Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/25/2003~oo ~ 2. 3. 4. 8. 9. 10. AGENDA MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD March 25, 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 Minutes a. February 25, 2003 b. March 11, 2003 Unfinished Business: None Scheduled Design Review: a. Van Dyke Village Townhomes - West Side of Van Dyke Street, North of County Road B b. Hillcrest Village Redevelopment Area (Mixed-Use Zoning District) Visitor Presentations: None Scheduled Board Presentations Staff Presentations: Representation at the April 14, 2003 City Council Meeting 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. 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. The chairperson will then ask the audience if there is anyone present who wishes to comment on the proposal. After everyone is the audience wishing to speak has given his or her comments, the chairperson will close the public discussion portion of the meeting. 5. The Board will then discuss the proposal. No further public comments are allowed. 6. The Board will then make its recommendations or decision. 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 I1. III. 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, Olson 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 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. VII. 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 th 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 Road 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 tt 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 t° 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 changing 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 Mr. Steele said he could not change the windows to patio doors and put any decks on this building. The reason is it could add over $1000 per unit to the project. This is work fore 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 ©lson 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 ti 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 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 and they spent a lot of money, because the city told them they had to. Their building is very nic 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 qualitv 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 ©lson 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 OIson 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 be, worked through. The only issue is, if the applicant wanted to appeal the CDRB 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 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 ao 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 a. There is no representation needed by the CDRB at the March 10, 2003, city council meeting. 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. I1. III. IV. Vw DRAFT MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, MARCH 11, 2003 CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Ledvina called the meeting to order at 6:07 p.m. because of video technical difficulties. ROLL CALL Matt Ledvina Craig Jorgenson Diana Longrie-Kline Linda Olson Ananth Shankar Present Absent Present Absent Present Staff Present: Shann Finwall, Associate Planner Lisa Kroll, Recording Secretary APPROVAL OF AGENDA Ms. Finwall said the applicant for the Van Dyke Village Townhomes would like to remove his proposal from the agenda this evening. Board member Shankar moved to approve the agenda with the change. Board member Longrie-Kline seconded. Ayes - Ledvina, Longrie-Kline, Shankar APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of the CDRB minutes for February 25, 2003. Board member Longrie-Kline moved to table approval of the minutes for February 25, 2003. Both board member Longrie-Kline and board member Shankar were absent from that meeting. Board member Shankar seconded. Ayes --- Ledvina, Longrie-Kline, Shankar UNFINISHED BUSINESS Sibley Cove Apartment Building - South side of County Road D, East of White Bear Avenue and West of Ariel Street Ms. Finwall said the CDRB tabled this item at the last CDRB meeting due to the concerns regarding the design of the apartments. Mr. David Steele, representing MWF Properties, has revised the building elevations and is now requesting design review approval for his proposed 80-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. Community Design Review Board Minutes 3-11-2003 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 the city council denied Mr. Steele's request for a land use change at the city council meeting March 10, 2003. However, Mr. Steele is proceeding with his design review in the hopes that the city council will reconsider his proposal. Ms. Finwall said the proposed building would be attractive and would have three stories above grade and an underground parking area. As proposed, the building would have an exterior of face brick, horizontal cement board siding on the first floor, horizontal vinyl siding on the second and third floors and scale shingles on the gable ends, and the roof would have asphalt shingles. The developer has proposed a mix of building colors - primarily earth-toned rusts and creams (red, brown and tan). Ms. Finwall said the revised elevation shows shingles on the gable ends as opposed to the horizontal siding. The addition of french or patio doors with metal railings on the outside of the units, 1" X 4" colored trim around the windows and doors, and more brick on the end elevations, extending brick to the third floor elevation. The revised plan also shows 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. However, the proposed plans do not show the south elevation with the underground garage door. (This building style, with the proposed materials and colors, should be compatible with and equal in quality to the buildings in the area, including the Birch Glen apartments.) Ms. Finwall said the proposed landscaping plan is a good start but needs additional work. It shows the developer planting at least 50 new, trees including red oaks, maple, ash, linde~ 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 landscaping plans show most of the site will be graded with the construction of the storm water pond on the southeast corner of the lot. However, it does not show any landscaping or ground treatment in the ponding area and the city should require the developer to provide a revised landscape plan that would include the landscaping treatments for the ponding area and for any rainwater gardens that the developer may be including on the site. Ms. Finwall said the applicant provided a site lighting plan 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 luminary 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. Ms. Finwall said 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 with 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 of adjacent properties to avoid nuisanoes. Ms. Finwall said staff is recommending that the developer install a six-foot-wide concrete sidewalk on the west side of Ariel .Street between the existing sidewalk north of Woodlynr, Avenue and the south property line of the daycare center. This sidewalk would provide ti residents of this building off-street pedestrian access to the shopping area and church to the south. A sidewalk along Ariel Street also would provide a pedestrian link to existing sidewalk along Woodlynn Avenue to the sidewalk along Ariel Street south of Woodlynn Avenue. Community Design Review Board Minutes 3-11-2003 Ms. Finwall said 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. Ms. Finwall said this site has commercial properties on three of.its sides, including an auto repair mall to the west and strip center to the south. Staff feels 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. With the revised plan the developer is showing a six-foot high wood fence to be located along the west side of the property. However, because of an existing easement on the south side of the property the applicant told Ms. Finwall 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. In addition, ithe developer is proposing planting gardens on the south side of the property for the use of the tenants in the building. Board member Shankar asked staff how the applicant intended to keep the garden properly cared for? Ms. Finwall said perhaps thecity should address that issue in the conditional use permit (CUP) with the applicant in the maintenance of the apartments. Chairperson Ledvina asked if staff could comment on the split vote on this proposal that was reviewed at the city council meeting March 10, 2003? Ms. Finwall said she was not present at the city council meeting but she understood two of the city council members voted against the proposed land use plan, which is required to construct an apartment. This property is zoned business commercial as well as limited business commercial. In order to construct the residential units, a land use change is proposed and with that a majority vote is required. There were concerns from an adjoining property owner for Birch Glen Apartments who expressed concerns with this proposal. The applicant is requesting design review in the hopes that the city council will reconsider his land use plan change in the near future. Chairperson Ledvina asked staff if the concern is related to the land use and not in the design? Ms. Finwall said the Mayor, who was one of the two dissenting voters, expressed concern that the CDRB had not approved the design review yet. Board member Longrie-Kline asked staff wasn't there a concern because of the change of use? Her concern is the CDRB is looking at the design and determining the mechanics of the design and then the applicant goes through the expense and the process just to find out the project can't be done. In her opinion, you have to change the use, before you can look at or approve the design. If the use is never going to be changed, then it doesn't matter what the design looks like because the use is the issue. Community Design Review Board Minutes 3-11-2003 4 Chairperson Ledvina said the charge of the CDRB is to review the design and the board should not sway them either way. Ms. Finwall said, keep in mind the approval of the design is not approval of the project, so even if the CDRB approves the design review tonight and the city council does not reconsider the CUP and the land use plan change, this is where the proposal would end. Ms. Finwall said city council member Kathleen Juenemann is in the audience and perhaps she could comment on that. Mr. David Steele, at 4807 Slater Court in Eagan, representing MWF Properties, addressed the board. He said they have on-site management that would care for the property. They will make sure the gardens are tilled and cleaned up in the fall. They have proposed to install the rainwater gardens on the property and would be working with Chris Cavett on that. He said they would install the eight-foot wide french balconies at a height of 48 inches instead of the code requirement of 42 inches in height for an added safety measure. He brought color samples to show the board of the materials they propose to use on the exterior of the building. The competitor across the street Birch Glen has asked for a level playing field. He said Sibley Cove Apartments are proposed at 40 feet in height at the top of the roof and Birch Glen Apartments is 38 feet in height. If part of what he is being judged on is what is across the street, Birch Glen has 72,000 square feet of green space verses Sibley Cove at 219,000 square feet of green space. Mr. Steele handed out photos of Birch Glen Apartments to the board so they could compare that building with his proposal for Sibley Cove Apartments. He feels Sibley Cove has achieved a better landscaping plan proposal, they would have mom green space, a nice garden area for the tenants, an architectural pleasing combination , building materials dressing up the exterior of the building and he thinks the Sibley Cove Apartment plan is comparable or maybe even better than the Birch Glen Apartments. Board member Longrie-Kline asked the applicant what the water source would be for the tenant gardens? Mr. Steele said whatever Mother Nature doesn't provide to the garden, the on-site management will sprinkle the garden. He said it is an additional service they will provide for the tenants. You can't provide the garden and not water it and take care of it. Just like they are going to provide a tot lot. They propose to put in a rubber mat on the tot lot to prevent injuries to the children. This rubber mat is about l~-inches thick and will be a cushioning for the children unlike wood chips that used to be used on playgrounds. Board member Shankar asked Mr. Steele if the heating and cooling units would be by heat pump? Mr. Steele said no the heating and cooling would be done by wall pack. The self-contained heating and cooling unit will be located in the corner of the living room or the bedroom. It will be dark colored, pre-finished aluminum, approximately 18 inches X 42 inches high. Board member Shankar stated that Birch Glen Apartments doesn't have wall packs on th,:, exterior of their building. Community Design Review Board Minutes 3-11-2003 Chairperson Ledvina asked if there was anybody else in the audience that wanted to speak regarding this proposal? Mr. Pat Flaherty, representing Birch Glen Apartments, at 3100 Ariel Street, Maplewood, addressed the board. He said he is opposed to this project. He was at the city council meeting the evening of March 10, 2003. Birch Glen Apartments and its representatives are not the only ones opposed to this proposal. There were neighboring businesses such as the Auto Mall, the strip mall, the Emerald Inn, and people in the residential area that were also opposed to this proposal. This land is in a commercial zone and the neighboring businesses did not want anything but commercial property to be built there. His concerns are more in the design itself of the building. Mr. Steele said you would barely see the rooftop of this building, but this building would be 40 feet tall. It will look like a big wall behind the commercial buildings on White Bear Avenue. He said it looks like Mr. Steele has done some things to improve the design of this building but there are still no decks, no bump outs and it is still a large L-shaped building. He doesn't see people building apartment buildings like