Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/27/2003~oo~ AGENDA MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD May 27, 2003 6:00 P.M. Maplewood Room - Maplewood City Hall 1830 County Road B East 2. 3. 4. 5. 10. Call to Order Roll Call Approval of Agenda Approval of the May 13, 2003 Minutes Unfinished Business: Van Dyke Village Townhomes - West Side of Van Dyke Street, North of County Road B Design Review: St. Paul Regional Water Services - McCarron's Plant Visitor Presentations: None Scheduled Board Presentations Staff Presentations: Community Design Review Board Representation for the June 9, 2003 City Council Meeting Adjourn WELCOME TO THIS MEETING OF THE COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD This outline has been prepared to explain the review process of this meeting. The review of an item usually follows this format. 1. The chairperson of the meeting will announce the item to be reviewed. The chairperson will ask the applicant or developer of the project up to the podium to respond to the staff's recommendation regarding the proposal. The Community Design Review Board will then discuss the proposed project with the applicant. The chairperson will then ask the audience if there is anyone present who wishes to comment on the proposal. After everyone is the audience wishing to speak has given his or her comments, the chairperson will close the public discussion portion of the meeting. 5. The Board will then discuss the proposal. No further public comments are allowed. 6. The Board will then make its recommendations or decision. o Most decisions by the Board are final, unless appealed to the City Council. You must notify the City staff in writing within 15 days to register an appeal. jw\forms\cdrb.agd Revised: 11-09-94 II. II!. IV, DRAFT MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, MAY 13, 2003 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 Absent Present Present Staff Present: Shann Finwall, Associate Planner Lisa Kroll, Recording Secretary APPROVALOF AGENDA Ms. Finwall recommended moving the approval of the minutes after Board Presentations. Board member Olson moved to approve the agenda with the change. Board member Shankar seconded. Ayes - Ledvina, OIson, Shankar The motion passed. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. DESIGN REVIEW a. Dearborn Meadow East - 15 Unit Townhouse Development on Castle Ms. Finwall said Mr. Pat Kinney is proposing revisions to the approved Dearborn Meadow townhouse development. In 2002, the city council approved plans for Dearborn Meadow with nine townhouses (in four twin homes and one single unit). The revised plan now has a total of 15 townhouses (in seven twin homes and one single unit) on a 3.58-acre site on the south side of Castle Avenue, north of Cope Avenue. Each building would have horizontal-lap vinyl siding, aluminum soffits and fascia and brick veneer on the fronts. The planning commission approved this proposal at their May 5, 2003, meeting. Staff recommends approval of the design review with several conditions. Board member Olson said she drove by the site and noticed a lot of water on the site. She read one of the neighbor's comments and they were concerned about the drainage issues as well. She asked staff if the city engineer expressed any concerns regarding the drainage and if the water from the nursing home was going to be flowing onto this site? Community Design Review Board Minutes 5-13-2003 2 Ms. Finwall said she would refer board member ©lson to the city engineer's report on page 2r in the staff report. She said maybe the applicant could answer to those issues as well. Board member Shankar asked staff if Unit 1 and Unit 2 of Phase I was accessing directly off of Castle Avenue? Ms. Finwall said correct. Chairperson Ledvina asked the applicant to address the board. Pat Kinney, residing at 4108 Oakmeade Lane, White Bear Lake, addressed the 5card. The standing water on the site is there because the road is cut in, but there is no storm sewer drain installed on the site yet. The pond on the site was created to handle the drainage for this development and the next phase of development as well. The standing water will drain once the storm sewer drain is in and it will also handle the storm water runoff. He said the water does not flow from the nursing home onto this property. Chairperson Ledvina asked the applicant if he had any questions or concerns regarding the staff report? Mr. Kinney said no. Chairperson Ledvina asked Mr. Kinney if he had any building samples to show the board? Mr. Kinney said no he did not. He said the samples were shown when they applied for Phase I of Dearborn Meadows. Chairperson Ledvina asked if the applicant would be varying the color schemes of the buildings? Mr. Kinney said they plan on using the same color schemes as proposed in Phase I. Board member Shankar asked if the city is allowing them to have parallel parking on Castle Court? Mr. Kinney said yes. Chairperson Ledvina said he would like to see some visual differences in building colors. He asked staff if they had any thoughts on changing the color scheme of the buildings? Ms. Finwall said to just keep in mind that there are only eight twin homes and 1 single unit, so having one color for that few of buildings is different than if it were a 100-unit development where color variety would be more important. Chairperson Ledvina said the reason he brings the color scheme up is that he thought it woul¢ add visual interest to the development varying the colors of the units such as light tan, beige, or cream. Community Design Review Board Minutes 5-13-2003 3 Board member Shankar asked chairperson Ledvina if the intent of the applicant was to match the development of Phase I? Chairperson Ledvina said yes it is, but there is still time to change the colors since Phase II has not been started yet. Board member Shankar asked where in the staff report was the condition about adding brick wainscoting. Chairperson Ledvina said the condition to add brick wainscoting was on page 11, item 2. e. Board member Olson said the applicant should add brick wainscoting on the east and west sides. Chairperson Levina said the board should be specific in the recommendation to add brick wainscoting to units 8 and 9. Board member Shankar said that means you-would be requiring brick wainscoting on the backsides of units 8 and 9. Chairperson Ledvina said correct. Board member Olson asked if units 2 and 3 would be looking out at a plain wall as well? Chairperson Ledvina said that's what the building elevation shows. Board member Shankar moved to approve the plans date-stamped April 7, 2003, (site plan, landscape plan, grading, drainage plans and building elevations) for Dearborn Meadow. The city bases this approval on the findings required by the code. The developer or contractor shall do the following: (changes have a strike through them, additions are in bold). Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. 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) (2) The erosion control plan shall be consistent with city code. The grading plan shall: (a) (b) Include building, floor elevation and contour information. Include contour information for the land that the construction will disturb. Community Design Review Board 4 Minutes 5-13-2003 (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: (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~,,~) 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. (6) The site plan shall be submitted to the fire marshal for approval regarding emergency vehicle access and turn around space. Submit a certificate of survey for all new construction and have each building staked by a registered land surveyor. 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. Community Design Review Board Minutes 5-13-2003 5 (3) The ash trees must be at least 2~ inches in caliper, balled and burlapped. (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 Austrian 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. d. Present a color scheme to staff for approval for each building. e. Present a revised building plan for staff appr°val that shows brick wainscoting on thc north all sides of att-the units 8 and 9 along Castle Avenue. f. 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 escrows for all required exterior improvements. The amount shall be 150 percent of the cost of the work. h. The applicant shall provide a lighting plan for staff approval. 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 debris or junk from the site. Put addresses on each building for each unit. Provide a driveway turn around for Lot 7 on Castle Avenue. Community Design Review Board Minutes 5-13-2003 4. 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 is in the spring or summer. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. Board member Olson seconded. Mr. Kinney asked if he could comment on the conditionS the board changed or added? Chairperson Ledvina said yes. Mr. Kinney said he understands the concern about the brick wainscoting on the back of units 8 and 9 for consistency, but the building will have one walk out basement and one ground-level. He doesn't see how the brick wainscoting would be done or how nice it would look. Board member Olson asked how the rear of units 8 and 9 would relate to Castle Avenue? Mr. Kinney said the street slopes at that point. The single unit will be higher in elevation and then the elevation starts to slope down. Because of the elevations, the brick probably wouldn't be visible from the street. Board member Shankar asked if the front and back elevation for units 8 and 9 is the same or is there a slope? Mr. Kinney said there could be a possible lookout. Lot 8 has a flat lot and lot 9 is a lookout lot so the elevation slopes from east to west going downwards. Chairperson Ledvina asked Mr. Kinney what he would propose to improve the aesthetics from Castle Avenue? Mr. Kinney said he would be willing to plant more trees, which would add a pleasing appearance for the homeowner and it would buffer the highway noise. He thinks adding the brick wainscoting on the back of units 8 and 9 would not be visible from the highway anyway. Chairperson Ledvina said in his opinion the brick wainscoting should be on all elevations of the home. He doesn't think it would look nice to have brick on the rear elevation but not on thc sides. Community Design Review Board Minutes 5-13-2003 7 Board member OIson said she thinks that would make the units more attractive because of its proximity'to the highway and increase the market value. It is also easier to maintain brick than the vinyl siding. Board member Shankar said in his opinion the deck railings for unit 8 are going to stick out because they will be at eye level. Chairperson Ledvina added a friendly amendment to item d. on page 11. To read: the applicant shaft review the current color schemes to identify possibilities of varying colors to improve the aesthetics of the overall development. The color scheme shaft be submitted for staff approval. Board member Shankar asked what if the applicant comes back and tells staff that they looked at the color scheme possibilities and could not agree on anything? Chairperson Ledvina said the board should then be clear with the recommendation to read: the applicant should submit a color scheme that has multiple colors for siding materials. The color scheme shaft be subject to approval by staff. Chairperson Ledvina said the curbing on the utility plan for Castle Court shows some right angle curbing. He would like to have the applicant and staff review the curbing plan to eliminate 90-degree angles and to smooth out those curbs. He asked staff if they had any comment on where that friendly amendment would go? Chairperson Ledvina made a friendly amendment stating: The city engineer and the applicant shaft review the curbing plan to eliminate right angles on the east end of Castle Court. Board member Olson said she is concerned about the fire truck and utility issue. 'It says the Fire Marshal wants to make sure the end driveways are large enough for proper snow removal and to maneuver emergency vehicles. She wonders if there is turn around space at the end of Castle Place and if the fire truck access is the driveway of the residents if emergency vehicles need to get in there? Ms. Finwall said she assumes they would have to turn around at the end of the driveways. She said a condition could be added stating that concern under item 2. a. (6). Board member OIson wanted to add that condition under 2. a. (6) stating the site plan shall be submitted to the fire marshal for approval regarding emergency vehicle access and turn around space. Chairperson Ledvina repeated that board member Shankar made the motion, board member Olson seconded. Ayes - Ledvina, Olson, Shankar The motion passed. This goes to the city council on Tuesday, May 27, 2003. Community Design Review Board Minutes 5-13-2003 b. Hillcrest Village Design Standards (Lighting and Landscaping) Ms. Finwall said 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. This meeting's discussion will focus on lighting and landscaping. Lighting within the new mixed-use zoning district will consist of decorative streetlights as well as private security and decorative lights. The lighting types will consist of streetlights and private security and decorative lights. Ms. Finwall said 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 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 three landscape requirements. Another good example of landscape requirements is within the Heart of the City development in Burnsville. There are four objective and quality landscaping requirements. Staff proposes adopting both the traditional-neighborhood and Heart of the City landscape requirements in the new mixed-use zoning district. 