Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/23/2008 AGENDA CITY OF MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD Tuesday, September 23, 2008 6:00 P.M. Council Chambers - Maplewood City Hall 1830 County Road BEast 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Agenda 4. Approval of Minutes: a. July 22, 2008 5. Design Review: a. Legacy Shops at Legacy Village, County Road D 6. Unfinished Business: 7. Visitor Presentations: 8. Board Presentations: 9. Staff Presentations: a. CDRB Representation for the City Council on October 13 (Legacy Shops) 10. Adjourn DRAFT MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD 1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, JULY 22,2008 I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Olson called the rneeting to order at 6:04 p.rn. II. ROLL CALL Boardrnernber John Dernko Vice-Chairperson Matt Ledvina Chairperson Linda Olson Boardrnernber Ananth Shankar Boardrnernber Matt Wise Present Absent Present Present Present Staff Present: Torn Ekstrand. Senior Planner III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Boardrnernber Wise rnoved to approve the agenda as presented. Boardrnernber Dernko seconded Ayes - all The rnotion passed. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a. July 8, 2008 Boardrnember Dernko rnoved approval of the minutes of July 8, 2008, as presented. Boardmember Olson seconded Ayes - Demko, Olson Abstentions - Shankar, Wise The motion passed. V. DESIGN REVIEW a. St. John's Hospital Expansion (1575 Beam Avenue) Senior Planner Tom Ekstrand presented the staff report explaining the request for approval of plans to enlarge St. John's Hospital campus. Mr. Ekstrand noted the new expansion area will be primarily done in metal and glass to give the exterior a lighter appearance. Commissioner Shankar asked if the city has requirements for medical and hospital parking spaces. Mr. Ekstrand responded the city has parking requirements for medical facilities, the same requirements as for office parking, but the city does not have a per-bed requirement for hospitals. Mr. Ekstrand explained hospitals are required to provide data showing they are meeting their parking needs. TonyThomas, architect and System Director for Corporate Real Estate Services at HealthEast, explained he is present representing St. John's Hospital. Mr. Thomas introduced architects Dennis Vonasek and Dan Rectenwald of HGA. Mr. Thomas gave a presentation explaining the proposed request. Community Design Review Board 2 Minutes 07-22-2008 Dennis Vonasek of HGA was introduced and he explained the proposed plans for the building expansion project. Boardmember Olson asked if the structural element was designed to allow for future expansion. Mr. Vonasek responded it probably would be cost prohibitive and this design was used to allow construction of the patient rooms above the module that is not typically where rooms would be built. Boardmember Olson asked whether the large, glass-window waiting area on the Beam and Hazelwood corner of the building would be energy efficient and also if light emissions were considered. Ms. Olson said the city has a Dark Skies initiative and light creep is an issue. Mr. Vonasek responded they are working with company engineers who have done an energy analysis to make sure the glass is acceptable. Mr. Vonasek said they will be using a very good- quality glass to ensure they have minimal ventilation escape. Mr. Thomas responded to the question on light emissions saying they have not looked at that issue regarding the emergency waiting area, but that St. John's is very conscious of using subdued over lighting because they want these areas to be calm places for patients their families. Boardmember Shankar mentioned he likes the prominent location of the emergency entrance, but was concerned the emergency room entrance was so close to the Hazelwood entrance. Mr. Vonasek responded the Hazelwood entrance drive will remain in the same place with patients either driving into the lower level of the parking ramp or they will be dropped off under the canopy. Mr. Vonasek said there may be a gate installed for the right turn area to discourage the public from parking there. Mr. Shankar asked if there is adequate sign age planned for this drive area. Mr. Vonasek said there will be adequate signage. Mr. Thomas explained the signage planned for this drive area and said they typically use a signage consultant to plan all of the signage throughout the entire system. Mr. Thomas said they may use a subtle red stripe or visual cue for the Hazelwood tower emergency area, along with monument and directional sign age. Mr. Thomas said he does not know if the fire department will allow a gate installed on the emergency area drive. Boardmember Demko asked the significance of using partial frosted glass in the emergency tower. Mr. Vonasek responded that there is a desk work surface planned for use by family members in that area and the frosted glass will be used there to reduce glare. Dan Rectenwald, an architect with HGA, introduced himself to the board. Mr. Thomas said he did not have a problem with planting trees on the berm, but would prefer to plant them on the street side so the trees would not have to be moved in the future. Mr. Thomas said they are open to planting whatever grasses the city requires on the berm. Mr. Thomas explained he would prefer not to plant trees on the north side of the berm, since only the upper level gable ends of the homes to the north are seen. Mr. Thomas said he would rather do some plantings on the west end of the campus where the homes are oriented parallel to the berm and where development will occur. Boardmember Wise mentioned a citizen comment from Legacy Village residents asking to increase the number of trash receptacles in the area. Mr. Thomas responded he would bring this to the St. John's engineering staff for consideration. Community Design Review Board 3 Minutes 07-22-2008 Robert Martin, a planning commissioner with the city, said the planning commission discussed this proposal at their last meeting and had similar discussions as the board regarding traffic flow and landscaping issues. Mr. Martin asked staff if the city has considered the increase in ambulance services the hospital addition will require. Planner Ekstrand responded this is a concern usually related with an increase in senior housing facilities, which generate an increase in ambulance services that the city is not always compensated for. Mr. Ekstrand explained any expansion of the hospital is always a benefit to the community in health and welfare. Boardmember Olson asked Mr. Martin if the planning commission had considered developing a parking structure or requirement for how many parking spaces a hospital might need. Mr. Martin said the commission