this anymore. People build entrances to welcome people and bump outs on the buildings. Birch Glen Apartments were not allowed to be built as a large plain building. His company had to build a grander entrance to welcome people, and build bump outs to break up the expansion of the building. Sibley Cove does not have any of those elements on this proposed building design. Birch Glen Apartments was told by the city that they had to include those elements on the design of their building and he wants a level playing field. This building does not belong here. The Mayor had several issues with this building and one of the major issues was the land use change. Several neighbors saw Mr. Flaherty at the city council meeting on cable and they contacted him by telephone today. The concern that has come out in the last day or two is that the adjoining properties did not get notified regarding this proposal. He said the notification was sent out to the physical property addresses and not legal property addresses. Most of the other addresses were addressed to "Manager" at Amoco, "Manager" at Daycare Center and not addressed to the owners. Many of these are leased buildings and the building owners may not be agreeable to this proposal. He thinks a better attempt should have been made to notify the people that count. Board member Longrie-Kline was trying to clarify what Mr. Flaherty meant by "they just want a level playing field." Did he mean he wanted the applicant for Sibley Cove to spend more money on their building by putting more materials on the exterior of the apartment building, or did he mean he wanted Sibley Cove to put in architectural elements like bump outs on the building so it would look more like the design of Birch Glen Apartments? Mr. Flaherty said a developer can spend a lot of money on exterior improvements for a building this size but it will still look like a huge warehouse building. The expanse of this building is the size of a football field. He thinks the applicant should be required to put the bump outs on Sibley Cove just as Birch Glen was required to. Mr. Flaherty said other architectural elements would be things like a welcoming entrance to the building. With the expanded brick the applicant proposes to put on the building and other exterior enhancements, the building still looks like one large long building and it is not broken up in any way. He doesn't believe the Sibley Cove proposal is being held to the same standards that the city required of Birch Glen Apartments. Community Design Review Board Minutes 3-11-2003 6 Kathleen Juenemann, city council member at the City of Maplewood, addressed the board The city council members that voted against this were Marv Koppen and Mayor Bob Cardina The issues were the land use change and the final approved design plan. The land use plan change was something the city could consider in this case because the city has been talking about affordable housing and that is often used as a transition from commercial to residential. The city is talking about mixed use in the Hartford Development at the Hajicek property and possibly at the Hillcrest and Gladstone neighborhoods. Speaking as citizen, Kathleen Juenemann 721 Mount Vernon, she said, in the design phase of this proposal, there seems to be a very large difference of placement with the two buildings. Birch Glen Apartments is right on top of the street, so to be pleasing to the eye, staff was concerned with the building design and placement on the property. She said just as Mr. Flaherty had worked with staff for the design of Birch Glen Apartments, Mr. Steele has been working with staff for the Sibley Cove proposal. The Sibley Cove building would be more recessed or hidden from view in its location with the lot so she presumes the design advice from staff had to do with the placement of the buildings on the lots. Chairperson Ledvina said the changes in the design of the building are pretty dramatic from the first set of plans the board saw. He is pleased with the design changes. The prominence of the Birch Glen building was a big issue with the placement on Ariel Street. The Sibley Cove building does not have the same street presence that Birch Glen has. He thinks the natural vegetation will help isolate the views of the building, especially from the east and north. It is his opinion that the developer has listened to the board's comments as well as staff's comments and has made most of the changes to the proposed plans. Board member Longrie-Kline said she believes you can break up the expanse of a building with color, texture and the use of different materials and it would have every bit of an effect on the appearance and is just as costly as doing other architectural enhancements. She thinks they are two different styles of buildings. There is a lot of green space around the building, there will be revisions to the landscaping and she supports this proposal. Chairperson Ledvina said he would like to comment that perhaps the applicant and the city could consider the possibility of substituting the curb and gutter for the south portion of the parking lot and use a buffer strip to enable sheet-flow drainage to the grassy area. This may provide more of a buffering capacity for the storm water. Board member Longrie-Kline asked staff if the city has some type of agreement regarding the maintenance of a public garden, weeds and/or grass height? Ms. Finwall said as far as she was aware, the city has not had a public garden within an apartment development before, but the city could include a condition in the CUP that an approved maintenance agreement for the public garden is agreed upon by staff and the developer. Community Design Review Board Minutes 3-11-2003 Board member Shankar moved to approve the plans date-stamped,,-,,,.,,.,,~ ........ y ,.-,,'"" ,.,,,.,,,'~"""~ March 4, 2003, (site plan, landscape plan, grading and drainage plans and building elevations) for the Sibley Cove Apartments. The city bases this approval on the findings required by the code. The developer or contractor shall do the following: (changes are in bold and deletions have a strike through them). 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: 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 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) (d) 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. 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. (f) 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: Community Design Review Board 8 Minutes 3-11-2003 (a) Be approved by the removal. city engineer before site grading or tree (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. (c) Show no tree removal beyond the approved grading and tree limits. (d) Be consistent with the approved grading and landscape plans. (4) 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. (5) All the parking areas and driveways shall have continuous concrete curb and gutter except the south side of the parking lot where the developer should work with the city on the possibility of substituting curb and gutter with a buffer strip to enable sheet flow drainage, (6) 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. (7) 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 park of the site as recommended by the city engineer. (8) The developer shall install a six-foot-wide concrete sidewalk along Ariel Street between the existing sidewalk north of Woodlynn Avenue and the south property line of the daycare center. (9) A storm water management plan, including drainage and ponding calculations, for the proposal. (10) Make all the changes and meet all the conditions noted by the city engineer in the memo dated February 10, 2003. 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: Community Design Review Board 9 Minutes 3-11-2003 (1) As much of the existing vegetation (including large trees) remaining along the northern and eastern property lines (near the daycare center) as possible. (2) 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 flowering plants shall be those needing little or no maintenance. This is to reduce maintenance costs and to reduce the temptation of mowers to encroach into the pond. Specifically, the developer shall have the natural areas seeded with an upland mixture and lowland mixtures as appropriate. (3) The planting of native grasses and flowering plants around the proposed storm water pond 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 corner of the building. Submit revised building elevations to be approved by staff as follows: (1) south elevation (2) underground garage elevation f. ~ Get the necessary approvals and permits from the watershed district.' Submit a revised site lighting plan for the 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 property shield glare from the adjacent street right-of-ways and from adjacent properties. h. ~ The developer shall record the following with Ramsey County: (1) The documentation to combine the properties ihto 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. Have the Saint Paul Regional Water Services' (SPRWS) review and approve the proposed utility plans. The fire chief shall approve the access to the back (northeast side) of the building for firefighting needs. Community Design Review Board Minutes 3-11-2003 o tO k.j. 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 hay materials that are compatible with the building, and they shall have gates that are 100 percent opaque. I. t~. A letter of credit or cash escrow for all required exterior improvements. The amount shall be 150 percent of the cost of the work. m. ~. 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. Complete the following before occupying the building: a. Replace property irons that are removed because of this construction. b. Restore and sod damaged boulevards. c. Install reflectorized 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. d. Paint any rooftop mechanical equipment to match the uppermost part of the building. Screen all roof-mounted equipment visible from streets or adjace, property. (code requirement) e. 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 Ariel Street to match the driveways. g. Install and maintain an in-ground sprinkler system for all landscaped areas. h. Install continuous concrete curb and gutter along all interior driveways and around all open parking stalls. i. Install on-site lighting for security and visibility that follows the approved site lighting plan. All exterior 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. j. Install a six-foot-high solid screening fence along the west property line of th~ site. The location, design and materials of the fence shall be subject to city st~ approval. Community Design Review Board Minutes 3-11-2003 ko 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 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 to 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 by June 1 if the building is occupied in the fall or winter, or within six weeks of occupancy if the building is occupied in the spring or summer. The city receives an agreement that will allow the city to complete any unfinished work. 5. This approval does not include the signs. o All work shall follow the approved plans. minor changes. Commissioner Longrie-Kline seconded. The director of community development may approve Ayes- Ledvina, Longrie-Kline, Shankar The motion passed. VI. DESIGN REVIEW a. Kohl's Department Store Building Addition - Maplewood Mall Ms. Finwall said 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 drive lane around the addition and maintain the same traffic flow that currently exists. Ms. Finwall said parking compliance was a concern. The applicant has shown 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. Community Design Review Board Minutes 3-11-2003 ]2 Ms. Finwall said 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 th relocation of the westerly sign onto the new west elevation. 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. The lighting code states "if outdoor fixtures are replaced as part of any construction requiring a building permit, the fixture shall be upgraded to meet the requirements of this ordinance". Ms. Finwall said 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. Board member Longrie-Kline said she would have to abstain from voting in the Kohl's proposal. Because of her employment with Target Corporation, she reviews proposals for other Kohl's stores. Despite the fact this Kohl's store is not in her region, she said it could be a possible conflict of interest. Mr. Paul Baumgardt, and Mr. Tom McGannon, both engineers with Edwards & Kelcey at 7401 Metro Boulevard, Ste. 3430 in Edina, representing Kohl's, addressed the board. Board member Shankar moved to approve the plans date-stamped February 11, 2003, for the proposed building addition, wall signs, site plan changes and landscaping changes to Kohl's, the Maplewood Mall. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. Staff may approve minor changes. The applicant shall mak.e sure that any new or relocated outdoor lighting fixtures do not emit more than the allowed maximum of .4 foot-candles of light intensity at the property line. Board member Ledvina seconded. Ayes- Ledvina, Shankar Abstention - Longrie-Kline The motion passed. Countryside Motor's Saab Building Addition and Sales/Storage Lot Expansion - 1180 Highway 36 East Ms. Finwall said 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 8,610-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. Staff recommends approval of the proposal with several design conditions. Board member Shankar asked if staff looked at the existing building materials and the pre-cast concrete panels for compatibility and color? Community Design Review Board Minutes 3-11-2003 Ms. Finwall said no she had not. Chairperson Ledvina asked a representative of the applicant to address the board. Mr. John Larson with RSP Architects, 1220 Marshall Street NE in Minneapolis, representing the owner, and Mr. John Schmelz with Countryside Motors, both addressed the board. Mr. Larson reviewed the colors and materials that would be used on the exterior of the building with the board. Chairperson Ledvina asked Mr. Larson if this is a standard Saab building with standard parameters that one has to work with to unify the design? Mr. Larson said yes, Saab USA, Inc. sets the standards. Chairperson Ledvina asked Mr. Larson about the rooftop equipment and vents on this addition. Mr. Larson said the rooftop units would be on the service addition portion only. The existing roof will remain a standing seam metal roof but they are going to reconstruct it to achieve a better drainage. There are four roof-top units on top of the service addition and they feel with the height of the parapet wall being two feet above the roof and the roof sloping from west to east, the units will fall even farther below the wall. Part of those roof-top units will be screened fairly well by the parapet height and they are also required by the building official to Provide screening as required if those roof-top units don't meet the satisfaction of the city. Chairperson Ledvina said they would prefer that the rooftop units be located as close to the parapet walls to benefit the screening from the walls. Mr. William McCulhy, a Civil Landscape Engineer with Glen Rehbein Companies, representing the applicant John Schmelz, addressed the board. Their company was brought in to use the maximum amount of parking space on the property. They originally created an underground storage facility for the storm water rather than the ponding plan submitted to the board. The product is called the uni-ecosystem. It is a paving system that does not produce any runoff. It is a porous pavement system and it gives storm water the opportunity to sit within the structural layer of a parking lot surface. The pavement is sized so that you can design for certain storm events. The water is slowly released from this system before it infiltrates into the ground. Mr. Schmelz looked at the two costs of these systems and initially determined the uni- ecosystem was too costly. He wanted to share with the board, the applicant's reluctance to spend additional money on unneeded things, such as, a wrought iron fence, decorative brick or stone columns, an electronically controlled entry gate, a black vinyl coated chain-link fence, irrigation system, and additional landscaping. The applicant, Mr. Schmelz, feels his money would be better spent on his building and parking lot for his customers. He said the items mentioned above are nice if they were in a different setti.ng, but are more extravagant then he needs to have for his car dealership. Mr. Schmelz has now decided to go with the ecosystem. The reason he is doing this is to allow him to park more cars on his lot. The city will benefit from this because they will have a showcase parking lot. Also, here is a product that has never been used in the City of Maplewood and Mr. Schmelz is prepared to be the first. The watershed district has seen the benefits of this porous paving system and they have granted a grant towards the cost of this porous paving system. Community Design Review Board Minutes 3-11-2003 14 Mr. McCulhy said they don't know the conditions of this grant but the watershed district ha., allocated $20,000 towards the cost of installing this alternative paving system elsewhere. M McCulhy said this design has similarities to another project they did in White Bear Lake called the Cummings project. Mr. Schmelz has problems with some of the staff conditions, for instance having to find water services for the irrigation system. He said planting trees and additional landscaping could eventually cause problems. Trees can produce sap and the sap is difficult to get off the cars and can cause damage. Tree limbs can break off and land on cars and damage them. The applicant would like these conditions changed if possible. Board member Shankar asked what this paving system looks like? Mr. McCulhy said there is a gap that is ~ inch X l-inch long. He said once these paving stones interlock, it leaves cells the size of your thumb digit every couple inches and the water drains into them. This porous pavement system is very stable in northern climates. Two months ago he attended a seminar held by the Minnesota Irrigation Control Association on porous pavement systems and everybody in the storm water community was there to see it. The watershed district is making a statement by granting $20,000 towards this innovative porous pavement system for his client, John Schmelz. Mr. John Schmelz, 1180 Highway 36 East in Maplewood, owner and applicant for Countryside Motors, addressed the board. He showed the board some photos of what is currently on the property he purchased for his sales/storage lot. Mr. Schmelz said he wanted to show the board how he will improve the land 150%. Board member Longrie-Kline asked staff about the striping plan. Is it correct that the applicant only needs to strip the drive aisles and not the parking spaces? Ms. Finwall said Mr. Schmelz discussed his concerns with staff regarding the striping of the parking stalls. Staff directed the question to the Fire Marshal and he indicated that only the drive aisle itself in the parking lot would need to be 20 feet wide as opposed to the 24 foot in width as indicated in the staff report. Because of that, staff is not proposing that the parking spaces be striped at this time unless customer or employee parking is proposed in that lot, which staff understands it is not. Board member Longrie-Kline said she thinks the staff recommendation for the wrought iron fence, decorative stone columns, etc. is consistent in character with an upscale dealership. She certainly appreciates that the applicant is cleaning up the vacant lot but she also thinks that the conditions listed by staff are consistent with an upscale dealership and it would look nice around the property. She asked for clarification regarding the sap falling onto the cars from trees and doing damage. Mr. McCulhy said in the landscaping requirements, staff wanted additional landscaping on the east and west and there is already landscaping on the north. He said any tree that would get to a significant height could drip onto the cars. Board member Longrie-Kline asked if there could be trees planted that do not omit sap? Mr. McCulhy said there are varieties of trees that do not omit sap. Community Design Review Board Minutes 3-11-2003 Chairperson Ledvina said perhaps the applicant could work with staff to select the correct tree varieties to eliminate any sap problems from happening. Board member Shankar asked staff what was to the east of this property? Ms. Finwall said it is a combined business and a single-family house and another single-family house. Board member Shankar asked staff if the vinyl-coated fence would provide a better division between the lot and the single-family home rather than a chain-linked fence? Ms. Finwall said the city is approving the expansion of a non-conforming use in that this parking lot or sales/storage lot for automobiles is required by the city ordinance to be up to 350 feet from residential property. In this case, the applicant is proposing to come within 20 feet of residential properties. Because of that, staff feels there should be mitigating conditions that help shield and protect this commercial business from the surrounding single-family homes. Staff feels that the black-vinyl-coated chain link fence is an enhancement over a regular chain link fence with barbed wire on the top. Chairperson Ledvina said he agrees with Ms. Longrie-Kline's comments regarding the fencing. He doesn't think it should be required to have an electronically controlled gate and could be eliminated. In his opinion, the chain-link fence in front of the dealership should also be replaced. He thinks the front of the Saab building has a nice appearance and when you see the chain-link fence, it has no curb appeal. He would like to add to the staff recommendation the removal of the chain-link fence in front of the dealership and replacing it with the same type of fence required in front of the sales/storage lot. In his opinion, there is quite a lot of money invested in the building. The addition of architectural elements, landscaping and an architecturally compatible fence is a small expense compared to what is being done to the site. Mr. Larson said the client understands the need to have a nice appearance from the street. The client does not want nor does he require the need to have fencing in the front of the building. With a different building, that may be appropriate, but not in this situation. He said the client thinks this requirement is a bit over the top. Requiring fencing does allow the client's customers to see the cars. Chairperson Ledvina said he appreciates the opinions that were shared but the city is looking for something with a higher standard for the property. The changes that have already been made are very nice and should continue with the staff recommendations. He is willing to entrust the details to be worked out with the applicant and staff regarding those elements. Community Design Review Board Minutes 3-11-2003 ]6 Board member Shankar moved to approve the plans date-stamped January 24, 2003, for the proposed Saab building addition and sales/storage lot expansion to Countryside Moto~ automobile dealership at 1180 Highway 36 East. Approval is subject to the property owner doing the following: (changes or additions are in bold and deletions have a strike through) Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. Signs shown on the site plan and building elevations are not 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: a. Final grading, paving, drainage, utility and erosion control plans. These plans shall meet the requirements of the city code and the city engineer. b. Address all of the concerns (mentioned below) to the satisfaction of the St. Paul Regional Water Services: (a) Verify location of all water mains within the property. (b) Verify that the necessary easements exist for all water mains. (c) Relocate the proposed training wall and subsequent grading for the new sales/storage lot so that it is no closer than 15 feet from the centerline 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) drive aisles that are at least 20 feet in width. The plan must include (5) A revised site plan showing: a) that the new sales/storage lot is setback 20 feet from the eastern residential property line. b) that the existing fence in front of the Saab building be removed and replaced with a fence compatible to the required north sales/storage lot fence described below. Community Design Review Board Minutes 3-11-2003 17 (6) Elevations of the proposed fence and gate. The north elevation should include a ..... u,,, :,,.,n ...... decorative fence with brick, e~ stone or pre-cast concrete columns,~.'~"'~.,~ an .............. ~ ................ = ............. ~ =~,,-, 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 subject to the approval of staff. The fence may be up to a height of 8 feet. (7) A revised landscape plan to include: (a) Trees and shrubs to be planted in front of the sales/storage lot, along the frontage road. (b) A row of columnar trees (narrow trees such as arborvitae or lindens) between Ember's parking lot and the new sales/storage lot. (c) ,--..+.._..__ +k.. rc, w "' Replacing the Colorado blue spruce with Black hills spruce and 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). (d) 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. (e) All landscaped areas, excluding landscaping within the pond, must have an underground irrigation system. (8) 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. (9) A cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit for all required exterior improvements. The amount shall be 150 percent of the cost of the work. d. Complete the following before occupying the sales/storage lot: (1) Install all bituminous or engineered porous surface and curb and gutter. (2) Stripe all drive aisles. (3) Install the approved fence. (4) 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. Community Design Review Board Minutes 3-11-2003 18 (5) Install all required exterior lights. e. Complete the following before occupying the Saab building: (1) Install all required exterior improvements. (2) Screen all roof-mounted equipment visible from streets or adjacent residential property. (all roof-top equipment and vents should be located as close to the parapet walls as possible at the highest elevation). (3) Ensure all trash dumpsters are enclosed in a trash enclosure, subject to staff approval, if there would be outside trash storage. f. If any required work is not done, the city may allow temporary occupancy if: (1) The city determines that the work is not essential to the public health, safety or welfare. (2) The above-required letter of credit or cash escrow is held by the City of Maplewood for all required exterior improvements. The owner or contractor shall complete any unfinished exterior 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 spring or summer. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. Board member Longrie-Kline seconded. Ayes - Ledvina, Longrie-Kline, Shankar The motion passed. This item will go to the city council on Monday, March 3i, 2003. VII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS None. VIII. BOARD PRESENTATIONS Board member Shankar was unable to attend the city council meeting so Ms. Finwall gave the report that Ohlson Landscaping was approved and the 2002 CDRB Annual Report was approved by the city council. a. CDRB Representation needed at the city council meeting for March 31, 2003. Board member Shankar will be the CDRB representative at the March 31, 2003, city coun, meeting. Items to be discussed will be Countryside Motors Sales/Storage Lot Expansion. There is a possibility that the Sibley Cove Apartment proposal may be reconsidered as well. Community Design Review Board Minutes 3-11-2003 19 - IX. STAFF PRESENTATIONS Ms. Finwall said she sent an e-mail thanking Mr. John Carmody for the Sustainable Building Presentation he gave a few weeks ago. Ms. Finwall said she included some information on the City of Oakdale's Green Building Program in the board's packet. This is a volunteer program where they try to promote more environmentally friendly and sustainable building issues. X. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m. 