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. Board member Olson said she has a comment on the private security and decorative lights issue regarding 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 her opinion, reducing it to 15 feet is too much and would affect people with recreational vehicles, or two story homes, or a garage with a large roof. She also had a comment on item 4 on page 3. She thinks the requirement should be more than one over story tree for every 500 square feet of landscaped area. Board member Shankar asked about the banner on the light polesl He thought the light pole with the banner on it was too Iow and the other example was at a perfect height. He asked staff if there was any reason for the height difference? Ms. Finwall said the street lighting would be an architectural element and is something the city is not proposing to put in the ordinance. Any proposed streetlights within the Hillcrest Village area would be reviewed by the CDRB. Those types of comments will be for those discussions. Chairperson Ledvina asked staff about item 1. on page 3 for the Heart of the Cit~ development. He asked staff about the requirement that at least 10 percent of the total land area within the perimeter of private parking and driveway areas shall be landscaped. He asked staff if that referred to parking islands? Community Design Review Board Minutes 5-13-2003 Chairperson Ledvina asked if there were only a driveway would it be required to have some type of green space within the driveway area? He mentioned to staff that number 2. is very similar to item number 1. and he wondered if the two could be combined. Board member Olson asked staff if that was meant to include setbacks between the curb and the edge of the property if there is perimeter around the parking area? Ms. Finwall said the statement regarding private parking should be specified more clearly. If there was only a one-stall driveway you would not require a landscape perimeter within the driveway. Chairperson Ledvina said staff should look at a few more scenarios and maybe a small site plan. There will likely be small site plans and it will not be possible for applicants to meet this landscape requirement. He also commented on the requirement for one over story tree for every 500 square feet and he thought that was fine. Board member Olson said after hearing chairperson Ledvina relate the size of an over story tree she'agreed and withdrew her past comment to staff. Chairperson Ledvina said he thought staff could use the landscaping standards for St. Paul because they fit well and those comments could be used as the narrative incorporated into the language to be developed. Ms. Finwall asked board member OIson if 15 feet is too Iow then what height would she propose for freestanding lights? Board member Olson said she isn't sure that 15 feet is too Iow it is really only a gut feeling. She was thinking a compromise could be 20 feet, which is between 15 and 25 feet. She thinks maybe she needs more information regarding what kind of traffic is going to go around these freestanding lights. The height may be an issue because there will be commercial delivery trucks. Chairperson Ledvina said maybe staff could do more research on the height o.f lights in relation to truck clearance. VI. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS No visitors present. VII. BOARD PRESENTATIONS There were no board presentations. STAFF PRESENTATIONS a. May 27, 2003, CDRB meeting. Ms. Finwall said the CDRB meeting will be held in the Maplewood Room on Tuesdayl May 27, 2003, and the meeting will not be cablecast. Community Design Review Board Minutes 5-13-2003 IX. ]0 Ms. Finwall said because of the Memorial Day holiday the city council will be meeting or Tuesday evening as well and they will be in the city council chambers. Ms. Finwall said at the May 27, 2003, city council meeting CDRB items to be discussed include the Dearborn Meadow proposal and Maplewood Auto Center's appeal of the CDRB conditions. Board member Shankar will represent the CDRB at the Tuesday, May 27, 2003, city council meeting if time permits after the CDRB meeting. b. Motions Ms. Finwall said she has noticed at times the board has been having difficulty not knowing where to add the conditions. She said if a motion is made with additional conditions it is not that important to indicate exactly where the condition should be added, as staff can do that after the fact. This will save time and help avoid confusion during the meeting. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of the minutes for March 25, 2003. Chairperson Ledvina moved to approve the minutes for March 25, 2003. Board member OIson seconded. Approval of the minutes for April 22, 2003. Ayes - Ledvina, Olson Abstention - Shankar Board member Shankar moved to approve the minutes for April 22, 2003. Board member Olson seconded. Ayes - Olson, Shankar Abstention - Ledvina ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 7:15 p.m. MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: PROJECT: LOCATION: DATE: City Manager Ken Roberts, Associate Planner Design Review Van Dyke Village Town houses west side of Van Dyke Street, north of County Road B May 21, 2003 INTRODUCTION Project Description Mr. Bruce Mogren is proposing to build a 20-unit town house development on the vacant city- owned property on the west side of Van Dyke Street, north of County Road B. Refer to the maps on pages 14 - 21. This development, called Van Dyke Village, would be primarily for work force housing for Iow and moderate-income families. There would be on-site management to help monitor and run the property. The proposal would have two, four-unit buildings, two, six-unit townhouse buildings and a 24-foot by 24-foot maintenance/caretaker building. Each town house would have an attached garage and a patio area. There also would be 30 open parking spaces. The city council has approved the PUD for this development and now the applicant is asking for project design approval. As proposed, the buildings would have exteriors of horizontal-lap steel siding (colors of praide sand and beige) with cedar trim boards and weathered gray shingles. (See the applicant's statement on pages 12 and 13 and the project plans on pages 19-24.) Request The applicant is requesting that the community design review board approve the building, site and landscape plans. BACKGROUND On Apdl 28, 2003, the city council approved a CUP for a PUD for 20 town house units on this site. Specifically, the applicant requested a conditional use permit (CUP) for that part of the development that would be on property zoned BC (business commercial). The code allows multi- dwellings on BC-zoned land by CUP. (The eastedy portion of the site is zoned R3 [multiple dwelling residential]. The westerly portion is zoned BC.) Refer to the property line/zoning map on page 17. DISCUSSION Building Design and Exterior Materials The proposed buildings should be attractive and would have two stories above grade and each unit would have an attached garage. As now proposed, the buildings would have an exterior of steel siding with cedar trim boards and white vinyl-clad windows, and the roof would have asphalt shingles. (See the building elevation drawings on page 23 and the proposed project plans.) The developer has proposed prairie sand and beige colors for the siding, weathered grey shingles and white vinyl-clad windows and soffits for the buildings. As proposed, the buildings and their colors would be compatible with those in the area. City staff, however, is still concerned about the look of the development from Van Dyke Street. The applicant could do more with the buildings to make them look more interesting and more aesthetically pleasing (especially the building sides visible from the street). Such changes could include adding shutters and window gdds, adding a brick wainscoting and having more distinct vertical features at the common wall between the units. Since the initial submittal, the applicant's architect sent me revised building elevations (page 23) that show additional windows on the east elevation of the buildings. These windows are a welcome addition to the plans and should be required by the city. These additional windows are a good step toward improving the look of the development. The building styles, with the proposed materials and colors and with the recommended changes, should be compatible with and equal in quality to the buildings in the area, including Emma's Place. The revised site and grading plans now show a 24-foot by 24-foot maintenance/caretaker building at the west end of the southern driveway. While it makes sense for the developer to include such a building on the site, the city will need to approve the elevations and materials for the building. City Engineer's Review Chris Cavett of the city engineering department has reviewed the proposed grading, drainage, utility and landscape plans. I have included his memo with his comments on pages 31 and 32. Public Utilities There are sanitary sewer, storm sewer and water in Van Dyke Street to serve the proposed development. Specifically, the storm sewer in Van Dyke Street was designed and installed to accommodate drainage from a large area north of County Road B. The developer's plans will connect their pipes to the existing storm and sanitary sewer pipes. Drainage The developer has designed the storm water drainage for this site to go into three rainwater gardens on the east side of the site (near Van Dyke Street). In times of large storms, storm water may overflow out of these gardens into the existing city storm water system. The city will not need drainage and utility easements over the ponding areas, as they will be private ponding areas. This project will need a permit from the watershed district. Sidewalk The applicant's plans now show a six-foot-wide sidewalk along Van Dyke Street. The city should require the developer to install the sidewalk from the sidewalk at Emma's Place to the north property line of the site (near the day care center). This sidewalk would facilitate pedestrian traffic from this development to County Road B and then to the Oasis Market and White Bear Avenue. In addition, the sidewalks should have pedestrian ramps where they intersect a driveway. Landscaping/Trees The applicant had his surveyor identify the large (greater than 8 inches in diameter) trees on the site. Most of the identified trees are cottonwood and elm, with a few willow and aspen as well. None of the trees that the surveyor identified meet the city's definition of a large tree that the city would have a developer try to save. The proposed plans (pages 19 through 21) show most of the site being graded and the construction of three rainwater gardens along Van Dyke Street. This will remove much of the existing vegetation and many of the existing mature trees on the property. The proposed project plans, however, do show the applicant saving some of the existing trees on the south, west and north sides of the site. The city should require the developer to preserve most of the existing vegetation along the north, west and south sides of the site. This existing vegetation in these areas will help provide screening of the existing businesses for the new residents. The revised landscaping plan is a good start but it needs more work. It shows the developer planting at least 20 new and replacement trees including 8 balsam fir, 3red maple, 3 black hills spruce and 4 other maple trees. In addition, the plans show the planting of a variety of ornamental trees and shrubs on the site and the landscaping for the three proposed rainwater gardens. The landscape plan does not show any planting around the units - whether in trees, shrubs or foundation plantings. However, the applicant had the landscape designer submit a statement · (page 22) explaining how the contractor will landscape the entries and the foundations of the buildings. In addition, the plans do not show any screening of the site and the buildings from Van Dyke Street. The city should require the developer to provide a revised landscape plan that would include the landscaping treatments and details for the areas around and near the town houses and to increase the landscaping/screening (including additional trees) between the proposed buildings and Van Dyke Street. Fencing/Screening This site has