Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/22/2003AGENDA MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD July 22, 2003 6:00 P.M. Maplewood Room - Maplewood City Hall 1830 County Road B East 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 10. Call to Order Roll Call Approval of Agenda Approval of the July 8, 2003 Minutes Unfinished Business: None Scheduled Design Review: a. Imprint Enterprises - Gervais Avenue b. Maplewood Office Park - County Road D c. Hillcrest Redevelopment Area - Mixed-Use Zoning Discussion (Design Guidelines) Visitor Presentations: None Scheduled Board Presentations Staff Presentations: a. Craig Jorgenson Resolution of Appreciation b. Community Design Review Board Representation for the August 11, 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. 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 staffls 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. The Board will then discuss the proposal. No further public comments are allowed. The Board will then make its recommendations or decision. Most decisions by the Board are final, unless appealed to the City Council. You must notify the City staff in writing within 15 days to register an appeal. jw\forms\cdrb.agd Revised: 11-09-94 I1. III. IV. DRAFT MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, JULY 8, 2003 CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Ledvina called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Matt Ledvina Diana Longrie-Kline Linda Olson Ananth Shankar Present Present at 6:23 p.m. Present Present Staff Present: Shann Finwall, Associate Planner Lisa Kroll, Recording Secretary APPROVAL OF AGENDA Board member Shankar moved to approve the agenda. Board member Olson seconded. Ayes - Ledvina, Olson, Shankar The motion passed. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of the CDRB minutes for June 24, 2003. Chairperson Ledvina had corrections to page 4 and 5.. In the sixth paragraph, the third line should read He said the board will recommend approval of this plan and the board will have to assume it will be constructed the way it is on the plans they are reviewing and the board has to be very careful with how everything is laid out. In the last paragraph delete the word initial from the last sentence. On page 5, in the seventh paragraph, the last sentence should read He wondered if the applicant did any further investigating for reducing the expansiveness of the garage or any additional alternatives? Board member Olson moved approval of the minutes of June 24, 2003, with the proposed changes. Board member Ledvina seconded. Ayes ---Ledvina, OIson, Abstention - Shankar The motion passed. Community DeSign Review Board Minutes 7-08-2003 2 V. UNFINISHED BUSINESS a. Mendota Homes Town Houses (County Road D) Ms. Finwall said Ms. Erin Mathern, of Mendota Homes, Inc., is proposing to build a 26-unit twin-home development on a 5.2-acre parcel between County Road D and Woodlynn Avenue. The proposed development would have 10 buildings fronting on a private roadway running south from County Road D to the Xcel power line easement. There would also be three twin homes fronting on Woodlynn Avenue south of the Xcel easement. Ms. Finwall said on June 25, 2003, the CDRB tabled their review of the proposal and directed the applicant to revise the design plans. The applicant made three of the six changes requested by the CDRB. Staff does recommend approval of the revised plans date-stamped July 1,2003. Board member Shankar asked how they determine which color would go on each set of twin homes? Ms. Finwall said the applicant could address that question. Chairperson Ledvina asked the applicant to address the board. Ms. Erin Mathern, Mendota Homes, Forest Lake, addressed the board. She said they added a single dormer window for the units that are 28 to 30 feet wide and a double dormer window fo, the 40-foot wide units to further enhance the entry area. They also added a more prominent entryway that is shown on the plans in two different styles. She said the siding colors would be cream, taupe, and gray. The house numbers will be placed above the garage door and the house numbers will be six inches in size. They did not provide additional brick on the front elevations. She said the retaining wall requires an engineered plan, which does not get done until they are in the site work phase of the development so it was too early to show the engineered retaining wall. The retaining wall will be constructed of an open face block in either gray or limestone color. They will use a geo-grid system, which is a system that goes back from the retaining wall into the hill locking it in place so there are no erosion problems. She said because the city requires a separate permit for the retaining wall it will be checked again by the engineering department before the permit is issued. She said they split the driveways with a landscaping median with annual and perennial plantings on all units, except for the units with three car garages. She can't assure the board which units would be which colors, but assures the board that no two-twin homes the same color would be next to each other or across the street from each other. She said she hopes this addresses the concerns of the board. Chairperson Ledvina said the revised front entries look very nice and he asked if it was the homeowner's decision as to which front entry they prefer? Ms. Mathern said yes, both front entry plans appear to be equally desirable but it would be uF to the homeowner. She said the floor plan would also change based on which front entry is chosen. Board member Olson asked if all roofs on the twin homes would be the same color? Community Design Review Board Minutes 7-08-2003 Ms. Mathern said yes. Chairperson Ledvina asked the applicant if she objected to the staff recommendation to have brick on the side facade of the units along County Road D? Ms. Mathern said no. Chairperson Ledvina asked if the applicant objected to the recommendation to have more brick on the front facade? Ms. Mathern said yes. Board member Olson asked if the 'dormers are merely decorative or are they functional? Ms. Mathern said they are not functional. Board member Olson asked if maintenance to these windows on the dormers is the responsibility of the town home association? Ms. Mathem stated if it was an exterior issue it would be taken care of by the homeowner' association, if it were an interior issue that becomes a homeowner issue. Chairperson Ledvina asked if the dormers would have panes of glass? Ms. Mathern said yes, the dormers appear to be a working window except there won't be anything behind it but an unfinished attic. Chairperson Ledvina asked if you could see the unfinished attic from the street? Ms. Mathern said no, the dormers are situated so you can only see the wood behind the window but you can't see insulation or anything. Board member Olson said the applicant has gone out of her way to try and meet all the requests made by the board. She said she is pleased with everything that has been presented. She would like to request that the board withdraw their request to have the landscape island medians between the driveways. She spoke with some people that have these landscape medians in between their driveways and they have said they are unnecessary and problematic. She said if the landscape medians are filled with rocks the rocks spill out onto the driveway, if you have people parking in the driveway and they exit their vehicle they step on the medians and can lose their footing, car doors hit the bushes in the landscaping medians, the plantings are hard to maintain, they cause problems for snow removal, the landscaping dies and is costly to replace, and she said they are more of a nuisance than a benefit. Chairperson Ledvina said he agrees the landscaping medians would require more maintenance, however because of the high impervious surface on the site the landscaping medians are necessary to break up the expansiveness of the asphalt in front of the twin homes. Community Design Review Board Minutes 7-08-2003 4 Board member Longrie-Kline said her comments from the last CDRB meeting still hold true. She does not think the landscaping median is necessary and they cause more problems thar, providing a benefit. She said the salt used on the driveways in the winter cause the landscaping to die when the driveway gets plowed and to replace the landscaping increases the association dues for the homeowners. Board member Longrie-Kline said the dormers were a wonderful addition to the design. She thinks the idea of the landscaping medians look nice on paper but they are not practical in her opinion. Chairperson Ledvina said he would like to commend the applicant on the design additions to the plans. Board member Shankar asked how large these landscaping medians would be? He asked if they are going to be flush with the asphalt or have a curb? Chairperson Ledvina said that level of specifiCity was not required. He envisioned the landscaping medians as a six-foot wide strip planted with annuals and perennials and he doesn't anticipate the landscape medians to have a curb. Board member Olson said adding those medians would not add much green space. Chairperson Ledvina said he would agree that it doesn't add much green space but it breaks up the expansiveness of asphalt and improves the appearance of the development. Board member Longrie-Kline moved to approve the architectural and site plans date-stamper.. July 1, 2003, and the landscape plans date-stamped May 20, 2003, for the Woodlynn Ponds Twin Homes. Approval is subject to the developer complying with the following' conditions:(CDRB Additions to the originally recommended conditions are in bold and underlined, deletions have a strike through them) Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. 