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 primarily 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.) Reques~ 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 map 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, dudng 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 gross 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 orderly 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 diffedng 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 buffering and separation. The housing plan also has policies about housing diversity and quality that the city should consider with this development. They are: 2 Promote a variety of housing types, costs and ownership options throughout the city. are to meet the life-cycle needs of all income levels, those with special needs and nontraditional households. These 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 artedal 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 putting 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 concems 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 for 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 concem 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 tdps 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 stories above grade and each unit would have an attached garage. As proposed, the buildings would have an exterior of horizontal steel siding with cedar trim 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 Chris 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 5 may overflow out of these gardens into the existing city storm water system. The city will not need drainage and utility easements over the ponding areas, as they will be pdvate ponding 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 White 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 vadety 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 lot. 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 District 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. 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 city'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. (f) 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: (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. (4) 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. (5) All the parking areas and driveways shall have continuous concrete curb and gutter. (6) 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. (7) 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 for this part of the site as recommended by the city engineer. (8) 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. l0 Submit a lawn-irrigation plan to staff showing the location of sprinkler heads. Submit a certificate of survey for all new construction. 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 mowedareas 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 flowering plants shall be those needing little or no maintenance. This is to 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. fo 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 fixtures 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. mo 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. 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 grids, 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). 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 reflectorized 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 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. 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 exterior 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. 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: a. 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 shall be completed by June 1 if the building is occupied in the fall or winter, or within six weeks of occupancy if the building is occupied in the spring or summer. c. The city receives an agreement that will allow the city to complete any unfinished work. 5. This approval does not include the signs. 6. All work shall follow the approved plans. approve minor changes. The director of community development may 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 tnuch traffic, more people, cars, depreciation of home value, loss of wildlife, seclusion and privacy. (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) 3_4 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, NAPA 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:kr/secl 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 Chris 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. 17 Attachment 2 ~AV~. AV~. AVE A'~- (22) ~O~ AV~ ~,. ~ NORTH 1700' AVE. S. AVE. NORTH LOCATION MAP 18 I ~_~.C R-3(H) '~ r._M.1 i i~"il ~iin _ ~" ~ ! '"'"'~' "~-- ~ R-2 I __ _~ , ..~.._,= I -- :''~ 1"' 1.::':;.,:,;. BC LEGEND "' BC = BUSINESS COMMERCIAL LBC -- LIMITED BUSINESS COMMERCIAL SITE LAND USE MAP (EXISTING) Attachment 4 R-3(H) ~ . U-1 R-: 1 R-1 R~(M) R-2I._ I LEGEND. mi ~ ~31 R-3(M) = RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM DENSI~ ' ~ ' R-3(H) = RESIDENTIAL HIGH DENSI~ ~ R-1 = SINGLE DWELLINGS - J BC = BUSINESS COMMERCIAL LBC = LIMITED BUSINESS COMMERCIAL SITE LAND USE MAP (PROPOSED) 1766 1797 2303 759 75 -- I..~R~ AVE-E -- ~ .. / / / / 17~~1~ 1774 / / // // .; // / / / // / // ~ ~ BLEACHER,S // ~ . PROJECT SITE o 0 0' NAPA 0 21~ 0 .. OASIS EMMA'S P~CE COUNTY ROAD B E 1810 0 Attachment 18~0 AREA MAP 2241 21 A~snrhm~n~j U-HAUL BLEACHER'S ;TOBODY SHOP NAPA(~) I EMMA'S PLACE ~-- - - /-4--- ~:.~-,' ,--zL~ --T- z. ~----- ."~-_----~ _.-..~ E~ 2194 ~_ .~! __,~..~,, __~ 2182 coUNw R~3"~ 3,G PROPERTY LINE I ZONING MAP 22 Attachment 7 SURVEY FOR: BRUCE MOGREN (oooowu.) ...... ~" ~ ~~-2-~--~"o~ v~.~ ~ ~ .... .., _ ............................................... ~, , . ss~ ..... . - I ..' ,,' -~ ~~ .......... ~, PARCEL 3'¢.~'~ e- - e- ' ,,' ~ ~ . Porcel 2: , Attachment 8 SITE PLAN 24 Attachment PLANTING SCHEDULE W n~ 6 UNITI~I ~ ~ 6 UNITI,I, m 2~r 2--A 7-A 5--A Attachment (GOODWILL) EX. Im'~ SURFACE KINDER KARE INSTALL DRAINAGE MANHOLE W~T TAP EX~S~NG WA'rER INSTALL 6' GAT~ VAL~: (SIZE UNKNOWI~, CHECK ST, PAUL WA~[R INSTALL MANHOLE OVER Attachment ll BUILDING ELEVATIONS 27 Attachment 12 BUILDING ELEVATIONS Attachment i~IINDOI~I ON STREET ~1~1~ ARC~Nl~T Bulletin No. Dote: 2/21/0~ 29 FEB 2 ~ 2003 Attachment 14 ()~ FLCX:)R PLAN ~/e' - ~'-o' FLOOR PLANS 30 Attachment 15 Memo To: cc'." Date." / Mr. Ken Roberts ~ Deputy Chief John Banick]]"b Chief Dave Thomalla 2/21/2003 VAN DYKE VILLAGE - Van Dyke north of Emma's Place FEB 2 R E C E I V [ 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 turn 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 1998-2002. 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 Community Center, local businesses, and the entire neighborhood) 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 already 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 garden 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 show 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 shifting 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 shining 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 lO-feet between the main and the corner 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 fi-om 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 main. 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 FEB 2 1 2003 profitability that you are worried about? IF THE SPACE COULD ADEQUATELY ACCOMMODATE THE EXTRA NUMBER OF PEOPLE, I~E C l~] V 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, trucks, 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 rules 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_~.D.~--~ 1 GOING TO DO TO ENSURE THAT THE KIDS IN THESE UNITS ARE SUP~~(~T~? \_ 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 WILL 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 headng notice in the Maplewood Review and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The planning commission gave everyone at the headng, 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: 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 near a collector street, being between two aderial 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 traffic 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 corner 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 Taylor'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 Laude 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. 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. o 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 sitelqs 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 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 city'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. 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 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 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 properly managed. 10.The city council shall review this permit in one year. The Maplewood City Council approved this resolution on ,2003. DRAFT MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA MONDAY, MARCH 3, 2003 a. Van Dyke Village Town houses (Van Dyke Street, north of County Road B) Mr. Roberts said 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. This development, called Van Dyke Village, would be for work force housing for Iow and moderate- income families. There would be on-site management to help monitor and run the property. Mr. Roberts said the proposal would have four, six-unit townhouse buildings. Each town house would have a one car attached garage and a patio area. There also would be 30 open parking spaces. The buildings would have exteriors of horizontal-lap siding with cedar trim boards. Mr. Roberts said 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. Mr. Roberts said 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 tr., 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. Mr. Roberts said many of the neighbors who contacted him expressed concerns about the proposed housing and the residents who would live there. Work force housing 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. Mr. Roberts said 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. Mr. Roberts said as a note of comparison, Emma's Place is supportive housing. This is housing for persons with many needs and support services. This may be 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. Mr. Roberts said a concern of some of the neighbors is unsupervised children hanging around the neighborhood. The neighbors told him 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. Mr. Roberts said 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. Commissioner Pearson said he does not see anything on the plans for a storm shelter, he asked what those residents would do if there was a tornado? Mr. Roberts said he did not know if the applicant was required to have a storm shelter. He said as an example, you can build slab on grade for a townhome and not be required to have a storm shelter. Mr. Roberts said maybe the applicant, Mr. Mogren would like to answer that. Commissioner Trippler said in the Comprehensive Plan on page 44, it shows the lots as high- density multiple dwelling. Mr. Roberts said he had received Mr. Trippler's message earlier in the day and he checked into that. That is an error in the Comprehensive Plan. It should be shown as medium density, the red coloring did not come out correctly. Commissioner Trippler asked staff if the Comprehensive Plan should read medium density all the way down to County Road B then? Mr. Roberts said correct. Commissioner Dierich asked staff if this proposal was going to be rental property? Mr. Roberts said yes. Commissioner Dierich said on page 32 of the Comprehensive Plan R-3 (M) says you can go to seven units per acre. She asked if any zoning changes were necessary? Mr. Roberts on page 33 of the Comprehensive Plan the chart breaks it down by the different types of units. On the townhome line, the third line down that is six units per acre, the seven units per acre is for manufactured homes. Commissioner Dierich asked staff if they went to a higher density could Mr. Mogren increase the density if staff changes this to R-3 (H)? Mr. Roberts said no, Mr. Mogren could not increase the density.' He said if this is approved by the city council, the commission would be approving a PUD and the PUD has a specific site plan with 24 units on it. Commissioner Rossbach asked staff if it takes 4 city council votes for a PUD and for a zone change it takes 5 city council votes? Mr. Roberts said it takes 3 city council votes for a PUD and 4 city council votes for a comprehensive plan change. Commissioner Rossbach said he is concerned that the city is selling property to a developer and then working with the developer to develop a plan, all before it ever becomes public. He said he would like to know more how that process works. Mr. Roberts said it's varied from site to site and project to project. An example would be the lots that were sold on Burke Circle and now the homes are being built that were reviewed last year by the planning commission. The city council made the decision to sell the lots, they put a plan together and got the property prepared and the street rebuilt as part of the English Street project. It was a sealed bid put out for any developer or buyer to buy the lots. Whoever had the high bid that met the requirements were awarded the bid. In this case, it was a matter of working with staff, Ramsey County and trying to find a developer that the city had a comfort level to develop a plan for Iow to moderate income housing. The city was bound to do such a project because the city bought the property from Ramsey County at a reduced price because the city had made a commitment to build the Iow to moderate-income housing. Because of that, the city was trying to find a developer that could work with Ramsey County and their funding and financing requirements and that had a track record with the city. Mr. Roberts said he did not know if there were other developers contacted or not, but Mr. Mogren could speak about the history regarding this. The other development that will be handled similarly will be the Larpenteur Avenue Redevelopment Area Project. Commissioner Rossbach asked what the density was for Emma's Place? Mr. Roberts said the density for Emma's Place is just under 6 units per acre. Commissioner Pearson said in purchasing this land from Ramsey County, would their requirements have allowed an R-1 (S) zoning in that area for owner occupied? Mr. Roberts said he thinks the only stipulation