Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/13/2003~oo ~ 2. 3. 4. 10. AGENDA MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD May 13, 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. March 25, 2003 b. April 22, 2003 Unfinished Business: None Scheduled Design Review: a. Dearborn Meadow East - 15-UnitTownhouse Development on Castle Avenue b. Hillcrest Village Design Standards (Lighting and Landscaping) Visitor Presentations: None Scheduled Board Presentations Staff Presentations: a. May 27, 2003 Community Design Review Board Meeting - to be held in Maplewood Room b. Motions 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 DRAFT MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, MARCH 25, 2003 I1. III. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Ledvina called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m. ROLL CALL Matt Ledvina Craig Jorgenson Diana Longrie-Kline Linda Olson Ananth Shankar Present Absent Present Present Absent Staff Present: Shann Finwall, Associate Planner Lisa Kroll, Recording Secretary APPROVALOFAGENDA Board member Olson moved to approve the agenda. Board member Longrie-Kline seconded. Ayes - Ledvina, Longrie-Kline, OIson IV. The motion passed. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of the CDRB minutes for February 25, 2003. Board member OIson moved approval of the minutes of February 25, 2003. Board member Ledvina seconded. Ayes ---Ledvina, Olson Abstention - Longrie-Kline The motion passed. Approval of the CDRB minutes for March 11, 2003. Chairperson Ledvina had changes to the minutes on pages 4, 13, and 18 of the March 11, 2003, minutes. On page 4, in the first paragraph, it should read the boo, rd city council action should not sway them either way. On page 13, in the eighth paragraph, it should read, the parapet walls to benefit from the screening from of the walls. On page 18, item e. (2) it should read, as close to the parapet walls as pcsslbl¢ c,t thc hi§host clcvc, ticn. or as appropriate to provide the best screening possible, Community Design Review Board Minutes 3-25-2003 Va VI. Board member Longrie-Kline moved to approve the minutes for March 11, 2003, with changes. Chairperson Ledvina seconded. Ayes - Ledvina, Longrie-Kline Abstention - Olson The motion passed. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. DESIGN REVIEW Van Dyke Village Townhomes - West Side of Van Dyke Street, North of County Road B. Ms. Finwall 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 primarily for work force housing for Iow and moderate-income families. There would be on-site management to help monitor and run the property. Ms. Finwall said the proposal would have four, six-unit townhouse buildings. Each town hous~ 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 and vinyl-clad windows, and the roof would have asphalt shingles. The developer has not yet proposed colors for the buildings. Staff recommended 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. Staff is recommending approval of the design review of the Van Dyke Village Town. homes with several conditions. Board member Olson asked staff if the board would be wasting time in reviewing this design if the planning commission denied this proposal? Ms. Finwall said no, the planning commission helps guide the city council's decision and the planning commission has recommended denial with concerns regarding the density. The city council will take the planning commission's and all other recommendations into consideration when they make their final decision. Chairperson Ledvina said the charge of the CDRB is to review the proposal despite what other commissions have recommended or denied. He asked staff about the existing trees on the site. He knows it's a condition to save as many trees as possible. He asked if staff knew where the grading limits were and where the construction fence would be placed to ensure th& the most trees are saved? He also said the landscape plan shows the placement of new vegetated material where existing trees are located in the northwest corner of the site. Community Design Review Board Minutes 3-25-2003 3 Ms. Finwall said in the revised landscape and grading plan, staff should require that the developer indicate the exact area of vegetation to remain and install the required fencing to ensure no grading is done in that area. Chairperson Ledvina asked staff where the dumpsters will be located on the property? Ms. Finwall said she would have to defer that question to the applicant. Board member Olson asked staff if the site drainage is going to be diverted into the city storm sewer? She does not see any ponds established on the site and it seemed it is a wet site. Ms. Finwall said she would refer board member Olson to the engineering report on page 32 of the staff report. She knows there are rainwater gardens proposed on the site, but without the benefit of having an engineer to answer the question she would refer to the engineering report for more information. Board member Olson said there was a question from the engineering staff on page 32 of the staff report regarding the drainage from the Goodwill site and she believes that is something that needs to be addreSsed. Ms. Finwail said prior to issuance of a grading or building permit a revised grading plan would have to be submitted and approved by the engineering department. Chairperson Ledvina asked staff about the fence that is proposed along the north and west property boundaries. He asked what staff's opinion was regarding the use of a six-foot fence compared to using a berm and planted material for screening? Ms. Finwall said staff would be concerned with a berm on the west side of the property because of the trees they are trying to save. However, a berm on the north property line is something the applicant could explore. She said fencing is something you have to maintain, where as a berm and landscaping is something that once it's established, it would reqiore less maintenance. Board member Olson said she feels a six-foot fence is more appropriate for the site. There will be on-site management there to take care of the property including the fence. Chairperson Ledvina asked the applicant to address the board. Mr. Bruce Mogren, Mogren Development Company at 1801 Gervais Avenue, Maplewood addressed the board. Mr. Mogren said the planning commission recommended denial for this proposal because of the concerns with the proposed density. Mr. Mogren said he understood that the major reason the planning commission denied this proposal was because he requested 24 units' verses 22 units. However, the staff recommended the site plan with 24 units. Chairperson Ledvina asked Mr. Mogren if he has any problems with the staff conditions that have been outlined? Community Design Review Board Minutes 3-25-2003 4 Mr. Mogren said many of the conditions are fine. No final decisions regarding the color scheme have been made. He said although the project is on the same street as Emma's. Place, it is a totally different project. He would like to distinguish this project from Emma's Place. He said he likes to go with quality, durable products. This building will have children and will endure more wear and tear. They are looking at using steel on the bottom half of the building and vinyl on the top half of the building, but nothing has been finalized yet. He and his architect will come up with a product board consisting of all the products and colors used for this project. Board member Olson asked Mr. Mogren if he would be coming back to the CDRB with his final products that are chosen? Mr. Mogren said it may be easier to work with staff on the final products. Chairperson Ledvina asked staff to comment on a condition that may exist regarding building colors and materials for staff approval? Ms. Finwall said on page 12 of the staff report, it mentions a revised building plan. The board could add to the condition that the colors and building materials be approved by staff prior to issuance of a building permit. Another option would be to table this proposal until it was finalized and bring it back to the CDRB. Chairperson Ledvina asked Mr. Mogren to describe how the trash will be enclosed? Mr. Mogren said originally they planned for a trash enclosure and then they decided each unit would have their own garbage container. Chairperson Ledvina asked Mr. Mogren if he had any comments regarding the staff's proposal for fencing? Mr. Mogren said they have looked at the fencing condition and they are not sure what materials they would use at this time. His development includes mainly senior housing where he has used berms and landscaping for screening instead of fencing. In this proposal he thinks the fencing is probably necessary for safety and security issues. Board member Longrie-Kline asked Mr. Mogren if he had to construct 24 units in order to get his MHFA financing? Mr. Mogren said having 24 units helps them bring on-site management. He said dedicating on-site management to 22 units is very uncommon for something that size. Board member Longrie-Kline asked Mr. Mogren if he thought he would qualify for the MHFA financing regardless if it is 24 units or 22 units? Mr. Mogren said he would have to check with his finance attorney on that. Board member Longrie-Kline said the reason she is asking is if there were 22 units instead of 24 units the building elevations would change. She is trying to get a broader view of the project. Community Design Review Board Minutes 3-25-2003 Board member Longrie-Kline said if Mr. Mogren doesn't qualify for financing for the 22 units verses the 24 units he may have to change the proposal. Mr. Mogren said this proposal lays into the site pretty well. His assistant lives in a building with this exact plan in Stillwater. He said it is a very attractive building and is built as four, six-unit buildings. He said he could've proposed building four bedroom units but he chose to build two and three bedroom units for more room. Regarding the financing question he would have to defer that to the finance attorney. Board member Longrie-Kline said she would like to know more about the materials and colors he plans to use, a more developed landscaping plan, and a more developed design and feel for the project. She feels that if this proposal gets passed onto the staff for the final decision, the CDRB will not get to see the finalized plans. She said staff does a good job making the final decision on things but staff can't always take the responsibility of doing it all. She feels that if the board allows proposals to come before them with half of .the project formulated it is requesting too much of city staff to follow up on all of the conditions. Board member Olson asked Mr. Mogren if he feels he did a good job of addressing the neighbors' concerns? Mr. Mogren said yes. He had a neighborhood meeting and addressed many of the neighbors' concerns. He said most of the concerns are regarding Emma's Place. Emma's Place is a different type of housing than Van Dyke Village. He is sure that any concerns that the neighbors still had would be voiced at the city council meeting when the final decision is made. Board member Olson asked Mr. Mogren if it would be practical to reduce the number of units to 22? Mr. Mogren said he would have to defer the question of reducing the number of units to the finance attorney to see what kind of affect that would have on the financing. Board member Longrie-Kline said she thinks what board member OIson is trying to say is if the number of units were reduced that would change the elevations the board is reviewing. Mr. Mogren said he would have to defer question that to the architect. He is not sure how the reduction in units would affect the elevations. Chairperson Ledvina suggested a recommendation be added that states if the elevations are changed due to the reduction in the number of units that the proposal should come back to the CDRB for review. Board member Olson said she thinks the CDRB should table this proposal. She said the board would be recommending approval on the condition that a revised site plan, a revised landscape plan, a revised lighting plan, and a revised grading plan be submitted. She feels nothing is "final" in this proposal. She stated there are eight pages of staff recommendations in the report. Chairperson Ledvina said his opinion is staff has done a good job in detailing the conditions in the staff report. If the applicant follows the conditions, it should meet the board's needs. Community Design Review Board Minutes 3-25-2003 Chairperson Ledvina said he does not have any issues with the staff conditions and he i.~ comfortable moving this proposal forward by allowing staff to make the final decision. Chairperson Ledvina said a condition could be added that if the applicant changes the number of units from 24 to 22 units that it will be required to come back to the CDRB for review. Board member Longrie-Kline said if there were small changes that needed to be finalized, she would be comfortable having staff make those. She feels there is a large amount of revisions being recommended. There are no final building materials or colors, there are lighting questions, the soil is very poor and there are a number of grading questions and issues to be discussed as well. Board member Olson said she would like to add a few minor changes. She recommends a solid fence be built around the whole property. She believes the neighbors would appreciate that. She would recommend that the building colors not match Emma's Place. She would like to see more of a distinction between Emma's Place and the Van Dyke Village development because these are two different projects. She thinks if the building colors are too similar to Emma's Place, the stigma that already exists for Emma's Place is going to be carried over into this development, she would prefer not to see that happen. She would like to see the revised grading plan and the engineer's comments because of the soil conditions and grading problems as well as the revised lighting plan. Mr. Mogren said they have taken four major soil borings plus twenty other borings on the site He said they are studying this problem intensely. There were comments about the Goodwi~. site draining water onto this site. The Goodwill has to either solve that problem or work with him regarding the drainage. He thought the grading plan was presented to the board in their report as part of the submittal. Ms. Finwall said there was a grading plan submitted and the city engineering department looked at that and submitted a report with some revisions. Board member Olson said none of the grading information is in her staff report. Chairperson Ledvina said he agreed with the earlier comments from the board that the colors should not match Emma's Place. They are two totally different areas and should not look similar. He did not see a strong need to cantilever the building out one foot. He would like to see some brick elements added to this building. The brick wainscoting could be added up to the window height. The applicant said there would be children living there so product durability is a concern. He recommends Mr. Mogren consider using brick. It is a very durable material and it adds aesthetics to