2. Complete the following before the city issues a grading permit: ao Have the city engineer approve final engineering plans, subject to compliance with the Maplewood Engineering Plan Review dated June 6, 2003, from the staff report. This data shall be considered an addendum to these conditions. Dedicate a 25-foot (average width) wetland-protection buffer easement to the City of Maplewood around the proposed wetland. This buffer may narrow to 20 feet. Provide a revised landscape plan for the wetland-protection buffer for approval by the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District and the city engineer. Provide a revised landscape plan for the medians between the driveways. do Provide written approval from Xcel for any deck encroachment into their easement. Community Design Review Board Minutes 7-08-2003 Provide engineering data for the retaining wall if the height would exceed four feet. 3. Complete the following before the city issues a building permit: a. Provide revised north buildinq elevations for the townhoUses adjacent County Road D to include a brick wainscot or other brick enhancement. This is subject to staff approval. Install city supplied or city approved wetland-protection buffer signs around the wetland buffer edge which states, '~VETLAND BUFFER AREA-DO NOT MOW, CUT, DUMP, DISTURB BEYOND THIS POINT-CITY OF MAPLEWOOD." These signs shall be installed not more than 100 feet apart. c. The north-south private roadway shall have continuous concrete curb and gutter. This roadway shall be 24 feet wide and be posted for "no parking" on both sides. d. The 18.5-foot east driveway in front of Lots 5 & 6 by Woodlyn Avenue shall be kept free of snow and posted for "no parking". e. Submit a lawn-irrigation plan to staff showing the location of sprinkler heads. (code requirement) f. Submit a certificate of survey for all new construction. g. Get the necessary approvals and permits from the watershed district. Provide the city with verification that the units will meet all state noise standards. This shall be with a study, testing or other documentation. If the noise levels on this site violate any of the state standards, then the contractor will have to construct the building so that it can meet the noise standards. This may be done with thicker walls, heavier windows, requiring air conditioning or other sound-deadening construction methods. The developer shall provide the city with this documentation before the city will issue a building permit for the building. i. A cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit for all required exterior improvements. The amount shall be 150 percent of the cost of the work. 4. Relocate the bituminous trail to the south to widen the boulevard and to align the trail away from the street edge. 5. Complete the following: a. Replace property irons that are removed because of this construction. Community Design Review Board Minutes 7-08~2003 b. Restore and sod damaged boulevards. c. Install a reflectorized stop sign at County Road D. d. Install and maintain an in-ground sprinkler system for all landscaped areas. e. Install streetlights at the County Road D roadway connection, at the end of the private roadway by the visitor parking lot and at the Woodlyn Avenue driveway connection. f. Remove the old barbed wire fencing around the perimeter of the site. .q. The'landscape islands located between the town houses, in the driveways, on the July 1, 2003, site plan are optional for the developer. h. Install a sidewalk along the Woodlyn Avenue frontage as required in the assistant city engineer's report. 6. 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 1 if the building is occupied in the fall or winter, or within six weeks of occupancy if the building is occupied in the spring or summer. c. The city receives an agreement that will allow the city to complete any unfinished work. 7. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. Board member Olson seconded. Board member Shankar made a friendly amendment that the applicant shall submit to staff the north elevations of the two units directly facing County Road D for approval showing the placement of the brick on the revised elevation. Chairperson Ledvina made a friendly amendment to strike item 2. f., because he does not see a need for that condition. Chairperson Ledvina said because the landscaping median is already on their plans would board member Longrie-Kline be willing to have the condition to require the landscaping median optional? Board member Longrie-Kline said the landscaping median was not on the original proposal but it is acceptable to have the condition optional. She said she does not want it to be a condition requirement. Community Design Review Board Minutes 7-08-2003 7 Board member Olson accepted the amendments. Ayes - Longrie-Kline, Olson, Shankar Nays - Ledvina The motion passed. This item goes to the city council on July 14, 2003. Chairperson Ledvina said he voted against the motion because he felt the landscaping median was an important element to the design of the twin homes. VI. DESIGN REVIEW a. Hillcrest Redevelopment Area - Mixed Use Zoning Discussion Ms. Finwall said staff recommends that the CDRB offer comments and guidance on the dimensional standard 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. Ms. Finwall said this meeting's discussion would focus on dimensional standards, including parking space sizes, building height, and parking lot and building setbacks. Board member Olson said White Bear Avenue is a major connector of traffic and the thing that she is curious about is if White Bear Avenue gets narrowed and people get pushed closer to the street, the city is constricting flow of the residents and she is concerned about that. In her opinion, narrowing White Bear Avenue and bringing people closer to the street would cut off a life-flow for the people in that area. She has traffic going by her house all the time and her bedroom is very close to the sidewalk and the road. That brings people closer to the pollution, noise, loud music, exhaust fumes, traffic and the motorcycles that need to travel that corridor. Traffic is heavier especially since the buses have been cut back. Her concern is with the concept of pushing people closer in a major artery. She likes everything in the report and especially likes the parking space size requirement but is concerned about the front yard setback. Ms. Finwall showed the board the regulating map for the Hillcrest Village Urban Design Standards booklet created by Calthorpe. Chairperson Ledvina said this type of housing and situation is not going to be for everyone and they can chose not to live there. He asked staff who would choose the building number placement on page 4 of the report? Ms. Finwall said the developer would choose the number with variations by staff and the design review board. She said if it is a zoning setback it usually is a minimum or a maximum number. Ms. Finwall said the city has approved several planned unit developments such as New Century where they allowed varying setbacks and the front yard setback is 25 to 50 feet and the developer is able to choose the best location of that house. She said she would recommend that flexibility. Community Design Review Board Minutes 7-08-2003 Board member Longrie-Kline said she sees the setback as a range. Chairperson Ledvina asked staff if this is how she saw the setback because he saw it as a 15- foot minimum setback and a 25-foot maximum setback range. Ms. Finwall said yes. Board member Olson said the language should be clarified in the report to eliminate confusion. She said regarding the parking space size 8.5' X 18' is something her company has been designing for commercial parking lots. She said 8.5' feet is the minimum standard for NADA. She said a 9' X 18' parking size is a very good compromise for the City of Maplewood. Chairperson Ledvina said regarding the building height, building placement, and setbacks, he has no problem with those and agrees to those standards. VII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS No visitors present. VIII. BOARD PRESENTATIONS Board member Olson said she went on the annual city tour June 30, 2003, and the comments on the bus were very positive regarding the CDRB's work done on the Keller Golf Course Maintenance Building. The negative thing was the Carriage Homes of Maple Hills townhomes. Because the utility meters were placed on the ends of the townhomes the meters stick out and look bad. The CDRB had specified that the landscaping should screen the meters. The landscaping is extremely small and too close to the building. Someone pointed out that by the time the landscaping gets large enough to cover the meter it will need to be trimmed back because the meters would not be accessible in order to be read. The meters are facing the pond and are next to the road so they are impossible to miss. Board member Shankar said besides the size of the meters being 8' feet tall and 2' feet across they are gray in color. Nothing else on the building is gray because the townhomes are tan and beige therefore, they stick out severely. Ms. Finwall asked if that was a condition required by the CDRB? Ms. Finwall said she would look into it but if it was a condition the builder would have to come up with some sort of screening. Board member Olson said it was a condition but she does not see any landscaping options that would be tall enough to screen the large gray meters. Board member Longrie-Kline said it would be nice to film the annual tour so the residents could see what the commission, board and council review and make decisions on all year long. IX. STAFF PRESENTATIONS The regular scheduled city council meeting scheduled for Monday, July 28, 2003, has been rescheduled for Tuesday, July 22, 2003. Community Design Review Board Minutes 7-08-2003 bo Relocate CDRB meeting for Tuesday, July 22, 2003, from the council chambers to the Maplewood Room. Scheduled Design Review Items include: Imprint Enterprises (new warehouse building on Gervais Avenue); Maplewood Office Park (new office park on County Road D). X. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 7:20 p.m. TO: FROM: SUBJECT: PROJECT: APPLICANT: LOCATION: DATE: MEMORANDUM City Manager Ken Roberts, Associate Planner Design Review Imprint Enterprises Peter McGurran Gervais Avenue, west of English Street July 15, 2002 INTRODUCTION Peter McGurran is proposing to develop a 10,137-square-foot office/warehouse building for Imprint Enterprises. If approved, the applicant would construct the building on a 2.97-acre vacant lot on the north side of Gervais Avenue, just west of English Street. (See the maps and plans on pages 9- 18.) BACKGROUND In 2002, city staff approved a lot division to create the lot that Mr. Gurran now wants to construct his building on. A condition of the lot split approval was for the property owner to dedicate a wetland buffer easement for the wetland and for the required 100-foot no-disturb buffer around the wetland. The owner has provided the required buffer easement and has recorded the necessary documents for the lot split and for the buffer easement. DISCUSSION Building Design The proposed building has a mix of materials including face brick and EIFS on the front (south) side that also wrap around on to the two sides and precast concrete panels on the sides and rear of the building. As proposed, the building will be compatible with the existing buildings in the area. This is because the two buildings across Gervais Avenue from this site have similar materials - one building has red decorative block and the other is painted concrete block. The plans also show a sedes of windows on the front and east sides and three overhead doors on the rear (north) side of the building. The building elevations do not specify the proposed building colors. The contractor should submit this information to city staff for approval before the city issues a building permit for the project. Parking Lot The proposed project plans show 39 parking spaces in front of the building with room for 20 additional parking spaces to the east of the planned parking. The plans also include concrete curb and gutter and a ddveway on the west side of the building for access to the loading dock and overhead doors on the north side of the building. The city's parking ordinance requires one parking stall per 200 square feet of office space and one parking stall per 1,000 square feet of warehouse space. As proposed, Imprint Enterprises would have 5,600 square feet of office space and 4,500 square feet of warehouse space. Based on these numbers, the code requires this proposal to have 37 off-street parking spaces. The proposal meets this requirement as the plans show 39 parking stalls in front of the building (including a van accessible handicap parking stall) and an area to the east for additional parking if it becomes necessary to add more to the site. Tree Preservation/Landscaping The city's tree preservation ordinance requires that all large trees be replaced one-for-one, not to exceed ten trees per acre. A large tree is defined as any tree with a diameter of 8 inches at a 4- foot trunk height, excluding box elder, cottonwood, and poplar. The applicant's representative told me that there are no large trees on the site. In fact, most of the larger trees on the site are elms that have died. The landscape plan shows the planting of five Norway Maples, 6 Black Hills Spruce and a vadety of shrubs throughout the site - pdmadly along the front of the building (toward Gervais Avenue). The applicant should revise this plan to include a detail for the rainwater garden that incorporates soil preparation details and a vadety of plants able to withstand wet conditions planted in and on the slopes. In addition, the applicant needs to revise the landscape plan to show the Norway Maples at 2 ~ inches in diameter (as opposed to the proposed 1 ~ caliper inches), and to show an in-ground lawn irrigation system for all landscaping, excluding the rainwater garden. Lighting Plan The applicant submitted a site lighting plan that shows the style of the extedor lights and that the illumination from the lights will not exceed .4.foot candles at all property lines. City Engineer's Review Chds Cavett and Chuck Vermeersch of the city engineering department have reviewed the proposed grading, drainage, utility and landscape plans. I have included their memo with their comments on pages 19 and 20. The review board should require that the applicant submit revised grading and drainage plans for review and approval by the assistant city engineer. Public Utilities There are sanitary sewer, storm sewer and water in Gervais Avenue'to serve the proposed development. Specifically, the storm sewer in Gervais Avenue was designed and installed to accommodate drainage from a large area near Gervais Avenue. The developer's plans will connect their pipes to the existing storm and sanitary sewer pipes. Grading and Drainage The developer has designed the storm water drainage for this site to go into a new ponding area on the southeast comer of the site. In times of large storms, storm water may overflow out of the pond into the existing city storm water system. The city will not need a drainage and utility easement over the ponding area, as this will be a pdvate ponding area. This project will need a permit from the watershed district. The site and grading plans show the driveway and loading areas going up to the edge of the 100- foot-wide wetland buffer. The applicant will have to ensure that the construction and grading for the ddveway and curbing will not go into the required buffer area. Other Comments Lieutenant Kevin Rabbett: No public safety concerns. Butch Gervais, Fire Marshal: Please see his comments on page 21. Dave Fisher, Building Official: Please his comments on page 22. RECOMMENDATION Approve the plans date-stamped June 25, 2003, for the proposed Imprint Enterprises building on the north side of Gervais Avenue, west of English Street. This approval is subject to the applicant doing the following: 1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. 2. Complete the following before the city issues a grading permit or a.building permit: a.* Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall include: grading, utility, drainage, erosion control, tree, and ddveway and parking lot plans. The plans shall meet the following conditions: (1) The erosion control plan shall be consistent with city code. (2) The grading plan shall: (a) Include building, floor elevation, water elevation and contour information. These shall include the normal water elevation and 100-year high water elevation. (b) (c) Include contour information for the land that the construction will disturb. Show sedimentation basins or ponds as required by the watershed board or by the city engineer. The ponds or basins shall meet the city's design standards and shall include best management practices and rainwater gardens wherever practical. (d) Show all proposed slopes steeper than 3:1 on the proposed construction plans. The city engineer shall approve the plans, specifications and management practices for any slopes steeper than 3:1. This shall include covedng these slopes with wood-fiber blankets and seeding them with a "no mow" native vegetation rather than using sod or grass. (e) Show all retaining walls on the plans. Any retaining walls more than four feet tall require a building permit from the city. (f) Show as little disturbance as possible on the north and east sides of the site (near the wetland and buffer area) to minimize the loss or removal of natural vegetation. This is to keep and protect as many of the trees along the north and east property lines as possible. (3) All the parking areas and driveways shall have continuous concrete curb and gutter. (4) 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. (5) The developer shall disturb as little as possible of the area along the north and east property lines. Change the grading plan for this part of the site as recommended by the city engineer. (6) A storm water management plan, including drainage and ponding calculations, for the proposal. (7) Make all the changes and meet all the conditions noted by the city engineer in the memo dated July 14, 2003. b. Submit a lawn-irrigation plan to staff showing the location of sprinkler heads. c. Submit a certificate of survey for all new construction. d. Submit a revised landscape plan for city staff approval showing: (1) As much of the existing vegetation (including large trees) remaining along the northern and eastern property lines (near the wetland and buffer area) as possible. (2) The manicured or mowed areas from the natural areas. This shall include planting (instead of sodding) the disturbed areas on the south side of the parking lot around the storm water pond with native grasses and native flowedng plants. The native grasses and flowering plants shall be those needing little or no maintenance. This is to reduce maintenance costs and to reduce the temptation of mowers to encroach into the pond. Specifically, the developer shall have the natural areas seeded with an upland mixture and lowland mixtures as appropriate. (3) The planting of native grasses, flowering plants and Iow-level shrubs around the proposed storm water pond. These materials shall extend at least four feet from the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) of the pond. (4) The planting details (including flowering plants and shrubs) for the rainwater garden at the northeast comer of the building. (5) The location of all large trees on the site. (6) A detailed rainwater garden plan to include the soil preparation details and a variety of plants able to withstand wet conditions planted in and on the slopes. (7) An increase in the sizes of the Norway Maple trees from 1 1/2 caliper inches in diameter to 2 1/2 caliper inches in diameter. These trees shall beballed and budapped. (8) In-ground lawn irrigation system for all new landscaping, excluding the rainwater garden. e. Get the necessary approvals and permits from the watershed district. f. The fire chief shall approve the access to the back (north side) of the building for firefighting needs. g. Submit plans for city staff approval for any outdoor trash or recycling containers and enclosures. If the developer wants to build such facilities, the enclosure shall have materials that are comPatible with the building, and they shall have gates that are 100 percent opaque. h. A letter of credit or cash escrow for all required extedor improvements. The amount shall be 150 percent of the cost of the work. i. This approval does not include the parking lot addition on the east end of the proposed parking lot. The developer or builder shall submit all necessary plans to city staff for their approval before the city may issue a permit for this part of the project. The a. b. C. do applicant shall complete the following before occupying the building: Replace any property irons removed because of this construction. Restore and sod damaged boulevards. Install a handicap-parking sign for each handicap-parking space and an address on the building. In addition, the applicant shall install "no parking" signs within the site, as required by staff. Construct a trash enclosure to meet code requirements, unless trash dumpsters are stored indoors. Any such enclosure must match the materials and colors of the building. Install continuous concrete curb and gutter around the parking lot and driveways. Install and maintain an in-ground lawn irrigation system for all new landscaped areas, excluding landscaping within the rainwater garden. Paint any roof-top mechanical equipment to match the uppermost part of the building. (code requirement) 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 properly shield glare from the adjacent street right-of-ways and from adjacent properties. 