commercial properties on two of its sides, including an auto repair facility and a bar to the west and the Goodwill Store and parking lot and a daycare center to the north. It would be prudent for and helpful to the residents of the new town houses if the developer installed screening along the west and south sides of the project to help ensure that the new residents and the outdoor play areas are separated from the adjacent commercial properties. As Mr. Mogren noted in his statement, he is proposing a six-foot-tall cedar privacy fence along the west and south sides of the site and additional landscaping along the north property line. This fence should be solid, be constructed of Iow-maintenance materials and be six-feet high. Site Lighting The applicant had a site lighting plan prepared for the development that shows the expected light spread from the proposed parking lot lights. The proposed poles would be 20-feet tall and would have a sharp cutoff shoebox luminaire with a 175-watt high-pressure sodium light bulb. The city code requires the light fixtures to have a design that hides the bulb and lens from view. This plan, however, does not show any of the proposed lighting on the buildings or any lighting in or near the proposed tot lot. In addition, the proposed plan shows little, if any, lighting where the two driveways on the site would meet the public streets. The applicant should revise the lighting plan in several ways. First, the plan should show how the lighting on the buildings would add to the site lighting. Secondly, the plan should have additional lighting near the tot lot and the driveways, where they intersect Van Dyke Street, so they are adequately lit. Finally, the plan should show details about the proposed light fixtures to ensure they are a design that hides the bulb and lens from view to avoid nuisances. Other Comments Fire Marshal's Comments Butch Gervais, the Maplewood Fire Marshal, stated that emergency vehicles must have clear passage to the site and to buildings. This includes having the driveways at least 20 feet wide. He also noted that the buildings and the individual units must have clear addressing to direct people to the buildings and within the site. Police Department Comments Deputy Chief John Banick reviewed the proposed plans. His comments are on page 30. Watershed District Permit Required The Ramsey/Washington Metro Watershed Distdct noted that this development requires a permit from their office. The applicant must contact the watershed distdct at (651) 704-2089 to find out about their plan review and permitting requirements. RECOMMENDATION Approve the project plans date-stamped May 13, 2003, for Van Dyke Village town houses on Van Dyke Street, north of County Road B. The city bases this approval on the findings required by the code. The developer or contractor shall do the following: 1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. 2. Complete the following before the city issues a building permit: Have the city engineer approve the final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall include grading, drainage, sidewalk, utility, driveway, parking lot and erosion control plans. These plans shall meet the following conditions: (1) The erosion control plan shall be consistent with the city code. (2) The grading plan shall: (a) Include building, floor elevation, water elevation and contour information. These shall include the normal water elevation and 100-year high water elevation. (b) Include contour information for the land that the construction will disturb. (c) Show sedimentation basins or ponds as required by the watershed board or by the city engineer. (d) Show all proposed slopes steeper than 3:1 on the proposed construction plans. The city engineer shall approve the plans, specifications and management practices for any slopes steeper than 3:1. This shall include covedng these slopes with wood-fiber blankets and seeding them with a "no mow" vegetation rather than using sod or grass. (e) Show all retaining walls on the plans. Any retaining walls more than four feet tall require a building permit from the city~ (f) Show as little disturbance and tree removal as possible on the north, west and south sides of the site (near the businesses and the daycare center). (3) The tree plan shall: (a) Be approved by the city engineer before site grading or tree removal. (b) Show where the developer will remove, save or replace large trees. This plan shall include an inventory of all existing large trees on the site. In addition, this plan shall show the planting of at least 15 replacement trees on the site. (c) Show no tree removal beyond the approved grading and tree limits. (d) Be consistent with the approved grading and landscape plans. (4) The design of the rainwater gardens shall be subject to the approval of the city engineer. The developer shall be responsible for getting any needed off- site grading or drainage easements and for recording all necessary easements. (5) All the parking areas and driveways shall have continuous concrete curb and gutter. (6) The driveways shall meet the following standards: 24-foot width-no parking on either side and 28-foot width-parking on one side The developer or contractor shall post the driveways with no parking signs to meet the above-listed standards. (7) The developer shall disturb as little as possible of the area along the north, west and south 'property lines near the daycare center and businesses and the applicant shall change the grading plan for this part of the site as recommended by the city engineer. b. Submit an in-ground lawn-irrigation plan to staff showing the location of sprinkler heads. c. Submit a certificate of survey for all new construction. d. Submit a revised landscape plan for city approval showing: (1) As much of the existing vegetation (including the trees) remaining along the northern, westerly and southerly property lines as possible. 5 (2) The manicured or mowed areas from the natural areas. This shall include planting (instead of sodding) the disturbed areas around the rainwater gardens with native grasses and native flowering plants. The native grasses and flowering plants shall be those needing little or no maintenance. This is to reduce maintenance costs and to reduce the temptation of mowers to encroach into the gardens. Specifically, the developer shall have the natural areas seeded with an upland mixture and lowland mixtures as appropriate. (3) Foundation plantings near and around the buildings and additional screening (with trees and other materials) between the proposed buildings and Van Dyke Street. (4) The in-ground lawn-irrigation system. Get the necessary approvals and permits from the watershed district. Submit a revised site lighting plan for city approval. This plan shall show how the lighting on the buildings would add tothe site lighting, and the plan should have additional lighting near the tot lot and driveways, where they intersect the public street, so the driveways are-adequately lit. This plan also shall show details about the proposed light fixtures to ensure they are a design that hides the bulb and lens from view to avoid nuisances. The light fixtures must have concealed lenses and bulbs to properly shield glare from the adjacent street right-of-ways and from adjacent residential properties. g. The developer shall record the following with Ramsey County: ho (1) 10-foot-wide drainage and utility easements for the areas along the east and west property lines and five-foot-wide drainage and utility easements for the areas along the north and south property lines. (2) The documentation to combine the properties into one property for tax and identification purposes. Have the Saint Paul Regional Water Services (SPRWS) approve the proposed utility plans. The fire chief shall approve the access to the back (north and south side) of the buildings for firefighting needs. Submit plans for city staff approval for any outdoor trash or recycling containers and enclosures. If the developer wants to build such facilities, the enclosure shall have materials that are compatible with the buildings, and they shall have gates that are 100 percent opaque. A letter of credit or cash escrow for all required extedor improvements. The amount shall be 150 percent of the cost of the work. Submit for city approval revised building plans and elevations that include (but not limited to) adding shutters and window grids, and adding a brick wainscot on the east building elevations and on the building sides facing the shared driveways. Submit for city staff approval building elevations and plans for the maintenance/caretaker building. This building shall have materials and colors consistent with the main buildings on the site. n. The developer shall close on the purchase of the property with the city before the city will issue a grading or a building permit for the project. 3. Complete the following before occupying the buildings: a. Replace property irons that are removed because of this construction. b. Restore and sod damaged boulevards. Install reflectorized stop signs at each exit, a handicap-parking sign for each handicap-parking space and an address on each building. In addition, the applicant shall install "no parking" signs within the site, as required by staff. d. Paint any roof-top mechanical equipment to match the uppermost pad of the building. Screen all roof-mounted equipment visible from streets or adjacent property. (code requirement) e. Construct trash dumpster and recycling enclosures as city code requires for any dumpsters or storage containers that the owner or building manager would keep outside the building. Any such enclosures must match the materials and colors of the building. f. Install and taper the concrete sidewalk along Van Dyke Street to match the driveways. g. Install and maintain all required landscaping and an in-ground sprinkler system for all landscaped areas (code requirement). h. Install continuous concrete curb and gutter along all interior driveways and around all open parking stalls. Install on-site lighting for security and visibility that follows the approved site lighting plan. All extedor lighting shall follow the approved lighting plan that shows the light spread and fixture design. The light fixtures must have concealed lenses and bulbs to propedy shield glare from the adjacent street right-of-ways and the nearby homes and residential properties. Install a six-foot-high solid screening fence or additional landscaping along the south, west and north property lines of the site where the vegetation does not adequately screen the town houses from the businesses. These additional materials are to ensure there is at least a six-foot-tall, 80 percent opaque screen on these sides of the site. The location, design and materials of the fence or the additional landscaping shall be subject to city staff approval. k. The developer or contractor shall: Complete all grading for the site drainage, complete all public improvements and meet all city requirements. (3) Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits. Remove any debris or junk from the site. 4. If any required work is not done, the city may allow temporary occupancy if: a. The city determines that the work is not essential to the public health, safety or welfare. b. The above-required letter of credit or cash escrow is held by the city for all required exterior improvements. The owner or contractor shall complete any unfinished landscaping by June I if the building is occupied in the fall or winter, or within six weeks of occupancy if the building is occupied in the spdng or summer. c. The city receives an agreement that will allow the city to complete any unfinished work. This approval does not include the signs. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. CITIZENS' COMMENTS I surveyed the 21 surrounding property owners within 350 feet of this site for their comments. Of the seven replies, two had no comment, four objected and one had a miscellaneous comment. Opposed I do not want this townhome project here because of too much traffic, more people, cars, depreciation of home value, loss of wildlife, seclusion and privacy. (Miller, 2172 Van Dyke Street.) We would have no problem with the proposed development or its location if not for the fact that in our area we already have a battered woman's shelter (2 mile), a troubled boys home (1/4 mile), and the housing projects by Phalen Lake (3 miles). We think it may become counterproductive to place so many havens for people with problems so close together, and despite assurances, we have some concern over the ability of management to control or evict troublesome tenants. (Hardwick, 2182 Van Dyke Street.) 