revised site plan showing that the new sales/storage lot is setback 20 feet from the eastern residential property line. (6) Elevations of the proposed fence and gate. The elevation should include a wrought iron fence with decorative brick or stone columns and an electronically controlled wrought iron entry gate on the front of the sales/storage lot; and a black vinyl coated chain-link fence on the sides and rear of the sales/storage lot. The fence may be up to a height of 8 feet. Countryside Motors 7 March 4, 2003 (7) A revised landscape plan to include: so (8) (9) (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) Trees and shrubs to be planted in front of the sales/storage lot, along the frontage road. A row of columnar trees (narrow trees such as arborvitae or lindens) between Ember's parking lot and the new sales/storage lot. Extending the row of Colorado blue spruce and Isanti dogwood along the top of the entire retaining wall (both south and east, adjacent both residential properties). The pond should be vegetated with native grasses with Forbes. Native shrubbery and trees should be planted on the upland portion of the perimeter of the pond. All landscaped areas, excluding landscaping within the pond, must have an underground irrigation system. A revised outdoor lighting and photometric plan. The revised plan shall show the height and style of all outdoOr lights (including relocated lights), and that the light illumination from all outdoor lights does not exceed .4 foot candles at all property lines. A cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit for all required extedor improvements. The amount shall be 150 percent of.the cost of the work. Complete the following before occupying the sales/storage lot: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Install Complete the (1) Install (2) Install all bituminous or engineered porous surface and curb and gutter. Stripe all drive aisles~ Install the approved fence. Install all required landscaping by June 1 if the sales/storage lot is finished in the fall or winter, or within six weeks of completion of the sales/storage lot if it is finished in the spring or summer. all required exterior lights. following before occupying the Saab building: all required exterior improvements. Screen all roof-mounted equipment visible from streets or adjacent residential property. Countryside Motors 8 March 4, 2003 (3) Ensure all trash dumpsters are enclosed in a trash enclosure, subject to staff approval, if there would be outside trash storage. 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 extedor 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. Countryside Motors 9 March 4, 2003 CITIZEN COMMENTS I surveyed the' owners of the 22 properties within 350 feet of Countryside Motors. Of the four responses received, three were in favor of the proposal, and one had minor concerns: In Favor Mary Prochaska, Vice PresidentJReal Estate, Menard, Inc., 4777 Menard Drive, Eau Claire, Wisconsin (Menard's Store at 2280 Maplewood Drive): "Countryside is a great neighbor. They run an upscale business and they are great for the neighborhood. They should be given every consideration of their proposal. It appears to be well designed and will be an asset to our community." Richard and Wilma Miller, Handy Hitch and Welding Company, 2303 Atlantic Street, Maplewood: "We have no objections to Countryside's plans. We look forward to them maintaining the empty lot." Hossein Aghamirzai and Mary Costas, 45 Clay Cliffe Ddve, Excelsior, Minnesota (owners of University Auto at 1145 Viking Ddve, Maplewood): "it is okay by me." Concerns Brad Bimberg, Highway 36 Embers, 1664 University Avenue, St. Paul, Minnesota (Ember's Restaurant at 1200 Viking Drive): "Our only concern is water drainage and that the drainage may undermine the integrity of our parking lot." Countryside Motors 10 March 4, 2003 REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Existing Dealership Site Site Size: Existing Land Use: 4.45 acres Countryside Motors Automobile Dealership Proposed Sales/Storaqe Lot Site Site Size: 1.5 acres Existing Land Use: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USES North: South:' West: East: Frontage Road and Highway 36 Houses and Apartments on Duluth Street, Lark Avenue and Atlantic Street Menard's Ember's Restaurant PAST ACTIONS January 9, 1995: The city council granted a CUP for the expansion of.Countryside Motor's automobile dealer faCility. February 12, 1996: The city council reviewed this CUP and scheduled review again in one year. November 23, 1998: The city council reviewed this CUP and decided to review it again if a problem developed or if the applicant proposed any changes. October 23, 