5 The developer or contractor shall: (1) Complete all grading for the site drainage, complete all public improvements and meet all city requirements. (2) Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits. (3) Remove any debds or junk from the site. (4) Install city-approved wetland signs at the edge of the wetland buffer that specify that no building, mowing, cutting, filling, grading or dumping is allowed in the buffer area. If any required work is not done, the city may allow temporary occupancy if: a. The city determines that the work is not essential to the public health, safety or welfare. The above-required letter of credit or cash escrow is held by the city for all required exterior improvements. The owner or contractor shall complete any unfinished landscaping by June 1 if the building is occupied in the fall orwinter, or within six weeks of occupancy if the building is occupied in the spring or summer. c. The city receives an agreement that will allow the city to complete any unfinished work. This approval does not include signage. All proposed signs must comply with the city's sign ordinance and the applicant must obtain all required sign permits before installation. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Site Size: 2.97 acres (129,480 s.f.) Existing Land Use: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USES North: South: East: West: Vacant Commercial buildings across Gervais Avenue Wetland and drainage area Vacant PLANNING Existing Land Use Plan: Existing Zoning: M-1 (light manufacturing) M-1 (light manufacturing) CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL Design Review Section 25-70 of the city code requires that the community design review board 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 aesthetically of good composition, materials, textures and colors. Application Date We received the complete application and plans for this development on June 25, 2003. State law requires that the city take action within 60 days of receiving a complete apPlication for a proposal. As such, city action is required on this proposal by August 24, 2003. 7 P\Sec9\lmprint Enterprises Attachments: 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. Location Map Property Line/Zoning Map Area Map Area Survey Area Survey (Enlarged) Site Plan Grading Plan Landscape Plan Building Elevations Floor Plan Assistant City Engineer Comments Dated July 14, 2003 Comments from Butch Gervais Comments from David Fisher Separate Plans Date Stamped June 25, 2003 IKING DR. AURIE CT. BURKE E~RIDG£ MAN AV. Kohlman ~ / ',..~L. ake, ,, 'CONNO~~ ~ F. 3ECRUS CT. COUNTY · Keller JUNCTION SKILl,. Attachment 1 1. SUMMIT CT. 2. COUNTRYVlEW CIR. 5. DULUTH CT. ~-. LYDIA AVE. BENd z ST. JOHN'S BLVD. VIKING BROOKS AVE. z z SHERREN AVE. Knu~eod~ Luke LOCATION AVE. MAP ! Attachment 2 Attachment 3 ,rvais Avenue Gervais Ax _ ,_ F z>' o~-**~ 2385 2~o~ ~ ~ 237~ -- ~ 23~ 1167 1175 n~ ~l 1211 1:55 r q _ 1195 ~ HIGHWAY 36 AREA MAP 11 Attachment 4 I 24 SURVEY REVISED FOR: RANDAI,L CO. 12620 -- 150th Str¢~l Norlh. Suilc 200 Marine On Thc St. Croix, MN 55047 ' ~ WETLAND AREA SURVEY i2 rhm pan ol'th= Weal 297 L~ ft~l o£Ih¢ ~:a.q 072,00 f~l of Lo= 19 a~ 20, W. H HOWARD'S GARDEN I.OTS, according m 1~ p~ on I~lc a~ ot'r~rd in lh~ ofli~ of~c C~nly R~rd~, PARCEL C ~JAP. DEN LOT~. a~rdin~ Io ~he ptal un ~ a~ ogre~td m Ihe n~ce of t~ C~lty ~nl~ ('~mly. Mini,~a~l~ I~ng ~nh~rly o(~he S~lh 40 ~ I~t Iher~of, ~n~inmg 120298 I ,~1~7 / / ~ / / "~2~ 9---+"V ..... / / ~!' / / / /PARCEL A~/ , / / '~ ~ / / / / 129 4805'~Ft~ ~ -- /~.. ~[//I,' / / /' ~ 'k*.'~~' /t ; . =:, .. ~ y<-/d_4've .o / .~-- 'L' ". ..: . _, / I// e ,~ ~ ~ SITE /*' '4~ .'~_r/ ',~' ~~ ', _ SURVEY REVISED FOR: RAND,.\LL CO. 12620- I50th Street North, Suile 200 Marine On The St. Croix, MN 55047 AREA SURVEY (ENLARGED) 13 Attachment 5 WETLAND suney~ by Clirles A., ~Qrhel' Ir the outs~ae ~un~ary ot :~e Nort a~ MgnJficently different fro~ ~ the S~tion Corer. 1/4 corne ~n~enta as identifi~ by the g I nave p~rtioned the lot di~ Attachment 6 '\. / / ,/ t~ILDIN~ ~ PAI~<Jl~ - 20 -1 "---% I GERVAIS AVENUE Attachment 7 N,Eg'"09 '17"E 3~5. 02 PARCEL A~''' ' FF.E 884.50 , I/ WETLAND \ .27.0'-I2'RCP GER VA IS s8g"07'11 '~' ii A VENUE ?1 GRADINGs5 PLAN Attachment 8 MATERIAL WETLAND GERVAIS AVENUE LANDSCAPING PLAN 16 Attachment 9 NOf~TN ELEYATION i~ NO~.TN i=LI=¥~TION (~ LL.~ST ELE'v',,&TION Attachment 10 Attachment 11 Engineerinq Plan Review PROJECT: Imprint Enterprises PROJECT NO: REVIEWED BY: Chuck Vermeersch and Chris Cavett DATE: July 14, 2003 The applicant or their engineer shall address the following comments. Grading and Drainage Plan: 1. The wetland delineation shown should indicate the delineator and the date of delineation. 2. Label pond with normal and high water levels (NWL, HWL). Provide a defined emergency overflow for the pond lined with permanent soil stabilization blanket (Enkamat, NAG C350 or equal). Indicate emergency overflow elevation on drawing. 4. The landscape plan and grading plan do not mesh. Revise landscape plan to match grading plan. Include proposed contours on the landscape plan. The applicant shall include for city approval a detailed landscaping plan for the pond, wetland buffer and green space to the south (include trees, shrubs and native turf). Turf establishment must be with a pre-approved native-grass seed mixture with forbs, (for upland and Iow land areas as appropriate). The current landscaping plan does not address these areas. The water quality pond does have sufficient wet volume to meet the city's water quality treatment standard (NURP standard). However, the pond should also have an average depth of not less than three feet. 7. The drainage swales downstream of the two spillways will require permanent erosion stabilization (enkamat or equivalent). The grading plan shows areas hatched with a triangle symbol. It is assumed these indicate areas that will not be graded. Future plans should indicate this if this is the case. These areas shall not be disturbed. It is difficult to tell from the scale of the drawings submitted for review, but it looks like silt fence is shown along the south side of the site and between the pond and wetland area. Additional silt fence will be needed around the wetland buffer areas (triangle hatched areas). The erosion plan should include measures for stabilization of the slope in the northwest comer of the site dudng construction. 10. The wetland buffer boundary line should be shown on the grading plan. It may be, but from the quality of the copies submitted for review this could not be confirmed. 11. Submit plans to Saint Paul Regional Water Service for review and comment. Contact Bill Tschida at Saint Paul Water at 651-266-6265 for more information. 19 12. Obtain the necessary permits from the Ramsey Washington Metro Watershed District and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). 20 Attachment 12 Project Review Comments Date: From: Project: Planner: July 2, 2003 Butch Gervais, Fire Marshal Office/Warehouse on Gervais & English Ken Roberts Comments: · Ensure proper addressing on the building · Installation of fire protection system (sprinklers per-code and monitored) · In the warehouse area the storage height needs to be verified if over 12 feet other items such as heat and smoke venting would be required. The type of commodity would need to be known that would be stored in the warehouse area. · Material Safety Data Sheets would be required for items stored in the warehouse area and be available to emergency personnel. · 20 foot wide emergency access roads · Fire Department lock box is required 21 Attachment 13 MEMO To: From: Date: ,,,--,~ j Ken Roberts, Associate Planm~)~"- David Fisher, Building Official.~_~//~---- 06-30-03 RE' Proposed project at Gervais & English, Office / Warehouse building. Based on the information provided the following items were noted: - Flammable waste interceptor required if vehicles are allowed in warehouse. Chapter 1306 of the State Building Code would require the building to be fully sprinklered. There may be a two-hour firewall required between the office and the warehouse area depending upon the use. Bathrooms would be required to meet accessibility. Provide the minimum number of bathrooms required per the2000 IBC and the State Building Code. - The building and parking would be required to meet all the accessibility requirements of Chapter 1341 of the State Building Code. - They will have to verify the height of the warehouse area for storage. If the storage has capability over 12 feet it shall have smoke and heat vents and be sprinklered to Type 4 Commodity. - Verify Fire Department access. - Provide survey with plans. - The rules for the architects and engineers will require a design professional to submit plans for the building permit. Cc: Nick Carver, Asst. Building Official Cc: Butch Gervais, Fire Marshal 22 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: PROJECT: LOCATION: DATE: MEMORANDUM City Manager Ken Roberts, Associate Planner Zoning Map Change and Design Review Maplewood Office Park East of 2035 County Road D July 15, 2003 INTRODUCTION Project Description Mark Gossman is proposing to build a 9 building, 45,000-square-foot, office building complex east of the First Financial office building at 2035 County Road D. Refer to the applicant statement on page 9 and the maps on pages 10-17. The proposed buildings would have an exterior of horizontal lap and shake siding with asphalt-shingle roofs. Please refer to the building elevations on pages 18 and 19 and the project plans. Requests Mr. Gossman is requesting approval of the following: 1. A zoning map change from F (farm residence) to BC-M (business commercial modified). 