3. Refer to the letter on pages 33 and 34. (Bjork, 1849 County Road B.) A summary of the concerns expressed in the letter and in telephone calls is: The added number of people living so close together. Would the property go off of the tax rolls? How would more kids in the area affect the community center?. Effect of trespassing on neighboring property. This development would hurt property values. This development will put a burden on the local schools. Save the trees. Townhomes are not compatible with the single dwellings in the area. Kids hanging around, loitering, being noisy, causing disturbances. They need to be supervised and not getting into trouble. Preserve this space. There should be a better use of this property than this proposal. Miscellaneous Comment Well, well! Mr. Mogren has found a nice piece of property to hopefully build on. I have been waiting for years for someone to develop this space(eyesore). Best wishes, good luck and no hassles. (Art Engstrom - 2525 Highwood Avenue) 9 REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Site size (project area): 3.56 acres Existing land use: Undeveloped SURROUNDING LAND USES (surrounding the proposed development) North: Goodwill and undeveloped property owned by the adjacent daycare center South: Emma's Place town houses West: Finalube, NAPA Auto Parts and an auto body shop on White Bear Avenue East: Single dwellings across Van Dyke Street PLANNING Land Use Plan designation: R3-M (medium density residential) and BC (business commercial) Zoning: R3 and BC Land Use Plan Provision The land use plan provides that most of the land use plan categories coordinate with the city's zoning categories. The uses permitted in these land use categories are the same as those in the · corresponding zoning district. Ordinance Requirements Section 36-151(b)(1) allows multiple dwellings in a BC district by CUP. Section 25-70 of the city code requires that the CDRB make the following findings to approve plans: That the design and location of the proposed development and its relationship to neighboring, existing or proposed developments and traffic is such that it will not impair the desirability of investment or occupation in the neighborhood; that it will not unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring, existing or proposed developments; and that it will not create traffic hazards or congestion. That the design and location of the proposed development is in keeping with the character of the surrounding neighborhood and is not detrimental to the harmonious, orderly and attractive development contemplated by this article and the city's comprehensive municipal plan. That the design and location of the proposed development would provide a desirable environment for its occupants, as well as for its neighbors, and that it is esthetically of good composition, materials, textures and colors. Application Date We received the complete revised design plans and materials for this proposal on May 13, 2003. State law requires that the city take action within 60 days of receiving complete applications for a l0 proposal. As such, the city must act on these requests by July 12, 2003, unless the applicant requests a time extension. p:kr/secl 1\Van Dyke Village housing design 2.doc Attachments: 1. Applicant's Statement dated May 9, 2003 2. Location Map 3. Land Use Map (Existing) 4. Area Map 5. Property Line/Zoning Map 6. Site Survey 7. Site Plan 8. Proposed Grading and Utility Plan 9. Landscape Plan 10. Statement from Monica Mogren 11. Building Elevations 12. Floor Plans 13. Enlarged Floor Plan - Unit A 14. Enlarged Floor Plans- Unit B 15. Wall Section 16. Wall Section 17. Wall Section 18. 2-21-03 Memo from John Banick 19. 2-24-03 Memo from Chds Cavett 20. Letter from Susanne Bjork 21. March 25, 2003 CDRB Minutes 22. Project Plans (separate attachments) Attachment 1 May 9, 2003 City of Maplewood Planning Department Attention: Mr. Ken Roberts NAY 1 3 2003 Dear Ken, RECEIVED This letter is intended to address the issues from our first Community Design and Review Board meeting regarding Van Dyke Village. Enclosed you will find a revised lighting plan, revised front elevation and revised landscaping plan as well as two photo's of proposed fencing for the Van Dyke Village project. A cedar sample was attached to the sample board we brought you previously. Also on the sample board were vinyl siding color samples. House numbers would normally be placed to the side of the front entrance. Also, possibly unit numbers next to the garages. The most common type is black iron or gold plated numbers. We would choose something that would fit aesthetically with the siding. Mailboxes upon Post Office aPproval should be of a security locked box, accessible with each tenants key. Rather than a central garbage container we decided to use garbage containers for each unit, which other than garbage pickup day would be stored in a tenant's garage. Since these units have been built at another site we know that a standard garbage container will fit inside the garage along side of an automobile. We decided against a large central dumpster because they tend to attract mattresses, appliances and other large inappropriate items. Tenants who do not store their garbage cans inside of their garages after pickup would be fined. Utility meters would either be placed at the end of the buildings or possibly at the back of each unit. It will depend on what the utility companies require. Because of the nature of this housing (workforce) project, we feel that the use of brick becomes an expensive luxury. If you look at the townhomes that we built on Gervais Avenue (Carefree IV) we did not use any brick and they are still very attractive. Vinyl siding samples are on the display board as well as our color choice. In regards to fencing this site, I propose that we use a six-foot cedar fence similar to the fence shown in our attached photos along the entire South border between Emma's Place and our property. I propose along thc West border of thc property to add the same cedar type fence onto the existing fences that protect the rear of the 12 commercial spaces along White Bear Avenue. This fence would ostensibly be located behind the Bieecher's bar parking lot extending to the Goodwill property. propose landscaping between our property and the child care facility. I,wouid appreciate if any of the board members would care to walk the property with me prior to the meeting to further explore any elements of this proposal. Mogren Development Any Questions: (651) 777-3600 Attachment 2 NORTH SAIA O' 1700' NORTH Attachment 3 M-1 1 R-2 LEGEND R-1 rTl~ ~_~ R-3(M) -- RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM DENSITY R-3(H) = RESIDENTIAL HIGH DENSITY R-1 -- SINGLE DWELLINGS BC -- BUSINESS COMMERCIAL LBC -- LIMITED BUSINESS COMMERCIAL SITE LAND USE MAP (EXISTING) 15 1797 2303 // / 17s~ O 1~ '4 / / ~1 / / ? ,, // / // // 'J / BLEACHER'S o AUTOBODY SHOP ' ' [~-~ PROJECT SITE 0 0 NAPA 0 21[~8 0 ,~'~OASIS EMMA'S PLACE 1774 COUNTY ROAD B E 1810 BURKE AVE E 1890 Attachment 4 ' 2261 2242 2241 2230 2225 AREA MAP l 16 m U-HAUL ,50' BLEACHER'$ 'AUTOBODY SHOP ', VACATED ~ NAPA(4~) · .... ~ 2194 z ~[~. (~) ~ ' ~ i-" ~ .... ~.~t (__ t=~, ~-C~,~-~'' ~' ~ ~::,.._/ .... ~ t_ 3_ _ ~ ~ ~ ': COUN~ ROAD B PROPERTY LINE / ZONING MAP 17 SURVEY Attachment 6 FOR: BRUCE MOGREN 1 Parcel 2: Purcel 3: SITE SURVEY 18 Attachment 7 '~AV ::ll~lNYq '~tA¥ ,J.G~iqHdNVG SITE PLAN / Ex. BIT, SURFAC[~ / / / 6 UNIT("/~ e. F~. ~2~4~(2) 2 BR 4 UNiT 23BR 4 UNIT .,1., ,~ Attachment 8 (TYPICAL) (S~ D~NL) PLANTING SCHEDULE --'.- -- 6 UNITI~/~~ 4 UNITI~I ~ ~ Attachment 8-D 2-F 3-9 1--(; 4-C 5-B 5-A 3--H 4--B 5-A 3-£ LANDSCAPE PLAN Attachment 10' May 12, 2003 City of Maplewood Planning Department Attention: Mr. Ken Roberts Re: Van Dyke Village landscaping MAY I 3 2003 RECEIVED Dear Mr. Roberts, Each entry Will be landscaped at Van Dyke Village With deciduous and evergreen shrubs that will eventually mature to three to four feet tall. There also Will be small ornamental trees situated in the lawn area in front of the units. At the back of each unit Will be deciduous shrubs. There Will be edging installed around each of the units filled with decorative rock. If you should have any further questions, please don't hesitate to call. Sincerely, Monica Mogren Gardenside Landscaping, LLC (651) 770-3346 22 Attachment ll BUILDING ELEVATIONS 23 Attachment 1 I FLOOR PI_AN Vs'- FLOOR PLANS 24 Attachment 13 (~ PI_AN ENLA~ID~,rT UI,~T A ENLARGED FLOOR PLAN - UNIT A 25 A~tachment 14' 1/4' I/4' - 1'-0' ENLARGED FLOOR PLANS - UNIT B 26 Attachment 15 WALL SECTION 27 Attachment 16 6A~..A6~ ~NIT E~ &A~A~E ~NIT A WALL SECTION 28 Attachment 17 WALL SECTION 29 Attachment 18 Memo To=. cc: Date: Re: / Mr. Ken Roberts ~' Deputy Chief John Banick~"~ Chief Dave Thomalla 2/21/2003 VAN DYKE VILLAGE - Van Dyke north of Emma's Place FEB 2 I 2003 RECEIVED I have reviewed the attached project proposal and currently have the following thoughts regarding it: I am concerned about the increase in vehicle and pedestrian traffic in the area: Recently, two police department employees commented about how unsafe it has become to turn out of the City Hall entrance onto County Road B. However, the accident history at the intersection of County Road B and Van Dyke Street is remarkably Iow. A search of police records indicates that only three reported accidents have occurred at that intersection between 1998-2002. Additionally, I don't believe that the design of the intersection of White Bear Avenue and Cope Avenue to the north of this project was designed to handle much mom traffic than it currently does. To improve pedestrian safety in this area, I recommend that a sidewalk on the west side of Van Dyke Street be included in this project. This project has the potential to increase police and medical calls for service in this area. The population density of an area generally has a direct correlation on the amount of cdme in the area. We should consider the potential increase in calls for service to the surrounding area (e.g. Maplewood Community Center, local businesses, and the entire neighborhood) that will be generated from the residents whom will reside at this location. However, the police department has not experienced a large increase in calls for service in this area due to the addition of Emma's Place. Lastly, since this complex will be rental property, I recommend that the owner of this property be encouraged to 'participate in our local Crime Free Multi-Housing Program. To obtain further information about this program, the owner may contact me directly at 651-7704502. If you have questions, you may contact me at extension 4502. 30 Attachment 19 Engineering Plan Review PROJECT: Van Dyke Village PROJECT NO: 03-11 REVIEWED BY: Chris Cavett, Assistant City Engineer DATE: February 24, 2003 The applicant or his engineer shall address the following comments: Grading and Drainaee Plan: The applicant's engineer should discuss the following drainage issues with Chris Cavett, Assistant City Engineer, 651-770-4554. Volume calculations provided by the applicant for the rainwater gardens are acceptable. However, the applicant appears to have overlooked the fact that runoff appears to be draining from of the Goodwill site. Though the applicant is not expected to treat the volume of runoff coming from the Goodwill site, the applicant should take measures to ensure that the rainwater garden, overflow pipe and the subsequent site are not unnecessarily impacted by that amount of flow. Verify that there is not already some type of inlet structure already located at the spillway from Goodwill. It would seem odd that a connection was never made in the past with the storm sewer at that exact location. Maybe it has been covered over by trash and sediment? This will have to be investigated in the spring. If heavier soils are located on this site, there is the likelihood of water standing in the rainwater gardens more than the 24-48 hours that the city prefers. If this is a concern, it is recommended that the bottom of each garden be raised, by placing ½ -foot layer of sand on top of the scarified subsoil in the bottom of the garden before placing the bedding material and shredded mulch. This would permit a depth of only 1.0-foot before water is able to drain out 3. Provide instruction on the plan for the proper preparation of the Rainwater Gardens: Provide a comment on the grading plan about staging, preparation and protection of the garden areas. Once the contractor has prepared the rainwater garden areas, the contractor shall mulch and protect them with heavy-duty silt fence. Provide a comment on the grading plan that the entire garden area must be thoroughly and deeply scarified before the contractor places the bedding material and the shredded mulch. Scarifying must be done with a "toothed,' backhoe. 31 · On city projects, Maplewood has used a mixture of 50% salvaged topsoil and 50% clean organic compost as bedding material. Revise the two items on the rock infiltration sump detail: revise to show geotextile "Filter" fabric, "(Felt)", as there has been confusion in the past. And correct "slumps" to read "sumps". 