the project. Board member Longrie-Kline said she agrees. Board member Olson asked where the house numbers would be placed, where the mailboxes would be located and where the utility meters would be located? She asked if the resident,' have to keep their garbage containers inside their one-car garage? She asked if there wouk, be enough space for the storage of the garbage can with a car in there? She stated none of this is indicated on the plans. Community Design Review Board Minutes 3-25-2003 Board member OIson moved to table this proposal until there are more comprehensive plans for the board to review. Board member Longrie-Kline seconded. Ayes - Longrie-Kline, OIson Nay- Ledvina The motion is tabled until further information is provided to the board. This item will go to the city council on April 14, 2003, and will come back to the CDRB on Tuesday, April 22, 2003. Chairperson Ledvina said he voted nay because he felt there was enough information to make a recommendation on. He understands the board's concerns but felt comfortable allowing staff to make the final decisions. b. Hillcrest Village Redevelopment Area (Mixed-Use Zoning District) Ms. Finwall said 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. Ms. Finwall said 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 to receive comments and guidance from each committee in the preparation of these standards. Ms. Finwall said 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 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. Ms. Finwall said the Hillcrest Village Redevelopment 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 there would be 15 townhouse units, 129 apartment units, 36,400 square feet of office space and 76,000 square feet of commercial space. Ms. Finwall said an alternative is 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. Ms. Finwall said 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. Community Design Review Board Minutes 3-25-2003 Ms. Finwall said the new zoning district will cover the permitted, conditional, accessory and non-conforming uses; lot area and lot width; setbacks; signage; landscaping; and minimun, design guidelines. Ms. Finwall said 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. Ms. Finwall said to implement the plan; the city of St. Paul adopted two overlay 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. Ms. Finwall said once the St. Paul City Council adopts the Hillcrest Village Redevelopment Plan, or a version of the plan, the city will likely drop the overlay districts and rezone the area entirely. She said 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 yearlong planning project. The project was funded by the Metropolitan Council and was undertaken to support urban village redevelopment, such as the Hillcrest Village redevelopment area. Ms. Finwall said 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. Ms. Finwall said St. Paul's proposed zoning district 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. Therefore, St. Paul's TN2 zoning district should be used by the City of Maplewood as a guide in developing our new zoning ordinance. Ms. Finwall said 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 district 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 sucl',, these types of signs will not be addressed in this discussion. It's 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 district and associated sign requirements. Community Design Review Board Minutes 3-25-2003 Ms. Finwall said 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. She said setting high standards for signs within the Mixed-Use zoning district would set a good precedent when the city revises the city's existing outdated sign code. Ms. Finwall said 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. Board member Olson asked staff if they considered awning signs? Ms. Finwall indicated she thought it should be considered part of a businesses wall sign. However, awning signs have maintenance issues. Board member Olson said she likes awnings but personally she would not like to see printing on the awnings. Board member Longrie-Kline said awnings can look quaint and add character but on the other hand if they are not maintained they become an eyesore. She wouldn't like to see printing on the awning. She asked staff if they would allow reader boards either electronically or the kind you can place letters and numbers on? Board member Longrie-Kline said in her opinion she is not a fan of reader boards. The purpose of the reader board is to advertise the sales of the week or the products and not the business itself. Ms. Finwall said many cities allow permanent reader boards as a certain percentage of a sign or they can be prohibited entirely. Board member OIson asked staff how she felt about prohibiting permanent reader boards in the new zoning district. Ms. Finwall said her only concern is signage for a convenience store with gasoline sales. These types of uses depend on the reader board to advertise gasoline prices. She said currently the city's ordinance does not prohibit reader board signs it is just based on the amount of wall signs. Chairperson Ledvina said overall he would agree with the concepts. There is way too much signage clutter and with the more intense mixed-use scenario the current sign ordinance would be unacceptable. He said there is a requirement for a comprehensive sign plan review and he would like to see a sign review on all site plans, not just necessarily on the comprehensive sign plan for a certain number of businesses in a development. He said within this new multi-use zone he thinks it is appropriate that signs be considered architectural elements and that the CDRB review all signage. Board member Longrie-Kline asked if he was referring to multi-tenant buildings? Community Design Review Board Minutes 3-25-2003 lO Chairperson Ledvina said he was referring to all initial signs within the zoning district. Board member Longrie-Kline said she agreed with the chair's comments. Ms. Finwall said her concern with that is if a business is initially constructed and they don't have their signage in place until months later, they would be required to come back to the board for approval. Board member Longrie-Kline said in commercial developments like shopping centers, typically when one developer has to provide development plans or elevations to an approving site the signage is included as part of the elements and design and is subject to approval. The Hillcrest Area is going to be a model development so why shouldn't the signage be considered as part of a design element. That is the way it is at commercial shopping centers all over the nation. She said in areas where they are looking at smart growth they incorporate the signage as part of the design element of the elevations. Board member Olson said she agrees. Chairperson Ledvina said he believes the initial sign should come before the board. The signs should be addressed together with the proposal. Board member Longrie-Kline said most of the people that come before the board are sophisticated developers and it is not uncommon when submitting plans somewhere else tha* they are cognizant of all the things they need to put together with their plan. She said it will be the mom and pop buSinesses that come before the board in the mixed-use zoning district, but more sophisticated developers with the experience to know what to submit. Board member Olson said even with a single-owner business signage is something that needs to be researched as part of the whole comprehensive plan. Ms. Finwall said as the staff person that deals with signage every day, she foresees many problems requiring signs as part of the design review board approval. Businesses change and require change of copy on signs. She said if these.things had to come before the board it would take a lot of time and effort. She thinks if there were strict controls in place, these controls would have to be followed and be monitored by staff. Board member Olson said she agreed with staff there is no reason the board has to review the content of the sign but they should review the initial architectural elements of signs. Chairperson Ledvina said with the comprehensive sign review, the board looks at the height of the sign, the placement, the architectural features and the base. The board is not looking at copy if all of those things stay the same. He said when new tenants change usually the position of the sign and the structure itself does not change either. The board is not saying every time the copy changes on the sign that they want to see it come before the board, it just allows more control over the signage. He supports the staff's recommendation on the othe' types of signs allowed and prohibited in the new district. Ms. Finwall said she will take the comments into consideration and do some research on how other cities are handling signage. Community Design Review Board Minutes 3-25-2003 '1. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS VIII. IX. No visitors present. BOARD PRESENTATIONS None. STAFF PRESENTATIONS Board member Shankar will be the CDRB representative at the March 31, 2003, city council meeting. Board member Olson will be the CDRB representative at the April 14, 2003, city council meeting. The Van Dyke Village proposal will be discussed. Ms. Finwall said the Hartford Group (Legacy Village proposal) is moving ahead. She said Phil Carlson of DSU has some great ideas on some changes he would like to see to the preliminary plans. Because of the timeline, the CDRB will not see the initial design review of the townhouses and the senior housing until sometime in May. Chairperson Ledvina said he asked Tom Ekstrand if there were other areas in the metropolitan area that the board could go and see what this new urban area would lOok or feel like. He said he heard there is an area in Burnsvilie that he is going to get some information on. He said the Legacy Village proposal is a huge project for the board to review. He is basically trying to find out as much information as possible so he can understand how this project would look. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 7:43 p.m. II. III. IV. DRAFT MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, APRIL 22, 2003 CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Shankar called the meeting to order at 6:05 p.m. ROLL CALL Matt Ledvina Craig Jorgenson Diana Longrie-Kline Linda Olson Ananth Shankar Absent Present Absent Present Present Staff Present: Shann Finwall, Associate Planner Lisa Kroll, Recording Secretary APPROVAL OFAGENDA Ms. Finwall requested removing the CDRB minutes for March 25, 2003, due to lack of board members present at that meeting to approve the minutes. Board member Jorgenson and Shankar were absent from the CDRB meeting on March 25, 2003. The minutes for March 25, 2003, will be brought back to the next CDRB meeting on May 13, 2003. Board member Olson moved to approve the agenda with the change. Board member Jorgenson seconded. Ayes -Jorgenson, Olson, Shankar The motion passed. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. DESIGN REVIEW a. Maplewood Auto Mall - 2525 White Bear Avenue Ms. Finwall said Brian Pellowski of PBK Investments, Inc., is proposing sign and design changes for the Maplewood Auto Center at 2525 White Bear Ave. The Maplewood Auto Center is a multi-tenant mall with two buildings including several auto-related tenants in one building and the Super America gas station in another building. Sign changes include allowing cabinet-style wall signs for the auto-related tenants and sign changes for the Super America gas station. Ms. Finwall said the design changes include painting the Super America building white and red. Staff recommends that approval of the requested sign and design changes be conditioned on both buildings being painted and the maintenance issues listed in the staff report being corrected. Community Design Review Board Minutes 4-22-2003 2 Board member Olson said she knows these buildings are painted the same color. However she gets the impression the owners want to distinguish the different buildings by usin9 alternative colors. She said she thinks staff has done a good job listing conditions that need to be addressed and that the parking lot needs repair. Chairperson Shankar said in the staff report it states 2 different recommendations. He asked if the first recommendation was for the wall sign for building A and the second recommendation was for signs at the SUper America gas station? Ms. Finwall said the first recommendation covers the comprehensive sign amendment and it outlines the changes from the originally proposed comprehensive sign plan on the entire site. The second recommendation covers the design review changes for the site. Chairperson Shankar asked the applicant to address the board. Mr. Dave Earls, Director of Properties for PBK Investments who are the owners of the buildings, addressed the board. He said they are trying to distinguish differences between the buildings by painting them different colors. He said they have had problems with some companies going bankrupt. When people come back to those companies and discover they are no longer in business, they go into Super America asking questions about the companies thinking they are connected to Super America, when really there is no connection between SA and the auto center. He said they want Super America to stand out on their own. Mr. Earls said two years ago when Alamo Car Rental came to the city and wanted a specia~ use permit the city required them to update their landscape plan. Updating the landscape cost PBK Investments $5,000 to satisfy the city's requirements. The landscaping has a one-year guarantee through Mogren's .landscaping company. He said some of the landscaping died through the winter but will be replaced at no charge. As far as the parking lot, in Minnesota there are many parking lots that have potholes from the Minnesota winters. Last week he met with Intercity Asphalt, a company that takes care of their parking lots. They gave a bid to repair the potholes and restripe the parking lot. Last year, Intercity Asphalt came out to their location twice to fix pothole problems from the carwash at Super America. Mr. Earls said the garbage problem is from Caribou Coffee, Super America, Rainbow Foods and the other sites. He said they send someone out twice a day to pick up garbage that blows around. When the garbage is picked up, it tends to blow out of the dumpster. The garbage attendants don't get out of their vehicles to pick anything up. They are trying to keep a better eye on the garbage situation. When he started with PBK Investments the auto center was at 40% capacity and now they are 100% capacity. When space is full this gives them more capital to work with. However, recently they have had four companies file chapter 7. As property owners, they have to invest money into the property and they run the chance of having to raise the rent. The signs that are on the buildings now were up when he came to work for PBK. It was an oversight not looking into the sign ordinance. He agrees they need sign consistency for both buildings. He said the cabinet-style signs cost about $2,000 a piece and