2. Approval of building, site and landscape plans. DISCUSSION Zoning Map Change and Comprehensive Plan The city has zoned the applicant's site F (farm residence) and guided it BC (business commercial) in the comprehensive plan. The F zoning was in place for the single dwellings that are now on the site. The proposed zoning Of BC-M (business commercial modified) for the site would be consistent with the BC land use designation. Maplewood intends the BC-M zoning to be a lower-impact commercial and transitional zoning district between residential and commercial land uses. In addition, the proposed BC-M zoning is more restrictive as far as permitted and conditional land uses than what the BC zoning district allows. The city permits a variety of uses in the BC-M zone including offices, medical or health-related clinics, retail sales, banks, indoor theaters and day care centers. Maplewood prohibits exterior storage, car washes, motor vehicle repair and fuel stations in the BC-M zoning district but allows these uses in the BC zoning district. Building Design and Materials The proposed buildings are attractive. As the plans now show, the buildings would have a residential look including horizontal and shake siding and asphalt shingles. (See the elevations on pages 18 and 19 and the attached plans.) The plans, however, do not indicate the proposed colors. The applicant should submit material and color samples to the city for approval. Parking The applicant is proposing 268 parking spaces--the code requires 225 spaces for the 45,000 square feet of office space. The applicant should revise the site plan to add more handicap spaces to meet the standards of the ADA (Amedcans with Disabilities Act)--eight are now proposed. Trees and Landscaping There are several large trees on the site -pdmadly near the existing houses and in the western part of the site near the adjacent office building. The contractor will have to remove most, if not all, of the existing trees on the site to construct the buildings and the parking areas. The city code requires the replacement of all large trees on the site - up to a maximum of 10 trees per acre. For this 4.27-acre site, that would be a maximum of 43 trees. The proposed landscape plan (on page 17) shows the planting of 30 large trees including maples, birch, elm and Black Hills Spruce. To meet the code requirement for tree replacement, the developer needs to change the landscape plan to add 13 more large trees to the site. In addition, the plans show the developer trying to save three large spruce trees that are just west of the proposed ddveway into the site. If the developer and contractor are able to save these three trees, then those trees would count toward the 43 large trees required by the city code. The landscape plan does not state the type of ground cover for the turf areas nor does it provide any details on the proposed landscaping for the pond. The applicant should sod all areas except for planting beds, and the plans should provide landscaping around and into the ponding area (including the use of native grasses and plantings) to meet the requirements of the City engineer. City Engineer's Review Chds Cavett and Chuck Vermeersch of the city engineering department have reviewed the proposed grading, drainage, utility and landscape plans. I have included their memo with their comments on pages 22 and 23. The review board should require that the applicant submit revised grading and drainage plans for review and approval by the assistant city engineer. Public Utilities There are sanitary sewer and water in County Road D to serve the proposed development. The developer's plans will connect their pipes to the existing water and sanitary sewer pipes. Drainage The developer has designed the storm water drainage for this site to go into a new treatment ponding area in the center of the site. The plans direct the overflow out of the pond into the existing, adjacent storm water pond east of the site. The city will not need a drainage and utility easement over the ponding area, as this will be a private ponding area. This project will need a permit from the watershed district and from the MPCA. Driveway As proposed, the driveway for the site will be near the driveway for the proposed town houses across County Road D. The applicant should ensure that his driveway lines up with the driveway 2 for the town houses to improve traffic safety and to lessen the potential of vehicle headlights causing a nuisance. Other Comments Lieutenant Kevin Rabbett: No public safety concems. Dave Fisher, Building Official: Please see his comments in the memo on page 21. Butch Gervais, Maplewood Fire Marshal, provided the following comments: 1. Ensure there is proper addressing on the buildings. 2. The installation of a monitored fire-protection system (with sprinklers) is required. 3. Provide 20-foot-wide emergency access roads. 4. Fire Department lock boxes will be required. The number and location of the boxes shall be determined by the fire marshal. RECOMMENDATIONS Adopt the resolution on page 24. This resolution approves a zoning map change from F (farm residence) to BC-M (business commercial modified) for the proposed office building project east of the property at 2035 County Road D East. The city is approving this change because: 1. The proposed change is consistent with the spidt, purpose and intent of the zoning code. The proposed change will not substantially injure or detract from the use of neighboring property or from the character of the neighborhood, and that the use of the property adjacent to the area included in the proposed change or plan is adequately safeguarded. 3. The proposed change will serve the best interests and conveniences of the community, where applicable, and the public welfare. The proposed change would have no negative effect upon the logical, efficient, and economical extension of public services and facilities, such as public water, sewers, police and fire protection and schools. 5. The proposed zoning change would be consistent with the existing land use designation. Approve the plans date-stamped June 26, 2003, for the proposed Maplewood Office Park for the site east of the property at 2035 County Road D East. Approval is based on the findings required by the code and is subject to the following conditions: 1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. 2. Complete the following before the city issues a grading permit or a building, permit: Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall include: grading, utility, drainage, erosion control, tree, and driveway and parking lot plans. The plans shall meet the following conditions: (1) The erosion control plan shall be consistent with city code. (2) The grading plan shall: (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) Include building, floor elevation, water elevation and contour information. These shall include the normal water elevation and 100-year high water elevation. Include contour information for the land that the construction will disturb. Show sedimentation basins or ponds as required by the watershed board or by the city engineer. The ponds or basins shall meet the city's design standards and shall include best management practices and rainwater gardens wherever practical. Show all proposed slopes steeper than 3:1 on the proposed construction plans. The city engineer shall approve the plans, specifications and management practices for any slopes steeper than 3:1. This shall include covering these slopes with wood-fiber blankets and seeding them with a "no mow" native vegetation rather than using sod or grass. Show as little disturbance as possible on the north and east sides of the site (near the freeway and ponding area) to minimize the loss or removal of natural vegetation. This is to keep and protect as many of the trees along the north and east property lines as possible. (3) All the parking areas and driveways shall have continuous concrete curb and gutter. The applicant shall ensure that the driveway for the site lines up with the ddveway for the town houses across County Road D. (4) A storm water management plan, including drainage and ponding calculations, for the proposal. (5) Make all the changes and meet all the conditions noted by the city engineer in the memo dated July 14, 2003. b. Submit a lawn-irrigation plan to staff showing the location of sprinkler heads. c. Submit a certificate of survey for all new construction. d. Submit a revised landscape plan for city staff approval showing: (1) As much of the existing vegetation (including large trees) remaining along the northern and eastern property lines (near the freeway and the ponding area) as possible. (2) The manicured or mowed areas from the natural areas. This shall include planting (instead of sodding) the area around the storm water pond with native grasses so and native flowering plants. The native grasses and flowedng plants shall be those needing little or no maintenance. This is to reduce maintenance costs and to reduce the temptation of mowers to encroach into the pond. Specifically, the developer shall have the natural areas seeded with an upland mixture and lowland mixtures as appropriate. (3) The planting of native grasses, flowering plants and Iow-level shrubs around the proposed storm water pond. These materials shall extend at least four feet from the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) of the pond. (4) The planting details (including flowering plants and shrubs) for the ponding area and for any rainwater gardens on the site. Get the necessary approvals and permits from the watershed distdct and from the MPCA. Submit parking up with a revised site plan for staff approval that adds more handicap-accessible spaces to meet ADA requirements and that shows that the ddveway will line the driveway for the town houses across County Road D. 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. Submit a letter of credit or cash escrow to the city for all required exterior improvements. The amount shall be 150 percent of the cost of the work. Combine the two properties into one site for tax and identification purposes. Get demolition permits from the city for the houses and structures on the properties. Cap and seal any wells on the property. The a. b. applicant shall complete the following before occupying the buildings: Replace any property irons removed because of this construction. Sod all turf areas, including the boulevard, except the ponding area and planting beds if a different ground cover or mulch is to be used. Install a reflectorized stop sign at the exit, a handicap-parking sign for each handicap-parking space and an address on each building. In addition, the applicant shall install Uno parking" signs within the site, as required by staff. Construct trash enclosures to meet code requirements, unless trash dumpsters are stored indoors. Any such enclosures must match the materials and colors of the building. e. Install continuous concrete curb and gutter around the parking lot and driveways. 5 Install and maintain an in-ground lawn irrigation system for all new landscaped areas, excluding landscaping within any rainwater gardens and within the ponding area. Paint any roof-top mechanical equipment to match the uppermost part of the building. Screen all roof-mounted equipment visible from streets or adjacent property. (code requirement) Install on-site lighting for security and visibility that follows the approved site lighting plan. ,All exterior lighting shall follow the approved lighting plan that shows the light spread and fixture design. The light fixtures must have concealed lenses and bulbs to propedy shield glare from the adjacent street right-of-ways and from adjacent properties. The developer or contractor shall: (1) Complete all grading for the site drainage, complete all public improvements and meet all city requirements. (2) Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits. (3) Remove any debds or junk from the site. 