was for Iow to moderate-income housing. Commissioner Trippler said he is concerned about having one-car garages. He said hardly anybody only has one car. He said if most of the people have two cars there would not be enough parking for any visitors. He asked where do you foresee the overflow parking would end up? Mr. Roberts said there is enough room in front of the garage door for a car to be parked outside the garage, which was not included in the outside parking calculations and one car parked in the garage. Plus the additional 30 parking spaces for visitors above and beyond the parking spots in the driveway. Commissioner Mueller said there are many single-family homes that only have a one-car garage plus the one parking spot in their driveway and they do fine with that space. Chairperson Fischer said she did not find a condition referring to the addition of a sidewalk on thi,,. property. Mr. Roberts said the sidewalk is listed as a condition for the CDRB to act on. If the planning commission wanted to add a condition stating that, it would be best inserted on page 8 of the staff report, item 3. under the engineering approval as item c. Chairperson Fischer asked the applicant to address the commission. Mr. Bruce Mogren, residing at 10116-67th Lane North in Grant City, the applicant for Van Dyke Village, addressed the commission. He said they don't have an issue with the sidewalk. Clear addresses are a great idea and they will do that. He has a telephone call into the Assistant Police Chief to join the crime-free multi-house organization. He thinks that would be a very positive thing for this development. His cousin is working with him on finalizing the landscaping requirements. There are other changes sent out by staff that the applicant has already complied with. They are asking for the additional two units over the density over the proposed densitY. They chose to go with a mixture of two and three bedroom units. They looked at a mixture of three and four bedroom units. He has worked with the architect and these plans have been built in the past and have proven to be very effective. He said he likes that they have two stories in the middle and the single level on the ends. Mr. Mogren thinks architecturally it is more attractive laid out this way. He said regarding the issue about a storm shelter, he would ask his architect about that. He said this is 75% of the units are for work force housing and 25% of the units are for market rate rental. Commissioner Dierich asked Mr. Mogren if he was considering having the single level units handicapped accessible? Mr. Mogren said what ever the building inspector requires is what he has proposed at this time. Commissioner Dierich said she would strongly encourage Mr. Mogren to think about building the handicapped accessible units. Mr. Mogren said he checked with the architect and four units will be handicapped accessible. He has already received one telephone call from a person in a wheel chair with spina-bifida who is getting married this fall and has requested a handicapped accessible unit if this proposal gets approved. Commissioner Rossbach said in recent actions this commission has recommended in two different properties that the development be within the existing density that is allowed on the lot. He would like to hear an explanation about what it is about this property that has changed since the city has put the R-3 (M) designation on it that would warrant it now being able to support a higher density. Mr. Mogren said it looks like it is currently zoned business commercial. He asked if it is the law that it has to change to medium density? Mr. Roberts said business commercial by conditional use permit would allow multiple-family housing the question becomes the density. What Mr. Rossbach is saying is the current plan allows medium density up to 6 units per gross acre. Commissioner Rossbach said what he was asking was what has changed in the city since the city has determined that the density that is currently on the property went into effect what has changed to make it so now that property can support a higher density then what was put on it originally? Mr. Mogren said sometimes there are mitigating circumstances in this particular case when you're taking a property in one zoning and putting it into another zone. There are some amenities with this particular design and they are not going with all large units. They are going with two and three bedrooms instead of three and four bedrooms. That is his request. The other reason he wants the additional units is because of the on-site management. This makes it more affordabl6 to have the on-site management; even at that it is very expensive. He knows it impacts the neighborhood to have the additional units but it takes years to pay for the on-site management. He would be co-managing these units and if the manager is not there to handle a problem he can send over one of the eight people that work for him. Because he works so close and because he has 260 senior housing units in the area is one of the reasons this area is so attractive to him. Commissioner Mueller asked Mr. Mogren what work force housing rent would be? Mr. Mogren said he would like Todd Urness to answer that question. Mr. Todd Urness, 2630 Countryside Drive West Orono, addressed the commission. He said 75% of these proposed units will be work force housing and they have restrictions. The rent for work force housing will be $760 for a two-bedroom unit and $870 for three bedrooms. The other 25% of these units will have no restrictions and their rent will be higher. Commissioner Mueller asked why these are rental units and not units for sale? He asked if that was an arrangement with Ramsey County or is it just Mr. Mogren's decision to have these units for rent instead of to own? Mr. Urness said both answers are correct. To make it affordable for sale is very difficult if not impossible. These are very nice rental units proposed. They have attached single car garages, in-house heat and air conditioning units and in-house washer and dryer. Compared to a sharec large laundry room or no laundry room, one building control for heat and air conditioning and having no garages available only a parking lot to park in. Commissioner Rossbach asked staff if they know the vehicle capacity of White Bear Avenue in the proposed area and what is the current and projected traffic count? Mr. Ahl said the 1998 ADT north of County Road B traffic count is 28,000 and the traffic count for 2020 is 39,900. The typical capacity of a road with that many drive lanes and turning lanes such as that of White Bear Avenue is 45,000 ADT. Commissioner Monahan-Junek she asked Mr. Mogren the size of the tot-lot on page 26 in the staff report? Mr. Mogren said he is not sure of the size of the tot lot yet. He is going to get together with the playground installer and Bruce Anderson from the Parks and Recreation Department for input before a final plan can be completed. Commissioner Monahan-Junek said the reason she is asking is because there have been some concerns voiced regarding kids running loose at Emma's Place. She said if there was more space within the housing area the children could be contained in their own areas instead of running around outside the commons area. Younger kids use the tot lot but the older kids need someplace to be as well, this may help alleviate the problem somewhat. The following people spoke regarding the Van Dyke Village Town houses: 1. John Glasow at 2271 Craig Place in Maplewood. He said Van Dyke Street cannot handle the traffic and you are just going to add to the traffic problems. A few blocks away they are building nine town homes on a larger piece of land then what this is. The Maple Hills town homes that are being built off Larpenteur Avenue, the density was reduced because they were afraid of the increased traffic on Larpenteur Avenue because it is only two lanes. You are increasing the density here and it is uncalled for. He proposes the city change this area to nine senior cottages or maybe storage garages. This area cannot handle the traffic increase. Putting in 24 town homes is way out of line. People making wages of $31,000 - $48,000 can afford a much nicer town home then what you are proposing here such as the nine town homes down the street (Dearborn Meadows). Driving in a funeral procession moves faster then driving on White Bear Avenue and you are going to add to the congestion problem. In the spring during the city's clean up day at the Maplewood Community Center you cannot drive down Van Dyke Street for three hours or longer. 2. Pat Myckleby at 2220 Craig Place in Maplewood. She has lived in this city all of her life. She does not like the way people get informed of proposals in Maplewood. She knows the rule is within 350 feet but feels this is not a large enough area to notify people. She lives on Craig Place and they have a group home on that street that none of the residents were notified of. There is also a homeless shelter. Then Emma's Place was built. She spoke to the city council and she was told it was going to be a place like Van Dyke Village, town homes for work force housing. It ended up being for people with drug and alcohol problems. It is just troubled people and kids causing problems and crime all over the neighborhood. She does not think people are going to want to rent these town homes because they are next to Emma's Place. There is crime and problems there and she thinks it is sad what is happening to this community. She hears Mayor Cardinal won an award for affordable housing in Maplewood. Big deal, how much are the people supposed to take? There are too many of these types of homes in the area. It would be okay if there were good and decent people that didn't steal, commit crimes, throw trash in our yards, cause problems on the bus, harass the children and steal things from them. But currently the kids can't even walk in that area without being harassed. 3. Jeff Ruebel at 1849 County Road B East in Maplewood. He has a problem with Emma's Place and the bad element that is already there and he is afraid it is going to feed into the Van Dyke Village town homes. He thinks that whole area will be nothing but trouble. He is also concerned about the traffic in the area. The crime has increased significantly. Cars race up and down Van Dyke Street and County Road B. He can't believe the police department said in the staff report that the police calls haven't increased significantly since Emma's Place was built. Since October 2001 he personally has called the police 25 times and has a list at home. He has spoken to Chief Thomella personally and Chief Thomella knows Jeff by name he has called so many times. There is too much housing in that area. He thinks if you put in a house for Habitat for Humanity the people would take more pride in their homes. In North St. Paul there is a habitat home and it is very well taken care of and the lawn is meticulous. They own the property and respect the property. Renters tend to not care about the property because they don't own it. If you put in 24 units he thinks half of them should be owned instead of rented. 4. Gary Olsen at 2330 Maple Lane in Maplewood. He does not live in the neighborhood but he appreciates Mr. Mogren's efforts to put in work force housing. He thinks it would be a nice addition to the neighborhood and the community. Work force housing is for teachers, nurses, policemen and women. He hopes the planning commission will support this proposal. 5. Jeanine Moreno at 2272 Craig Place in Maplewood She is the grand watch block captain for the area of five blocks. She hears complaints from the neighbors. Emma's Place is not responsible for everything that has been happening but it seems like since they moved in the crime has increased a lot. The children are afraid to walk to school, they are afraid to ride the bus and the kids are being harassed. There was the meth clinic they had to put up with, the group home, and Emma's Place. This is supposed to be a family community. It is just a community where kids are afraid. There is a nursing home up the street and the residents walk the streets daily around that area. With the increased traffic it could be dangerous for those residents. She can't believe the police department says the calls have not increased because she gets a monthly report and what the police department is reporting is not true. 6. Maggie Chalkline at 1863 East County Road B in Maplewood. She heard the reason Mr. Mogren wanted the additional two units was so he could have onsite management and if that is true, she thinks that is a good idea. She would like the city to consider closing the north half of Van Dyke Street completely. It is a traffic hazard as it is now. A lot of the traffic on Van Dyke Street is from the people trying to avoid going through the stoplights on White Bear Avenue and they cut through on Van Dyke Street onto County Road B East. This would slow down the traffic and it would be open only to the residents that live there. 7. Art Engstrom at 2525 Highwood Avenue in Maplewood. He owns the Goodwill Store on White Bear Avenue to the north of this property. He has seen this piece of property sit for many many years. At one time he was interested in purchasing this property but he was made aware it would cost a considerable amount to dig out the peat and put the fill in and the expense would be monumental. Here is a developer who has a good reputation in the city and an outstanding citizen in the community and he wants to build this development. There is no economic way that by building nine senior cottages in this area. Mr. Engstrom said no one would attempt to pay that kind of a bill and it would be a losable proposition. Putting rental garages in that area would be too costly. This would improve the situation to the south that many people have complained about. He supports this proposal. 