channel letter signs cost about $6,000. He said he thinks they need to keep the Sparks and Super America signs in channel letters. Community Design Review Board 3 Minutes 4-22-2003 Chairperson Shanker asked the applicant if PBK Investments was willing to repaint Building A the same color it is now (green and beige)? Mr. Earls said it would cost $30,000 to repaint Building A. It would cost even more to change the paint color because it requires two coats of paint. The roof on Building A needs to be fixed as well and that will cost roughly $40,000. PBK Investments has to justify the cost and they need to decide what they can afford to do now and what will have to wait. Board member Olson asked the applicant at what point do they do an overlay as opposed to the bit patch repair on the potholes? Mr. Earls said they would do an overlay after a complete break up of the whole parking lot, such as having a really bad section or uneven parking. The majority of their potholes are created by water runoff from the carwash. They do have some bad spots where the semi- trucks come in and out. He said the asphalt company would saw cut the bad areas and then patch the problem spots. Board member Olson asked the applicant if the parking lot would get an overlay in the next two years? Mr. Earls said he estimates they are two-to-five years away from having a parking lot overlay. Board member Olson asked Mr. Earls if he agreed with the recommendation to paint the fascia trim and bollards on building A? Mr. Earls said he took a bid last year for painting and he will get another bid this year. He said the plan is to have the fascia trim and the bollards painted. He said the nicer they keep their building the more appealing it is to the companies that lease space from them. He said it's a hard building to lease because of the building placement. Board member Jorgenson asked the applicant how he felt regarding the staff recommendation for the concrete work? Mr. Earls said he agreed there are a couple of curbs that need to be replaced which deteriorated from the salt and snowplows over the winter. Board member Jorgenson asked Mr. Earls if there were any problems regarding replacing the landscaping? Mr. Earls said Mogren's Landscaping across the street gave them a one-year warranty and will replace any landscaping that died over the winter. Chairperson Shankar asked the applicant what the intention was for the trash enclosures and the garbage problem? - Mr. Earls said first they are going to switch trash companies to Randy's Sanitation. Community Design Review Board Minutes 4-22-2003 4 Mr. Earls said the trash enclosure problem is that the dumpster gets lifted up and it doesn't ge* put back in the right place. They have tried locking the dumpster enclosure and they have tried leaving the door open. The refuse company they hire has to guarantee they will put the dumpster back in the proper place. Mr. Earls said at this location people have come in the middle of the night and dumped garbage. He said they have worked with the police department regarding this problem but the police have better things to do then patrol their garbage dumpster. He said Randy's Sanitation has guaranteed they will handle the situation properly. He will take a look at the dumpster situation at both buildings. They are going to have someone walk the area picking up garbage a few times a day to keep a handle on the situation. Board member Olson said she would be happy to have the applicant paint the fascia and the bollards. She understands the cost factor and the tight financial situation, especially with the upcoming roof costs. She said she likes the idea of the buildings being painted different colors to distinguish the uses of the buildings. Chairperson Shankar said he does not have a problem with the applicant repainting the fascia and the bollards, but he thinks a condition should be added stating a timeline when the whole building has to be completely repainted. He thinks the estimated timeframe should be to repaint Building A within three years. Mr. Earls said he would like to bring that proposal back to the owner of the building. Ms. Finwall asked for clarification regarding painting the freestanding pylon signs. Mr. Earls said the freestanding pylon signs are not proposed to be painted. He said he would have to talk to the owner about that. He said the owner is in the process of checking into replacing the freestanding pylon signs because they are having some electrical issues with the transformers. Board member Olson asked the applicant if he anticipated coming back before the board with plans for the new pylon signs? Mr. Earls said he is not sure because new freestanding pylon signs could cost $70,000 to $100,000 to replace. Chairperson Shankar said he is not comfortable approving the design changes without painting the freestanding pylon signs. Mr. Earls said he would have to check with the owner. There are so many cost issues and he is not sure what the owner plans on doing with the pylon signs yet. Board member Olson said since you will already have the paint for the fascia and bollards you could have the pylon signs repainted. Mr. Earls said the pylon signs are stucco and the paint is not peeling, it is just faded and he would still have to check with the owner. Community Design Review Board Minutes 4-22-2003 Chairperson Shankar said the applicant has the right to appeal any of the CDRB's conditions of approval to the city council. Ms. Finwall would recommend that Super America's freestanding pylon sign be repainted to match the Super America colors. Board member Jorgenson moved to approve Brian Pellowski's request for a comprehensive sign plan amendment for the Maplewood Auto Center at 2525 White Bear Avenue subject to the following conditions (deletions are stricken and additions are underlined to reflect changes to the original comprehensive sign plan conditions): Wall Siqns for Tenants of Building A Exterior tenant signage shall consist of store identification only and copy shall be restricted to the tenant's proper name and major product or service offered. Corporate Iogos, emblems, shields, and similar identifYing devices shall be permitted ~ arc "'""~""'~ '";*~'I" *~'" °~"" ~"~"'~ .... upon approval of the landlord The signs shall be located in the recessed area above the tenant windows and .qaraqe bays ~,',,-I'-"~*"'~ ''~ ...... ~",,"-'~ on "' .... *~"" ~' .... ~,-,-o -,*+,,,-~,,','~ Any '~""~'~*;'"" frcm Tenants located on the western side of the building are allowed use of cabinet-style signa.qe indl,;id'J~l !!!,Jmlnatcd letters only and the tenant located on the eastern side of the building, facin.q White Bear Avenue, is allowed individual illuminated !ettcrc only ~nd thc ................................................ ,~, ...... ~ .............. , "' siq ly Tn,-,,,,-, -.,,,,-+ ~,-,,,-,,., +~,,- ~,-+'~' o,, ..... a ;,-,-~;,,;,~,,'-' ;", ,'-'-;"'~+"a channel letter naqe on .............................. O~ Maximum size of cabinet-style signage for tenants located on the western side of the building shall not exceed 24 inches in height and shall be centered in the recessed area above the tenant windows and garage bays. Maximum size of channel letter signage for the tenant located on the eastern side of the building, facing White Bear Avenue, shall not exceed 28 inches in height and must maintain at least an 18-inch margin at both ends. Prior to approval of the April 22, 2003, comprehensive sign plan amendment. Northeast Import's cabinet-style sign must be relocated to be centered in M ................ hcight ............, the recessed area above the tenant space. ....~ .... ~.-.,... ~.. o.~ ;....~..... m=rg:n . ., ..... Community Design Review Board Minutes 4-22-2003 6 Electrical connections and junction box with circuit breaker will be located in the tenant space. Access panels will be provided on the backside of the signage panel. Th6 landlord will provide one 20-amp circuit to the center of each storefront and it will be the responsibility of the installing company to provide secondary wiring to face of canopy and provide final hookup. f_,h, Tenant may, if desired, place name and suite number on service doors. Signage for service doors to read the same as the signage used on the tenant's storefront. Signage on service doors shall be of 3-inch block Helvetica lettering. Tenant signage shall be properly maintained and kept in safe condition. Any signage that is unsafe, deteriorated or defaced shall be repaired or removed by tenant. Prior to approval of the April 22, 2003, comprehensive siqn plan amendment, the two defaced cabinet-style signs will be removed or faced with tenant signa.qe. Any type of signage other than those specified in this document shall be prohibited. These include: (1) Any type of illuminated sign or sign composed of electrical components other than thus listed, especially those with components which flash, revolve, rotate, or make noise. (2)(3) Any type of plaque signage. (3)H--)-Signs employing molded or formed letters, or letters with no returns or exposed fastenings. Cloth, wood, paper or cardboard signs, stickers, decals or signs, letters, symbols, or identification painted directly on the surface of the premises. Auxiliary signage, such as that used for grand openings and sales may be subject to landlord and city approval. Materials such as these may not cover more than 25 percent of total window area. Prior to approval of the April 22, 2003, comprehensive siqn plan amendment, the plywood siqn and all banners that have been used as permanent signs will be removed and replaced with the required cabinet-style siqna.qe. (,5)(6) Any exposed neon sign. Wall Signs for Tenants of Building B (Super America Gas Station) Wall signage is limited to two siqns includinq one of individual channel letters not to exceed 28-inches hiqh and one readerboard siqn not to exceed 24 square feet. Both si.qns to be placed on the east side of the building. bo Canopy si.qnage is limited to one individual channel letter siqn not to exceed 24 inches hi(Ih. Canopy siqnaqe is limited to the east side of the canopy. Community Design Review Board Minutes 4-22-2003 7 Pylon Signs Two pylon signs are allowed for the site as approved by the community design review board on March 22, 1988 (Building B) and October 11, 1988 (Building A). Prior to approval of the April 22, 2003, comprehensive siqn plan amendment the applicants must paint the two pylon signs as follows: a_ Buildinq A Pylon Sign: ('areen). Top fascia of the siqn must be repainted the existing color Building B Pylon Si.qn: Painted white on the top fascia and light qrey on the bottom block. Elevations showing the above-described colors for the pylon sign must be approved by staff. Paintinq of both pylon signs as described above must be complete prior issuance of sign permits for Super America's sign chanqeover, or after submittal of a letter of credit or escrow in the amount of 150 percent of the required work. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. Board member Olson seconded. Ayes- Jorgenson, Olson, Shankar Board member Olson moved to approve Brian Pellowski's request for a design review change for the Maplewood Auto Center at 2525 White Bear Avenue to include painting the Super America building from green and ivory to white and light grey with red trim subject to the following conditions (deletions are stricken and additions are underlined to reflect changes to the original design review conditions): ag Approval of plans by the Community Design Review Board does not constitute approval of a building permit. All trash dumpsters shall be stored in screening enclosures with a 100 percent opaque wooden gate and shall be a color and material compatible with the building. Enclosures shall be protected by concrete-filled steel posts, or the equivalent, anchored in the ground at the front corners of the structure. If the enclosure is masonry, the protective posts may be omitted. Any exterior building or rooftop equipment that is not adequately screened by the parapet shall be additionally screened and hidden from view. Parking areas shall be striped and all bituminous areas shall have continuous concrete curbing. Parking lots shall be kept in a continual state of repair. Prior to approval of the April 22, 2003, desiqn change, the applicant must repair and restripe the entire parking lot to include repair or replacement of all concrete curbing. This work must be done prior to issuance of sign permits for the Super America siqn changeover, or after submittal of a letter of credit or escrow in the amount of 150 percent of the required work. Community Design Review Board Minutes 4-22-2003 eo If construction has not begun within two years of approval, board review shall be repeated. Site security lighting shall be provided and shall be directed or shielded so not to cause any undue glare onto adjacent properties or roadways. go If any adjacent property is disturbed or property irons removed due to construction of the site, that property shall be restored and irons replaced by the applicant. ho Grading, drainage and utility plans shall be subject to the city engineer's approval. Any erosion control plan, acceptable to the city engineer, shall be submitted prior to the issuance of a building permit for erosion control during construction. The curb cut along White Bear Avenue shall properly blend in to match the sidewalk grade. Prior to issuance of a grading permit .or building permit, the applicant shall obtain approval from Ramsey County for the curb cut and the realignment of the drainage ditch. ko The exit to White Bear Avenue shall have only one exit lane, a no left turn sign and stop sign. All grass areas along the south and east lot lines shall be sod, not seed. Those areas adjacent to the ditch shall be sod or seed. All required landscape areas shall be continually and properly maintained. Prior to approval of the April 22, 2003, design change, the applicant must ensure that all previously required landscaping is installed and/or maintained. The city will retain the August 24, 2001, letter of credit for the required landscapinq until such work is complete. n. All required plant materials that die shall be replaced by the owner within one year. o. Reflectorized stop signs and handicap parking signs shall be provided. All public boulevards that are disturbed due to this construction shall be restored and resodded. The applicant shall provide a monetary guarantee, in the form acceptable to staff, in the amount of 150 percent of the established cost of any site improvements that are not completed by occupancy. The parking stall depth and drive aisle widths north and south of Building B shall be 19 feet and 24 feet. So There shall be no outside storage or displays of products or merchandise. Prior to approval of the April 22, 2003, desi.qn chan.qe, all outside storaqe and unlicensed vehicles must be removed from the site. Community Design Review Board Minutes 4-22-2003 Prior to approval of the April 22, 2003, desi.qn chanqe, Buildinq A must be repainted as follows: repaint the wall pack lights, bollards and top fascia the same color as existing (green). This work must be complete prior to issuance of sign permits for the Super America