2000: The city council revised the CUP to allow the expansion of the facility including a front setback vadance for an addition to the Volkswagen showroom.. October 22, 2001' The city council revieWed the CUP and scheduled review again in one year. After this meeting, Mr. SchmeLz questioned the wording of a condition, that stated, 'The property owner shall install and maintain screening along all south lot lines to meet the city code. The community design review board (CDRB) must review the screening plan." Mr. Schmelz had understood that it had been determined that additional screening was not needed. November 13, 2001' The city cOuncil determined that additional screening was, in facti not needed to the south due to buffedng by existing trees and grade differences. They amended Condition 4 of the CUP to clarify that additional screening was not needed to the south. October 14, 2002: The city council reviewed the CUP and scheduled review again in one year. Countryside Motors 11 March 4, 2003 PLANNING Land Use Plan: Zoning: M-1 (Light Manufacturing) M-1 (Light Manufacturing) Criteria for Conditional Use Permit Approval Section 36-17(h) states that a property owner may expand a nonconforming structure or parking lot if the structure or parking lot meets the following conditions: a. The zoning regulations permit the use. The expansion would meet the minimum setbacks required by this chapter or the setbacks of the existing structure, whichever is less. The expansion shall not exceed the maximum height required by this chapter or the existing height, whichever is taller. To deviate from these requirements, the city may approve a CUP, subject to the standards in the city code. The minimum setback from the ordinary high water level in a shoreland district would be at least the average setback of adjacent residential structures or 50 feet, whichever is greater. d. All portions of said structure would be on the applicant's property. so Runoff from the overhang of the addition would not adversely affect an adjacent property. Section 36-442(a) states that the city council may approve a CUP, based on nine standards. Refer to the res°lution on pages 30 and 31. Criteria for Variance Approval State law requires that the city council make the following findings to approve a variance: Strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the property under consideration. 2. The vadance would be in keeping with the spidt and intent of the ordinance. Undue hardship, as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property, not created by the landowner, and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance. Countryside Motors 12 March 4, 2003 Application Date The city received the complete applications and plans for this request on January 24, 2003. State law requires that the city take action within 60 days of receiving complete applications for a land use proposal. As such, city action is required on this proposal by March 25, 2003, p:secg\countryside ,Attachments: 1. Conditional Use-Permit Statement 2. Location Map 3. Zoning Map 4. Land Use Map 5. Site Plan 6. Grading Plan 7. Tree Removal Plan 8. Landscape Plan 9. Retaining 'Wall 10. Existing Elevations 11 Proposed Elevations 12. Floor Plan 13. Outdoor Lighting Plan 14. Assistant City Engineer Comments 15. Conditional Use Permit Resolution Countryside Motors 13 March 4, 2003 Attachment 1 Supplement to Conditional Use Application for Countryside Volkswagen, Inc. 1180 East Highway 36 Maplewood; MN 55109 Telephone: (651) 484-8441 Contact: John Schmelz The following information has been prepared by RSP Architects 1220 Marshall Street N.E. Minneapolis, MN 55413 Telephone: (612) 677-7100 Contact: James Warren SUMMARY The applicant specifically requests the following Conditional uses from the City of Maplewood: A. Relief from City ordinances requiring a 350 foot setback from residential uses to motor vehicle sales/service uses. The applicant requests that the 75 fbot building setback established in the 1994 Conditional Use Permit be maintained for this property. B. Relief from City ordinances requiring a 15 foot setback from front property line to parking; applicant requests elimination of setback requirement, as established in the previous Conditional Use Permit granted in 1994 CURRENT ZONING CLASSIFICATION: M1 CURRENT USE: The property is currently used for motor vehicle sales and service; the applicant does not propose any change in use. Repair of body damage to cars has been moved off site to a local body repair service facility. REASONS FOR APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE AND SCOPE OF REQUEST A. The applicant founded the Countryside automotive dealership in 1966, prior