4. Submit for approval the detail of the curb cut/concrete spillway. Design is critical to ensure runoff can be diverted to the rainwater gardens in all seasons. The applicant must sign a best management practices (BMP) maintenance agreement with the city. This agreement is to ensure that the applicant/property owner will maintain the storm water facilities, including the rainwater gardens. The maintenance agreement will be made part of the utility permit and must be signed and returned to the city before final site approval. Site Plan Install 6-foot-wide concrete sidewalk along the Van Dyke Street frontage. Typically the sidewalk is located 7-feet behind the curb and it must be at least 5 feet behind the curb. This may require shifting the gardens slightly to the west. Utilities Sanitary sewer between the two northerly buildings extends further to the west according to the city base maps. Confirm the existing location with record drawings and field observations. The applicant's proposal to relocate the manhole west of the two buildings may not be possible. Consider shifting the northern two buildings slightly to the south to provide more clearance between the sewer main and the building. There shall be a minimum of 10-feet between the main and the comer of the proposed building on the south side of the existing main. City records, (resolution 66-11-318, Nov. 29, 1966), indicate that the easement was "vacated subject to the granting of an easement to the Village for maintenance of the sanitary sewer main constructed in the street right-of-way". Provide or verify from title records that the appropriate easement exists over this sewer main. If there is not an easement or the main must be relocated, the applicant shall provide the city with a utility easement for the sanitary sewer main. 32 Attachment 20 The following are questions we have for the developer: 1. Why do you need so many units compared to what it is zoned for? Is it your F'EB 2 1 2003 profitability that you are worried about? IF THE SPACE COULD ADEQUATELY ACCOMMODATE THE EXTRA NUMBER OF PEOPLE, l~e C I~ ~ V l~ El WOULD HAVE BEEN ZONED THAT WAY ORIGINALLY. TRAFFIC HAS ALREADY INCREASED DUE TO EMMA'S PLACE ON VAN DYKE- ANOTHER DEVELOPMENT SO CLOSE WILL REALLY CAUSE PROBLEMS. 2. What kind of tax breaks are you getting for developing this type of housing and when can you take them? 3. Are you entering into a contract with the city that you cannot sell the property or change tenant structure without city council approval? THE PROPOSAL LOOKS GOOD ON PAPER NOW, BUT WHO'S TO SAY THAT IN A YEAR OR TWO SOMEONE ELSE BUYS THE PROPERTY AND IT TURNS INTO A DUMP. 4. How many of the units are going to be owner occupied? 5. Are you going to have a full time person on staff for problems and emergencies? Who will be the contact person for the issues and problems that come up? 6. What is the number of vehicles (cars, tracks, boats, snowmobiles, etc.) residents can have? 7. Maximum amount of people per unit? Max number of kids? 8. How many guests can they have over at one time? What about overflow parking? 9. Are residents going to have to go through a background check? 10. What are the qualifications to live in these units? 11. How will residents that don't follow the rules be dealt with? 12. Could I get a copy of the rules? 13. Are you requesting road improvements because of this development? What will this mean to residents that live on Van Dyke? 14. What is the rent range? Association fees? Are there any subsidies that will be given to residents? 15. Plans for construction crew and garbage that they generate and leave behind? THIS WAS A MAJOR PROBLEM WITH EMMA'S PLACE 16. Are you having a playground? Hours? 17. Who will take care of the unit outside as far as the lawn, plowing, etc.? General concerns and thoughts for Maplewood planners: AS RESIDENTS IN THE AREA, WE ARE REALLY CONCERNED WITH THE ADDED NUMBER OF PEOPLE LIVING SO CLOSE TOGETHER. WE ALREADY HAVE ISSUES WITH EMMA'S PLACE AND THE MANY DISTURBANCES THE KIDS ARE.CAUSING. I CAN'T IMAGINE THAT THIS DEVELOPMENT WOULD BE ANY DIFFERENT- WHAT IS THE CITY OF MAPLEWOOD----~'"' GOING TO DO TO ENSURE THAT THE KIDS IN THESE UNITS ARE SUPS? 33 - CAUSING TROUBLE? ONCE EMMA'S KIDS AND THE KIDS IN THIS DEVELOPMENT GET TOGETHER, IT IS GOING TO BE DOUBLE THE TROUBLE. I FIND IT HARD TO BELIEVE THAT I WILL GET A DECENT NIGHT'S SLEEP ONCE THE WARM WEATHER COMES AND MY WINDOWS ARE OPEN. I ALREADY BATTLED THIS LAST SUMMER WITH EMMA'S PLACE. 34 Community Design Review Board Minutes 3-25-2003 2 Attachment 21 Board member Longrie-Kline moved to approve the minutes fOr March 11,2003, with changes. Chairperson Ledvina seconded. Ayes - Ledvina, Longrie-Kline Abstention - Olson VI. The motion passed. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. DESIGN REVIEW ae 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 house would have an attached garage and a patio area. There also would be 30 open parking spaces. The buildings would have exteriors of horizontal-lap steel siding with cedar trim boards 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 Townhomes 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 that 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. 35 Community Design Review Board Minutes 3-25-2003 Ms. Finwall said in the revised landscape and grading plan, staff should require that th~' developer indicate the exact area of vegetation to remain and install the required fencing t~. 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. Finwall 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 wes. 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 th~. have been outlined? 36 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 b~Jilding 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. 37 Community Design Review Board Minutes 3-25-2003 5 Board member Longrie-Kline said if Mr. Mogren doesn't qualify for financing for the 22 unit,~ 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 thC 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 Olson 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 ir' 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. 38 Community Design Review Board Minutes 3-25-2003 Chairperson Ledvina said he does not have any issues with the staff conditions and he is 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 OIson 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 Goodwill 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 OIson 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~lements 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 OIson 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 residents have to keep their garbage containers inside their one-car garage? She asked if there would 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. 39 Community Design Review Board Minutes 3-25-2003 7 Board member Olson moved to table this proposal until there are more comprehensive plan.~ for the board to review. Board member Longrie-Kline seconded. Ayes - Longrie~Kline, Olson 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. Hillcrest illage Redevelopment Area (Mixed-Use Zoning District) Ms. Finwall said for the Hillcrest Villl standards based on the Maplewood city council extended a develop redevelopment area so that staff could draft rowth development principles. moratorium and design Ms. Finwall said staff's goal have an ordinance submitted to city council for their acceptance before the ends on October 28, 2003. accomplish this, sta', proposes a series of meetings ~e planning commission to receive comments and guidance from each committee in the of these stan Ms. Finwall said the Metropolitan Council the cities of Hillcrest Village Redevelopment Plan in Hillcrest Shopping Center area. The goal is to create a village center with an active street life th~ recreation and civic uses. )lewood and St. Paul created the smart-growth principles within the changes within the area in order to shops, workplaces, housing passive Ms. Finwall said the Hillcrest Village Redeve )ment of 98 townhouse units, 291 apartment units, 10 single dwellings, 36,4~01~ square feet[ice space, and 151,300 square feet of commercial space. In Maplewo~(there would be 15 ~W~ ~house units, 129 apartment units', 36,400 square feet of office sp~a~e and 76,000 square fe~ of commercial space. Ms. Finwall said an alternative is to crea/t.~ an entirely new zoning distl ~"cr~. This district would allow for a mixture of land uses and w/e.~ld promote the development re~l~,e, lopment of an urban center with compact, pedestriar),roriented commercial and residential ~ ,velopments. The city coUld implement the new zon,.i~g district in the Hillcrest Village redevel~ ment area and other areas of the city, such,as the Gladstone neighborhood, where re 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 t~ored to mee' the special land u,,sb and design standards of Hillcrest Village and other futur, e,,,~,i~ban villag,. areas within the/,bity. The objective of the new zoning district would be to create a zoning district that a~ws a broader range of land uses than the existing zoning districts, while establishing,,C)hysical design standards for these uses. 40 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: PROJECT: LOCATION: DATE: City Manager Ken Roberts, Associate Planner Conditional Use Permit Revision and Design Review Saint Paul Regional Water Services - McCarrons Water Treatment Plant 1900 Rice Street North May 20, 2003 INTRODUCTION Project Description The Saint Paul Regional Water Services is proposing to make the following changes and additions to their facilities at the McCarrons Water Treatment Plant at 1900 Rice Street (Refer to the narrative and maps starting on page 11): Build a two-story, 36,000-square-foot office building with 240 parking spaces near the center of the site. This building would have the business offices of the water utility and also would be for public visits to the water utility for service and information. The proposed extedor of the building would be in character with the main water treatment plant with a white plaster finish. Build a one-story, 11,230-square-foot meter shop and warehouse north of the proposed office building. The water utility would use this building for storing and repairing water meters and for stodng materials they use in the installation and repair of water lines. The proposed exterior of this building is a white metal panel. Build a one-story, 17,350-square-foot vehicle maintenance and storage building north of the existing dewatering building near the north end of their site. They are proposing an exterior of white metal panels and white garage doors for this building. The plans also show a future cold vehicle storage building near the west property line of their site, west of the existing dewatering building. The applicant said that they will want to construct this building in the future, but thought it was important to show it now on the project plans. With the addition of the above buildings to the site, the applicant is proposing several changes and additions to the parking and to the access for the facility. These changes include: Adding a 240-stall public and employee parking lot south of the proposed office building and north of the existing storm water pond. This lot, as proposed, would have vehicle access from Rice Street (under the existing narrow railroad bridge) and from Sylvan Street. 2. Access and deliveries for the proposed meter shop would be from Rice Street. 