siqn chanqeover, or after submittal of a letter of credit or escrow in the amount of 150 percent of the required work. Buildinq A must be repainted in its entirety within two years of the date of this approval (April 22, 2005). If new colors are proposed for Building A, the Community Design Review Board must review the change. Uo Prior to approval of the April 22, 2003, design chanqe, Building B must be painted the followinq colors: white on the top fascia, qarage doors, window trim, bollards and wall lights; li.qht qrey on the middle section of the block; and red on the top flashing. Elevations showinq the above-described colors for Buildinq B must be approved by staff. This work must be complete prior to issuance of siqn permits for the Super America siqn chanqeover, or after submittal of a letter of credit or escrow in the amount of 150 percent of the required work. Mo All work shall follow the approved plans. approve minor chanqes. The director of community development may Board member Jorgenson seconded. Ayes- Jorgenson, Olson, Shankar The motion passed. b. Beam Avenue Retail - 1800 Beam Avenue Ms. Finwall said Azure Properties, representing the owner of the property, Richard Schreier, is proposing to develop a retail/office center at 1800 Beam Avenue called Beam Avenue Retail. The proposal includes three buildings that will encompass a total of 19,776 square feet and will house retail and/or office tenants. The buildings will be constructed on the same 3.16-acre lot as the existing Chili's Restaurant. Staff recommends approval with several conditions Board member Olson asked staff if the applicant added the six-foot high fence for screening would they still have to add the evergreen trees? Ms. Finwall said the fencing will meet the city code requirement for a commercial property adjacent residential by creating an 80% opaque screen. She was suggesting that perhaps the evergreen trees could be relocated on the site. However, she said it would be nice to see both the fence and the evergreen trees on the south side of the property. Board member Jorgenson said a revised landscape plan should be submitted showing the relocation of the evergreen trees. Board member Olson said she thinks the neighbors would appreciate the fence but where does it state the material and color of the fence? Ms. Finwall said staff is recommending the applicant submit fence elevations to include a six- foot high maintenance free fence. Community Design Review Board Minutes 4-22-2003 tO Chairperson Shankar said staff stated in the report that the building elevations were not compatible with the surrounding buildings. He asked staff how the proposed buildings woulr., be compatible to Chili's building? Ms. Finwall said many of the buildings along Beam Avenue, including Aspen Medical Building to the east, have brick as the main building material. For that reason, staff is recommending that the new buildings be more consistent with the buildings along Beam Avenue. Chairperson Shankar asked the applicant to address the board. Mr. Tom Schuette of Azure Properties, addressed the board. Mr. Schuette said he read the report and he would like to touch on some of the issues. Regarding the rear elevations of the buildings, they proposed the evergreen trees at six-feet high. He said in the past they typically have been given the chance to have the trees grow and have not had to install a fence along with the trees for screening. They would rather plant the trees than install a fence. He said he has driven around the buildings in that area and none of the buildings other than Chili's restaurant have a fence at the back of the property but do have brick on the rear and sides of the property. He said it is too extensive to be required to have brick, trees and a fence along the back of the property. He would suggest that the fencing be deleted and that the trees be considered adequate. He said they will take responsibility for the fence on the south side that is currently on the property. He said there are trees growing through the fence and they are not sure whose fence it is but they will repair the fence. Mr. Schuette said they have no problem with the landscape requirement. He said he woulr~ like to get a copy of the landscaping plan from 1990 so they know what to put back into the plan and what is missing from Chili's site. He said Chili's put the drive through window and drive through lane in without checking with Azure Properties and apparently were reprimanded by the city. He said ten years ago it was not a common thing to have a drive through, so it was not an issue back then, but times have changed and now Chili's and Outback Steakhouse have the drive through feature. He said the biggest issue with the lighting is the safety. There is a lot of parking in the back and the employees will be working after dark. They would like to see if they can work with staff to provide lighting that is on the building and is easier to maintain and less subject to the vandalism and being hit by the snowplows. Mr. Schuette said as far as the sidewalk goes, they will have the only sidewalk between Southlawn Avenue and White Bear Avenue. He knows Aspen Medical Building doubled their size and they were not required to install a sidewalk. He said there is no demand for sidewalks and if the city feels sidewalks are necessary then they should assess the surrounding properties to have them installed. He doesn't believe new properties should be responsible for installing the sidewalks when other areas have not been required to have them. They want to build buildings with rent that companies can afford. Because of the expense he doesn't think it is necessary to have brick on all elevations of the buildings. He believes the parking lot is in good shape and there is no need to overlay the parking lot. He said there is a possibility of having food establishments such as Quizno's and Caribou Coffee in these buildings in the future. They are not opposed to having a restaurant but there is a provision in the Chili's lease limiting the size of a future restaurant on the site. The dumpster can be moved behind buildin9 C rather than behind Chili's Restaurant so it would be more accessible to the tenants. Community Design Review Board Minutes 4-22-2003 Board member Jorgenson asked Mr. Schuette if the three buildings would be built concurrently or phased in? Mr. Schuette said the buildings would be phased in. He said the landscaping, paving, curbing and parking would be put in right away and he said it could take a couple years for completion. Board member Jorgenson asked Mr. Schuette how many years he estimates it would take? Mr. Schuette said he the buildings could take up to three years. He said there is a lot of commercial action and demand on Beam Avenue. Board member Olson asked Mr. Schuette how he felt about the Legacy Village development proposed on the other side of Beam Avenue? Mr. Schuette said they would like to begin building before Legacy Village gets started. He said he believes they have a better location then the proposed Legacy Village does. However, when County Road D goes through over to Highway 61 this will help the Legacy Village location. He said he thinks Beam Avenue is a stronger retail location. As far as a food competitor, this would depend on what is put in at the old movie theatre location on White Bear Avenue. He heard MTC has switched the proposed Park and Ride site to the theatre site on Beam Avenue rather than White Bear Avenue. He said the Simon Group is marketing the White Bear Avenue theatre site to restaurant developers. Board member Jorgenson asked if building A would house 2 retail spaces, building B would house 4 retail spaces and building C would house 2 retail spaces? Mr. Schuette said the buildings are 60-65 feet deep and could be divided into 1200 square foot or even smaller tenant spaces. Board member Olson said the sidewalk issue is something the city council feels very strongly about and she has a strong feeling about sidewalks as well. She said if everyone came to the board and said the neighboring company does not have a sidewalk, then nobody in the city would have sidewalks. She said the city council decided to begin requiring all new construction to install sidewalks for pedestrians. She believes the applicant would be happy they had the sidewalk put in for their customers. Mr. Schuette said the sidewalk would be beneficial if it went further. Board member OIson said in the near future the sidewalks would all connect. Mr. Schuette asked staff if there was a reason why the city was not on an assessment plan for sidewalk installation? Ms. Finwall said she did not have an answer to that. Board member Olson said she is speculating that it is budgetary. She said doing blanket assessments on every commercial property in order to implement the sidewalk projects be completed would be very impractical at this time. She said there isn't the staff to manage that at this time. Community Design Review Board Minutes 4-22-2003 Mr. Schuette said Azure Properties has a project proposed at the old Pizza Hut site and tha* proposal has been required to install sidewalks, which would cost $18,000. Board member Jorgenson said the sidewalk issue is not going to go away. Everyone will be required to have sidewalks, which will eventually connect for pedestrian and customer use. Board member Olson asked the applicant, which two requirements would he prefer, the brick, the trees, or the fence? Mr. Schuette said it is budgetary, so he would probably pick the trees and the fence because the brick is so expensive. Chairperson Shankar asked if there was anybody in the audience who wanted to speak on this proposal to come forward and address the board. Mr. Richard McKane, residing at 1825 Radatz Avenue East, Maplewood, addressed the board. He said he is the only neighbor that came to this hearing. He is concerned about the traffic flow out of the area. He wants to ensure that traffic will flow out to Beam Avenue? Ms. Finwall said the original 1990 proposal for Chili's Restaurant had a condition that the south driveway have a right turn only sign installed. This was required to ensure no traffic in the residential area. However, the same type of sign would need to be installed on the north driveway. Also, the Outback Steakhouse across the street dOes not have these types of signs Staff foresees the south driveway being used mainly by employees. She said most traffic would turn right to access Beam Avenue. Mr. McKane said there are parking problems on Southlawn Avenue from the customer overflow from the restaurants. He wants to know what the plan is to keep the cars off the street? He also wondered what the hours of operation would be for these proposed buildings? Board member Jorgenson said he thinks the hours of operation would differ from the surrounding properties and would not experience the same parking problems. Ms. Finwall said city code does not limit hours of operation. However, staff foresees the hours of the retail and office tenants varying from the restaurant's peak evening hours. Mr. McKane said he would be in favor of the applicant installing pole lights instead of using wall pack lights. He said the Outback Steakhouse has the light poles with residential homes next to it. He is an electrician by trade and he knows the light can be directed downward to control glare. Mr. McKane said if the trash dumpster is not moved it will be located at the corner near his home and his neighbor's home. More and more companies are installing rooftop units with air exchangers and the noise carries out and he has a concern about that. He said behind the Aspen Medical Building there are 40-foot tall evergreen trees. He thinks large evergreen trees look nicer instead of a fence. Board member Olson asked staff if there was any other neighborhood feedback received? Ms. Finwall said no. Community Design Review Board Minutes 4-22-2003 Mr. Schuette said it is Azure Properties intent to have a monument or pylon sign for the new buildings and for that reason they will be coming back with those sign plans. Ms. Finwall said because of the multi-tenant use the signs would require a comprehensive sign plan. She stated she was not aware the buildings would be phased in. She said there should be something added in the conditions regarding the phasing. She said the design review board approval lasts two years and then would be required to come back for review again. Board member Olson moved to approve the plans date-stamped February 26, 2003, for the proposed Beam Avenue Retail center at 1800 Beam Avenue. Approval is subject to the following conditions. (changes made by the Community Design Review Board at the April 22, 2003, meeting are underlined if added and stricken if deleted): Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for all three buildings proposed in this project within that time. The applicant must submit the following items to staff for approval prior to issuance of a building permit: ao Revised grading, drainage, utility, and erosion control plan which addresses all of the assistant city engineer's concerns as outlined in his March 31, 2003, engineering plan review. In addition, the revised plan must specify the construction phasing of the buildings and the establishment of turf in the areas not initially built on. b. Revised site plan showing: (1) Curb and gutter around the new parking lot. (2) Location of a sidewalk along the entire Beam Avenue frontage. The sidewalk shall be six feet wide, have pedestrian ramps, and be installed seven feet behind the back of the curb. (3) One on-site directional sign to be located on the south curb cut on Southlawn Drive directing Chili's carry-out traffic around the south side of the new buildings to the east side of Chili's building. The directional sign shall not exceed four square feet in area. (4) The dumpster enclosure relocated from the southeast corner of the lot to behind Chili's Restaurant or directly behind Retail Center C. (5) The construction phasing of buildings and the establishment of turf in the areas not initially built on. (6) Location of any proposed retaining walls. c. Revised elevations showing: Community Design Review Board Minutes 4-22-2003 14 (1) Building elevations of all three buildings as follows: front and side elevations shall have brick extending to the bottom of the EIFS and th~ rear elevation shall have a 3-foot-hiqh brick wainscot, with facc brlc~ as (2)(8-) Dumpster enclosure constructed of materials compatible to the buildings, including a 100 percent opaque gate. (3-)~,-) Retaining wall details. d. Revised landscape plan showing: (1) Landscaping for the entire site, including Chili's Restaurant. Any required landscaping removed from the Chili's Restaurant site must be replaced. (2) Turf establishment plan includinq turf in the areas not initially built on. (3) Landscaping for the ponding areas and the area labeled "rainwater garden" on the grading plan. The ponding areas and rainwater garden should include revegetation with native grasses and Forbes. The mix design must be pre-approved by the city in advance of seeding. In addition, shrubbery and trees should be incorporated around the high water level of the impounding areas. (4) Plans for an underground lawn irrigation system for all landscaped areas, excluding the ponding areas and the rainwater garden. e. Revised lighting plan showing: (1) Removal of all wall-pack lights on the south side of the buildings. (2) Location and design of freestanding lights on the south side of the parking lot. These lights must not exceed 15 feet in height and must be equipped with sharp cutoffs to ensure no light glare onto adjacent residential properties. (3) Photometrics for the new lights showing that the light illumination does not exceed .4 foot candles at all property lines. f. 