to 'City ordinances establishing the required 350 foot motor vehicle sales/service setback from residential uses. In 1994, as part of a conditional use permit, the applicant requested and was granted a 75 foot building setback from residential uses. The currently proposed Saab service addition is approximately 78 feet from the southern' property line, adjacent to the Menards storage lot. The addition is approximately 205 feet from the nearest residential use. Good business practices and current manufacturer requirements for distinct brand identification have led to the need for remodeling and expansion of the existing Saab facility. These improvements are necessary for the applicant to remain competitive in their marketplace. B. Existing site conditions near the northwest corner of the applicant's property include a 10 foot wide landscaped boulevard (on City Property), reduced from 15 feet due to widening of the service road. The applicant historically and currently displays vehicles up to their property line in that location. The 1994 conditional use permit allowed this configuration. The applicant is proposing no changes to this area of the property. 14 RESPONSES TO CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL USE CONFORMITY: The existing use will not be changed. All improvements will be designed, maintained, constructed and operated in conformance with the City's comprehensive plan and Code of Ordinances (subject to the requests contained herein.) CHARACTER OF THE AREA: The improvements will enhance the existing character of the surrounding area by remodeling the existing Saab Sales building to be compatible with the recent addition and aesthetic upgrade of the Volkswagen sales and service building. Existing site lighting shall remain unchanged. PROPERTY VALUES: Re: The Saab Service addition -- The applicant suggests that the adjacent properties will realize a positive effect from the upgrading of the applicant's property. Re: New Car Storage Area - Under previous ownership this area was not maintained and lacked proper screening from adjacent residential uses. The applicant will install an innovative porous pavement technique to allow water infiltration, provide screening of the property and properly maintain the area. 4. HAZARD AND NUISANCE FACTORS: NOISE: The applicant suggests that the expanded facility will generate equal or less noise than the existing facility. The service addition walls are 10" thick concrete panels, which serve as an excellent means of sound control. GLARE: The expanded Saab building will be constructed of somewhat rough non-glare materials. The new car storage area is significantly lower in elevation than adjacent residential neighborhoods, and is screened with the use of a retaining wall and plantings, all contributing to a reduction in potential glare. SMOKE, DUST, ODOR, FUMES AND AIR POLLUTION: All repair work shall be done within the confines of the service addition. Current environmental regulations and vehicle services technologies create environments that benefit both employees of the facility as well as the environment in which it is located. Using easily replaceable vehicle components for repairs and an environmentally approved exhaust collection device are two examples of this practice. WATER POLLUTION: There will be no use of uncontained contaminants. In fact, the applicant has previously removed all underground tanks from the site. DRAINAGE RUNOFF: Re: The Saab Service addition -There is no planned increase in the existing amount of hard surface area. Re: New Car Storage Area - All runoff from the impervious portions of the storage lot will be directed into the holding pond for absorption. The applicant is also providing this same level of treatment to the runoff from 3/4's of the Embers parking lot. That sub-watershed that flows onto the Schmelz property is pretreated through native grasses and is then directed into the pond for absorption. VIBRATION: Other than normal truck traffic for delivery of product, there is no vibration causing activity. UNSIGHTLINESS: All trash is, and will continue to be, contained within enclosures. Hazardous waste is, and will continue to be, properly contained and stored for disposal according to local, state and federal regulations. ELECTRICAL INTERFERENCE: There is no site activity, either existing or planned, which will cause electrical interference. 