did not develop parking requirements for a hospital, but he is concerned with the area becoming a bottleneck. Boardmember Olson responded she disagreed with Mr. Martin regarding the area becoming a bottleneck, since the expansion of Kennard Street was designed to handle the additional traffic. Boardmember Olson asked the applicant what the standard is for hospital parking. Mr. Vonasek responded the number varies from city to city and since Maplewood does not have a hospital parking requirement, they use the average of the Metropolitan area and Midwest area cities which is three stalls per patient bed. Mr. Rectenwald explained that their firm has health care as a major focus of the work that they do all over the country. He explained that parking is a major spatial problem and it is the biggest concern to resolve on a campus. Mr. Rectenwald said it is important to break down the parking into types to get the right parking in the right location. Boardmember Olson asked if there will be increased handicapped parking spaces. Mr. Rectenwald responded they have calculated the increased square footage for additional handicapped parking requirements and will now have 35 designated handicapped spaces on the campus. Boardmember Olson asked the applicant to address the landscaping, grading and drainage proposed for the site. Mr. Vonasek explained the landscaping and drainage plans. Mr. Vonasek said they will attempt to relocate all of the existing plantings to the new landscaping location. Mr. Vonasek said their civil engineers have been working with city engineering staff to incorporate all of the necessary changes into the project plans. Regarding planting trees on the north side of the site, Mr. Vonasek said he doesn't think it is fair to penalize the hospital with this requirement, since the hospital has been in the area for a long time. Mr. Vonasek said the tree plantings should have been required by the Legacy Village contractor when that more recent residential development was built. Boardmember Wise said he agrees with the landscape on the west where there may be considerable expansion and development in the future. Mr. Wise said a balance of landscaping should be considered for the west and north sides of the site since some landscaping is needed on the north side, but should not penalize the hospital for something that was not caught earlier. Boardmember Olson asked the applicant how long they project the dirt pile berm will exist until future parking is needed. Mr. Thomas responded there is no timeline now for the additional parking so he did not want to speculate but if, in the future as an example, a medical office building were to be proposed for the site, this additional parking location would be looked at. Community Design Review Board 4 Minutes 07-22-2008 Mr. Vonasek noted after reviewing the plan that the berm north of the new parking lot would be 7 Y, feet from earth level with another approximate 30 inches of grass screening. Boardmember Wise said he is concerned with hearing future arguments from developers if screening would then be needed because it was not required from the hospital. Mr. Wise said he would leave that up to staff to reevaluate it considering future development. Boardmember Shankar said he agrees with staff that there is sufficient setback and vegetation screening on the Hazelwood side of the site and additional landscaping is not needed there. Boardmember Demko suggested the applicant consider taking dirt from the west site and adding it to the berm on the north side, which would raise that berm in line with the west end and also eliminate some of the dirt storage pile. Mr. Vonasek responded this has not been discussed, but it takes a lot of dirt to make a significant elevation difference and it is a considerable length of parking. Mr. Vonasek commented these homes look toward the Maplewood Professional Building, Beam Professional Building and those parking lots, all of which the hospital does not own. Boardmember Olson said screening the parking lot from these homes should not be required since there is sufficient vegetation, but she would favor increasing that berm height. Ms. Olson said she would like to see trees required along the boulevard next to the sidewalk on Kennard Street. Ms. Olson said she feels trees on the berm would be unproductive and that prairie grasses would be sufficient, but trees would be productive for the sidewalk area. Boardmember Wise suggested staff review parking lot trash receptacles required for the site. Boardmember Shankar moved to approve the plans date-stamped June 11, 2008, for the proposed building parking ramp additions and surface parking expansion for St. John's Hospital, 1575 Beam Avenue. Approval is based on the findings for approved required by ordinance and subject to the developer doing the following: 1. Repeat this review in two years if the applicant has not obtained a building permit by that time. After two years this review must be repeated. 2. Obtain a conditional use permit from the city council for this expansion. 3. Obtain the vacation of the storm sewer, water main and ponding easements which would be in the location of the proposed MCC/ED addition before the city may issUe a building permit for that addition. 4. Comply with the requirements of the engineering report by Steve Love dated July 8, 2008. 5. Parking spaces shall be at least 9 Y, feet wide. Employee parking spaces may be 9 feet wide and must be posted as such (code requirements). 6. Any retaining walls over four feet tall shall be designed by a structural engineer and have a protective guard rail or fence on top. 7. The applicant shall install in-ground lawn irrigation in formal landscaped areas. The earthwork- adjustment berm and the northerly hillside area are exempt. 8. Obtain any necessary permits from the Ramsey/Washington Metro Watershed District. Community Design Review Board 5 Minutes 07-22-2008 9. All work shall follow the approved plans. The city planner may approve minor changes. 10. All pole-mounted site lights shall comply with the 25-foot height maximum. 11. Submit a revised landscaping plan for staff approval showing trees at the northeast corner of the property and along Kennard Avenue extending down for a distance of 30 feet from the northeast corner of the property. 12. Before obtaining a building permit, the applicant shall provide an irrevocable letter of credit in the amount of.150 percent of the cost of completing landscaping and other site improvements. This irrevocable letter of credit shall include the following provisions: . The letter of credit must clearly indicate that it is an irrevocable letter of credit in the name of the City of Maplewood, payable on demand, to assure compliance with the terms of the developer's agreement. . The letter of credit must allow for partial withdrawals as needed to guarantee partial project payments covered under the terms of the letter of credit. . The letter of credit shall be for a one-year duration and must have a condition indicating automatic renewal, with notification to the city a minimum 60 days prior to its expiration. 