3. Trucks now use Roselawn Avenue as the access location for the plant and would continue to do so with the proposed plans. With all the grading necessary for the proposed buildings, parking and driveway, the applicant is proposing to add extensive landscaping to the site, primarily west of Sylvan Street and west of the proposed buildings. Requests The applicant is requesting that the city approve: A stream setback variance. The city code requires new buildings to set back from a stream at least 60 feet. As proposed, the future cold vehicle storage building would be 40 feet from Trout Brook. A revision to the existing conditional use permit (CUP) to allow for the proposed new buildings and changes to the facility. City code requires a CUP for public utilities, public services or public buildings in the city. This request is to revise an existing CUP since the council previously approved a conditional use permit for the applicant. The proposed changes would be revisions to the site plan covered by the CUP. 3. The project design plans. BACKGROUND December 15, 1988: The city council approved a CUP to construct a clear-water pond south of the solids dewatering facility west of Sylvan Street and north of Larpenteur Avenue. June 10, 1996: The city council approved a CUP and design plans for the expansion of the solids dewatedng facility. August 11, 1997: The city council approved a CUP and design plans for the construction of two building additions and a new building at the water treatment plant. December 10, 2001: The city council approved a revision to the CUP and the design plans for the expansion and renovation of the water treatment plant (east of Sylvan Street). DISCUSSION Stream Setback Variance - Trout Brook As I noted above, the proposed project plans show a building for future vehicle storage set back 40 feet from Trout Brook. Since the code requires buildings to have a 60-foot setback from a stream, this proposed location requires a 20-foot variance. (See the statement from the project architect on pages 37 and 38.) Trout Brook is an existing stream that is east of the existing railroad and just west of the fence that is along the west side of the site. The water utility had Short-Elliott-Hendrickson (SEH) investigate their site for possible wetlands or streams and for any possible impacts that the new construction might have. (See the report on pages 12 - 14.) I spoke to Todd Udvig of SEH about his site visit and his findings. He told me that the part of Trout Brook near the storage yard is, by definition, a stream but that most of Trout Brook has been altered and impacted by human activities. (In fact much of Trout Brook north and south of the storage yard has been put underground into pipes.) He noted that the existing storage yard goes up to the fence near Trout Brook and that there now is a large impervious surface area with little control for storm water run-off. The proposed plans, however, show the area between the vehicle storage building and fence planted with trees and native grasses. (See the north area planting plan on page 30.) Mr. Udvig agreed that the proposed plans, with the new grading, storm sewer system, plantings and rainwater garden, will be a big improvement to the buffer area along the east side of Trout Brook. Conditional Use Permit The city council should approve this CUP revision. The proposed buildings and changes meet the findings required for CUP approval in the city code. The proposed buildings and landscaping would be attractive and would enhance the water utility's property. Design and Site Issues New Office Building The applicant is proposing to build a two-story, 36,000-square-foot office building with 240 parking spaces near the center of the site. This building would have the business offices of the water utility and also would be for public visits to the water utility for service and information. The proposed extedor of the building would be in character with the main water treatment plant with a white plaster finish. (See the proposed building elevations on pages 32.) It also would have many windows and blue corrugated metal panels for accents around the entrances. The proposed elevations also show a clear aluminum metal panel screened roof enclosure. Warehouse/Meter Shop The proposed plans for the warehouse/meter shop show the extedor with white, fiat metal wall panels, several doors and a white metal panel roof. (See the proposed building elevations on pages 33 and 34.) While this is a plain, if not a boring design, this building would be in the center of the campus and not visible from off of the site. As such, staff is not as concerned about the appearance of this building and it should not effect any adjacent properties. Vehicle Storage/Maintenance Building The proposed elevations for the vehicle storage/maintenance building show the west and east sides of the building with many overhead garage doors and white, fiat metal panels on the walls. (Please see the proposed elevations on page 35.) In addition, the proposed roof would have white metal panels, similar to the warehouse meter shop. As with the proposed warehouse/meter shop, the vehicle storage/maintenance building would be in the center of the campus and not visible from off of the site. As such, staff is not as concerned about the appearance of this building and it should not effect any adjacent properties. Trees and Landscaping As proposed, the project plans show the removal of 21 large trees and the planting of at least 89 replacement trees - including a vadety of deciduous overstory (oak, ash and maple) and a variety of coniferous (fir, pine and spruce). (These are shown on the plans on pages 28 - 31 .) Staff would like to see the planting of more screening trees along the south and east sides of the proposed parking lot. This screening should be as thick as possible to help screen the parking lot from the homes to the south and east of the site. The rest of the landscaping plan, with the proposed shrubs, trees, rain water gardens and areas of sod and areas of native grasses will be a fine improvement to the site. Other Comments Chris Cavett, the Assistant City Engineer, has review the proposed project plans. His comments are in the memo starting on page 39. Butch Gervais, the Maplewood Fire Marshal, had the following comments about the proposal: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. A fire protection system (sprinkler system) is required with this project. Monitoring of all fire protection systems is required. Notification devices will be required throughout the buildings. Provide a fire department lockbox for access to all buildings. Provide a minimum of a 20-foot-wide access road for emergency vehicles. Provide proper addressing of all buildings. David Fisher, the Maplewood Building Official, had the following comments about the proposal: All buildings shall meet the IBC building code. Provide the required handicapped accessibility. Lt. Kevin Rabbett of the Maplewood Police Department reviewed the proposed project plans. Please see his comments in the memo on page 4'1. Dan Soler, the Ramsey County Traffic Engineer, noted, "1 do not see any problems with this plan. Sylvan Street at Larpenteur Avenue is signalized and will function adequately. The other existing access points at Roselawn and dce Street should be OK. Will all vehicles at the Roselawn entrance be required to turn left? It appears to me that it would be alright for pick-ups or other maintenance vehicles to go east on Roselawn.' 4 RECOMMENDATIONS Ao Approve the resolution on pages 42 and 43. This resolution is for a 20-foot stream setback variance for the construction of a vehicle storage building at the McCarrons water treatment plant at 1900 Rice Street. The city approves this variance because: Stdct enforcement of the code would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the property and not created by the property owner. The 60-foot-wide stream buffer requirement would make development of this site difficult. The variance would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance, since the applicant would greatly improve a portion of the stream buffer over its present state and the proposed development plans will treat storm water from the site with rainwater gardens, bio-retention basins and other best management practices. Approval is subject to the applicant doing the following: Dedicating a 40-foot-wide stream protection buffer easement along the west property line. This easement shall be prepared by a land surveyor, shall describe the boundary of the buffer and shall prohibit any building, mowing, cutting, filling or dumping within the buffer. The applicant shall record this easement before the city issues a building permit. Submitting a revised landscape plan for the restoration of 40 feet of the stream- protection buffer on the west side of the site. This plan shall show extensive use of native plantings and grasses and shall be subject to staff and watershed distdct approval. 3. Installing city approved signs at the edge of the stream-protection buffer that prohibit any building, mowing, cutting, filling or dumping within the buffer. Adopt the resolution on pages 44 - 45. This resolution approves a conditional use permit revision for the addition of four buildings, a new Parking lot and associated site plan changes for the Saint Paul Regional Water Services McCarrons Water'Treatment Plant at 1900 Rice Street North. The city bases this approval on the findings required by the code and is subject to the following conditions: 1. All construction shall follow the approved site plan. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 2. The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the permit shall become null and void. 3. The city council shall review this permit in one year. Approve the plans (date-stamped April 24, 2003) for the proposed office building, meter shop and vehicle maintenance buildings (with the associated parking and landscaping) at the St. Paul Regional Water Services McCarrons Water Treatment Plant at 1900 Rice Street North. This approval does not include the future cold vehicle storage building shown on the plans along the west side of the site. The city bases this approval on findings required by the code. The property owner or contractor shall do the following: 5 Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a permit for this project. Provide the following for city staff approval before the city issues a grading or building permit: a. Building matedal and color samples of the plaster, metal panels, roofs, tdm, and garage doors. b. A revised landscape/screening plan that shows the following: The spruce trees proposed for the south and east sides of the parking lot and the property revised from 6 feet in height to 8 feet in height. (2) The planting of more coniferous trees along the south and east sides of the proposed parking lot to help screen the parking lot from the houses to the south and east. (3) Landscaping details for the stream buffer area and for the proposed rainwater gardens. If the basin area will only be seeded, the area must be vegetated with native grasses and forbes. The mix design must be approved by the city before the contractor does the seeding. (4) An in-ground irrigation system (including sprinkler heads) for the areas that would have sod. The city does not require irrigation for areas with native grasses or for the rainwater gardens. Co Detailed grading, drainage, paving, utility and erosion control plan for approval by the Assistant City Engineer. These plans shall meet all the requirements of the Assistant City Engineer. A detailed photometric plan for all proposed outdoor lighting showing the location, style, height and design of the proposed light fixtures. All freestanding lights shall not be taller than 25 feet, and the illumination from any outdoor light must not exceed 0.4-foot candles at all property lines. so Plans for any trash-dumpster enclosures. The gates for such enclosures shall be 100 percent opaque, and the materials and colors of the enclosure shall be compatible with those of the new buildings. These plans shall be subject to staff approval. Proof of recording of a 40-foot-wide stream protection buffer easement along the west property line. This easement shall be prepared by a land surveyor, shall describe the boundary of the buffer and shall prohibit any building, mowing, cutting, filling or dumping within the buffer. The applicant shall record this easement before the city issues a building permit. g. 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 and install all required extedor improvements, including the approved landscaping and any dumpster enclosures before occupying the buildings. .- 4. 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 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 spring or summer. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. CITIZEN COMMENTS Staff surveyed the property owners within 500 feet of this site to get their opinions of this proposal. Out of the 40 properties surveyed, we received one response as follows: Comments My main concern is when it is discovered that Sylvan Street needs road repair in two years because of the increase traffic flow; will I be paying the assessments? Right now Sylvan has a drainage problem and there is no speed limit posted. (Hendch - 1720 Sylvan Street) REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Site size: 35.93 Acres Existing land use: Saint Paul Water Utility Water Treatment Plant SURROUNDING LAND USES The proposed buildings are primarily in the center of the water utility property. They will be surrounded by the applicant's property. There are single dwellings to the south and east of the site, across Sylvan Street. PLANNING Land Use Plan designation: OS (open space) and W (public water facility) Zoning: F (farm residential) ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS Section 25-70 of the city code requires that the CDRB make the following findings to approve plans: That the design and location of the proposed development and its relationship to neighboring, existing or proposed developments and traffic is such that it will not impair the desirability of investment or occupation in the neighborhood; that it will not unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring, existing or proposed developments; and that it will not create traffic hazards or congestion. That the design and location of the proposed development is in keeping with the character of the surrounding neighborhood and is not detrimental to the harmonious, ordedy and attractive development contemplated by this article and the city's comprehensive municipal plan. That the design and location of the proposed development would provide a desirable environment for its occupants, as well as for its neighbors, and that it is aesthetically of good composition, materials, textures and colors. Section 36-437 of the city code requires a CUP for public utilities, public services or public buildings in the city. Section 36-442(a) states that the city council may approve a CUP, based on nine standards. See numbers 1-9 in the resolution beginning on page 44. APPLICATION DATE We received all the materials for a complete application for this request on April 24, 2003. State law requires that the city council act on requests within 60 days. The council must act on these requests by June 23, 2003, unless the applicant agrees to a time extension. p:secl 8\watrutil.2003.doc Attachments: 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. Applicant's Statement Apd116, 2003 letter from Short-Elliott-Hendfickson Vicinity Map Location Map Overall Site Plan Area Map Property Line/Zoning Map Existing Site Conditions Survey Overall Site Grading Plan North Area Grading Plan South Area Grading Plan Pond Area Grading Plan Overall Site Utility Plan North Area Utility Plan South Area Utility Plan Tree Plan Overall Landscape Plan North Area Planting Plan South Area Planting Plan Office Building Elevations Warehouse/Meter Shop Elevations Warehouse/Meter Shop Elevations Vehicle Storage/Maintenance Elevations Overall Electrical/Lighting Plan May 9, 2003 letter from Jim Butler of HGA May 13, 2003 memo from Chris Cavett May 9, 2003 memo from Lt. Kevin Rabbett Stream Setback Variance Resolution Conditional Use Permit Revision Resolution Project Plans (separate attachment) Attachment 1 McCarron's Campus Expansion St Paul Regional Water Services APR ! 