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. _a. Buildinq samples must be submitted to staff for approval. Obtain permits from Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Community Design Review Board Minutes 4-22-2003 VI, o The applicant shall complete the following before occupying the building: a. Install reflectorized stop signs at the new exit, install handicap accessible parking signs for each handicap parking space and install addresses on the buildings. b. All roof-mounted equipment must be screened from view of adjacent residential properties. All roof-mounted equipment visible from the street must be painted to match the color of the upper part of the buildings. c. Construct the approved trash enclosure. d. Install the required landscaping and underground lawn irrigation system. e. Construct the parking lot with required curb and gutter. In addition, the existing parking lot must be repaired, resuffaced and restriped. on-site This approval does not include signage except for the above-mentioned directional sign. 6. If any required work is not done, the city may allow temporary occupancy if: The city determines that the work is not essential to the public health, safety or welfare. 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 Jorgenson seconded. The motion passed. Ayes- Jorgenson, OIson, Shankar Chairperson Shankar asked staff when this goes to the city council? Ms. FinWall said this will not go to the city council unless the applicant would like to appeal one of the board's conditions, in which case the applicant should submit an appeal to the city council within 15 days of today's date, April 22, 2003. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS No visitors present. Community Design Review Board Minutes 4-22-2003 VII. BOARD PRESENTATIONS VIII. IX. 16 Board member Olson gave a review of the April 14, 2003, city council meeting. The Van Dyke Village Town house land use change was denied and the action on the PUD was tabled. STAFF PRESENTATIONS Ms. Finwall said the next CDRB meeting would be on Tuesday, May 13, 2003. She said CDRB representation is not needed at the city council meeting on April 28, 2003, because there are no CDRB items to be discussed. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:08 p.m. TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: DATE: MEMORANDUM City Manager Ken Roberts, Associate Planner Dearborn Meadow East Castle Avenue, north of Cope Avenue May 6, 2003 INTRODUCTION Project Description Mr. Pat Kinney is proposing revisions to the approved Dearborn Meadow town house development. In 2002, the city approved plans for Dearborn Meadows with nine town houses (in four twinhomes and one single unit). The approval for the nine units was for a 2.11-acre site. The revised plan now has a total of 15 town houses (in seven twinhomes and one single unit) on a 3.58-acre site on the south side of Castle Avenue, north of Cope Avenue. Refer to the maps on pages 15-20. A homeowners' association would own and maintain the common areas. Each building would have horizontal-lap vinyl siding, aluminum soffits and fascia and brick veneer on the fronts. In addition, each unit would have a two-car garage. (See the elevations on page 24 and the enclosed plans.) Requests To build this project, Mr. Kinney is requesting that the city approve: A revision to an approved conditional use permit (CUP) for a planned unit development (PUD). The revised PUD will allow the development of the site with 15 town houses to be on smaller lots than code usually allows (in area and in width) and to have them on a pdvate driveway. 2. A revised preliminary plat for 15 lots for the 15 housing units. (See the map on page 18.) 3. The design plans for the site, landscaping and buildings. BACKGROUND On July 22, 1985, the city approved a plan amendment and a rezoning for the property between Castle and Cope Avenues, east of the property at 1930 Castle Avenue. The land use plan change was from RL (Iow-density residential) to BVV (business warehouse) and RM (medium-density residential). The zoning map change was from R-1 (single dwellings) and BC (business commercial) to M-1 (light manufacturing) and R-2 (single and double dwellings). These changes were required by the distdct court after Hillcrest Development sued the city to overturn a zoning map change from BC to R-1 that the council made on September 12, 1983. On May 15, 2000, the planning commission recommended approval of the land use plan and zoning map changes and the lot-area and lot-width variances for a 10-unit proposal. For the preliminary plat, the commission split their vote four to four. On May 23, 2000, the community design review board recommended that the city council deny the 10-unit proposal. The board felt that the site was too dense based on the configuration of the buildings. They felt that 15 feet between structures was too little and that the southerly buildings should be reoriented to face north with their backyards butting up to the backyards to the south. After much discussion and the recommendation from these meetings, Mr. Ackerman withdrew his development requests before staff sent the 10-unit proposal to the city council. On June 10, 2002, the city council made several approvals for the nine-unit Dearborn Meadows townhouses. These included: A change to the comprehensive plan. This was from M-1 (light manufacturing) to R-2 (single and double dwellings) for the site. (See the existing land use map on page 16.) A change to the zoning map. This was from M-1 (light manufacturing) to R-2 (single and double dwellings) for the site. Refer to the property line/zoning map on page 17. A conditional use permit (CUP) for a planned unit development (PUD). This PUD was to allow the town houses to be on smaller lots than code usually allows (in area and in width) and to have them on a private driveway. 4. A preliminary plat for nine lots for the nine housing units. (See the map on page 25.) 5. The design plans for the site, landscaping and buildings. City staff also proposed the city change the zoning map and land use plan designations for two areas next to the proposed development. These changes were from M-1 (light manufacturing) to R-2 (single and double dwellings). The council approved these changes as well. DISCUSSION Land Use and Zoning With the actions of the city council in 2002, the city has now planned and zoned this area R-2 (single and double dwellings). These designations allow single and double dwellings with up to 6 units per gross acre. Compatibility Staff does not find a problem with this proposal in terms of compatibility and land use. The proposed townhouses would be on property that the city has planned and zoned for double dwellings. The site is near Highway 36 and next to single dwellings. In addition, developers will often build townhomes next to 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. There are many other examples in Maplewood, such as Alton Ridge, Southwinds, Bennington Woods and the Carriage Homes of Maple Hills where this is the case. Density As proposed, the 15 units on the 3.58-acre site means there would be 4.19 units per acre. This is consistent with the density standards in the comprehensive plan for double dwelling residential development. In addition, the proposed change would expand the residential uses on a street that is now pdmadly used by the existing homes in this area. Thus, the proposal meets the goals in the comprehensive plan by having similar uses fronting on the same street. 2 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) REVISION Conditional Use Permit Section 36-438(b) of the city code says that it is the intent of the PUD code "to provide a means to allow flexibility by substantial deviations from the provisions of this chapter, including uses, setbacks, height and other regulations. Deviations may be granted for planned unit developments provided that: Certain regulations contained in this chapter should not apply to the proposed development because of its unique nature. 2. The PUD would be consistent with the purposes of this chapter. The planned unit development would produce a development of equal or superior quality to that which would result from strict adherence to the provisions of this chapter. The deviations would not constitute a significant threat to the property values, safety, health or general welfare of the owners or occupants of nearby land. The deviations are required for reasonable and practicable physical development and are not required solely for financial reasons." The applicant has applied for a conditional use permit (CUP) for a planned unit development (PUD) for the 15-unit housing development. They are requesting the CUP revision for the PUD because of expanded project size and for the proposed 10t widths and lot sizes. The developer is proposing a small lot around each dwelling unit. A homeowners' association would own and maintain the rest of the land, including the private driveway. Exchanging the common land for larger lot sizes would not change the location, design or number of units in this development. In addition, the city has approved similar-styled developments in the past such as Holloway Ponds at Holloway Avenue and Beebe Road. In this case, the proposal would have 15 town house units in eight buildings. In addition, having a PUD gives the city and developer a chance to be more flexible with site design and development details than the standard city requirements would normally allow. The developer intends to sell each of the townhomes and expects that each unit will sell for at least $249,000. Preliminary Plat Revision Density and Lot Size As now proposed, the 15 units on the 3.58-acre site means there would be 4.19 units per acre (an average of 10,396 square feet per unit). This is consistent with the density standards in the comprehensive plan for double dwelling residential development and is well above the 6,000 square-foot minimum lot area that the city requires for each unit in a double dwelling. Maplewood has zoned the properties on the north side of Cope Avenue R-2 (single and double dwellings). This also is the zoning for undeveloped land between Cope and Castle Avenues. The city requires each single dwelling lot in this zoning district to have at least 60 feet of frontage and be at least 7,500 square feet in area. Double dwellings in this distdct are to have 120 feet of 3 street frontage and be at least 12,000 square feet in area. The existing lots on the north side of Cope Avenue meet or exceed these standards. Public Utilities There are sanitary sewer, storm sewer and water in Castle and Cope Avenues to serve the proposed development. Specifically, the city designed and built the storm sewer in Cope Avenue to accommodate drainage from a large area north of Cope Avenue. The developer's plans will connect their pipes to the existing storm and sanitary sewer pipes. Tree Removal/Replacement The plans for Dearborn East show the removal of nine large trees (ash, box elders and elm), but the developer would preserve six existing trees (3 ash and 3 elm). In addition, the plans show the developer saving 15 large trees (oaks and ash) in the first phase of the development. The proposed landscape plan for this phase (page 21) shows the developer planting six spruce trees, seven seedless ash and three white pine trees (a total of 16 replacement trees). The city should require the developer to plant at least two more trees in this phase of the development (for a total of 18) to replace at a two-to-one ratio the nine trees that he will be removing. Wetland Ordinance The RamseyANashington Metro Watershed Distdct reviewed and approved the first phase of the development and has issued Mr. Kinney a permit. They have classified the wetland on proposed Outlot A (within the first phase) as a Class Five Wetland. These are the wetlands that humans have impacted the most and have the least diverse types of vegetation and the least community resource significance. This wetland classification does not require a buffer area. However, the building foundations must be at least ten feet from the edge of the wetland. The proposed grading plan (on page 20) meets these requirements. The project contractor has started grading the site, including the ponding area, following the approved plans. Drainage Concerns Several neighbors expressed concem over the potential for increased runoff and flooding due to this development. The neighbors also have told staff that there has been an on going drainage problem for the area between Cope and Castle Avenues for several years. Specifically, there are properties that have Iow areas that tend to collect storm water and this water does not drain off quickly. The city should require that the grading/drainage plan would not increase the storm- water flow onto any neighbor's land. (Please also see the comments from the Assistant City Engineer starting on page 26.) The plans approved by the city in 2002 for this area show the developer expanding the wetland to form a larger area for the collection of storm water. As proposed, the utility plan shows most of the storm water from the site, including the private driveways, and the drainage from the undeveloped area east of the site, going into the expanded ponding area. The developer is proposing that the overflow from the pond go into new and existing storm sewer pipes that connect to the city drainage system in Cope Avenue. These designs are all consistent with the plans approved by the city and the watershed distdct in 2002. Based on the latest plans, the developer's engineer provided the City Engineer with 4 information and calculations about the storm water. These show that this project will actually reduce the amount of storm water running off the site. Building Design The proposed buildings should be attractive and would fit in with the design of the existing homes. They would have an exterior of horizontal vinyl siding with brick veneer on the fronts and the roof would have asphalt shingles. (See the drawings on page 24.) When the CDRB reviewed the plans for Dearborn Meadow in 2002, they added a condition of approval that the builder present a revised building plan to staff that shows brick wainscoting on the north side of the building along Castle Avenue. The CDRB was concerned about the appearance of the buildings from the public streets, including Highway 36. As such, they thought that having the builder add more brick to the street side of the buildings would improve the appearance. The city should now continue this same condition for the north side of all the buildings along Castle Avenue. This would include the street side of Unit 1 of Block 2 of Phase One and Units 7, 8 and 9 of Phase Two (Dearborn Meadow East). Landscaping The proposed plans keep many of the existing trees around the perimeter of the site and near the wetland. As proposed, the developer would plant 16 larger (replacement) trees in this phase of the development. These include a group of black-hills spruce along the north and east property lines, seven ash trees (one near each unit) and three white pines along the east property line. (See the plan on page 21.) The landscape plan (page 23) also shows the proposed plantings around each unit that will include a spirea, junipers, dogwoods and arborvitaes. The landscape plan for Phase One (page 22) shows the developer planting a row of 11 black hills spruce along the south property line of the site. The city should require the developer to follow this plan for the first phase and make the changes to the landscape plan noted below. While the landscape plan for the new phase is a good start, the developer should add more trees for screening along the north and south sides of the site. These are intended to screen the new homes from the highway and from the existing houses to the south. The applicant should revise the landscape plan to show these additional trees and to be consistent with Maplewood ordinance standards including making the ash trees at least 2 1/2 inches in caliper, balled and budapped. The plantings proposed around foundations of the units should remain on the plan. In addition to the above, all yard areas should be sodded (except for mulched and edged planting beds). Other Comments Police Department Deputy Chief John Banick of the Maplewood Police Department noted that he wanted the city to be sure that there is enough room within the site to allow emergency vehicles (including fire trucks) to maneuver. 