15 o o VEHICULAR TRAFFIC: The primary purpose of the expansion is to better serve an existing customer base and to respond to manufacturer's insistence on individualized identity of sales and services. The anticipated increase in vehicular traffic is minimal. PUBLIC SERVICES: The applicant is not aware of any increase in demand for public services which will be caused by the proposed expansion. COST FOR PUBLIC FACILITIES OR SERVICES: As stated in #6, the applicant is not aware of any increased demand for public services which will be caused by the proposed expansion, thus, no cost is anticipated. SITE FEATURES: New construction will be designed to coordinate with the existing primary structures and with existing grading, paving and natural features. Signage, lighting and building aesthetics will be upgraded and coordinated into a cohesive whole which will result in an overall improved image; landscaping around the new car storage area will be included as part of the site design. POSSIBLE ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECT: The applicant is, and continues to be, proactive in his desire to create an environmentallY sound and safe facility for customers, employees and neighbors. Specific information on environmental concerns and actions is stated above. 16 Attachment 2 Schmelz Countryside Schmelz Countryside Parking Lot Expansion Saab ~ Highway36 1180 HwY 36 ~_~ ~/ -~ · == ~'1-,'1'1~~! 11.1~/ Location Map 17 ·/~ ?I /// / // / Countryside Motors 1180 Highway 36 Attachment 3 Countryside Motors Expanded Sales Lot Legend Light Manufacturing Heavy Manufacturing Neighborhood Commercial 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 ft) Residential Estate (40,00) sq ft) Farm Lark Avenue Zoning Map 18 Attachment 4 Countryside Motors 1180 Highway 36 Countryside Motors Expanded Sales Lot La~ Avenue Legend Light Manufacturing Heavy Manufacturing Neighborhood Commercial Commemial Office Limited Business Commercial Business Commercial Modified Business Commercial Small Lot Single Dwelling Rssi Single Dwelling Residential Double Dwelling Residential Low Multiple Dwelling Resident Medium Multiple Dwelling Resid High Multiple Dwelling Residen 30000 Residential Estate 40000 Residential Estate park Open Space School city Government Ubrary Cemetery Church Fire Station Land Use Map 19 Attachment 5 Site Plan 20 Attachment 6 VIKING DRIVE E. (FRONTAGE ROAD) N Grading Plan 21 Attachment 7 N 4.404± SC. FT. -,~' ~Ai:2K~N SET'~A~ CK __ 120C VIKING DRIVE ~' Gu ONE STORY BUILDING ~9.2' HIGH O CENTER / 9,2' HtGH ~ EDGE / CP 8 SPACES STOP ~_ B~TUM~NOUS~ / 8 ~AC~S ,,7" __ E SPACES -- 8 SPACES ~ NEW ED~ CONCRETE SIDEWALK GN ~EE t EASEMENT =ER DOC.- NO. 208745,: ~ ~BI'r ; 5' PARIJqNG. [ SETBACK f 1(? BUIL~31NG ' SETBACt~ / / / / / llt ill/ iii / ;ili .. / 43 / PB~L/ Tree Removal Plan 22 Attachment 8 Hwy. 36 / ! / i c I F ~F"~--:'-Z 'J VIK}NG DRIVE E. FRONTAGE ROAD) COPE N S Lands.cape Plan 23 Attachment 9 TOP OF WALL ELEV: 894.0 PROPOSED COLORADO BLUE SPRUCE (6) B&:B, 2.5 iNCH CALIPER ISANTI DOGWOOD 24" HEIGHT (22) 2.5 GALLON POT ,: ~.~ ....................... -~ ~,7,%-~,--~ ~.-~[-- ~< ~ ....................... ~'~--~- ~ ~ ~ > ................ ~- ~--- ~__ ~ ....... _ ................ -~ ~ ~ ~ ~--- ~ ..... ~,- .......... -~- ~'~- [ ~_ ~ ~ ~ ~ ..... ~ ..... ,___ ~-~-- ~-- ~-- ~-- __~ .... ~>----- LOT SURFACE -- WALL ~TART 894 893 892 NORTH ELEVATION (LOOK NO SOUTH AT WALL) -- 220 FEET 891 890 889 888 887 886 885 884- ..... )883 882 881 880 x WALL 6' HIGH (VARIES) 10' 0 10' 0 EX-SS Retaining Wa;; ?_4 Attachment 10 , '-...' T Existing Elevations 25 Attachment 11 Proposed Elevation Attachment 12 S 27 Attachment 13 (~ ~LECTRtC,e,L PHOTOMETRIC PLAN 1 '=4.O'-0" N Outdoor Lighting Pla;. S 28 Attachment 14 Engineering Plan Review PROJECT: Schmelz Parking Lot Expansion PROJECT NO: REVIEWED BY: Erin Schacht and Chris Cavett Maplewood Engineering Department, February 24, 2003 Mr. John Sclunelz is proposing to expand one of the Countryside Motors buildings at 1180 Highway 36. It is also proposed that the parking lot be expanded to compensate for the loss of parking due to the building expansion. The parking lot expansion is proposed for the area just east and south of the Embers lot at 1200 Viking Drive. The proposed pond at the south end of the lot will treat drainage from the parking lot. From there it will outflow into the existing storm sewer on the vacated Cope Avenue right-of-way. The following comments should be addressed: Submit treatment calculations. Determine the Percentage of phosphorus and TSS removal for the NURP pond. City ordinance requires that the BMP's meet the phosphorus removal requirement of 60% and the TSS removal requirement of 80%. 2. what is the parking plan? Will there be parking on the south side of the pond or will that be a driving lane? Drive lane must be 24'-wide, (see related comment #6). Revise the plans 1;o accommodate vehicle protection from the pond. As shown, the plan is not acceptable. Suggestion: At a minimum, provide bollards with cable or chain. In addition, use landscaping to provide a visual barrier, (i.e.: shrubs and/or trees). (This includes along the north side, (Embers), of the pond). 