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. bo The above-required letter of credit or cash escrow is held by the city for all required extedor improvements. The owner or contractor shall complete any unfinished landscaping by June 1 if the building is occupied in the fall or winter, or within six weeks of occupancy if the building is occupied in the spdng or summer. The city receives an agreement that will allow the city to complete any unfinished work. Signs are not approved in this review. The applicant must submit the sign plans to staff for approval and obtain the necessary sign permits. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Site size: 4.27 Acres Existing land use: Two single dwellings and accessory structures SURROUNDING LAND USES North: South: West: East: 1-694 Birch Glen Apartments and town house site across County Road D First Financial office building Ponding area PLANNING Land Use Plan designation: BC (business commercial) Existing Zoning: F (farm residence) Proposed Zoning: BC-M (business commercial modified) CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL Rezoning: Section 36-485 of the zoning code requires that the city council make the following findings to rezone property: The proposed change is consistent with the spidt, purpose and intent of the zoning code. The proposed change will not substantially injure or detract from the use of neighboring property or from the character of the neighborhood, and that the 'use of the property adjacent to the area included in the proposed change or plan is adequately safeguarded. The proposed change will serve the best interests and conveniences of the community, where applicable, and the public welfare. The proposed change would have no negative effect upon the logical, efficient, and economical extension of public services and facilities, such as public water, sewers, police and fire protection and schools. Design Review: 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 aesthetically of good composition, materials, textures and colors. Application Date We received the complete application and plans for this development on June 26, 2003. State law requires that the city take action within 60 days of receiving a complete application for a proposal. As such, city action is required on this proposal by August 25, 2003. p:sec35~Vlaplewood Office Park.doc Attachments: 1. Applicant's Statement 2. Location Map 3. Land Use Plan Map 4. Property Line/Zoning Map 5. Area Map 6. Site Plan 7. Grading Plan 8. Utility Plan 9. Landscaping Plan 10. Building Elevation 11. Building Elevation 12. Floor Plan 13. July 1, 2003 memo from David Fisher 14. July 14, 2003 memo from Chds Cavett 15. Zoning Map Change Resolution 16. Plans date-stamped June 26, 2003 (separate attachment) Attachment 1 DEVELOPMENT GROUP, LLC 55082'651.275.0690 June 25,2003 City of Maplewood 1830 County Road B East Maplewood, MN 55109 JUN 2 6 2003 RECEIVED RE: 2091 & 2071 E. County Rd D We propose to rezone the property to commercial status to allow for the construction of 9 small office buildings. These small office buildings are commonly occupied by professional service providers such as Accountants, Attorneys, Insurance Agents, and a variety of other small business professionals. The occupants are generally low volume traffic users. Most do not have a heavy amount of customer traffic coming to the office. The property will be heavily landscaped with tress and a large pond, and maintained by a professional property management company. We believe this project will add value and bring in new businesses to the Maplewood community. Vice President Attachment 2 COUNTY z z RAMSEY COUNTY ~ COURT ,., KOHLMAN EDGEHILL RD. AVE. ~d I.=ke LARK BEAM :ASll_E AVE. COPE AVE. ~ o ~ LAURIE LOCATION 10 AVE. AV~. VIEW AVE. AVE. B~AR LAKE WOODLYNN MAP NORTH SAINT PAUL interchange al arterial Attachment 3 White Bear Rol Lake Coun[y .'Rd D Lydia 0 Be~m Ave 1~ BC R-3(H) oodlaw ,~: a.! o~, I S R-3 R-3(M) r':aj :H) p P North St Paul LAND USE MAP J SITE 11 N Attachment 3.+7 o~. F -'"' ~.'~ " '" ', '- ~C ~,~, ~ ~~,~ PUD PROPERTY LINE / Attachment 5 2025 2035 2036 DAY CARE I CENTER SlBLEY COVE SITE 2029 3100 SITE COUNTY ROAD D 2090 TOWN HOUSE SITE PONDING AREA 2091 C FARM 2080 ------~tl 2120 AREA~3MAP 1 ~ Attachment 6 MAPLEWOOD OFFICE PARK MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA SITE PLAN 3/80 NB6°30 '59"~ 230. ~.3 694 LEGAL A ,d lying ~oethafly of Highwoy No. 694 of the Southwest Ouorter of the ~uthe~t 0uo~r ion ~1 l~hip 30, Ro~ 22, Romsay ~unty, Miflne~to, exceH t~ ~est 3M,75 f~t ip ~, Eo~ 22; th~m E~t pommel to ~d oleg C~ R~d D 43 rods to the poin~ of ~N~ DESCRIP'IION: PARCEL B GRAPHIC SCALE T..-_-~ * r" SITE PLAN 14 Attachment 7 MAPLEWOOD OFFICE PARK MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA INARY GRADING, DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL 'NTE~TA - TRUNK' HIGHWAY O 694- I ,~7' 04' 20' ' =J GRADING PLAN 15 Attachment 8 MAPLEWOOD OFFICE PARK MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA PRELIMINARY UTILITY PLAN ? ~0. 694 ./ UTILITY PLAN 16 Attachment 9 POND r'l~ PmAN'?'II~5 ip~ LANDSCAPING PLAN 17 Attachment 10 ' BUILDING ELEVATION. 18 Attachment ll I / BUILDING ELEVATION. 19 Attachment 12 FLOOR PLAN 2O Attachment 13 MEMO To: From: Date: Ken Roberts, Associate Planne/~ .~ David Fisher, Building Official~. 07-01-03 RE: Proposed project at 2075 to 2091 County Road D, 9 buildings with 27 offices suites. Based on the information provided the following items were noted: - Chapter 1306 of the State Building Code would require each building to be fully sprinklered. - All bathrooms would be required to meet accessibility. - Provide the minimum number of bathrooms required per 2000 IBC Chapter 29 and the State Building Code. Minimum of one water closet and one lavatory for each male and female bathroom. One drinking fountain high/Iow for accessibility and one service sink. - If the upper level has a separate tenant; separate plumbing fixtures are required. - The building and parking would be required to meet all the accessibility requirements of Chapter 1341 of the State Building Code. Verify Fire Department access. Provide horn and strobe in the commonly occupied areas in each office and by the Fire Department connection. No storage allowed under stairs. It is the only exit out of the upper level. - If the building's occupant load exceeds 30 on the upper level an elevator is required. - Provide survey with plans. - The rules for the architects and engineers will require a design professional to submit plans for the building permit. Cc: Nick Carver, Asst. Building Official Cc: Butch Gervais, Fire Marshal 21 Attachment 14 ~ngineering Plan Review PROJECT: Maplewood Office Park PROJECT NO: RI~VIEWED BY: Chuck Vermeersch and Chris Cavett DATE: July 14, 2003 The applicant or their engineer shall address the following comments. Grading and Drainage Plan: Post development peak flows are acceptable. However, post development volumes are heady double that of pre-development The applicant will be required to obtain approval of the proposed discharge from Mn/DOT and provide the city with wdtten verification of this. 2. The applicant will be required to obtain a permit from Mn/DOT for work within the right of way/pond easement. The water quality pond does not have sufficient wet volume to meet the city's water quality treatment standard (NURP standard). The pond should also have an average depth of not less than three feet. Runoff from drainage areas 5S and 9S (approximately half an acre total area) is not directed to the water quality pond. The storm sewer should be revised to accomplish this. Applicant shall consider other similar BMP's treatments, such as rainwater gardens for any roof drainage that would be directed towards the parking lot and the proposed storm sewer. Information on other BMP applications can be found on the Metropolitan Council Website: http://www, metrocouncil.or.q/environment/Watershed/bmp/manual.htm Provide a 2'-3' sump in the in the last storm sewer manholes before discharging 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. 7. Complete a maintenance agreement for cleaning and maintenance of the sump manholes and water quality pond. A draft of a maintenance agreement is attached. 8. Standard erosion control notes are provided, but no silt fence is shown. The applicant shall submit an erosion control plan for city staff approval. Label both ponds with normal and high water levels (NWL, HWL). For the MnDOT pond these are 938.2 and 942.2 respectively (prior to development of this site). '~0. Label building pads with finished floor elevations. 11. Show emergency overflow elevation. 22 12. The landscape plan shows trees and shrubs, but does not specify the methods and types of turf establishment. Native turf mixes shall be used around the pond perimeter and in areas that will not be mowed. 13. A rain garden was installed on the County Road D right of way as part of City Project 01-15. This should be shown on the southwest comer of the property. 14. The location of the parking lot entrance shall be coordinated to match with the entrance to the proposed Woodlyn Ponds Town Homes development on the south side of County Road D. A draft copy of the Woodlyn Ponds plans is attached. 23 Attachment 15 ZONING MAP CHANGE RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Mr. Mark Gossman has asked the city to change the city's zoning map from F (farm residence) to BC-M (business commercial modified). WHEREAS, this change is for the proposed Maplewood Office Park for the property east of 2035 County Road D, Maplewood, Minnesota. WHEREAS, the legal description of the properties are: Except the West 354.01 feet, the West 657.5 feet SLY of Highway 694 of the SE % (Subject to road) of Section 35, Township 30, Range 22 (PIN 35-30-22-43-0005) and Except the East 'A of the part lying East of the West 33 feet of the SW N and except the West 657.5 feet; Part SLY of Hwy 694 of the SW 'A of the SE % (Subject to Road), of Section 35, Township 30, Range 22 (PIN 35-30-22-43-0006) WHEREAS, the history of this change is as follows: 1. On July 21, 2003, the planning commission recommended that the city council approve the proposed zoning map change. 