8 2003 Project Summary for the filing requirements of the Conditional Use or PUD Application to the City of Maplewog ,CI I E D St Paul Regional Water Services has operated the facility at 1900 Rice Street for 80 years. The site is used for water treatment and pumps up to 120 million gallons of water to St Paul and surrounding suburbs. The current project brings approximately 200 more employees to the site from two other SPRWS facilities. The Commerce Building in downtown St Paul currently houses the Water Service's administrative offices. The Hamlme Yards currently is used for the work crews and vehicles, which are dispatched to repair and install water utilities. The consolidation of the three locations into one provides a more efficient operation of the utility company. Site improvements around the treatment plant in the new project also makes the McCarrons Water Plant a more secure facility. The new buildings being added to the existing campus are a two-story Office Building, a one-story Meter Shop/Warehouse and a Vehicle Maintenance/Storage. A single story garage building is also planned in the yard for future expansion of vehicle storage. Office Building: . The new office building is located west of the existing water plant and south of the existing Chlorine Building. 36,000 square feet of office space is provided, 18,000 square feet on each of the two floors. The character of the new building will be in keeping with the existing water plant with a stucco exterior. A single rooftop mechanical unit will be completely screened from view. A new parking lot to the south of the office building provides 240 stalls, which includes 10 public parking stalls. The general public can come to the lobby of the office building to pay their water bill, talk to a collection agent or consult an engineer about a utility line. The public will access the site from Rice Street, driving on the existing road east and passing under the existing railroad bridge. This is a one-way access from Rice Street due to the limited single-lane-width span of the existing bridge underpass. Employee parking and public exiting from the parking lot will be to the south on Sylvan Street. An existing controlled intersection at Sylvan and Larpenteur provides the safest access to the site. The parking lot will be bermed and visually screened from the residences along Sylvan with new landscaping. The existing storm water retention pond and trail system on the site will be maintained. No dump trucks or semi-trailers will access the site from the south Sylvan entrance and there is no access to the yard from south Sylvan in the new site plan. Meter Shop/Warehouse: The new Meter Shop/Warehouse Building is composed of an enclosed and heated building and a roof over exterior racked pipe storage. The total enclosed building is 11,230 square feet, with the Meter Shop at 3,740 SF and the Warehouse at 6,490 SF. The Meter Shop is for testing and repairing of water meters. The Warehouse stores all the materials needed in the process of installing and repairing water lines, valves, shovels, pipes, etc: The building structure is a pre-engineered metal building with a white metal panel exterior. Deliveries to the warehouse will come from Rice Street and unload on the south side of the new building. Deliveries are expected to be only two trucks per day usually. Delivery trucks do not pass under the existing railroad bridge: there is an existing road just east of the tracks to the north. Vehicle Maintenance/Storage Building: The new Vehicle Maintenance/Storage Building is 17,350 square feet. 6,940 SF of the building will be used for repair and maintenance of SPRWS vehicles. 10,410 SF of the building will be used as a garage for vehicles. The building structure is a pre-engineered metal building with a white metal panel exterior and white garage doors. 10 Vehicle Site Access: Existing access for trucks into the site are from the Roselawn entrance. Access for the new trucks coming to the campus will also enter off of Roselawn. It is anticipated that 20 dump trucks and 50 pickups per day will access the site from the Roselawn entrance. Currently there are approximately 10 semi-trucks that use this entrance each day. These trucks deliver chemicals to the Plant for water treatment and remove spent lime from the treatment process. Posted signs on Roselawn restrict trucks to turn left to travel west on Roselawn when exiting the campus. This will not change in the new project. April 14, 2003 HGA Architects and Engineers, Inc. 2484-001-00 3535 Vadnais Center Drive, St. Paul, MN 55110-5196 architecture engineering 651.490.2000 environmental Attachment 2 651.490.2150 FAX transportation April l6,2003 St. Paul Regional Water Services McCarrons Water Treatment Plant Wetlands Review SEH No. A-STPRW0301.00 14.00 Mr. David Wagner St. Paul Regional Water Services 400 Commerce Building Eight 4th Street East St. Paul, MN 55101-1007 Dear Mr. Wagner: APR 2 2 03 We have completed a site assessment on April 16, 2003 for wetland habitat within the two proposed facility expansion areas at the St. Paul Regional Water Services McCarrons Campus. The McCarrons Campus is located on Rice Street between Roselawn and Larpenteur Avenues in St. Paul, Minnesota. The two areas of interest are located on the west side of the campus immediately adjacent to Trout Creek, and on the southwest area of the campus near the constructed water recirculation pond (i.e., "rabbit ear pond," but herein referred to as "constructed pond"). The St. Paul Regional Water Services is proposing two projects within its McCarrons Campus. One project will include moving the western fence for the pipe yard eastward and further away from Trout Creek. The fence relocation project may also involve some revegetation of areas within St. Paul Regional Water Services property that are near the eastern creek bank. The second project includes constructing a new building and parking area to be located just north of the constructed pond between the east-west access road (which goes under the railroad tracks) and the pond itself. A copy of the 2000 historic aerial photograph that you provided SEH Inc. is included as an attachment. The two proposed project areas that were investigated are noted on the copy of the photograph. Trout Creek flows south along the west side of the fenced pipe yard on the McCarrons Campus. Wetland habitat associated with Trout Creek appears to be restricted within the immediate banks of the creek. Steep side slopes along the creek appear to restrict the creek bed to an average width of three to five feet near the pipe yard area. The proposed project moving the fence east of its existing location should not directly affect Trout Creek. It is recommended that if any earth-moving activities should commence within the pipe yard near Trout Creek that best management practices (BMPs) be used to protect the creek from potential eroding materials and sedimentation. The area between the constructed pond and the access road is entirely upland habitat covered by turf grasses and planted upland deciduous and coniferous tree species. No wetland habitat was observed in this area. A review of historical aerial photographs of the site from 1937, 1940, 1953, 1957, 1966, 1974, 1980 do not show any wetland signatures within the area that was eventually used for the constructed pond or the proposed building site. Historic aerial photographs from 1991, 1997, and Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc. Your Trusted Resource 1z Equal Opportunity Employer Mr. David Wagner April 16, 2003 Page 2 2000 show the constructed pond, but no wetland signatures within the proposed building site north of the pond. If you have any questions regarding the results of this site assessment of the McCarrons Campus, please feel free to contact us at the numbers provided below. We are pleased to provide this information and look forward to working with the St. Paul Regional Water Services in the future. Sincerely, SHORT ELLIOTT HENDRICKSON INC. Staff Biologist 651.490.2162 651.765.2957 Enclosure vfipt ~vrw~30100~wetlands\wagnet041603.doc 13 H~to~.~a~ Maplewood Site 2000 .~ _ Information Maplewood, Minnesota HIG Project Number: MAD. 1058 q4' ~e Gatherers, Inc. Client Project Number: 01431509 Approximate Scale 1:6000 (I"-500') 14 · Attachment 3 HVh' ~6 COUNTY B SANDY LAKE ROSELAWN AVENUE b.I LARPENTEUR AVENUE ARUNGTON AVENUE z v Vicinity Map 15 Lb! 0 0 0 0 ',-- Attachment-4 L~ 0 3 A B C 2400N LITTLE CANADA SKILLMAN AVE. MT. VERNON DOWNS AVE. BELl.WOOD AVE. FENTON AVE. KINGSTON BELMONT LN. -- SKILLMAN AVE. SUMMER VIKING BELMO~ BELLWOOD §-- SAINT LOCATION 16 MAP / / Attachment 5 I o~ [] Overall Site~ Plan ROSELAWN AVE W 1870 o /o o/ 16 C) i {~ i ROSELA WN AVE E Attachment 6- [] 1882 ~%7,~ FENTON AVE E c) WA TER 1900 1734 1700 [] KINGSTON AVE E AREA MAP SAINT PAUL 18 A.l~l~ehmen'e 7_ i h. ROSELAWN AVENUE FORMER.~ ~'-~_.:! AMUSEMENT CITY AMUSEMENT PARK ST. PAUL WATER UTILITY PROPERTY C;17 o{' $~ .1~. I CROWN PLAZA I SHOPPING CENTERt~ PENTEUR AVENUE M £ R RI LL',5. AVE. PROPERTY LINE ! ZONING MAP 19 N Attachment 8 Mccarmn's Campus Expansion ~!I ~ "' Z 'ZXISTING Si-~E .'OND['FIONS ; I~ h ,,h , EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS SURVEY 20 l DF~IGN DEVELOPMENT Attachment McCarron's Caml~us Expansion SAINT PAUL OVERALL SITE GRADING PLAN 21 I~L.~NRALL STFE GRADING Attachment t0 SITE GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN NORTH AREA DESIGN DEVELOPMENT C401 Haintenanm Floor Elev. 862.0 Heated Vehicle Storage McCarron's Campus Expansion Meter Shop / Warehouse Floor Elev. 85,t.0 Building Existing Plant Building Attachment 11 · McCarron's Campus BuJJding Floor Elev. 862.0 UNDER CONSTRUCTION S1TE GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN SOUTH AREA DESIGN DEVELOPMENT SOUTH AREA GRADING PLAN ~ N $~orrn ~ Attachment 12 McCarron's Campus Expansion LAI~OENTUER SAINT PAUL AVENUE POND AREA GRADING PLAN 24 SITE GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN POND ~ DESIGN DEVELOPMENT C403 Attachment 13 OVERALL STTE UT'J_t'"rY PLAN DEVELOPMENT C500 McCarmn's Campus ¢$o! OVERALL SITE UTILITY PLAN 25 S~TE UT~L~-I'Y PLAJ~I NORTH AREA DESIGN DEVELOPMENT C501 Attachment.14 . McCarron'$ Campus Expansion / //// Building NORTH AREA UTILITY PLAN 26 K~ NOT~ Exist/ng Plant Building Attachment 15 SITE ~ PLAN SOUTM AR~A DE.