4. Concrete curbing is required along all sides of the pond. 5. Obtain RWMWD approvals and permits. Obtain NPDES construction permit. Is the proposed storm sewer connected to the existing system? Plan is difficult to read in that area. Is there any reason not to tie into the existing storm sewer? Suggestion: · Connect to existing storm sewer, use an open radial MH grate if a redundant overflow inlet is desired. · Move driveway entrance over and widen to obtain a 24-foot drive aisle. Provide curb inlets/CB structures where concentrated flows will be located or armor slopes with rip rap and permanent soil stabilization blanket where necessary. Areas of concern that shall be addressed: · Flow coming off the end of the curb at the northeast side of the pond. · Flow coming off the Embers parking lot near the end of the retaining wall. · Other locations where flow may be concentrated. o Submit a landscape design plan for the pond. The pond shall be vegetated with native grasses w/Forbes. In addition, shrubbery and trees shall also be utilized around the upland perimeter of the pond. 9. Where will the cleanout be relocated? 29 Attachment 15 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REVISION RESOLUTION WHEREAS, John Schmelz applied for a conditional use permit revision to expand his nonconforming automobile repair and automobile sales (both located closer than the required 350 feet to residential property). The revision includes an addition to the Saab building and an expansion of the automobile sales/storage lot. WHEREAS, this permit applies to Countryside Motors Automobile Dealership at 1180 Highway 36 East. The legal description is: 'Existinq Dealership Le.qal Description: The west 105.00 feet of the east 135.00 feet of the north 30.00 feet of Block 10, Clifton Addition and vacated street accruing. The east 240.00 feet of Block 15, Clifton Addition, except the south 30.00 feet lying west of the east 135.00 feet thereof. Together with that part of vacated Cope Avenue accruing. The east 240.00 feet of that part of Block 16, Clifton Addition, lying southerly of State Trunk Highway Number 36. The west 110.00 feet of that part of Block 17, Clifton Addition, lying southerly of State Trunk Highway Number 36. The west 110.00 feet of Block 14, Clifton Addition, together with that part of vacated Cope Avenue accruing. The west 225.00 feet of east 255.00 feet of Block 10, Clifton Addition, tOgether with that part of vacated Duluth Street accruing, except the south 174.00 feet and except the north 30.00 feet thereof. Proposed Sales Lot Leqal Description: That part of east 114 feet of the west 400 feet of Block 17, lying south of the southerly right-of-way line of Trunk Highway 36 and the east 114 feet of the west 400 feet of Block 14, lying north of the south 128 feet; and the east 290 feet of the west 400 feet of the north 98 feet of the south 128 feet of Block 14, all in Clifton Addition, Ramsey County, Minnesota, subject to roads. WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit revision is as follows: 2~ On March 3, 2003, the planning commission recommended that the city council approve this permit. . On the city council held a public hearing. The city staff published a notice in the paper and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The council gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The council also considered reports and recommendations of the city staff and planning commission. 3O NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approved the above- described conditional use permit revision 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 run-off, vibration, general unsightliness, electrical interference or other nuisances. 5. The use would generate only minimal vehicular traffic on local streets and would not create traffic congestion or unsafe access on existing or proposed streets. 6. The use would be served by adequate public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, water and sewer systems, schools and parks. 7. The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services. 8. The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and scenic features into the development design. 9. The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 2. The construction of the proposed addition must be started within one year of city council approval or the approval for this addition shall end. The city council may extend this deadline for one year. 3. There shall be no vehicle access, except emergency vehicles, to or from Duluth Street. 