13. The applicant shall submit revised building elevations of the west fa<;:ade of the ER addition showing the full elevation and the material of the base of the glass. 14. A friendly request that the applicant address the issue of trash collection in the surface parking areas. Boardmember Olson seconded. The board considered adding a friendly request that the applicant submit a lighting plan to staff for review showing the light output. Boardmember Shankar suggested a better way to handle this would be for the architect to submit to staff an image showing the light fiow from the inside space to the outside space. The board also moved that an additional amendment #15 be added as follows: 15. The applicant shall submit a revised grading plan for staff approval showing the maximized expansion of the northerly berm height. Boardmember Olson asked staff if a sign plan will be required. Planner Ekstrand responded that since it is such a large site, the code requires the applicant submit a comprehensive sign plan showing proposed changes which will then be submitted to the board for approval. The board then voted: Ayes - all The motion passed. VI. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None VII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS Community Design Review Board Minutes 07-22-2008 None 6 VIII. BOARD PRESENTATIONS Boardmember Demko reported on the past city council meeting. IX. STAFF PRESENTATIONS a. CDRB representative for the August 11 city council meeting: Mr. Shankar b. Upcoming Agendas: Legacy Shoppes Revisions Tentatively Scheduled for August 12 c. City News "Commissioner/Board" Chair Articles - Linda Olson, September Article X. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned by consensus at 7:37 p.m. MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: DATE: Acting City Manager Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner PUD Revision and Design Review- Legacy Shops at Maplewood County Road 0, East of Southlawn Drive September 18, 2008 INTRODUCTION Frank Janes, of the Hartford Group, is requesting approval of plan revisions for the Legacy Shops at Maplewood, a 14,616-square-foot retail center at Legacy Village. This project was previously approved by the community design review board on September 27, 2005, but the applicant has now revised the proposal to relocate the proposed building to the middle of the site rather than placing it with a 15-foot front setback from the County Road D right-of-way. Refer to the applicant's letter and the attached maps and plans. Requests The applicant is requesting the following approvals: For Plannina Commission Review . A revision to the approved planned unit development (PUD). The PUD required that the building have a reduced setback from the front lot line (code requires a minimum of 30 feet, the PUD required a maximum of 15 feet). For Communitv Desian Review Board Review . The revision of the approved 2005 plans. BACKGROUND JUly 14, 2003: The city council approved the Legacy Village PUD. The only condition of the PUD that is in question is the requirement that, "The building(s) on the retail/commercial site should be sited on the north side of the parcel within 15 feet of the County Road 0 right-of-way with all parking to the south." September 27, 2005: The CDRB approved the original Legacy Shops proposal. Refer to the attached minutes from this meeting. August 14, 2006: The city council approved the Special Assessments Escrow Agreement and the Release of Development Agreement for the earlier proposal when there was a different retail developer for this site. These documents were not executed since that retail developer chose not to build. September 16, 2008: The planning commission reviewed the PUD revision and recommended approval in support of the revised building setback. See Committee Actions below. DISCUSSION PUD Revision On February 19, 2008, the planning commission reviewed the applicant's proposed design alternatives for this site. Refer to the planning commission's minutes. The main change was to pull the building away from County Road 0 and place it in the center of the site as now proposed. (There was another alternative that the planning commission minutes reflect in which there was a possible driveway connection to Village Trail East on the south side of the site. The applicant dropped this idea for the current proposal.) The planning commission had mixed feelings regarding the proposed building placement in the middle of the site and its front elevation facing County Road D. According to the minutes, though, there were more members in support than opposed. On March 24, 2008, the city council discussed the applicant's site plan changes for this property. The minutes do not reflect any preference, but they expressed a willingness to consider options. From staff's point of view, the only negative is the visual departure from the theme of Legacy Village which promotes the reduced front setback from roadways for the "walkable" design element which was meant to bring buildings closer to front sidewalks. Buildings and landscaping were intended to be a primary feature as viewed from roadways in this community rather than parking lots. From a standpoint of function, staff agrees with the applicant in that if the back wall of this building was set close to the street, it would not serve as an appealing feature on the street side since there would be no customer doors on the street side. The north side of the building is the service side and it would have to function as the back of the building even though it faced the street. By moving the building to the center of the site, the building could still retail some of the "reduced" setback appearance since it would not be placed all the way on the south side of the property. This plan, if approved, should provide proper, aesthetic buffering on its south side for the Wyngate Townhomes. Substantial screening should be installed along the south property line by means of a decorative fence and proper landscaping. The goal of the CDRB should be to buffer this back side of the building for these residential neighbors. Another important element for the CDRB to consider is the control of light glare or spill over from the proposed retail site. The owner of Ashley Furniture is in favor of the proposed setback for the Legacy Shops. Staff met with the owner's representatives recently and they supported the increased setback. The currently-required 15-foot front setback would