5 Fire Marshal Butch Gervais, the Maplewood Fire Marshal, wants the city to make sure the end of the driveways are large enough for proper snow removal and for the maneuvering of emergency vehicles. RECOMMENDATIONS Ao Approve the resolution starting on page 28. This resolution approves a revision to the conditional use permit for a planned unit development for the 15-unit Dearborn Meadow and Dearborn Meadow East development on the south side of Castle Avenue. 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 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 including keeping and protecting as many of the trees as possible. (2) All driveways at least 20 feet wide. If the developer wants to have parking on one side of the main ddve (Castle Place), then it must be at least 28 feet wide. (3) All parking stalls with a width of at least 9.5 feet and a length of at least 18 feet. (4) Revised storm water pond locations and designs as suggested or required by the watershed district or city engineer. The ponds shall meet the city's design standards. The proposed construction (of Dearborn Meadow East) 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 April 28, 2003. 4. The approved setbacks for the principal structures in the Dearbom Meadow shall be: a. Front-yard setback (from a public street or a private driveway): minimum - 20 feet, maximum - 35 feet b. Front-yard setback (public side street): minimum - 30 feet, maximum - none c. Rear-yard setback: 30 feet from any adjacent residential property line d. Side-yard setback (town houses): minimum - 20 feet from a property line and 20 feet minimum between buildings. 6 5. 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. 6. 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. c. Remove any debris or junk from the site. 7. The city council shall review this permit in one year. Approve the Dearborn Meadow East preliminary plat (received by the city on April 7, 2003). The developer shall complete the following before the city council approves the final plat: 1. Sign an agreement with the city that guarantees that the developer Or contractor will: a. Complete all grading for overall site drainage, complete all public improvements and meet all city requirements. b.* Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits. c. Pay the city for the cost of traffic-control, street identification and no-parking signs. do Provide all required and necessary easements (including all utility easements and ten-foot drainage and utility easements along the front and rear lot lines of each lot and five-foot drainage and utility easements along the side lot lines of each lot). e. Cap and seal any wells on site. Have Xcel Energy install a street light at the intersection of Castle Avenue and the proposed private driveway (Castle Place). The exact location and type of light shall be subject to the city engineer's approval. Install permanent signs around the edge of the wetland buffer easement. These signs shall mark the edge of the easements and shall state that there shall be no mowing, vegetation cutting, filling, grading or dumping beyond this point. City staff shall approve the sign design and location before the contractor installs them. The developer or contractor shall install these signs before the city issues building permits in this plat. h. Install survey monuments along the wetland boundaries. 2.* Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall include grading, utility, drainage, erosion control, tree, and street plans. The plans shall meet all the conditions and changes listed in the memo dated April 28, 2003 and shall meet the following conditions: a. The erosion control plans shall be consistent with the city code. b. The grading plan shall: (1) Include proposed building pad elevation and contour information for each home site. The lot lines on this plan shall follow the approved preliminary plat. (2) Include contour information for all the land that the construction will disturb. (3) Show housing pads that reduce the grading on sites where the developer can save large trees. (4) Show the proposed street and driveway grades as allowed by the city engineer. (5) Include the tree plan that: · Shows where the developer will remove, save or replace large trees. This plan shall include an inventory of all existing large trees on the site. · Shows no tree removal beyond the approved grading and tree limits. (6) Show drainage areas and the developer's engineer shall provide the city engineer with the drainage calculations. The drainage design shall accommodate the runoff from the surrounding areas. The undeveloped parcel to the east of this site shall have unrestricted access to the storm sewer with a capacity to accommodate post development runoff. c. The street and utility plans shall show the: (1) Water service to each lot and unit. (2) Repair of Castle Avenue (street and boulevard) after the developer connects to the public utilities and builds the private driveways. Paying for costs related to the engineering department's review of the construction plans. 4. Change the plat as follows: Add drainage and utility easements as required by the city engineer. This shall include a 30-foot-wide easement for the existing 16-inch water main and easements for any other existing utilities on the site. The Saint Paul Regional Water Services (SPRWS) shall approve the description and location of the easement for the water main. Show drainage and utility easements along all property lines on the final plat. These easements shall be ten feet wide along the front and rear property lines and five feet wide along the side property lines. Label the north/south part of the private driveway as Castle Place, label Castle Street as Castle Avenue and label the east/west part of the private driveway as Castle Court on all plans. 8 d. Label the common area as Outlot A. 5. Secure and provide all required easements for the development including any off-site drainage and utility easements. 6. The developer shall complete all grading for public improvements and overall site drainage. The city engineer shall include in the developer's agreement any grading that the developer or contractor has not completed before final plat approval. 7. If necessary, obtain a permit from the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District for grading. If the developer decides to final plat part of the preliminary plat, the director of community development may waive any conditions that do not apply to the final plat. Submitting the homeowners' association bylaws and rules to the director of community development. These are to assure that there will be one responsible party for the maintenance of the private utilities, driveways and common areas. *The developer must complete these conditions before the city issues a grading permit or approves the final plat. Approve the plans date-stamped Apdl 7, 2003 (site plan, landscape plan, grading and drainage plans and building elevations) for Dearbom Meadow. 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 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 and contour information. (b) Include contour information for the land that the construction will disturb. (c) Show sedimentation basins or ponds as may be required by the watershed board or by the.city engineer. (d) Show a berm (two to four feet high) along the south property line of the site. (3)* The tree plan shall: 9 (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. (c) Show the size, species and location of the replacement trees. The deciduous trees shall be at least two and one half (2 1/2) inches in diameter and shall be a mix of red and white oaks and sugar maples. (d) Show no tree removal beyond the approved grading and tree limits. (4) All the parking areas and driveways shall have continuous concrete curb and gutter except where the city engineer decides that it is not needed. (5) There shall be no parking on one side of the 28-foot-wide driveway (Castle Place). The developer or contractor shall post Castle Place with no parking signs to meet the above-listed standard. The city will allow parking on Castle Court. b. Submit a certificate of survey for all new construction and have each building staked by a registered land surveyor. c. Submit a revised landscape plan to staff for approval that incorporates the following details: (1) All trees would be consistent with city standards for size, location and species. (2) Planting (instead of sodding) the disturbed areas around the wetland with native grasses and native flowering plants. The native grasses and flowering plants shall be those needing little or no maintenance and shall extend at least four feet from the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) of the pond. This is to reduce maintenance costs and to reduce the temptation of people mowing into the pond. (3) The ash trees must be at least 2 1/2 inches in caliper, balled and budapped. (4) The plantings proposed around the front of the units shown on the landscape plan date-stamped April 7, 2003, shall remain on the plan. (5) In addition to the above, the contractor shall sod all front, side and rear yard areas (except for mulched and edged planting beds and the area within the wetland easement). (6) No landscaping shall take place in the Castle Avenue boulevard. The contractor shall restore the boulevard with sod. (7) Adding ten more evergreen trees (Black Hills spruce or Austdan pines) to the proposed evergreen trees along the north and south property lines of the site. These trees are to be at least six feet tall and the contractor shall plant these trees in staggered rows on the berm. 10 Present a color scheme to staff for approval for each building. Present a revised building plan for staff approval that shows brick wainscoting on the north sides of all the units that are along Castle Avenue. If necessary, get an access permit from MnDOT for the driveways that will be on Castle Avenue (as MnDOT has not turned Castle Avenue back to the city). g. Provide the city with a letter of credit or cash escrow for all required exterior improvements. The amount shall be 150 percent of the cost of the work. Complete the following before occupying each building: a. Replace property irons that are removed because of this construction. b. Restore and sod damaged boulevards. Sod all landscaped areas, except for the area within the easement, which may be seeded. c. Install continuous concrete curb and gutter along all interior driveways and around all open parking stalls. d. The developer or contractor shall: (1) Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits. (2) Remove any debds or junk from the site. e. Put addresses on each building for each unit. f. Provide a driveway turn around for Lot 7 on Castle Avenue. 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. The above-required letter of credit or cash escrow is held by the City of Maplewood for all required extedor improvements. The owner or contractor shall complete any unfinished extedor improvements by June 1 if occupancy of the building is in the fall or winter, or within six weeks of occupancy of the building if occupancy is in the spdng or summer. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 11 CITIZENS' COMMENTS I surveyed the owners of the 44 properties within 350 feet of this site. was against and one had comments. Of the two replies, one Objection No - what part do you not understand? No, traffic bad, no drainage, we have fought before and will again. Win - win? No, it is only the realtor. Do not hurt us again. (Themmes - 1928 Castle Avenue) Comments Because of the nursing home next to us, we are at the bottom of a dam, so to speak. The run-off water from the property in question has nowhere else to go. Therefore, in keeping with the rest of the neighborhood, we feel that single dwelling homes would be the most appropriate and cause the least problems as far as drainage is concerned. We also hope that whatever is built on this property be of equal (or greater) value as the existing homes in this area and not be public (government) assisted housing. (Gehrke - 1917 Cope Avenue) 12 SITE DESCRIPTION Site size: acres Existing land use: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USES North: South: West: East: REFERENCE INFORMATION Home Depot across Highway 36 Single and double dwellings on Cope Avenue Houses on Castle Avenue Houses on Castle Avenue PLANNING Existing Land Use and Zoning designations: R-2 (single and double dwellings) Criteria for Conditional Use Permit Approval Section 36-442(a) states that the city council may approve a CUP, based on nine standards. (See findings 1-9 in the resolution on pages 28 and 29.) Application Date The city received all the application materials for this request on April 7, 2003. State law requires the city to take action on this request by June 2, 2003, unless the applicant agrees to a time extension. p:sec 11 ~earborn 2003 (15).mem Attachments: 1. Applicant's Statement 2. Location Map 3. Land Use Plan Map (Existing) 4. Property Line/Zoning Map 5. Proposed Preliminary Plat (15 Unit Plan) 6. Proposed Utility Plan (15 Unit Plan) 7. Proposed Grading Plan (15 Unit Plan) 8. Proposed Landscaping Plan -2003 9. Landscape Plan- 2002 10. Typical Unit Landscape Plan - 2003 11. Proposed Building Elevations 12. Approved Nine Unit Plan - 2002 13. Comments from Chris Cavett dated April 28, 2003 14. Conditional Use Permit Revision for Planned Unit Development (PUD) Resolution 15. Project Plans (separate attachments) 13 Attachment 1 City of Maplewood Staff/Planning Commission Re: Dearborn Meadow (East Addition) I am asking the City of Maplewood, Staff and Planning commission to approve my request for the PUD of the Dearbom Meadows East Addition for the following reasons. 