8. Connie Launderville at 2194 Van Dyke Street in Maplewood. She thinks Mr. Mogren has done an excellent job on his homework and she sees nothing wrong with this proposal. Her problem is more of a social issue from Emma's Place, which has created hardships in the neighborhood. When she walks out into her yard she sees litter everywhere and she has to pick it up. The residents at Emma's Place are loud, there are no activities for the children to do and they go out into the neighborhood and cause problems. Her grandchildren cannot even walk around the pond without being harassed by children from Emma's Place. There are school bus issues with the kids from Emma's Place. The kids riding the bus are harassed by kids living at Emma's Place at the bus stop aswell as on the bus. They steal things from the other kids, they knock backpacks off of the kids, they take kids books and throw them in the aisles on the buses etc. and now the kids don't even want to ride the buses anymore. She thinks the renters at Van Dyke Village will find out it will not be a nice place to live next to. There will be issues that will have to be dealt with daily. She knows Mr. Mogren will do a real good job on his part but she is concerned about his renters living next to Emma's Place. Commissioner Mueller said it sounds like the issue is Emma's Place and not really this proposed development. He asked if the city thought about doing something about the problems at Emma's Place? It sounds like there are many problems the neighbors deal with which will directly affect this proposed development. Mr. Roberts said he has not heard any specific actions or directions that the city council wants city staff to take with Emma's Place or its management. Through the testimony tonight and when it goes to the city council meeting, the city staff may get some direction regarding these problems. He knows the police department has been working with the staff at Emma's Place but he does not know if they have been successful. Until direction is given from the city council he is not aware of anything that can be done. When the CUP at Emma's Place comes up for review, some of these issues can be looked at. Kids acting badly on the bus and kids loitering and stealing are not land use issues. Mr. Roberts said these are not things the city council can put control on. There has to be parental involvement and management involvement. A lot of the issues that are being discussed here probably go back to management and the tenants. If there are bad people living at Emma's Place, then those people should be evicted. Commissioner Dierich said she is concerned about rental property verses ownership property. It seems this neighborhood has been hit harder then others and she is concerned about this. Three weeks ago there was discussion about the density and a setback and community property for the Highwood Farms development. She agrees with the residents that there needs to be more consistency. There is great land left in Maplewood and there is not much of it left. Whether it is work force housing or not it needs to be quality housing and it needs to be a quality neighborhood, She has a problem lowering the density for one end of town in Maplewood and not for the other. Her daughter just bought a town home with the same payment of $800 plus dollars a month with the same amenities and she does not know why these can't be owner occupied units. Commissioner Dierich said it would help the tax structure in Maplewood in the long run. She would like to see the neighborhood input taken into consideration for this proposal. Mr. Mogren should be held to the same standards as the other developers in the city such as the situation in south Maplewood. Commissioner Pearson said the density is too high here and the use is wrong for the area. A better transition from commercial to R-1 is R-S single-family housing with smaller lots. It would be affordable and owner occupied and a better solution for the neighborhood, He will not be supporting this proposal. Commissioner Rossbach moved to deny the resolution on pages 36 of the staff report. This resolution would change 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 planning commission is making 'this recommendation because: (changes are in bold and deletions have a strike through them), a. The density is too high. b. The type of development is not the best choice for the tranSition. c. The existing land use designation would be a better fit for the neighborhood, Commissioner Pearson seconded. Ayes- Desai, Dierich, Monahan-Junek, Pearson, Rossbach, Trippler Nays - Fischer, Mueller Chairperson Fischer asked if it was the consensus to not make a recommendation or to recommend denial for the CUP? Planning commission members said that is correct. Chairperson Fischer said she did not feel adding the additional two units above what is currently allowed would be destructive to the neighborhood and if it would allow on-site management to the development she would be in favor of it. Commissioner Mueller said adding the additional units are not a problem for him. The motion to deny was approved. Commissioner Rossbach said his opinion is that the city needs to review the PUD ordinance as a whole. It is being used on small lots to get around rezoning which is a tougher way to go and requires feWer votes from the city council. The zoning for the property should be changed, you are not combining uses. It should be done in assistance to develop pieces of property that had unique circumstances. He feels that PUD's are being asked for too often and being asked for the wrong reasons. Commissioner Trippler said he does not have a problem with the development. He has a problem with constantly giving variances to the rules and regulations. It is pushing the envelope just a little more. He is certainly not recommending the commission never grant variances. He asked what the purpose was to push it to two additional units. The property is already zoned R-3(M). If the developer came in and said they wanted to put in 21 or 22 units on the property he would have agreed to it. But developers want to push the limit just to see how much more then can get. You need to be consistent, if you are going to apply a standard to one part of the city it needs to be applied to all parts of the city. If the developer wants to come back and take 3 units out he would say great. Commissioner Mueller said the planning commission has always had people come before the commission and ask for changes. And the planning commission decides if it is a good or bad thing. Follow the rules oryou won't get approved. We have always said bring your proposal to us and we will take a look at it and see if we will agree to it or not. This item goes to the city council on March 31 or April 14, 2003, and staff will be sending out a notice when that is determined. MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: LOCATION: DATE: Richard Fursman, City Manager Shann Finwall, Associate Planner Hillcrest Village Design Standards City of Maplewood Along White Bear Ave., North of Larpenteur Ave. and South of Ripley Ave. March 18, 2003 INTRODUCTION Proposal Last October, the Maplewood city council extended a development moratorium for the Hillcrest Village redevelopment area so that staff could draft zoning and design standards based on smart- growth development principles. Staff's goal is to have an ordinance submitted to the city council for their acceptance before the moratorium ends on October 28, 2003. To accomplish this, staff proposes a series of meetings with the planning commission and community design review board (CDRB) to receive comments and guidance from each committee in the preparation of these standards. Hillcrest Village Redevelopment Plan The Metropolitan Council and the cities of Maplewood and St. Paul created the Hillcrest Village Redevelopment Plan in order to implement smart-growth principles within the Hillcrest Shopping Center area. The goal of the plan is to help guide changes within the area in order to create a village center with an active street life that mixes shops, workplaces, housing, passive recreation and civic uses. Background A detailed background of the Hillcrest Village Redevelopment Plan can be found in the Reference section of this staff report on pages 9 through 11. The three most recent city council actions are: On September 23, 2002, the city council adopted the Hillcrest Village Redevelopment Plan dated March 15, 2002. (Refer to the Hillcrest Village Redevelopment Plan attached separately.) The plan encompasses land along White Bear Avenue, from Montana Avenue at its southern boundary in St. Paul to Ripley Avenue at its northern boundary in Maplewood. The plan consists of 98 townhouse units, 291 apartment units, 10 single dwellings, 36,400 square feet of office space, and 151,300 square feet of commercial space. In Maplewood alone, there would be 15 townhouse units, 129 apartment units, 36,400 square feet of office space and 76,000 square feet of commercial space. On October 28, 2002, the city council extended the moratorium on development within the Hillcrest Village redevelopment area for an additional year. The city extended this moratorium to allow the city time to develop design standards for the area based on the smart growth principles. The current moratorium ends on October 28, 2003. On January 27, 2003, the city council approved funding for a market research study for the Hillcrest Village redevelopment area. This study is being conducted by Maxfield Research and will include market analysis for the City of Maplewood's portion of the redevelopment plan. The study will complement initial market research completed by the Metropolitan Council and their consultants, which was completed for the entire Hillcrest Village redevelopment area. The study should be complete in April of this year and will further help the city guide redevelopment in the area. Redevelopment Implementation Once the zoning and design standards are in place, the city could proceed with redevelopment of the area in a number of different ways. The city to purchase properties as they become available if funding exists. The land would then be assembled and sold for redevelopment. The city could also implement streetscaping in the area to include burying of power lines, construction of new sidewalks, installation of streetlights and landscaping. This would hopefully promote private redevelopment by our investment in the area. Each scenado has its pros and cons and would require different variables of financial backing by the city. These details will need to be worked through by the city council in the upcoming months, DISCUSSION Zoning Issues The city could implement several different tools to create the new zoning and design standards for Hillcrest Village. One tool is the creation of an oveday district. An overlay district would be imposed on top of the existing zoning districts. Development of properties within the overlay distdct must meet all regulations of the base district in which it was originally located plus those in the overlay district. Where there is a conflict between a base district and an overlay district, the more restrictive of the two standards applies. There are currently two zoning districts located within the City of Maplewood's portion of Hillcrest Village including Business Commercial (BC) and Single-Dwelling Residential (R-l). (Refer to the Hillcrest Village Zoning map attached separately.) The BC zoning distdct is one of the city's highest-intensity commercial zoning districts. Permitted and conditional uses within this zoning distdct include automobile-related uses like gas stations, service and repair, and sales lots. Because of the incompatibility of these current uses to the uses envisioned in the Hillcrest Village, staff feels that an overlay district would not be an appropriate tool for creating design standards within this area. An alternative would be to create an entirely new zoning district. This district would allow for a mixture of land uses and would promote the development/redevelopment of an urban center with compact, pedestrian-oriented commercial and residential developments. The city could implement the new zoning district in the Hillcrest Village redevelopment area and other areas of the city, such as the Gladstone neighborhood, where there is a need for redevelopment to create a revitalized, urban village setting. Staff favors the creation of a new zoning district that could be tailored to meet the special land use and design standards of Hillcrest Village and other future urban village areas within the city. The objective of the new zoning district would be to create a zoning district that allows a broader range of land uses than the existing zoning districts, while establishing physical design standards for these uses. The new zoning district will cover the permitted, conditional, accessory, and Hillcrest Village Design Standards 2 March 18, 2003 nonconforming uses; lot area and lot width; setbacks; signage; landscaping; and minimum design guidelines. Design Review Upon rezoning of the Hillcrest Village redevelopment area, or other future redevelopment areas, the city may wish to implement detailed architectural design standards for the area. The architectural design standards would include permitted building materials, building configurations, and building techniques to create an architectural expression or theme for the area. At this time, however, staff will be discussing the new zoning district, and not the detailed architectural design standards. Regardless of future architectural design standards in the area, the city's existing CDRB ordinance requiring all new commercial or multi-family construction to receive design review approval will still apply. Therefore, each new building located within the Hillcrest Village redevelopment area will receive design review by the city's CDRB. Metropolitan Council's Proposed Urban Design Standards Calthorpe Associates, design consultants hired by the Metropolitan Council, created an urban design standard document for the Hillcrest Village Redevelopment Plan. (Refer to the Hillcrest Village Urban Design Standards document attached separately.) This document includes the proposed placement, orientation, and massing of new buildings within the area and is intended to help guide the cities (Maplewood and St. Paul) in discussions on implementing new regulations or ordinances for the area. St. Paul's Existing and Proposed Design Standards St. Paul's city council has not formally adopted the Hillcrest Village Redevelopment Plan. Because St. Paul is including their section of the Hillcrest Village redevelopment area in their Riverview Corridor Busway Plan, St. Paul city staff indicated that it might not be reviewed by their city council until next