obscure the view of Ashley Furniture from the west which they strongly oppose. The owner of AShley Furniture, in fact, would support the placement of the Legacy Shops building to the south side of the site. 2 Design Considerations Building Design The proposed building is attractively designed with the following materials: face brick, EIFS (exterior insulation finish system), rock-face concrete block and cultured stone. Staffs main concern had been with the appearance of the south elevation which faces the Wyngate Town Homes. The applicant has improved the design of this elevation by adding brick on the columns, cultured stone and cemenlitious (stucco) panels. The earlier proposal was primarily rock-face concrete block. Staffs recommendation is that the rock-face concrete block be the variety that has a deeper "cut" to it to more resemble actual stone, rather than the typical, flatter profile rock-face textured block often used. An example of this design of block is on the retail building to the east occupied by Pei Wei, at&t and others. The PUD conditions also required "the architectural character and exterior building materials must be in keeping with the adjacent town homes and other buildings if present." Staff feels the applicant has improved the west elevation over their initial submittal, however, staff does recommend that the brick columns on the back of the building be designed with crowns or caps like those at Ashley Furniture. Those are attractive details and the addition of these would further meet the PUD requirement for architectural design "in keeping" with other buildings in this development. Roof Equipment Screening The city ordinance requires that roof-top mechanical equipment be screened from the view of residences. The applicant must show this would be accomplished, and if it can't do this by the height of the parapet, there must be screening enclosures around the mechanical units. Trash Enclosure The applicant is proposing to provide indoor trash storage in the center of the building on the rear elevation. Staff feels this is appropriate but questions whether trash haulers can easily access the dumpsters. If they become too cumbersome to haul from and return to their spaces, staff worries they may eventually be left outside of the building. In that event, the applicant would need to submit a revised site plan showing the placement and a design plan for the enclosure. Parking. Setbacks and Access Parkina: The applicant is proposing 76 parking spaces. Code requires 73. Therefore, there are enough spaces to meet code. The parking stalls and drive aisle dimensions also meet code requirements. Setbacks: The proposed setbacks meet code requirements. Access: Access to this site is via two existing curb cuts on the west and east sides of the site. 3 Lighting Plan The photometric plan meets code for limiting light intensity to below .4 foot-candles at the property lines. The applicant has not submitted the lighting fixture designs yet. These should be provided for review. To be considerate to the residents at Wyngate, there should not be any lights that shine toward the south. Staff recommends that the site lights on the south side of the building be placed on poles along the south side of the parking lot and shine toward the north. Landscaping The proposed landscaping along the north side, the County Road 0 frontage, is very light. There is only one tree proposed and two short runs of shrubbery. The landscaping along the west frontage is acceptable, but the east side is sparse. The southerly frontage is primarily proposed to be screened by a row of Techney Arborvitae. This has the potential of becoming a tall, thick hedge and should be acceptable. The PUD requirements also required that, along the southerly frontage, there shall be over story trees planted at 30 to 40 feet on center. The applicant should plant additional over story trees along this frontage to meet that requirement. In summary, the applicant should revise the landscaping plan to increase the plantings along the north and east frontages and to provide the over story trees at 30 to 40 feet on center along the south frontage. Deliveries, Noise and Hours of Operation The planning commission was concerned with the potential for disturbances for the Wyngate residents due to deliveries, noise in general and the hours of operation. The noise ordinance limits noise-causing activity to between the hours of 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. It is likely that there will be stores or restaurants that are open later than 7 p.m. Staff recommends that the council revise the PUD to restrict the use of the drive-up service lane and the service window to 11 p.m. with a stipulation that there shall be no excessive p.a. broadcast noise after 7 p.m. Comprehensive Sign Plan A comprehensive sign plan is required for this project. That information has not been submitted yet. Engineering Comments Refer to the report by Jon Jarosch of the Maplewood Engineering Department dated August 12, 2008. Building Official's Comments Dave Fisher, the Maplewood Building Official, had the following comments: . A complete building code analysis will be required when plans are submitted for a building permit. 4 . The city requires signed architectural plans to be submitted for the building permit. . The applicant shall ensure that the project design allows for adequate fire department access to the building. . The building must be fire sprinklered. . The building inspection staff recommends a pre-construction meeting with the building department prior to plan submittal. Police Lieutenant Kevin Rabbett reviewed the proposal and stated that there were no significant public safety concems. Fire Marshal Butch Gervais, the Maplewood Fire Marshal, reviewed the proposal and stated the following: . There must be a 20-foot-wide emergency-access road provided. . A fire-protection system must be provided. . The door where the fire-protection system is located must be properly marked as such. . A fire department lock box shall be installed (see Mr. Gervais for the order form). There may be one box for the complex if all the keys will fit. The box must then be located in the center of the complex. COMMITTEE ACTIONS September 16,2008: The planning commission reviewed the PUD and recommended approval. They recommended revisions to staffs initial recommendation by stating that: . The proposed building shall be placed a specific distance from the County Road 0 right-of- way, as measured from the site plan, rather than generally stating that the building may be placed in the "middle" of the site. . The project complies with the city's noise ordinance, including deliveries. . The hours of operation be worked out with staff. . The PUD references to street names be revised to