~IGN DEVELOPMENT McCarr~n's Campus Expansion UNDER CONSTRUCTION SOUTH AREA UTILITY PLAN 27 TREES TO BE REMOVED: LEGEND: Attachment 16 McCarron's Campus Expansion o o !,---,' TREE PLAN 28 TREE PROTECTION AND REMOVAL PLAN DESIGN DEVELOPMENT LO50 Attachment 17 /~' VEHICLE STORAGE BUILDING I I I ! ! ! I I I ! I I I I I I McCarron's C~mpus I LEGEND: SHOP/WAREHOUSE I ~"~ ~ ~ . · I I I I I OVERALL LANDSCAPE PLAN 29 Attachment LEGEND: SITE PLANTING PLAN - NOETH AREA DESIGN DEVELOPMENT LiO1 iI McCarron's Catullus Expansion Attachment 19 Mc'Carton's Campus DESIGN DEVELOPMENT SOUTH AREA PLANTING PLAN 31 OFFICE BUILDING E~'TERIOR ELEVATIONS DESIGN DEVELOPMENT Attachment 20~ McCarron's Campus Expansion MATE~ NOTES: OFFICE BUILDING ELEVATIONS 32 Attachment 21 A420 T~lli~l~q~i~/llllllllllllll IqlTIIIIII IIIIlllI~lI~rl~l~l ! ! ! ~ I " ; ; ; ; " I I I I~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Attachment 22 McCarron's Campus Expansion EXTERIOR ELEVATiONS & BUILDING SECTION WAREHOUSE/ METER SHOP D~IGN DEVELOF~ENr A421 Attachment McCarmn's Cam~.m n EXTERIOR Et. EVAT]ONS VEH]CJ.E STORAGE/ DESIGN DEVELOPMENT A430 VEHICLE STORAGE/MAINTENANCE35 ELEVATIONS Attachment 24' VEHICLE STORAGE BUILDING u,,I O O0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ELECTRICAL Si'I'E PLAN DESIGN DEVELOPNEI~Fi' E030 OVERALL ELECTRICAL/LIGHTING PLAN 36 ,NJ Architecture Engineering I Planning Attachment 25 May 9, 2003 WRITER'S DIRECT DL&L (612) 758-4239 Hammel Mr. Ken Roberts Associate Planner City of Maplewood, Minnesota 1830 East County Road B Maplewood, Minnesota 55109 Re: McCarron's Campus Expansion Trout Brook Setback and Yard Pavement HGA Commission Number 2484-001-00 Dear Ken: Per our telephone discussion today, I am writing you to clarify the Trout Brook setback for the future Cold Vehicle Storage Building and the yard pavement as shown on the proposed McCarron's Campus Expansion Project under city review. Currently, the existing gravel pipe yard west of the Dewatermg Building abuts the eastern 'edge of Trout Brook without any setback or green space. The existing gravel yard slopes to drain into Trout Brook. The new construction project regrades the existing pipe yard to upper and lower yard areas. Drainage of the new upper yard area is treated in a rainwater garden to the west of the upper yard. Drainage of the new lower yard is collected into new stormwater piping that ultimately discharges south of the new parking lot into the existing storm water pond. Also in the lower yard, an area is defined for a Future Cold Vehicle Storage Building, which will be a one story metal building for par~-Mng flxe Xg'ater Department's tracks and vans. The proposed edge of pavement of the yard is shown as 60 feet from the existing fencelme along Trout Brook, and a green space buffer of native grasses and trees is proposed in this zone. When the Cold Vehicle Storage Building is constructed in the future, the truck maneuvering space in the lower yard will be affected. Reducing the required setback of the furore building to 40 feet in lieu of 60 feet will provide trucks the necessary mining radius and access up the ramp for the drive-through circulation into the west doors of the existing Dewatering Building. When the building is built, a 40 foot wide green space buffer of native grasses and trees will be maintained between this future building and Trout Brook. Since no green Space exists now between the edge of pavement and Trout Brook, the proposed landscape, even at its future 40 foot width, w/ll h~ ~- significant improvement, i ~EO~iV~)[ , Green and Abrahamson, Inc, 701 Washington Avenue North · Minneapolisl M~A~'sn~a_U.S.A-5.,5.A0.1-i..I~B0 Telephone 612.758.4000 Facsimile 612.758.4199 Visit our Wehsite: www.hga.com 37 Mr. Ken Roberts May 9, 2003 Page 2 The new upper and lower yards are paved in gravel m the base bid with an add alternate for asphalt paving. The new parking lot, roads and truck maneuvering south of the new Meter Shop will all receive asphalt paving in the base bid. The gravel is confined to the service yard. It is anticipated that if the bidding climate is favorable, that the asphalt paving of the yard would occur with this project. If not, the owner intends to pave the yard m the near future when funds become available. I hope this clarifies the intent of the proposed sitework for your review. Please call me if you have any further questions. Sincerely, HAMMEL, GREEN AND ABRAHAMSON, INC. Associate Vice President cc: Berme Bullert, SPRWS Dave Wagner, SPRWS Erik Hansen, HGA Vicki Hooper, HGA Ted Lee, HGA \ \c~rp~rate\c~rp~rate\pr~ject\24~~\2484\~~~-~~\c~mmunicati~ns\c~rresp~ndence\jtb~~~ s.doc;jmb 38 Attachment 26 Engineering Plan Review PROJECT: McCarrons Campus Expansion PROJECT NO: 03-21 REVIEWED BY: Chuck Vermeersch and Chris Cavett DATE: May 13, 2003 The applicant or their engineer shall address the following comments. Gradin.q and Drainage Plan: The drainage calculations do not include the area east of the site, (approximately 16 acres of existing residential area), which is tributary to the existing pond. The pond appears to be large enough to handle the additional drainage area, but including the additional area will likely change the calculated high water level. The pond and area around it shall be dedicated to the city as a public drainage and utility easement. The south rainwater garden is considered a private BMP and should not be included in the public drainage easement, unless covered in the use and restrictions of the easement Provide a 2'-3' sump in the in the last storm sewer manhole before it discharges into the pond. The purpose of the sump is to remove large sediment from the system before discharging into the pond. At a minimum, the sump will require an annual cleaning. 4. Complete a maintenance agreement for cleaning and maintenance of the sump manhole and rain gardens. A draft of a maintenance agreement is attached. 5. The existing storm sewer that outlets to the creek southwest of the new office building shall be removed or bulkheaded and abandoned. A portion of the parking lot and loading dock area of the office building drains east to Sylvan Avenue. The boulevard east of the proposed office building parking lot also slopes east to Sylvan. The street grade here is very flat. As such, the project engineer shall change the grading plan in this area to insure street ponding does not occur. This may require a shallow swale between the parking lot and Sylvan Street to capture this runoff and provide a positive outlet if necessary. If the parking area north of the meter shop is not paved, special considerations will be taken to protect the storm sewer system and rain garden. This shall include having solid grates for the catch basins temporaiily and the contractor will need to quickly establish the buffer around the rain garden. 8. Submit an erosion control plan for city staff approval. The applicant shall include for city approval a detailed landscaping plan for the pond, rain gardens and stream bank restoration. Turf establishment must be with a pre-approved native-grass seed mixture with forbs, (for upland and Iow 39 land areas as appropriate). The current landscaping plan already includes trees and shrubbery. 10. The parking lot south of the office building appears to be utilizing a dbbon curb along the center islands and the south edge of the parking lot (for drainage purposes). Provide a note and detail to cladfy what is proposed for these edges in these locations. 11. Due to the abrupt drop in grade from the south end of the new parking lot and the fact that the plans do not show bamer curb, the applicant or contractor shall install a landscape fence, such as a split rail or wood rail fence, to provide a visual barrier of the edge of the parking lot and top of slope. 40 Attachment 27 Memo To: Ken Roberts ~/ From:Lt. Kevin Rabbett (/---/~ CC: Deputy Chief Banick Date: 5~9~03 Re: McCarron's Water Treatment Plant Expansion iRE,CE I have reviewed the attached Project Review Form for the expansion of the St. Paul water treatment plant. The plan seems well designed from a public safety standpoint. The traffic flow is directed .through appropriate intersections. One question involves the prohibition of dght tums onto Roselawn for trucks exiting the plant. I agree that this is necessary to reduce heavy truck traffic through the residential area. Will there be signage prohibiting incoming trucks from traveling westbound on Roselawn from 35E? Also the plan mentions that the parking lot will be bermed and visually screened from the residences on Sylvan. This may be difficult to do due to the height of those residences. However, if accomplished, it will prevent those residents from potentially witnessing thefts from vehicles. I assume that the parking lot will be easily visible from the office building which will provide some deterrent effect. If you have any questions, please cai me at x4532. 41 Attachment 28 STREAM SETBACK VARIANCE RESOLUTION WHEREAS, David Wagner, of the Saint Paul Regional Water Services, asked the city to approve a stream setback vadance from the zoning ordinance. WHEREAS, this variance applies to the water utility property at 1900 Rice Street. The legal description is: SECTION 18, TOWNSHIP 29, RANGE 22 IN THE VILLAGE OF MAPLEWOOD REVISED DESCRIPTION NUMBER 175 A SPECIFIC PART OF SEC 18, TN 29, R 22. (PIN 18-29-22- 31-0042) WHEREAS, Section 36-196(h) of the wetland protection ordinance requires a 60-foot-wide stream buffer area next to streams. WHEREAS, the applicant is proposing a 40-foot-wide stream buffer. WHEREAS, the history of this variance is as follows: 1. On ,2003, the planning commission recommended that the city council approve this variance. The city council held a public headng on June ,2003. City staff published a notice in the Maplewood Review and sent notices to the surrounding property owners as required by law. The council gave everyone at the headng an opportunity to speak and present wdtten statements. The council also considered reports and recommendations from the city staff and planning commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above-described variance for the following reasons: Strict enforcement of the code would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the property and not created by the property owner. The 60-foot-wide stream buffer requirement would make development of this site difficult. The vadance would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance, since the applicant would greatly improve a portion of the stream buffer over its present state and the proposed development plans will treat storm water from the site with rainwater gardens, bio-retention basins and other best management practices. Approval is subject to the applicant doing the following: Dedicating a 40-foot-wide stream protection buffer easement along the west property line. This easement shall be prepared by a land surveyor, shall describe the boundary of the buffer and shall prohibit any building, mowing, cutting, filling or dumping within the buffer. The applicant shall reCOrd this easement before the city issues a building permit. Submitting a revised landscape plan for the restoration of 40 feet of the stream- protection buffer on the west side of the site. This plan shall show extensive use of native plantings and grasses and shall be subject to staff and watershed distdct approval. 4;) 3. Installing city approved signs at the edge of the stream-protection buffer that prohibit any building, mowing, cutting, filling or dumping within the buffer. The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on ,2003. 43 Attachment 29 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REVISION RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the Saint Paul Water Utility has requested a revision to their conditional use permit to add four new buildings, parking and landscaping to plant facilities at the St. Paul Water Utility McCarrons Water Treatment Plant. WHEREAS, this permit applies to the property at 1900 Rice Street North. The legal description is: SECTION 18, TOWNSHIP 29, RANGE 22 IN THE VILLAGE OF MAPLEWOOD REVISED DESCRIPTION NUMBER 175 A SPECIFIC PART OF SEC 18, TN 29, R 22. (PIN 18-29-22- 31-0042) WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: 1. On June 2, 2003, the planning commission recommended that the city council approve this permit. 2. On June ,2003, the city council held a public heating. The city staff published a notice in the paper and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The council gave everyone at the hearing a Chance to speak and present wdtten statements. The council also considered reports and recommendations of the city staff and planning commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approves the above-described conditional use permit based on the building and site plans. The city approves this permit because: 1. The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be in conformity with the city's comprehensive plan and code of ordinances. 2. The use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area. 3. The use would not depreciate property values. 4. The use would not involve any activity, process, materials, equipment or methods of operation that would be dangerous, hazardous, detrimental, disturbing or cause a nuisance to any person or property, because of excessive noise, glare, smoke, dust, odor, fumes, water or air pollution, drainage, water run-off, vibration, general unsightliness, electrical interference or other nuisances. 5. The use would generate only minimal vehicular traffic on local streets and would not create traffic congestion or unsafe access on existing or proposed streets. 6. The use would be served by adequate public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, water and sewer systems, schools and parks. 7. The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services. 8. The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and scenic features into the development design. 44 9. The use would cause minimal adverse envirOnmental effects. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 2. The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the permit shall become null and void. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 3. The city council shall review this permit in one year. The Maplewood City Council adopted the resolution on ,2003. 45