August. In order to develop consistent design standards for both sections of the Hillcrest Village redevelopment area (Maplewood and St. Paul), the City of Maplewood should work closely with the City of St. Paul in developing these standards. On July 5, 2001, the City of St. Paul created a White Bear Avenue Small Area Plan. This plan was put in place as a prelude to the Hillcrest Village Redevelopment Plan in order to promote redevelopment along White Bear Avenue, from Highway 94 to Larpenteur Avenue. The redevelopment envisioned in the plan includes mixed-use developments that enhance the livability of the area, reduce adverse traffic and parking conditions, and create buildings and spaces consistent and compatible with the architecture of St. Paul. To implement the plan, the City of St. Paul adopted two oveday districts. These overlay districts specify uses allowed in the area, in addition to uses allowed in the underlying zoning district, and go into some design elements for the area. (Refer to the St. Paul White Bear Avenue oveday districts attached separately.) Once St. Paul's city council adopts the Hillcrest Village Redevelopment Plan, or a version of the plan, the city will likely drop the oveday districts and rezone the area entirely. The most likely scenario is the adoption of a recently drafted mixed-use zoning ordinance. The City of St. Paul and their consultants drafted this ordinance last year, after a year-long planning project. The project was funded by the Metropolitan Council and was undertaken to support urban village Hillcrest Village Design Standards 3 March 18, 2003 redevelopment, such as the Hillcrest Village redevelopment area. The St. Paul city council has not formally adopted the new ordinance, but St. Paul city staff foresees the adoption of this ordinance this spring, before the city adopts the Hillcrest Village Redevelopment Plan. St. Paul's proposed zoning distdct is titled Traditional Neighborhood (TN) and is broken down into three different levels of intensity: TN1 would function mainly as a transition zone between higher- intensity commercial and residential; TN2 would be used at pedestrian- and transit-oriented nodes where a diversity of land uses and some intensification of use would be appropriate; and TN3 is the most intense district intended primarily for the larger urban village redevelopment sites. St. Paul city staff has indicated that they will recommend that the St. Paul portion of the Hillcrest Village redevelopment area be rezoned to the new TN2 zoning district once adopted. (Refer to the Traditional Neighborhood 2 zoning district attached separately.) Therefore, St. Paul's TN2 zoning district should be used by the City of Maplewood as a guide in developing our new zoning ordinance. Areas of Expertise The planning commission and CDRB focus on different areas of land use and development in the city. Because of this, staff is requesting comments and guidance from each committee on their areas of expertise. Staff recommends the following breakdown of committee review: Planning Commission: · Uses (permitted, conditional, nonconforming and accessory) · Density · Dimensional Standards (lot size, lot area, lot width, setbacks and height) · Parking (amount and placement) · Subdivision Requirements (streets, alleys, blocks) Community Design Review Board · Signs · Design Guidelines · Site Plan Review · Landscaping · Lighting Proposed Timeline Because of the time constraints of the planning commission and CDRB meetings, staff proposes discussion of one or two items per meeting. Comments and guidance from each committee could feasibly be received by the end of May. During the month of June, staff will compile all of the data into a proposed zoning ordinance, which will then be reviewed again by both committees for recommendation to the city council. Staff will then present the proposed ordinance to the city council for comments. Once the city council is comfortable with the new ordinance, staff will proceed with neighborhood meetings on the possible rezoning of the properties within the Hillcrest Village redevelopment area. With this timeline, a final public hearing by the city council for rezoning the Hillcrest Village redevelopment area should be complete by October 28, 2003. Hillcrest Village Design Standards 4 March 18, 2003 New Zoning District Since the new zoning district will encompass mixed-use, pedestrian-oriented developments, staff is proposing to call it the "Mixed-Use Zoning District." The intended purpose of the mixed-use zoning distdct is as follows: "To provide a mixture of land uses made mutually compatible through controls and high-quality design standards. This district will promote the redevelopment/development of an area into a mixed-use urban center with compact, pedestrian- oriented commercial and residential developments. The intent is to enhance viability within the area and foster more employment and residential opportunities. The placement and treatment of buildings, parking, signage, landscaping and pedestrian spaces are essential elements in creating the pedestrian-friendly and livable environment envisioned in the area." Signs The first area of review proposed with the CDRB is signage. The City of Maplewood's sign code specifies permitted business signs within each zoning district. Because we are proposing a new zoning district, sign requirements for the Mixed-Use zoning distdct must be addressed. In addition to business signs, the city's sign code specifies the temporary, political, real estate and other miscellaneous signs allowed throughout the city. The new Mixed-Use zoning district would also be bound by these requirements. As such, these types of signs will not be addressed in this discussion. Again, it is staff's intent to discuss the signage issue during one or two CDRB meetings in order to obtain guidance in drafting the new Mixed-Use zoning distdct and associated sign requirements. For discussion and comparison, staff has included four sign references associated with the Hillcrest Village redevelopment area including sections of the following: City of Maplewood's sign code, White Bear Avenue Corridor Study sign requirements, St. Paul's White Bear Avenue overlay distdct sign requirements, and St. Paul's Traditional Neighborhood (TN) sign requirements. Staff will discuss the pros and cons of each sign reference. City of Maplewood Sign Requirements - As described previously, most of Maplewood's portion of the Hillcrest Village redevelopment area is zoned BC. Not only is the BC zoning distdct one of the city's highest-intensity commercial zoning districts, but it also has one of the most lenient sign requirements within the city. Refer to the city's BC sign code requirements attached on pages 12 through 15. Pros Comprehensive Sign Plan - Multi-tenant buildings with five or more tenants must have a comprehensive sign plan approved by the CDRB. The comprehensive sign plan ensures sign consistencies within a development and should be required within the Hi//crest Village redevelopment area. Cons Freestanding Signs - Businesses could have a freestanding sign as large as 300 square feet in area, per side, and as high as 50 feet tall. A sign of this size might be appropriate for a business with frontage on a freeway with high speed limits. It is not compatible, however, to the pedestrian-scale developments envisioned within the Hillcrest Village redevelopment area. Hillcrest Village Design Standards 5 March 18, 2003 Wall Signs - Businesses could have as many as five wall signs. A business that is set back from the road and located on a comer lot might require this many signs. It is not appropriate for a business located close to the street, as envisioned within the Hi#crest Village redevelopment area. White Bear Avenue Corddor Study - In 2000 the City of Maplewood approved the White Bear Avenue Corridor Study. Close Landscape Architects did the study with funding by the White Bear Avenue Business Association and the City of Maplewood. One of the goals of the study was to enhance the physical appearance of the street, including improving signage, especially within the Hillcrest area. Refer to the White Bear Avenue Corridor Study sign recommendations attached on pages 16 and 17. Pros Use business signs to inform customers of the types and locations of businesses, not to advertise products. The advertisement of products, and not a specific business, creates clutter within an area and does not inform the public of the business itself. These types of signs should be prohibited within the Hi#crest Village redevelopment area. Never cover windows or architecturally significant details with signage. In order to ensure compatibility between the mixed uses within the Hi#crest Village redevelopment area, architectural standards must be adhered to. Signs that cover or detract from these architectural elements should be prohibited within the Hi#crest Village redevelopment area. · Signs painted directly on buildings are prohibited. This type of sign would take away from the architectural elements of a building and can appear unprofessional. Ground signs - Use ground signs only when a building is set back from the street right-of-way more than 35 feet. In the proposed Mixed-Use zoning district, most buildings will be constructed to the right-of-way. In some circumstances, such as the proposed neighborhood grocery store planned in the Hi#crest Village Redevelopment Plan, a building may have increased setbacks from the fight-of-way. In this circumstance a ground sign would be appropriate. However, the setback requirement of 35 feet may be too strict and the city should consider a reduced setback, such as 20 feet. Cons Orient only one sign per business to the street. This restriction may be appropriate for buildings that are built to the right-of-way, but would not be appropriate for buildings that are set back and require a ground sign and a wall sign. Use pole signs only with buildings that are occupied by a single business and that have a setback from the street right-of-way greater than 35 feet. Again, pole signs or pylon signs are more compatible to a business located on a highway with high traffic speeds, not the pedestrian-scale development envisioned in the Hi#crest Village redevelopment area. Hillcrest Village Design Standards 6 March 18, 2003 St. Paul White Bear Avenue Plan - As described previously, the City of St. Paul adopted two overlay districts for the Hillcrest area. Included in these overlay districts were sign requirements. Refer to pages 28 and 29 of the White Bear Avenue Plan attached separately. Pros · Business signs shall be used to identify the business, not to advertise products. · Wall signs shall cover neither windows nor architectural tdm and detail. · Signs painted directly on the wall of a building shall not be permitted. · Ground signs for individual establishments should be used only when a building is set back 15 feet or more from the street right-of-way. Projecting signs are effective for both vehicular and pedestrian traffic. Projecting signs, if appropriately designed, can add significant charm and character to a building facade and Streetscape. The projecting signs should be limited in size, perhaps 12 square feet in area, and limited in projection, perhaps no more than 4 feet from the front edge of a building. These signs should be allowed to extend over the public right-of-way. Cons · Pole signs are permitted for individual buildings that are occupied by a single business and that have a setback from the street right-of-way of 35 feet or more. St. Paul TN Sign Requirements - St. Paul city staff have indicated that signage within the TN zoning district will be covered by their existing OS-1 and B-1 business district sign requirements. This is the most restrictive of their business sign districts. Refer to the St. Paul sign requirements attached on pages 18 and 19. Pros The sum of the gross surface display area in square feet of all business signs on a lot shall not exceed one times the lineal feet of lot frontage, or 75 square feet, whichever is greater. Currently the city's sign code allows wall signs up to 20 percent of the gross wall area of the front facade of a building or leased space. Because increased building heights will be promoted within the Hi#crest Village redevelopment area, continuing to calculate wall signs in this manner may not be appropriate. The 75-foot minimum, however, is too large and should be reduced to a more reasonable pedestrian-scale size, such as 40 square feet. Cons · Freestanding signs may project 37~ feet above the surface of the street. Hillcrest Village Design Standards 7 March 18, 2003 Sign Summary Signs are important for any business. However, since signs influence the overall character and appearance of the streetscape, the city should ensure that they are designed to complement the architecture of the Hillcrest Village redevelopment area and other mixed-use developments. Setting high standards for signs within the Mixed-Use zoning district will set a good precedent when the city revises the city's existing outdated sign code. Areas to focus on during the CDRB meeting are as follows: · Wall Signs · Projecting Signs · Ground Signs · Size of Signs · Sign Location RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the CDRB offer comments and guidance on signage proposed within the Hillcrest Village redevelopment area. Staff will use this feedback to draft sign requirements for the new Mixed-Use zoning district. Hillcrest Village Design Standards 8 March 18, 2003 REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Study Area Size: 15.06 acres SURROUNDING LAND USES North: South: East: West: Junior Achievement, Perkins and South China Island Larpenteur Avenue and the Hillcrest Shopping Center in the City of St. Paul Woodland Hills Church Single-Family Homes PLANNING Zoning and Land Use Classifications Six properties totaling 2.58 acres in area north and west of the Pizza Hut are currently zoned and planned for Single Dwelling Residential, R1. The remaining parcels totaling 12.48 acres in area are currently zoned and planned for Business Commercial, BC. The only exception is the northeast comer of Van Dyke Street and Larpenteur Avenue on the Woodland Hills Church property, which is planned as Church, C. Past Actions On Apdl 26, 2001, the Metropolitan Council, Calthorpe and Associates (an