accurately reflect the existing street layout RECOMMENDATION A. Adopt the resolution approving the revision of the planned unit development (PUD) for the Legacy Shops retail site at Legacy Village at Maplewood. This revision would allow the 5 placement of the proposed retail shops building at a setback of 83 feet from the front lot line rather than the previously required setback of 15 feet. Approval is subject to the findings required by ordinance and subject to the following conditions (additions are underlined and deletions are crossed out): Retail/Commercial (Outlot A): a. The retail/commercial site is planned in concept only within the PUD and will come in for design review and approval at a later date, but the use is allowed as long as the provisions of the BC zoning district and conditions outlined here are met; b. The building(s) on the retail/commercial site mav be setback 83 feet. or that approximate distance. from the front lot line. The option is 15 feet as previouslv reQuired. sheuh:l be sited en the north side of the pllr-col within 15' ef IRe Ceunty Read D right of way 'Nith allllaFlling te the south; c. The applicant shall submit a comprehensive sign plan. One criterion to be established, however, is that pylon signs shall not be allowed. Monument signs may be allowed, but shall not exceed 12 feet in height; d. The architectural character and exterior building materials must be in keeping with the adjacent townhomes and other buildings if present; e. Access to the site shall be from the side streets: will be eff the east leg of the rOlolndabeut and anether access llFi'/e eff Street C bet\...een the r-eundllbout and Celolnty Relld 0; and te County Read D at a shared driveway with tho mljacent furniture ster-e sile; f. All ground-mounted and roof-mounted mechanical equipment shall be screened according to ordinance; g. Over story trees must be planted along the south side of the site extension ef Str-eet 8 at an average of 30'-40' on center. h. Adequate separation, buffering and screening must be provided for the multi-family residential units from the front doors, parking areas, loading areas, and mechanical equipment of this commercial building; i. Noise levels shall be kept to that reQuired bv the city's noise ordinance. The drive-up service lane and the service window to 11 p.m. shall be restricted to have no excessive p.a. broadcast noise after 7 p.m. j. The hours of operation and delivery times shall be worked out with staff. B. Approve the revised site and building design plans date-stamped September 9, 2008, for proposed Legacy Shops at Maplewood retail center at Legacy Village. 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. 6 2. Before getting a building permit, the applicant shall do the following: . Revise the plans for staff approval for the rear elevation adding decorative caps or crown on top of the brick columns. . Revise the landscaping plan for staff approval to increase the plantings along the north and east frontages and to provide the over story trees at 30 to 40 feet on center along the south frontage. . Provide a roof-equipment screening plan showing how roof-mounted equipment will be screened from the residential views to the south. If the proposed building parapet isn't tall enough, screening must be provided. The applicant shall comply with the city code in this respect. . Provide a screening plan for any exterior utility meters for staff approval. . Provide a lighting plan details showing the proposed light fixtures for staff's review and approval. There shall not be any lights on the back of the building. Site lights south of the building shall be pole-mount lights that aim toward the building. 3. Before getting a certificate of occupancy. the applicant shall: . Comply with or complete all aspects of these plans or any required revisions. . Provide roof-equipment screening as required by code. . Provide in-ground lawn irrigation as shown on the plans. . Comply with all requirements of the fire marshal, building official and police departments as noted in the staff report. 4. The comprehensive sign plan is approved as noted in the written criteria date-stamped August 2, 2005. The only exceptions are that tenant wall signs may be allowed on the County Road 0 side to identity tenants. These signs would be subject to the size limitation noted in the sign criteria for store-front signs. Signs are not allowed on the end elevations and no ground signs are allowed without review board approval. 5. Before obtaining a building permit, the applicant shall provide an irrevocable letter of credit in the amount of 150 percent of the cost of completing landscaping and other site improvements. This irrevocable letter of credit shall include the following provisions: . The letter of credit must clearly indicate that it is an irrevocable letter of credit in the name of the City of Maplewood, payable on demand, to assure compliance with the terms of the developer's agreement. . The letter of credit must allow for partial withdrawals as needed to guarantee partial project payments covered under the terms of the letter of credit. 7 . The letter of credit shall be for a one-year duration and must have a condition indicating automatic renewal, with notification to the city a minimum of 60 days prior to its expiration. 6. The community design review board shall review any major changes to these plans. Minor changes may be approved by staff. 8 REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Site size: 2.04 acres Existing Use: Undeveloped SURROUNDING LAND USES North: County Road 0 and Slumberland Furniture South: Wyngate Townhomes East: Ashley Furniture West: Heritage Square Second Addition Townhomes PLANNING Land Use Plan: BC (business commercial) Zoning: PUD (planned unit development) APPLlCA TION/DECISION DEADLINE We received the complete application and plans for this proposal on June 30, 2008. State law requires that the city take action within 60 days of receiving complete applications. Staff, however, extended the required review deadline an additional 60 days in accordance with state statute. The revised deadline for approval is now October 26, 2008. p:sec3\Legacy Shops PUD Revision 9 08 #2 Attachments 1. Location Map 2. Legacy Village PUD Concept Plan 3. Previously Site Plan Approved September 27, 2005 4. Proposed Site Plan 5. Proposed Building Elevations (perspective drawings and elevations) 6. Applicant's Letter of Request dated June 30, 2008 7. Engineering Report dated August 12, 2008 8. September 27,2005 Community Design Review Board Minutes 9. February 19, 2008 Planning Commission Minutes 10. March 24, 2008 City Council Minutes 11. PUD Revision Resolution 12. Plans date-stamped September 9,2008 (separate attachment) 9 Adachment 1 1-694 PROPOSED LEGACY SHOPS SITE r----- """'-- I --------- -~ / , ~ EEl 1m IIII ,; i-- , I, i , -I ! I I I \ I' ,.. / /i 1"- / / i " II ASHLEY i/ At ;;:' j I<l: rl t~~ I 'I:!.