4. Loading or unloading of motor vehicles on the public right-of-way is prohibited. 5. Automobiles can only be parked on designated paved surfaces. 6. The city council shall review this permit in one year. The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on 31 , ,2003. Attachment 15 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REVISION RESOLUTION WHEREAS, John Schmelz applied for a conditional use permit revision to expand his nonconforming automobile repair and automobile sales (both located closer than the required 350 feet to residential property). The revision includes an addition to the Saab building and an expansion of the automobile sales/storage lot. WHEREAS, this permit applies to Countryside Motors Automobile Dealership at 1180 Highway 36 East. The legal description is: Existing Dealership Le,qal Description: The west 105.00 feet of the east 135.00 feet of the north 30.00 feet of Block 10, Clifton Addition and vacated street accruing. The east 240.00 feet of Block 15, Clifton Addition, except the south 30.00 feet lying west of the east 135.00 feet thereof. Together with that part of vacated Cope Avenue accruing. The east 240.00 feet Of that part of Block 16, Clifton Addition, lying southerly of State Trunk Highway Number 36. The west 110.00 feet of that part of Block 17, Clifton Addition, lying southerly of State Trunk Highway Number 36. The west 110.00 feet of Block 14, Clifton Addition, together with that part of vacated Cope Avenue accruing. The west 225.00 feet of east 255.00 feet of Block 10, Clifton Addition, together with that part of vacated Duluth Street accruing, except the south 174.00 feet and except the north 30.00 feet thereof. Proposed Sales Lot Leqal Description: That part of east 114 feet of the west 400 feet of Block 17, lying south of the southerly right-of-way line of Trunk Highway 36 and the east 114 feet of the west 400 feet of Block 14, lying north of the south 128 feet; and the east 290 feet of the west 400 feet of the north 98 feet of the south 128 feet of Block 14, all in Clifton Addition, Ramsey County, Minnesota, subject to roads. WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit revision is as follows: On March 3, 2003, the planning commission recommended that the city council approve this permit. On the city council'held a public hearing. The City staff published a notice in the paper and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The council gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present wdtten statements. The council also considered reports and recommendations of the city staff and planning commission. 3o NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approved the above- described conditional use permit revision because: The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be in conformity with the City's Comprehensive Plan and Code of Ordinances. 2. The use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area. 3. The use would not depreciate property values. The use would not involve any activity, process, materials, equipment or methods of operation that would be dangerous, hazardous, detrimental, disturbing or cause a nuisance to any person or property, because of excessive noise, glare, smoke, dust, odor, fumes, water or air pollution, drainage, water run-off, vibration, general unsightliness, electrical interference or other nuisances. 5. The use would generate cmly minimal vehicular traffic on local streets and would not create traffic congestion or unsafe access on existing or proposed streets. The use would be served by adequate public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, water and sewer systems, schools and parks. 7. The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services. The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and scenic features into the development design. 9. The use Would cause minimal adverse environmental effects. Approval is subject to the following conditions: All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city. The director of community development may approve minor changes. The construction of the proposed addition to the Saab building must be started within one year of city council approval or the approval for this addition shall end. The city council may extend this deadline for one year. There shall be no automobile access, except emergency vehicles, to or from Duluth Street. 4. Loading or unloading of automobiles on the public right-of-way is prohibited. 5. Automobiles shall only be parked on designated paved or engineered porous surfaces. 6. The city council shall review this permit in one year. The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on ,2003. 31