2. On ,2003, the city council held a public headng. City staff published a notice in the Maplewood Review and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The council conducted the public hearing whereby all public present were given a chance to speak and present wdtten statements. The city council also considered reports and recommendations from the city staff and planning commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above- described change in the zoning map for the following reasons: 1. The proposed change is consistent with the spirit, purpose and intent of the zoning code. 2. The proposed change will not substantially injure or detract from the use of neighboring property or from the character of the neighborhood, and that the use of the property adjacent to the area included in the proposed change or plan is adequately safeguarded. 3. The proposed change will serve the best interests and conveniences of the community, where applicable, and the public welfare. 4. The proposed change would have no negative effect upon the logical, efficient, and economical extension of public services and facilities, such as public water, sewers, police and fire protection and schools. 5. The proposed change would make the zoning of the property consistent with the existing land use designation. The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on 24 ,2003. MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: LOCATION: DATE: Richard Fursman, City Manager Shann Finwall, Associate Planner Hillcrest Village Design Standards (Building Design Guidelines) City of Maplewood Along White Bear Ave., North of Larpenteur Ave. and South of Ripley Ave. July 15, 2003 INTRODUCTION Proposal City staff is receiving comments and guidance from the planning commission and community design review board (CDRB) on the drafting of a new zoning district called the mixed-use zoning district. The mixed-use zoning district will allow for a mixture of land uses and will promote the development and/or redevelopment of an urban center with compact, pedestrian-oriented commercial and residential developments. The city will consider implementing the new zoning district in the Hillcrest Village redevelopment area and other areas of the city, such as the Gladstone neighborhood, where there is a need for redevelopment to create a revitalized, urban village setting. Background of Mixed-Use Zoning District Reviews March 25, 2003: CDRB reviewed signs. April 7, 2003: planning commission reviewed permitted, conditional, nonconforming and accessory uses. May 13, 2003: CDRB reviewed lighting and landscaping. May 19, 2003: planning commission reviewed subdivision regulations. June 16, 2003: planning commission reviewed parking requirements. July 8, 2003: CDRB reviewed dimensional standards. DISCUSSION Architectural vs. Design Guidelines Upon rezoning of the Hillcrest Village redevelopment area, or other future redevelopment areas, the city may wish to implement detailed architectural guidelines. The architectural guidelines would include a detailed list of permitted building materials (i.e., type of brick), building configurations, and building techniques to create an architectural expression or theme for the area. These guidelines can be drafted as written statements with graphic renderings and/or photographs that are intended to provide property owners and the public with specific examples of techniques and materials that can be used to achieve the standards. At this time, however, staff will be discussing general building design guidelines for developments within the mixed-use zoning district, i.e., a basic list of permitted building materials and building articulation. This will include written statements that will be adopted in the zoning code that set forth criteria, goals and objectives for the building design guidelines of an area of the city zoned mixed-use. Building Design Guidelines The building design guidelines discussion will be the last mixed-use zoning item to be reviewed by the CDRB. Staff proposes to draft a mixed-use zoning ordinance throughout the months of August and September with comments received from the CDRB and planning commission. The final draft will be presented to both boards prior to review by the city council. Below is a summary of four building design guidelines including St. Paul's Traditional Neighborhood, Hillcrest Village Urban Design Standards, White Bear Lake's Downtown District, and Burnsville's Heart of the City. I have underlined the language I feet should be addressed in Maplewood's mixed-use zoning district. All of these items have been included for information purposes. However, because of the complex nature of some of the guidelines, particularly in the Hillcrest Village Urban Design Standards, they may be best suited for the more in depth architectural guidelines discussed above. St. Paul's Traditional Neighborhood Design Guidelines 1. Remodelinq, additions or other alterations to existing traditional buildings (buildin.q,~; previously approved and built with the TN desi.qn quidelines) shall be done in a manner .that is compatible with the ori.qinal scale, massing, detailinq and materials of the original buildin.q. Ori_ainal materials shall be retained and preserved to the extent possible. 2. Consistent with most traditional buildings in St. Paul, a building width of 40 feet or less is .encouraged. New buildings of more than 40 feet in width shall be divided into smaller increments, betwc~n 20 and 40 feet in width, through articulation of the fa,gade. This calf be achieved through combinations of the following techniques, and others that may mee[ the_bg_9~'ective. Fa<;:ade modulation - steppinc~ back or extending forward a portion of the facade. Vertical divisions using different textures or materials (although materials should 'be drawn from a common palette). ' Division into storefronts, with separate display windows and entrances. Variation in rooflines by alternating dormers, stepped roofs, ,qableSl or other roor elements to reinforce the modulation or articulation interval. Arcades1 awnings1 window bays, arched windows and balconies at intervals equal to the articulation interval. New buildings of two or more stores are encouraged in the traditional neighborhood districts. One-story buildings, where constructed, shall be designed to convey an impression of greater height in relation to the street. This can be achieved through the Hillcrest Village Design Standards (Building Design Guidelines) 2 July 15, 2003 use of pitched roofs with dormers or gables facing the street, a higher parapet, and/or the use of an intermediate cornice line to separate the ground floor and the upper level. Porches, steps, pent roofs, roof overhangs, and hooded front doors or similar architectural elements shall be used to define all primary residential entrances. Door and window openings - minimum and character. For new commercial and civic buildings, windows and doors or openings shall comprise at least fifty (50) percent of the length and at least thirty (30) percent of the area of the ground floor of the primary street facade. bo Windows shall be designed with punched and recessed openings, in order to create a strong rhythm of light and shadow. Co Glass on windows and doom shall be clear or slightly tinted, allowing views into and out of the interior. Window Shape, size and patterns shall emphasize the intended organization of the facade and the definition of the building. 6. Materials and detailing. ao Nonresidential or mixed use buildings shall be constructed of high-quality materials such as brick, stone, textured cast stone, or tinted masonry units. The following materials are generally not acceptable: unadorned plain or painted concrete block tilt-up concrete panels pre-fabricated steel or sheet metal panels reflective glass aluminum, vinyl, fiberglass, asphalt or fiberboard siding bo All building facades visible from a public street or walkway shall employ materials and design features similar to those of the front facade. If an outdoor storage, service or loading area is visible from adjacent residential uses or a public street or walkway, it shall be screened by a decorative fence, wall or screen of plant material at least 6 feet in height. Fences and walls shall be architecturally compatible with the primary structure. Hillcrest Village Urban Design Standards Street Orientation. Mixed-use and commercial buildings should address neighborhood streets and White Bear and Larpenteur Avenues with entries and windows, not blank walls and loading docks. Transparency. Along public streets, at least 70 percent of ground-floor facades must consist of clear-glazed entdes or windows. This transparency between private and public space allows "eyes on the street," making the street safer for pedestrians and creating Hillcrest Village Design Standards (Building Design Guidelines) 3 July 15, 2003 more interesting walking environment. Display windows, but not mirrored windows or windows located above eye level, may be used to meet the transparency requirement. Materials. Street-level facades should be varied, richly detailed and use durable, high- quality materials such as brick, stone, or wood siding. Projects should convey a sense of permanence and investment in the community's future. All visible building elevations should have a distinct base, middle and top, defined by either a change in materials or by changes in fa~:ade coloring or pattern combined with offsets in building planes of 6 inches or more. Residential building standards. Each developer of more than 15 acres must provide at least three housing types. For example, larger building types on larger lots are encouraged on corners. Smaller lots are encouraged surrounding common open spaces. Model variety. Each development of 100 or more homes must have at least four models with three elevations and material treatments each. For developments of less than 100 units, at least three models with three variations each are required. No street block o should have more than two consecutive single-family homes with the same house model. Relation of buildings to streets and parking. Orientation. Primary facades shall contain the primary entry and shall be street- facing. The principal orientation of the front fa(;ade of all buildings must be parallel or nearly parallel to the streets they face. Where public parks are located across a street, the front fa~;ade should face the public park. Rear yards shall not occur along local or connector streets. Homes adjacent to parkways and arterial streets. Where residential areas abut arterial streets, home placement should address these major streets in one of two ways: 1) Homes front.onto these streets with larqer front setbacks and alley- accessed .qara.qes; 2) A frontage road is built adjacent to the major street right-of-way that provides a landscaped, "slow-traffic" local street for homes to front onto. With the exception of four-plexes, apartments, and