1. Developing the site would be in unison with the Dearborn Meadows 1 st Phase, therefore not negatively affecting the residential character of the neighborhood. 2. The unit density of 4.8 units per acre is consistent with Phase 1 and well below the maximum code of 7.3 units for medium density residential development. 3. Grading and water mnoffhave been calculated when the 1 st Phase was developed, not affecting the character of the land or affecting the surrounding properties. 4. The City will not incur additional costs for public services since this will remain a private road, owned and serviced by the homeowners association. 5. The development will consist of single-level town homes with basements, which are difficult to find in the area, providing a need for empty nesters and or handicapped individuals looking for one level living. The PUD will allow for long time area residents to transition from older non functional homes in the city to a low maintenance lifestyle, without having to seek such housing alternatives outside the city limits. 6. Finally it's a win-win for the City and neighborhood residents, mining a piece of property which was once zoned light industrial and manufacturing into a medium density high quality town home community which will increase the tax base for Maplewood while providing quality housing and a good neighborhood to the surrounding residential properties. Respectfully Submitted, Patrick J. Kinn~ 14 Attachment 2 "~ , ~ NORTH SAINT PAUL · -- A~.. ! - ~ ~ -- ~A~ , ~ - , ~ ~. ~ ~. ~. , ~ ~- , . , ~ j~~: ~:~.~ '-- SCALE ~ ~ ~ ~,v. ~/~"" ~ ~ ' NORTH SAINT PAUL ..! ~ ~ ~ B Attachment3 '~ E R-3 E ,High y 36 , ,rincipal arterial KEY RI: SINGLE DWELLINGS R2 = SINGLE AND DOUBLE DWELLINGS R3(M) = MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL R3(H) = HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL LBC = LIMITED BUSINESS COMMERCIAL M1 = LIGHT MANUFACTURING W = WATER 16 Attachment 4 -~-~ ~--~--~- COPE AVENUE ir- AVE -ii ...... h KEY ' , ~,1: SINGLE DWELLINGS R2: SINGLE AND DOUBLE DWELLINGS R3 -- MULTIPLE DWELLINGS BC --- BUSINESS COMMERCIAL M1 -- LIGHT MANUFACq PROPERTY LINE I ZONING MAP LAURIE APPLICANT'S SITE .....o ,. CITY-APPROVED ZONING CHANGE - 2002 17 13~.36 Attachment 5 ...... ~ HIGHWAY 36 5 4 C A S T L E____A_~I~]J-F-~ .... !'.'] GRAPPHC SCALE  ~-.-,.W ~',.,,.,,T T PROPOSED PRELIMINARY PLAT 15 UNIT PLAN - 2003 Attachment 6 ~ H ] G H W A~m a 6 -i- l-- fy 0 z I I 22 23 I I 21 PAT K. INI~mY 1856 BEAM AVENUE MAPLEWOOD MN 55109 TEL. (651) 770-5711 PROJECT No, 99~95 PROPOSED UTILITY PLAN 15 UNIT PLAN- 2003 19 Attachment7 GRAPHIC SCALE C A~S}T L PROPOSED GRADING PLAN 15 UNIT PLAN - 2003 2O CASTLE AVENUE ~A PRIVATE DRIVEWAY . . .................. ~ .... . ........ L'- -Z :-] ................................. Attachment 8 PROPOSED LANDSCAPING PLAN- 2003 '2 21 Attachment LANDSCAPING.,PLAN- 2002 22 Attachment 10 UNIT DRIVEWAY 23 dp Attachment ll 1 1 1 PROPOSED BUILDING ELEVATIONS Attachment 12 c ALLEY I :! -", I HIGHWAY 3 AS TLE AVENUE __ ~%~-r~ _-~. .... 6 GR~°HIC I h~ i · 1949 -- COPE - APPROVED NINE UNIT PLAN- 2002 25 Attachmnet 13 Engineering Review PROJECT: PROJECT NO: CHECKED BY: Date: DEARBORN MEADOWS, Phase II 00-02 Erin Schacht and Chris Cavett, Maplewood Engineering Department April 28, 2003 The following comments to the Dearborn Meadows preliminary plan shall be addressed: GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN Summary: There has been some drainage concems expressed from residents in the area about this development with regards to drainage. This concern has been looked at in depth in the past. There is nothing as part of this proposal that should be considered to contribute to the problems experienced in this area. In fact, for most properties directly west of the site, there should be an improvement to the existing condition. This is because this development will intercept and control 5.7 acres of tributary drainage area that will runoff into the proposed storm sewer and pond. The applicant is proposing to enhance and enlarge the existing wetland to provide storm water treatment and detention. The watershed district has approved this proposal. Specific comments and conditions: 1) Submit a landscape plan for the ponding area. No seed mixture or permanent vegetation plan has been indicated on the proposed plans. The ponding area shall be seeded with native grasses containing forbes, (specify an appropriate upland and wet seed mixture). Consider using an approved native restoration contractor, such as Prairie Restorations to do this work. In addition, shrubs, trees and other landscaping materials shall be incorporated into the landscaping of the pond. NO GRADING PLAN WILL BE ISSUED FOR PHASE 2 OF THIS DEVELOPMENT UNTIL A LANDSCAPING PLAN FOR THE POND HAS BEEN REVIEWED AND APPROVED. Revegetation of the ponding area shall be completed with in 14-days of final grading and/or installation of storm sewer. 2) As expressed above, grading and drainage towards properties to the west continues to be a concern. The grading plan indicates a drainage swale is to be constructed along the south and west sides of units 1 & 2 of Block 3. We believe that this cannot or will not be constructed propedy or be constructed without damaging the oak trees on the south side of the pond. The applicant shall revise the grading and storm sewer plan to address this concern. On option is to consider placing a surface drain in this general area and to pipe it east to the storm sewer pipe, or north to the pond. 3) Revise the grading plan to include orange safety fence. The contractor shall place orange safety fence around the ddp line of all trees that are to be saved. In addition, orange safety fence shall be installed along all up gradient property lines, which do not require silt fence. 26 STREET DESIGN 1) The street width shown is 36-feet-wide. Note: city design standards allow the street width may be as narrow as 28-feet to allow parking on one side, or 32-feet to allow parking on both sides. 2) Consider crowning the east-west road to avoid a situation of sheet draining across 36-feet of pavement during freeze-thaw conditions, see related comment below, (#2). UTILITY PLAN REVIEW 1) 2) All sanitary sewer and storm sewer facilities inside the plat shall be privately owned and maintained by the town home association. As a result of the comments above under street design, provide catch basins at the intersection of the street running east/west to prevent runoff from crossing the street. 3) Submit plans to SPRWS for review and approval. Plat / MISC. 1) What has been proposed for the existing gravel ddve at the northwest comer of the site? Relocate the ddveway or provide permanent easement. 2) Provide 15-feet of roadway, drainage and utility easement along the entire north side of the plat. Provide 10-foot drainage easements along the east, south and west property lines of the plat. 27 Attachment 14 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REVISION RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Mr. Pat Kinney applied for a conditional use permit (CUP) revision for the Dearborn Meadow residential planned unit development (PUD). WHEREAS, this permit applies to the 15-1ot Dearborn Meadow East development the city received on Apdl 7, 2003. The legal description is: Lots 16 and 17, Block 6, Lots 27, 28, 29 and the east half of Lot 26, Block 7, Lots 1, 2, and 3, Block 10, Lots 14 and 15, Block 11, and Lots 18-22, Block 6; and Lots 9-13, Block 11, all in Dearborn Park, together with adjacent alleys and streets, in Section 11, Township 29, Range 22, Ramsey County, Minnesota. (The property to be known as Lots 1-6 of Dearborn Meadow and Lots 1-9 of Dearborn Meadow East) WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: On May 5, 2003, the planning commission recommended that the city council approve this permit. On ,2003, the city council held a public headng. The 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 of the city staff and planning commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approves 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 run-off, vibration, general unsightliness, electrical interference or other nuisances. 5. The use would generate only minimal vehicular traffic on local streets and would not create traffic congestion or unsafe access on existing or proposed streets. The use would be served by adequate public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, water and sewer systems, schools and parks. 7. The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services. 8. The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and scenic features into the development design: 28 - 9. The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. All construction shall follow the plans 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 including keeping and protecting as many of the trees as possible. (2) All driveways at least 20 feet wide. If the developer wants to have parking on one side of the main drive (Castle Place), then it must be at least 28 feet wide. (5) All parking stalls with a width of at least 9.5 feet and a length of at least 18 feet. (6) Revised storm water pond locations and designs as suggested or required by the watershed district or city engineer. The ponds shall meet the city's design standards. 2. The proposed construction (of Dearborn Meadow East) 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 April 24, 2003. 4. The approved setbacks for the principal structures in the Dearborn Meadow shall be: ao Front-yard setback (from a public street or a private driveway): minimum - 20 feet, maximum - 35 feet b. Front-yard setback (public side street): minimum - 30 feet, maximum - none c. Rear-yard setback: 30 feet from any adjacent residential property line e. Side-yard setback (town houses): minimum - 20 feet from a property line and 20 feet minimum between buildings. 5. 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. 6.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. 29 c. Remove any debds or junk from the site. 7. The city council shall review this permit in one year. The Maplewood City Council approved this resolution on 2003. 3O MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA MAY 23, 2000 CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Ledvina called the meeting to order at 6:03 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Matt Ledvina Present Ananth Shankar Present Tim Johnson Absent Jon LaCasse Present Craig Jorgenson Present III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES May 9, 2000 Boardmember LaCasse moved approval of the minutes of May 9, 2000, as submitted. Boardmember Shankar seconded. Ayes--all The motion passed. IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Boardmember Shankar moved approval of the agenda, amended to move the existing Item 6.a. to the existing Item 6.c., moving New Century Town Homes up to Item 6.a., followed by Dearborn Meadow Double Dwellings. Boardmember LaCasse seconded. Ayes--all The motion passed. V. UNFINISHED BUSINESS There was no unfinished business. VI. DESIGN REVIEW A. New Century Town Homes, Highwood Avenue and CentUry Avenue Secretary Tom Ekstrand presented the staff report. Staff had recommended that the front setback meet the code requirement of 30 feet but found that the city council had approved a 20 foot setback from street right-of-ways for the PUD, therefore, staff changed their recommendation to meet the directive required by the city council regarding setbacks. Staff said that there were other issues: the size for shade trees should be increased from 1% to 2% inches in caliper and that additional visitor parking be provided. Community Design Review Board Minutes of 05-23-2000 5. All landscaped -3- have an automatic in-groun lation system. o The future multi-famil' approval. The a area. rea east of the Pinks submit site, lane looped street is not included in this and architectural plans for this 7. If any required work is not allow temporary occupancy if: a. The city determines that the welfare. is not essential to the public health, safety or The city receives a The amount shall be landscaping shall winter or within si if the by an irrevocable letter of credit for the required work. he cost of the unfinished work. Any unfinished 1 if the building is occupied in the fall or is occupied in the spring or summer. 8. All work shall foil( the approved plans. approve minor es. director of community development may Bo~ ;se seconded. The motion passed. Dearborn Meadow Double Dwellings, Castle Avenue Secretary Tom Ekstrand presented the staff report. Staff said the board would be looking at the design plans for the site, landscaping and buildings. Staff said the proposed buildings would be attractive and would fit in with the design of the existing homes. Staff recommended that the applicant revise the landscaping plan to be consistent with the Maplewood ordinance. The maple trees must be at least 2¼ inches in caliper, balled and burlapped. The plantings proposed around the foundations of the units should remain on the plan. In addition, all yard areas should be sOdded except for those areas mulched and edged as planting beds. Staff recommended approval of the applicant's proposal for a six foot high wood privacy fence along the entire south property line subject to the conditions on Page 7, Item E, of the staff report. Boardmember Shankar said it appeared that the units were 15 feet from each other and asked if that met the code requirements. Staff said they would have to get back to the board on what the code requirements are for this type of development. Mike Ackerman, the applicant, was present at the meeting. Mr. Ackerman said that there were quite a few decent trees on the property. He pointed out the grading limit on the proposed preliminary plat and said that nothing would be graded outside of that line. Mr. Ackerman also talked about the building materials that would be used on the units. He said the reason he had proposed the privacy fencing was to keep headlights from shining into the houses to the south. BoardmembeT Shankar asked ff Lots 1 and 2 would be accessed directly from Castle Avenue. Mr. Ackerman said yes. He said the site has the wetland and an easement and you can't build anything over that easement, so the only use for the easement is some sort of private drive. Community Design Review Board Minutes of 05-23-2000 ChairPerson Ledvina said that one of the concerns, relating specifically to Units I and 2, was the possibility of adding a turnaround, and he asked the applicant how he viewed that concept. Mr. Ackerman said it would be more safe than not having it but felt that because of wetland restrictions and the fact that the single family houses to the east don't have turnarounds it would not happen. Boardmember Jorgenson asked about the fence line on