urban planning group) and HGA (a local architectural firm) held a workshop at Woodland Hills Church in Maplewood. This workshop allowed area residents, business owners and St. Paul and Maplewood staff and government personnel to participate by offering their desires and preferences on how they would like this area to redevelop. On May 24, 2001, the Metropolitan Council held a follow-up meeting at Woodland Hills Church to present the consultants two development alternatives created from input received at the April 26 workshop. On July 2, 2001, the planning commission reviewed the two development alternatives and had the following comments: Features the PC liked 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Realignment of North St. Paul Road to meet White Bear Avenue at a dght angle. Grocery store. The walkable/bikeable aspects of the plans. The large neighborhood square (~village green" concept). The townhouses, provided they are affordable to the average person and not overpriced. Attempts at traffic calming and slowing on White Bear Avenue. Hillcrest Village Design Standards 9 March 18, 2003 Features the PC did not like The potential nuisance of parking spaces behind buildings visible to residential units. Possible difficulty for the eldedy or disabled in having parking in back, unless there are back doors. On July 9, 2001, the city council reviewed the two concept designs and concurred with the planning commission's comments. On November 13, 2001, the Mapiewood city council passed a development moratorium for that portion of the Hillcrest neighborhood in Maplewood. This moratorium was put in place to allow staff to coordinate the development of design criteria for this area with all interested parties and smart-growth participants. On April 1, 2002, staff presented the final Hillcrest Village Redevelopment Plan to the planning commission for their information. Since this presentation was informational only, no action was taken. On Apdl 22, 2002, the staff presented the final Hillcrest Village Redevelopment Plan to the city council at the council/manager workshop to update them on the plan. No action was taken. On April 25, 2002, the Metropolitan Council gave a presentation of their final draft of the Hillcrest Village Redevelopment Plan to the public at Woodland Hills Church. On June 18, 2002, Maplewood planning staff held a neighborhood informational meeting to get comments about the Hillcrest Village plan. On August 13, 2002, the community design review board (CDRB) discussed the Hillcrest Village Redevelopment Plan and recommended approval of this redevelopment plan in concept. The CDRB expressed strong concern that theY be actively involved in drafting future design guidelines for Hillcrest Village. On August 13, 2002, the housing redevelopment authority (HRA) discussed the Hillcrest Village Redevelopment Plan but did not move to support or deny. The HRA expressed several concerns and questions, however. In summary, their comments were: 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. How would snow be removed with a lot of street-side parking? Traffic would be noticeably increased. Is there a market for the proposed housing? They have reservations about this. It may be a disservice removing existing viable housing for new housing. The future building on the Plaza Theater site does not seem feasible. The plan should include, at least show, the Jr. Achievement block. Can the existing infrastructure handle these changes? On August 19, 2002, the planning commission discussed the Hillcrest Village Redevelopment Plan and had the following comments: St. Paul and Maplewood should work together on the implementation of this plan. The realignment of N. St. Paul Road and the mixed-use concept are good ideas. Work with Ramsey County to iron out traffic and pedestrian movement concerns. We must make sure that there is enough parking provided for the apartments. Hillcrest Village Design Standards 10 March 18, 2003 o o 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. Consider a traffic study to determine the appropriate number of traffic lanes on streets. Would the housing density meet our guidelines? This question must be answered. How will we implement this? What if existing businesses want to stay? Will they be grandfathered in? The plan seems to direct traffic away from White Bear Avenue to the back streets. Good idea. The mix of land uses is a good idea. There is some doubt that this area will truly be used as a strong pedestrian area. People will still ddve to and from this redeveloped area. The apartments must have underground parking to alleviate parking problems. Where will snow be stored? How will snow removal be handled? How will ovemight parking be handled? Maplewood does not allow overnight parking. St. Paul does. A traffic study should be prepared. This area is in need of a facelift. Some properties are becoming an eyesore. There are enough cars already taking up space in the parking lots and streets along Van Dyke Street. An additional building in front of the Plaza Theater is not a good idea and infeasible. Residential units surrounded by housing may not be desirable. There would be a loss of existing affordable housing that is good viable housing nOw. These would be replaced with new multi-housing that probably would cost more than the homes are worth now. How would this redevelopment take place? Eminent domain? Buy out by developers? p:com_dvpt~3-25-03 CDRB Design Standards Document Attachments: 1. Business Commercial Sign Requirements 2. White Bear Avenue Corridor Sign Recommendations 3. St. Paul TN Sign Requirements Attached Separately: A. Hillcrest Village Redevelopment Plan B. Hillcrest Village Zoning Map C. Hillcrest Village Urban Design Standards D. St. Paul White Bear Avenue Overlay Districts E. St. Paul Traditional Neighborhood Zoning District Hillcrest Village Design Standards 11 March 18, 2003 Attachment 12 m z 14 15 Attachment 2 \ .;~ ign Re omm.endation Visitors to White Bear Avenue are bombarded by a cacphony of signs. With their dissonant colors,' shapes, heights, and lettering, the avenue's signs loose their readability and function. Business owners and residential neighbors alike have concluded sign guidelines are necessary to improve the avenue's character and the unique spatial and architectural conditions of its commercial districts~ A good sign system will contribute to the friendliness and legibility of the community. Such a system should: · Provide a unified framework for sign systems at the various commercial districts (e.g. Minnehaha and White Bear, Hillcrest District, etc.); · Standardize and codify important features of the district systems, such as size, setback, orientation and location of signs; · Be appropriate to the district (signs on the older buildings in Saint Paul should relate to pedestrians as well as passing motorists); · Be well designed (understated): the sign system has the potential to add to the character and identification of the various districts; and · Provide clear identification of the avenue's businesses. The White Bear Avenue Signage Guidelines have been developed to support these objectives: Corridor Wide Guideline .... · Design banners with a common shape along the corridor, patierns could be reflective of neighborhood designation · Use Business signs to inform customers of the types and locations of businesses, not to adverl'ise products. Sign Placement Guidelines... · Design new buildings so that signage is integral or has a specific place on th building · Never cover windows or architecturally significant details with signage · Orient only one sign per business to the street KrOger Foods, sign incorporated into building MidAmerica Bank - reuse of sign Hillcrest State Bank, integrated into building white bear avenue study 16 23 Sign Guidelines by Type .... Roof Signs · Use roof signs only to match rooflines and unify signbands on adjacent buildings. Roof signs should not be used for advertising Grouped Signs · Use grouped signs to identify business that have no direct access from the side walk. Place signs within a common framework. Painted Signs · Painted permanent window signs should occupy no more than. 10 percent of the window area. · Signs painted directly on buildings are prohibited. Temporary Signs · Do not use temporary or trailer signs. Pole Signs · Use pole signs only with buildings that are occupied by a single business and that have a setback from the street right-of-way greater than 35 feet. Pole signs should use as little structure as possible. Structural elements of the sign should be painted black and should not exceed Ground Signs · Use ground signs only when a building is set back from the street right-of-way more than 35 feet. Place ground signs parallel to the street. · Ground signs should only be used for institutional, professional and industrial buildings. · Bench signs are prohibited. While these guidelines may form the basis for revisions to the sign ordinance for White Bear Avenue, community organizations can apply them now in decisions regarding funding for facade improvements and businesses can incorporate them in the design of new and replacement signs. As old signs are phased'out during a business normal cycle and replaced with more fitting signs, White Bear Avenue's image will become more orderly and gracious. white bear avenue study Chapter t)t>. Z;omng uocte--~gns* ~~q\~_ ~:;~ Attachmen 3 architect or contractor engaged in, or product used in, the construction of a building. (4) For parks, community centers, and religious, educational, civic or philanthropic institutions, portable signs and temporary signs are permitted for special events under the following conditions: a. Portable signs: 1. On zoning lots with a street frontage of three hundred thirty (330) feet or less, the gross surface display area of the signs shall not exceed one hundred (100) square feet. On zoning lots with a street frontage of over three hundred thirty (330) feet, the gross surface display area of the signs shall not exceed three hundred (300) square feet; 2. The signs shall be permitted two (2) nonconsecutive times per calendar year for a period of not more than fourteen (14) days per time; 3. The signs shall not be flashing signs or located in a required yard, required off-street parking space or maneuvering area, or public right-of-way. b. Temporary signs. 1. The gross surface display area of the signs shall not exceed one hundred (100) square feet; 2. The signs shall be permitted three (3) nonconsecutive times per calendar year for periods of not more than ninety (90) days per time; 3. The signs shall not be flashing signs or located in a required off-street parking space or maneuvering area, or public right-of-way. (5) No sign shall project higher than thirty (30) feet above grade. (Code 1956, § 66.204; Ord. No. 17393, § 6, 9-4-86; Ord. No. 17536, §§ 14, 15, 2-2-88; Ord. No. 17889, § 21, 11-21-91; C.F. No. 93-1718, § 102, 12-14-93; C.F. No. 99-750, § 14, 9-1-99) '~Sec. 66.205. OS-1 and B-1 Business Districts. i(a) Business signs: (1) The sum of the gross surface display area in square feet of all business signs on a lot shall not exceed one times the lineal feet of lot frontage, or seventy-five (75) square feet, whichever is greater. (2) No business sign shall be located in a required yard except for one freestanding sign. Freestanding signs may project into the public right-of-way up to eighteen (18) inches. (3) No sign shall project higher than thirty-seven and one-half (37 1/2) feet above grade, except wall signs and freestanding signs on zoning lots abutting principal and intermediate arterials. Wall signs may project to the height allowed by the height restriction in the zoning code. On zoning lots which abut a principal or intermediate arterial, one freestanding sign may project to thirty-seven and one-half (37 1/2) feet above the surface of the arterial. 3/18/2003 http://www, ci.stpaul.mn.us/code/lc066.html 18 Claapter oo. Lonmg [_,oae--~gns'" · ,~,, l, ~,~ (b) Temporary signs: (1) For new developments, one real estate development sign not exceeding a total of fifty (50) square feet in area on the lot of the new development, per three hundred (300) feet or less of lot frontage of the development. Such sign shall not be located within any required yard. (2) For all uses, one real estate sign not exceeding a total of six (6) square feet in area. (3) For all uses, one sign not exceeding a total of four (4) square feet in area identifying an engineer, architect or contractor engaged in, or product used in, the construction of a building. (4) Temporary signs shall be permitted as follows: a. Banners, pennants and stringers. b. Freestanding and wall signs, the total area not to exceed thirty-two (32) square feet. c. Such signs'shall be permitted three (3) nonconsecutive times per calendar year for a period of not more than ninety (90) days per time. (5) Temporary signs, concerning a commodity, service or entertainment conducted, offered, sold or manufactured on the premises, placed inside of the window of a building are permitted. (c) Portable Signs. Portable signs are permitted under the following conditions: (1) On zoning lots with a street frontage of three hundred thirty (330) feet or less, the gross surface display area of the signs shall not exceed thirty-six (36) square feet. On zoning lots with a street frontage of over three hundred thirty (330) feet, the gross surface display area of the signs shall not exceed three hundred (300) square feet; (2) The signs shal! be permitted on a zoning lot four (4) nonconsecutive times per calendar year and for a period of not more than fourteen (14) days per time; (3) The signs shall not be flashing signs or located in a required yard, required off-street parking space or maneuvering area, or public right-of-way. (Code 1956, § 66.205; Ord. No. 17204, 1-15-85; Ord. No. 17536, §§ 16--18, 2-2-88; C.F. No. 93- 1718, § 103, 12-14-93) Sec. 66.206. OS-2, B-2C, B-2 and B-3 Business Districts. (a) Business signs: (1) The sum of the gross surface display area in square feet of all business signs on a lot shall not · exceed two (2) times the lineal feet of lot frontage or seventy-five (75) square feet, whichever is greater. (2) Only one (1) freestanding sign per lot is permitted in a required yard. A freestanding sign htrp://www.ci.stpaul.mn.us/code/lc066.htrnl 3/18/2003 19