~:a , , I ~ ' -~ 1 I ,-----c 0' 0/ 0' ~( --', ~I , 1...------------ l / / i .' \. Hazelwood ( I, LOCATION MAP __ u.___._= Attachment 2 {{Lit { f ibfj.~~(ljl~ lot} ~, ["', \ f'::::u !I-- i r ~..~ \kU ~~, Il-~ 11'- 01;] Ir---. " , ': OUn.OT H , PQRIAU!! -... GRQ8811.1I#A ~_._~_tIlt_ / " .' .........-- \.., 2.',^..~i! o.!IlI-:'l..,."I1 rJY... (, APPROVED PUD DEVELOPMENT-CONCEPT PLAN JULY 14, 2003 lilH II~I ~!l\ I, I ~i Ill! i ill I~ ~~ ~d 1111 1 d P .tIp. il ~ .., "!lId!:.' II 'IQilll L!lj!! !!;~!fi II :II u I d I '''1''1 r ml ;nICI ~ . !ll I! '" ~ r- ~ \')- --= I ii' , , , , ! I, I II , , . , , , , , " . , ! , , , . , 01, I: ~, " ' B. , , , , , , , . , " , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ' , L Attachment 3 II II l~ I ~ lln . ~. " o ~G li~ 3:" w" ~8 .... of!! ..... o " I , . . I I. ! . ( h ~IU ~l I ald:.g mi ~~ u! r I;~ ~ r.'~~ I I k..=='IZ 1~ll Dlt~~ll iii . ~ i!l !llll'! il!! PI"lll'!.!! ',hi Il!UI! I Ii .llll'!lllj,,,! iP I; !~ ~ Ii ll! I .lln , !'llll . Ii " I' I 'Idl "jli" qq I ~I' " I ~llh !i!lillll" m ill il Hili ill;!!, ~ .. ..... '" " ..".. <I " 'S , . ,,! Ii I 'I,' Ill, II ,II I hill ' I · ~ '! i I · Ii. II 1 ~ I i I '. !l~ldil!!lllllilld ~, il ~ II il 1Ii1111!! II tl !' ~ 00~00~; 1- -;:: I ., '" 0", ~- ~g ~'l! sji ~~ ~ g ,-. -+-::--- , ~~ \ - - - ,,-~ I , I , I , I , I '-133i:IlS x_ ___ iI I' II ! Ii I Ii dll , ! .. iiln lUlU dl ; ~-- ~ -' ~ "' :2 ::l 5 - '''"=:;;;..;;'. Attachment 4 ~ . ~ I 1,I)JIII i I ijl Iilll ~ ill li!J ~( --' -'z H >," ~I /:0 -" ".. ~ I- ~ I nt 5 . I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I J- J- I I .0 11 I I ~ I I I I I I ~ I I :I: I I () I OC I lI- I I ~ l\ I I 10 I I I -r I I t(0-': ,L_ I ~ ' ' J i! I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I I i I ~ I ~~ I </U I ,'-'> I I I I I I I I I c I \) 4i I \J I > \l I Ul -P I II> I I."i Ul I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I c c I c \) \) I \) 4i 4i 4i I."i \J \J I > > > I \l \l \l Ul Ul Ul I -P l' l' I II> L ::> I ~ .0 - ,en: \) Jl I I z I I I L .-l Attachment 6 ITil HARTFORD ~~ REAL ESTATE DEVElOPMSIIT. ARCHITECTURE' ENGINEERING. MANAGEMENT 1!D)~@~DW~m illl ./1 IN 3 0 2008 W June 30, 2008 Mr. Tom Ekstrand (Tom.Ekstrand@ci.maplewood.mn.us) City of Maple wood 1830 Comty Road B Maplewood, MN 55109 By Re: Legacy Shops Application Dear Tom, We have requested an amendment to the PUD to allow for the Legacy Shops retail building to be moved oj'f of County Road D and set back more to the middle portion of the site; and for a drive-thru on the east end of the building. Theses changes result directly from ideas proposed by our buyer, who will own and operate the retail development. He is an experienced retail developer and in his opinion the building locations, parking and drive lanes needed to be modified for the site to be viable for retail development. This site has now stood vacant for over four years. During this time we have worked diligently to develop a retail project on the site under the existing PUD conditions. In addition, we have marketed the site directly and through experienced retail brokers to prospective users. No one has been able to make the site work given the approved plans and restrictions. Accordingly, we are requesting that the Planning Commission and Council approve the changes proposed so that the site may be developed to our mutual benefit. In meetings earlier this spring we discussed our proposal at length with the Planning Commission and the City Council and have attempted to incorporate their suggestions iI)to our final design. If approved, Todd Geller of Victory Capital is ready to purchase the site and begin construction. Sincerely, -;ztfl- Frank A. Janes General Counsel fi anes@hartfordgro.com Direct: 952-838-2420 7900 Xerxes Avenue South . Suite 1300 . Bloomington, MN 55431 . 952-838-2400 (P) . 952-838-2401 (f) . www.hartfordgrp.com Attachment 7 Page 1 00 Enl!ineerin2 Plan Review PROJECT: Legacy Shops REVIEWED BY: Jon Jarosch (Maplewood Engineering Department) DilTE: ilugust 12,2008 The Hartford Group is requesting City approval of a proposed change to the previously proposed Legacy Shops. The applicant has revised the layout by shifting the building to the south towards the center of the site, at the request of a potential buyer, to allow for a~!."\;e-thru at the east end of the building. The proposed raimvater garden at the southwest cOflli'rofthe site has enough capacity to provide the required infiltration for the site. A downs.~~perforated pipe system, constructed as part of the Heritage Square 2nd addition, provides)addi~p~al infiltration capacity. Drainage & Treatment '/, ";:FT 1. Soil borings must be taken in the rainwater garden/infiltration area to enSure that infiltration rates assumed in hydraulic calculations are correct. The applicant must provide a copy of the soils report to the engineering department. -'::-:'::::.'-:::::: 2. Rock-sumps must be placed within the rainwater gaid<llls to promote infiltration of the storm-water runoff. If the soil borings prove that the soils are not conducive to infiltration, a drain-tile system shall be designed and installed, with engineered soils, beneath the rainwater garden to promote water treatment. :\(;> -"::':?H';; -:.:\':,.'-. ,,<.::,::'::- ....,..<:..:.'.':',,,: 3. Rainwater garden, rock-sump, and rip-rap construction details shall be included within the plan set. 4. Catch-basin manholes #3 and #9 shall include a 3' deep sump to capture sediment prior to discharge into the rainwater garden. ,-:::::.:::,:,';.:.:'::..'.:.: ::,-/'-'--'-'--'--"':',,",:".,::",:'>::":',-','-,':",:'.:--,',., " 5. A HydroCad or TR-55 stonn-water routing model shall be submitted. Sediment and Phosphorus removal calculations are also required. 6. It wilS)~gticed that a t~y of the storm sewer pipes had less than 2-feet of cover. The typical~!gi.~um cov~~.used in the City of Maplewood is 3-feet. Revisions are suggested to allow formore Cover. '-..om_'__"_', Grading & Erosion Control 1. Permanent stabilization blankets shall be placed at all emergency overflow swales to protect from erosion. This should be called out on the plans. 2. A street-sweeping and watering plan must be clearly detailed on the erosion and sediment control plan sheet. Page 2 of3 3. The sediment and erosion control plan shall provide information through building construction. 4. Please include City of Maplewood Plate No. 350 for details on sediment and erosion control measures. 5. Callout inlet protection devices to be used as specified by Maplewood plate No. 350. Please note that a simple piece of geotextile fabric placed beneath catch-basin grates is not an acceptable inlet protection device. A note to this effect IIJ,y:;it be included on the erosion control plan sheet. 