ancillary dwelling units, every home shall have its primary entry (front door) facing a public street and not more than 6 feet recessed back from the face of the primary fa(;ade. Four-plexes and apartments may have their primary entry facing a central, landscaped courtyard. Ancillary dwelling units may face an internal walkway, driveway, or alley. do Porches for all residential types 8hall be accessed directly from a public street or pedestrian easement and must be visible from the street. Porches may extend 6 feet into the setback. Front porches must have a minimum depth of six feet clear and comprise a minimum of 30 percent of the width of a buildinq's primary front fa(;ade (not includinq the garage) or 10 feet clear, whichever is larqer. Porches for duplexes, condos, and apartments may be shared. Hillcrest Village Design Standards (Building Design Guidelines) 4 July 15, 2003 Garages. Garages shall not dominate residential streetscapes. In each development of single-family houses and/or duplexes, no more than 50 percent of the units may have a recessed, front-loaded garage. Garage frontage should also be limited for single-family houses, duplexes and townhomes; garages should not comprise more than 50 percent of a building's street-facing frontage. Garages for standard-lot single-family, small-lot single family, and duplex types may be provided in two ways: 1) Attached and recessed from the primary front fa(;ade (not includin,q porches, bay windows, or other minor projections) by a minimum of 8 feet and at least 24-feet from the street right-of-way; or 2) Attached or detached, placed at the rear property line, and accessed by either an alley or a side yard driveway. Garages for townhouse and apartment types may be either: 1) Attached or detached, placed at the rear property line, and accessed by an alley; or 2) For apartments, carports or garages may be grouped together and placed behind the residential buildings. Materials. New buildings should support regional traditions and maintain a level of craft in the process of construction. Exterior finishes should be primarily wood, brick, or stone. Material chan,qe. Material changes should not occur at external corners, but may occur at "reverse" or interior corners or as a "return" at least 6 feet from external corners. Facades and roof form. ao bo Fa~;ade articulation. All residential buildings shall be articulated with porches and bay windows, or balconies and bay windows that face the adjacent street, park, or open space. Windows. All street-facing facades should have windows covering at least 25 percent of the fa(;ade's area. The largest window or group of windows of the living room, dining room, or family room should be fully visible from the street. Garage door treatments. All residential garage doors visible from a street or park shall consist of articulated panels and incorporate at least two of the following features: 1) Indoor living space or balcony space built over the garage with clear sight lines between the street and these spaces; 2) Strong shadow lines around the garage face created by recessing the door one foot behind the adjacent building plane, or by extending a trellis or bay window at least two feet in front of the garage face; Hillcrest Village Design Standards (Building Design Guidelines) 5 July 15, 2003 3) For multiple car garages, limit garage doors to 9 feet in width with intervening posts at least one foot in width. Roof form. All residential buildings are encouraged to have hipped or gabled roofs. Flat roofs are prohibited. White Bear Lake Downtown District One or a combination of face brick, natural stone, decorative concrete block which is colored by pigment impregnated throughout the entire block, cast-in-place concrete or pre-cast concrete panels which are colored by pigment impregnated throughout the entire panel, stucco, wood, glass. Up to 50 percent of the building can be steel wall panels, fiberglass, or aluminum. Painted concrete block is prohibited. All subsequent additions and exterior alterations to a nonconforming building must be constructed with materials required by this ordinance if the addition exceeds 25 percent of the floor area. Burnsville's Heart of the City All buildings shall be designed to accomplish the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan and the Heart of the City Framework Plan. Building materials shall be attractive in appearance, durable with a permanent finish, and of a quality that is consistent with the standards and intent of the Framework Plan. Where appropriate, buildings shall carry over materials and colors of adjacent buildings with the exception of prohibited materials. 2. All buildings shall include the following four elements: accent materials, which shall be wrapped around walls that are visible from a public street or open space; buildings containing office and retail uses shall maintain 40 percent minimum window coverage on the first floor that faces a street or public open space; c. complementary major material colors; d. a combination of vertical and horizontal pattern designs in the building fa(;ade. o Any exterior building wall adjacent to or visible from a public street, public open space, or abutting property may not exceed 60 feet in length without significant visual relief consisting of one or more of the following the facade shall be divided architecturally by means of significantly different materials or textures, or b. horizontal offsets of at least 4 feet in depth, or c. vertical offsets in the roof line of at least 4 feet, fenestration at the first floor level that is recessed horizontally at least 1 foot into the fa(;;ade. Hillcrest Village Design Standards (Building Design Guidelines) 6 July 15, 2003 Exterior buildinq materials shall be classified primary, secondary, or accent material. Primary materials shall cover at least 60 percent of the facade of a buildinq. Secondary materials may cover no more than 30 percent of the facade. Accent materials may include door and window frames, lintels, cornices, and other minor elements, and may cover no more than 10 percent of the facade. Allowable materials are as follows: Primary exterior buildinq materials may be brick, stone, or glass. Bronze-tinted or mirror glass are prohibited as exterior materials. Secondary exterior buildinq materials may be decorative block or integrally colored stucco. c. Synthetic stucco may be permitted as a secondary material on upper floors only. Accent materials may be wood or metal if appropriately integrated into the overall building design and not situated in areas that will be subject to physical or environmental damage. e. All primary and secondary materials shall be integrally colored. Decorative block shall be colored only by means of a pigment inteqral to the block material, not applied to the surface. Sheet metal, corrugated metal, asbestos, iron, shakes, plain flat concrete block (whether painted or integrally colored or not) are not acceptable as exterior wall materials on buildings within the Heart of the City District. All mechanical equipment, whether roof-mounted or ground-mounted, shall be completely screened from the ground-level view of adjacent properties and public streets, or designed to be compatible with the architectural treatment of the principal building. Loading docks: Loading docks shall not be located in the front yard and shall be completely screened from eye-level view of public streets and public open spaces, by means of landscaping which is at least 80 percent opaque within two years, or by a screen wall of the same materials and colors as the principal building. SUMMARY A synopsis of building design guideline items proposed to be included in the mixed-use zoning code include: · Exterior building materials. · Remodeling and additions of previously approved buildings. · Remodeling and additions of nonconforming buildings. · Fa~;ade-width incrementing. · One-story building treatment. · Residential entrances. · Building facades visible from street. · Screening of loading areas. · Window treatments. Hillcrest Village Design Standards (Building Design Guidelines) July 15, 2003 · Residential model variety. · Residential units on arterial streets and parkways. · Porch treatments. · Garage treatments. · Material change at corners. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the CDRB offer comments and guidance on the building design guidelines proposed within the Hillcrest Village redevelopment area. Staff will use this feedback to draft a new mixed-use zoning district for the Hillcrest Village redevelopment area, as well as other redevelopment sites within the city. P:com-dev\hillcrest\7-22-03 CDRB design standards Attachments: 1. 2. 3. 4. Far~ade Treatments Mixed-Use Building Components Residential Building Components Example Residential Materials and Roof Lines Hillcrest Village Design Standards (Building Design Guidelines) July 15, 2003 Attachment 1 Attachment 2 10 C' · 8 0> Attachment 3 11 Attachment 4 12 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: Community Design Review Board Members Shann Finwall, Associate Planner Resolution of Appreciation for Craig Jorgenson July 14, 2003 Attached is a resolution of appreCiation for Craig Jorgenson. Craig served as a member of the community design review board for three years and nine months, from August 23, 1999 to May 27, 2003. Staff requests that the community design review board members recommend that the city council adopt this resolution of appreciation at their August 11, 2003, city council meeting. p:com_dvpt~:lrbres Attachment: Resolution of Appreciation RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION WHEREAS, Craig Jorgenson has been a member of the Maplewood Community Design Review Board since August 23, 1999 and has served faithfully in that capacity; and WHEREAS, the Community Design Review Board has appreciated his experience, insights and good judgment; and WHEREAS, Craig has freely given of his time and energy, without compensation, for the betterment of the City of Maplewood; and WHEREAS, Craig has shown dedication to his duties and has consistently contributed his leadership and effort for the benefit of the City. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREB Y RESOL VED for and on behalf of the City of Maplewood, Minnesota, and its citizens that Craig Jorgenson is hereby extended our gratitude and appreciation for his dedicated service and we wish him continued success in the futur~ Passed by the Maplewood City Council on ,2003. Robert Cardinal, Mayor Passed by the Maplewood Community Design Review Board on July 22, 2003. Attest: Matt Ledvina, Chairperson Karen Guilfoile, Clerk