the south and the two neighbors in homes that are listed on the preliminary plat who had concerns about maybe putting trees in there. Mr. Ackerman said that the two homes shown on the preliminary plat are rental property and the person who owns them is a real estate agent who has not made any comment. Mr. Ackerman said it was actually people farther west than these houses that were concerned about it and it doesn't even affect them but that they were more concerned for the sake of the person who lives to the east. Boardmember Shankar asked if the applicant was e'~croaching on the 30-foot setback anyplace. Mr. Ackerman said no they weren't. Boardmember Jorgenson mentioned that there were several good sized trees that the applicant would be taking out and wanted to know if there was any way the applicant could try and salvage some of those trees. Mr. Ackerman said that in the north part of the project, because Castle Avenue is so high and it comes down so fast, there really wasn't much that could be done for trees in that area. He said that on the plan the grouping of the best trees was being saved by the wetland. Boardmember Shankar said he felt that the north elevation of Unit 3 should have a base of brick. Chairperson Ledvina thought that it would be a reasonable addition to continue the brick along the north elevation at that height. Chairperson Ledvina said he was not in favor of the site plan in that he felt the buildings fit in the area too tightly, and he wasn't comfortable with the special arrangement as it affected the existing homes and the orientation of the two southerly units. Chairperson Ledvina said he didn't have any problems with the landscaping, grading Or drainage plans and felt that the building elevations were reasonable. There was further discussion among the boardmembers and staff regarding the site plan. Mr. Ackerman said that the units on the southwest corner facing the tax land are a good situation for them. He said if that unit was turned like the board was suggesting, it would have to have a road in front of it to service the driveway and there would be hardly any backyard. Mr. Ackerman said it would be impossible to turn and still maintain the 30 foot side setback from the other property, because of the easement, and still get two units. Mr. Ackerman felt that, in terms of orientating units, it was the best use for the site. "-"Boardmember Shankar moved the Community Design Review Board de~.~_y approval of the plans date-stamped March 31,2000 (site plan, landscape plan, gradr~g an~'Q drainage plans and building elevations) for Dearborn Meadow on the basis that the layout on this site appears to be tee congested. Boardmerrrber Jorgenson seconded. Ayes---Ledvina, Shankar, Jorgenson Nays--LaOasse The motion passed. MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: LOCATION: DATE: Richard Fursman, City Manager Shann Finwall, Associate Planner Hillcrest Village Design Standards {Lighting and Landscaping) City of Maplewood Along White Bear ,Ave., North of Larpenteur ,Ave. and South of Ripley ,Ave. May 6, 2003 INTRODUCTION Proposal City staff is receiving comments and guidance from the planning commission and community design review board on the drafting of a new zoning district called the mixed-use zoning district. The mixed-use zoning district will allow for a mixture of land uses and will promote the development and/or redevelopment of an urban center with compact, pedestrian-oriented commercial and residential developments. The city will consider implementing 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. Background On March 25, 2003, the community design review board reviewed sign regulations for the mixed- use zoning district. On April 7, 2003, the planning commission reviewed the permitted, conditional, nonconforming and accessory uses for the mixed-use zoning district. DISCUSSION Design Standards This meeting's discussion will focus on lighting and landscaping. Because the Hillcrest Village redevelopment area falls within two cities (St. Paul and Maplewood) the City of Maplewood should work closely with the City of St. Paul in developing consistent design standards, including lighting and landscaping. As stated in previous staff reports, St. Paul will likely rezone their portion of Hillcrest Village to their new traditional-neighborhood zoning district. St. Paul and their consultants drafted this zoning district after a year-long planning project designed to support urban village redevelopment, such as the Hillcrest Village redevelopment area. Lighting Lighting within the new mixed-use zoning district will consist of decorative streetlights as well as private security and decorative lights. These lighting types are described below: Streetli.qhts: Streetlights are one of the most important components of a successful roadway corridor because they provide safety and security as well as help define the character of the street. As you are aware, the city council recently approved streetlights for the new roundabout located at the intersection of Frost Avenue and English Street in the Gladstone neighborhood (refer to Gladstone Neighborhood street light photograph attached on page 4). This streetlight is reminiscent of the railroad theme, of which the area has a long history, and is a good example of how a streetlight can define the character of the street. The lights will be approximately 22 feet in height and will accommodate banners, flower baskets or hanging artwork. While streetlight design is important, it would be considered an architectural standard, rather than a design standard. As stated in a previous staff report, upon rezoning a particular area to the new mixed-use zoning district, the city may wish to implement detailed architectural design standards for the area that would include principles that promote a harmonious expression for the entire community. At this time, however, staff will be discussing the new zoning district and design standards, and not the detailed architectural design standards. Private security and decorative li,qht.? Private security and decorative lights, if designed properly, can help with security on a property as well as add to a building's design. The City of Maplewood's lighting ordinance allows freestanding lights up to 25 feet in height. The community design review board may allow taller light poles as part of a design review for nonresidential development, based on appropriateness for a specific proposal. In addition, all outdoor lighting must not exceed .4 footcandles of light intensity at all property lines. The city's lighting ordinance creates minimum standards for the design and installation of all outdoor lights, but it does not promote the pedestrian-scale lighting envisioned in the new mixed-use zoning district. St. Paul's traditional-neighborhood zoning district covers private freestanding lights only. Freestanding lights cannot exceed 9 to 12 feet in height and must be equipped with a downcast glow. Another good example of lighting is within the Heart of the City development located in Burnsville. Their design framework manual for the area states that all private freestanding lights should be uniform in style, color and height and that no light source may be placed more than 16 feet above the ground (refer to Heart of the City lighting requirements on page 5). Staff finds that limiting the height of private freestanding lights is an important element to creating pedestrian scale lighting. For this reason, staff recommends reducing the height of private freestanding lights allowed within the new mixed-use zoning district from the current maximum of 25 feet to a maximum height of 15 feet. In addition to the private freestanding light standards, exterior wall lights should be placed so that they avoid excessive brightness and enhance building design. Language should be added to the mixed,use zoning district that requires lighting styles and building fixtures to be of a design and size compatible with the building. Landscaping The City of Maplewood's existing landscaping ordinance deals mainly with screening. The code states that required screening will be accomplished with an evergreen planting screen, berm and shrubs, or a fence. The landscape ordinance further states that all landscaping shall comply with the plans approved by the city. This language is vague and can lead to a sparsely landscaped site. Street trees and landscaping will be important elements in the new mixed-use zoning district. They will help soften the urban environment and bring color, texture, and seasonal interest to the Hillcrest Village Design Standards (Lighting and Landscaping) 2 May 6, 2003 street. For this reason, additional landscape requirements should be added to the mixed-use zoning district to ensure quality landscaping. St. Paul's traditional-neighborhood zoning district has the following landscape requirements: The front yard areas located between the principal building and the street shall be landscaped. Hard surfaced areas should include amenities such as benches and planters. Street trees in the street right-of-way and other landscape improvements shall be provided along streets at regular intervals to help define the street edge, {o buffer pedestrians from vehicles and to provide shade. Trees shall be located in a planting strip at least five feet wide between curb and sidewalk, or in a planting structure of design acceptable to the city. These requirements are a good beginning to ensuring quality landscaping within the new mixed-use zoning district, but are also worded quite vaguely. Another good example of landscape requirements is within the Heart of the City development located in BurnsVille (refer to the Heart of the City landscape requirements attached on pages 6 through 9). These requirements are objective and will ensure quality landscaping. Summary of the requirement is as follows: At least 10 percent of the total land area within the perimeter of private parking and driveway areas shall be landscaped. Parking lot landscaped islands shall be a minimum of 150 square feet in area and include at least one over story or evergreen tree. VVhere parking abuts the site perimeter there shall be provided at least one over story tree per 25 feet of site perimeter. At least one over story tree shall be provided for every 500 square feet of landscaped area on the entire site. Staff proposes adopting both the traditional-neighborhood and Heart of the City landscape requirements in the new mixed-use zoning district. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the community design review board offer comments and guidance on the lighting and landscaping requirements proposed within the Hillcrest Village redevelopment area. Staff will use this feedback to draft a new mixed-use zoning district for the Hillcrest Village redevelopment area, as well as other redevelopment sites within the city. P:com-dev~hillcrest\5-13-03 CDRB design standards report Attachments: Gladstone Neighborhood Lighting Heart of the City Lighting Requirements Heart of the City Landscaping Requirements Hillcrest Village Design Standards (Lighting and Landscaping) 3 May 6, 2003 Attachment 1 Freestanding Lights 4 Attachment 2 d ~o Attachment 13 10-22B 13 (c) (D) Trash Handling: All trash, recyclable materials, and equipment for handling them, including compactors, shall be totally screened from eye level view fi:om public Streets and adjacent properties, whether in the front, side or rear, either by being stored within the principal structure, totally screened from view by the principal building, or stored with~ an accessory structure enclosed by a roof and readily served through swinging doors or an overhead door on tracks. Loading docks: Loading docks 'shall be not located in the front yard and shall be completely screened from eye-level view of public streets and public open spaces, by means of landscaping which is at least 80% opaque within two years, or by a screen wall of the same materials and colors as the principal building. Landscaping: 1. All land area not occupied by buildingS,. Parking, driveways, sidewalks, or other hard surface shall be sodded or mulched and landscaped with approved ground cover, flowers, shrubbery and trees. 2. At least ten percent (10%) 0fthe total land area within the perimeter of private parking and drivewayareas shall be landscaped. Landscaped areas provided withinthe build-to line may be credited toward this 10% landscaping requirement on a square-foot-for-square-foot basis, for up to half of the 10% requirement, or 5%. 3. Parking lot landscaped islands shall be a minimum of one hundred fifty (150) square feet in area and include at least one overstory or evergreen tree meeting the requirements of this ordinance. 4. Where parking abuts the site perimeter there shall be provided at least one overstory tree per twenty-five (25) feet of site perimeter. · 5. At least one overstory tree shall be provided for every five hundred (500) square feet of landscaped area on the entire site. 6, The landscape Plan shall include a full complement 0roverst0rY,. 0mamental and . evergreen trees, shrubbery, and ground covers which are hardy and appropriate ~or the locations in which they are planted, and which provide year-round color and interest. a. The following trees may not be used to satisfy the landscaping requirement of this section: Acer negundo Acer saccharinum Catalpa speci°sa Elaegnus Ginkgo Biloba Morus Mba Populus deltoides P otmlus species Box Elder' Silver Maple Northern Catalpa Russian Olive F. Ginkgo (female prohibited, male permitted) Mulberry Cottonwood Poplars 10-22B 14 rE) b. The following trees may be used to satisfy the landscaping requirement of this section, but only in areas that are reasonably protected from w/nter wind conditions: Piceapungens glauca Colorado Blue Spruce Pinus Mba White Pine Pinus resinosa Red Pine c. The following trees may be used to satisfy the landscapihg requirement ofth/s sectiOn, but only in areas that are not on, or immediately adjacent to, a public street boulevard: Tilia cordata Fraxinus rnandshurica mancana Signage: Little Leaf Linden Mancana Ash 1. All signs erected on any building or land within the Heart of the City District must 'comply w/th the standards of this section and Sections 10-30-1, 10-30-2, and 10-30-3 of this Title. Wall signs: a. Wall signage is allowed on buildings in the Heart of the City District within a horizontal band no more than three feet (3') in height, at least ten feet (10') and no more than fifteen (15') above the ground. b. Wall signage may be either: (1) . (2) Attached: flat and parallel to the surface of the bUilding and projecting no .more than one (1) foot from it, or Projecting: perpendicular to the Surface of the building and no more than one (1) foot in thickness. ' ..... c. Attached wall signage shall consist of individual letters or script logos mounted on the building. d. Projecting signs may project no more than four (4) feet from the'front edge of the building and be no more than twelve (12) ~quare feet in area. e. Projecting signs may not extend over a public right-of-way or public Property unless by conditional use permit. Projecting signs may not extend over a designated parking space'or loading area. 8