6. Rainwater gardens and rock-sumps must be protected~;'!tiiijj<~~truction to prevent sedimentation. Sedimentation of these areas will hindel!j.nfiltrati9~,rendering these gardens ineffective. .,."..., 7. All new catch-basins must have inlet protection devices installed immediately after being constructed. Refer to comment #5 for approved inlet protection devices. .'iJ.'T.:. :.'i",':'::,: iLj'i'r,:::,:,_.,;:-,::f.t::" ,'- 8. Slopes will be designed and coustructed to a maximum 00: 1. -- ....., 9. Existing catch-basins on adjacent s,treets must be shown on the plans and must have inlet protection devices iustalled prior to construction. There are catch-basins southeast and southwest of the site that are not shown on th'eplans. ~::"'::'_-ET 1 O. The sidewalk along County Road D (north end of site) shall be protected during constmction. It is suggested that a row of safety fence be placed along the entire southem edge ofthis sidewalk. 11. It is 'i):;:" .."';:............-.;,::: ,-:...::..,_'-';..}'_::.......;.._:...:...,... ....,:r". that bio-rollsbe used in lieu of silt fence. the site. ::;',--.- .,.....,., silt-fencing) are needed at both entrances where slopes fall away they ate needed north of the entrance off of Flandrau Street. Utilities 1. A plan to the detailing the connection of the sanitary sewer main-stub 2. Sanitary shall be constructed of SDR 35 piping. 3. The water-main and connection must be approved by Saint Paul Regional Water Service. Page 3 of3 Landscaoing I. A planting plan for the rainwater garden must be included in the plan set. The plants shall be subject to the approval of Virginia Gaynor, City Naturalist. 2. The rainwater garden shall be planted, as opposed to seeded, unless the rainwater garden is temporarily bypassed Wltil it is fully established. Miscellaneous 1. Staff discussed the ability for emergency vehicles to ente~;'~..~xit the site. The applicant shall provide a plan displaying the ability for a fue-truRJllandl\!l"!~ulance to enter and exit the site. ' ' 2. All retaining walls greater than 4 feet in height require a building penUit and shall include a fence at the top of wall. The contractor or the project engineer shall provide more detailed information about the walls and their construction at the time of requesting a building permit. 3. The developer or proj ect stormwater pennit (SWPPP) to project. submit a copy of the MPCA's construction the city will issue a grading permit for this 4. The developer shall rainwater into a by the city, for the shall requirements of all other permitting 5. The agencies. 6. plans to the Ramsey-Washington Metro Regional Water Service. Page 1 of 1 Tom Ekstrand From: Jon Jarosch Sent: Monday, August 25, 2008 11:29 AM To: 'psarver@harlfordgrp.com' Cc: Tom Ekstrand Subject: FW: Legacy Shops At Maplewood - Engineering Comments Patrick, FYI I have attached a draft copy of the proposed engineering requirements for the Legacy Shops Development for your reference. Also, staff has been discussing the need for a sidewalk along the eastern property line of this development (Bittersweet Lane). I thought I would give you a heads up that this may be a requirement as well. Let me know if you have any questions. Jon Jon Jarosch Civil Engineer 1 City of Maplewood Direct: (651) 249-2405 Fax: (651) 249-2409 jon.jarosch(t!}ci.maplewood.mn.us 8/25/2008 Attachment 8 MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD 1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 27,2005 VI. DESIGN REVIEW a. Legacy Shoppes (Legacy Village) - south side of County Road D, across from Slumberland and west of Ashley Furniture Mr. Ekstrand said Scott Schmitt, of the Hartford Group, is requesting approval of design plans for the Legacy Shoppes, an 18,912-square-foot retail center at Legacy Village. (The applicant's letter says 20,000 square feet, but the building foot print has since been revised to make the parking counts comply with the code.) The applicant is proposing to build Legacy Shoppes in two phases. If the first phase fills quickly, the applicant would follow rapidly with the second phase. The total building would accommodate seven to twelve tenants. The building would be constructed of stucco with a foundation of rock-face concrete block. There would be three colors of stucco in the color scheme. The colors would be a range of cream and brown tones. The rock-face concrete base would be reddish brown. There would only be customer entrances on the south side of the building. Mr. Ekstrand reported the north (County Road D side) and the end elevations would have no doors. While staff likes this plan staff suggests approximately 30% brick be added to the building elevations. Chairperson Longrie excused herself for 1 hour to attend another city meeting. Board member Shankar asked if staff was recommending leaving the rock-face concrete block and add the 30% brick and have both materials or delete the rock-face concrete block and substitute it with brick? Mr. Ekstrand said it could be compatible to have the rock-face concrete block with the addition of brick or the applicant could remove the rock-face concrete block and just use the brick elements. Staff doesn't want to design the building exterior for the applicant but is recommending that the applicant add brick elements to the building elevation so the building is more compatible with the surrounding businesses. Acting chairperson Olson asked the applicant to address the board. Mr. Scott Schmitt, Director of Retail Development, representing the Hartford Group, 12100 Singletree Lane, Suite 100, Eden Prairie, addressed the board. They plan on building both phases. Leasing of the first phase building is going very well for and he anticipates the second phase of the building to go just as well. He understands staff's recommendation for 30% brick elements to be added to the building, however that adds quite a bit of cost onto the building. The rock-face concrete block provides a sturdy base from the visual prospective and they would like to keep that in place. They could add brick onto the columns of the building and brick elements to other areas of the building to add more architectural interest. They do not want brick elements along the top front of the building because of the tenant signage. If brick elements are on the front of the building and the tenants change, it makes it difficult to patch the brick on the building when the tenant moves out and the signage is changed. Board member Shankar asked how many roof-top units they would have on this building and if they would be visible from the highway? Mr. Schmitt said the roof-top units would not be visible from the highway. There will be two small roof-top units for every 2,500 square feet of tenant space. A parapet wall would be three to five feet in height going from one end of the building to the other which will screen those roof-top units. The reason for the three to five feet height change is because of the grade of the property and because the roofline graduates to allow for ceiling height of the tenant spaces. Board member Hinzman asked if the brick elements would go all the way to the roofline of the building? Mr. Schmitt said he didn't know for sure because he wasn't the architect but it would make sense to him to have the brick elements go to the roofline. Board member Hinzman said the applicant said there may be a restaurant tenant here and he asked how parking is configured for restaurants? Mr. Schmitt said that's correct and he wasn't sure if Maplewood configures the parking based on the number of seats in the restaurant or by square footage. Mr. Ekstrand said Maplewood configures parking based on the number of square footage of patron area which is every area the patron has access to in the restaurant. This is a problem that occurs with strip malls like this. Generally restaurants require more parking. Mr. Ekstrand said the city calculates parking on a retail basis not knowing if there would be a restaurant in this retail center or not. An example of parking problems is at The Corner Shops which has Chipotle and Quizno's restaurants. That parking lot can get overcrowded and very busy at lunch. Acting chairperson Olson asked if the applicant had any problems with the requirement to install a sidewalk? Mr. Schmitt said they have no problem with installing the sidewalk in fact they will probably install more sidewalk for this development than what was required by the city. Board member Shankar asked if this proposal should be brought back to the CDRB because there are so many conditions for the applicant to revise such as the building elevations adding 30% brick, a revised photometric plan, a revised landscaping plan, and to revise the sidewalk plan. Board member Hinzman said when you list all of the items out it seems like a lot to revise but he is comfortable with the city staff working with the applicant to work the details out. Board member Ledvina agreed with Board member Hinzman. Although there are issues he believes the issues can be worked out. He is happy with the design and the site plan as it stands. Acting chairperson Olson agreed. Mr. Ekstrand said staff's recommendation to add 30% brick to the building design was simply a random percentage. There are ways to add visual interest to the building with brick but he feels comfortable having the board decide the percentage of brick to be added. The brick can be placed on the building where it fits in with the building design, just so brick is an added building element to the site to be compatible with the area businesses. Especially when the Ashley Furniture's building has 50% brick. Board member Shankar said he would be comfortable requesting the applicant to have 25% to 35% brick but to include the rock-face concrete block in the percentage requirement. Board member Ledvina agreed. The 30% recommendation seems a bit high and he thinks the applicant should get credit for all the window glazing on the building. Board member Hinzman said he likes the north and south elevations and the street fa<;:ade of this proposal. Board member Shankar said in his opinion the amount of EIFS on this building will look good for five years or so but after that the appearance of the building will start going down hill. Brick on the fa<;:ade will help give the building a longer lasting appeal as well as add visual interest. Acting chairperson Olson said she really likes signs on the front of building as opposed to adding a monument sign on the property. She likes the design of the building and thinks it will be a nice addition to the area. Board member Shankar moved to approve the site/building design plans and the comprehensive sign plan date-stamped September 6, 2005, for proposed Legacy Shops retail center at Legacy Village. Approval is subject to the applicant doing the following: (changes to the motion are underlined and deletions are stricken.) 1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project: 2. Before getting a building permit, the applicant shall do the following: . Revise the building elevations for staff approval adding brick on all elevations. The area of brick and rock-face concrete block on each wall surface when added toqether should be between 25% and 35% of the wall surface. to covor approximatoly 30 porcont of oach wall EUrfoco. . Provide an elevation design for the temporary side elevation of Phase I in the event that Phase II is not built right away. This design shall be subject to staff approval. . If any neon accent lighting is proposed, it shall be subject to the approval of the community design review board. . Plans for the trash enclosure shall be presented to staff for approval. The materials and colors of the enclosure shall m~tch the building. The gate shall be 100 percent opaque and shall be large enough for removal of the trash containers. The enclosure shall be protected by steel/concrete bollards as required by code. The enclosure shall also be large enough to hold recycling containers. . A revised photometric plan shall be submitted for staff approval showing the reduction of light spillover not to exceed .4 foot candles on the east and west sides of the site. The street lights on the south side of the site shall be equipped with the lowest wattage bulb that yet provides adequate street lighting. This is to limit excess light spillover onto the Wyngate town homes site. . Provide a revised landscape plan for staff approval that incorporates more trees on the County Roadc D side of the building and meets the guidelines of the approved PUD for Legacy Village. This would require overstory trees along the Village Trail East frontage placed at an average of 30 or 40 feet on center. The landscaping plan shall in general provide buffering and screening for the multi family developments to the west and south. Merely the use of overstory trees will not provide this. . Provide a roof-equipment screening plan showing how roof-mounted equipment will be screened from the residential views. The applicant shall comply with the city code in this respect. . Provide a revised site plan showing a five-foot-wide concrete sidewalk on the east and west sides of the building connecting the County Road D sidewalk to the sidewalk in front of the building. . Provide a screening plan for any exterior utility meters for staff approval. . Provide verification of recorded cross easements between this site and the surrounding properties where access is shared. . Provide cash escrow in the amount of 150 percent of the cost of completing the site improvements. 3. Before getting a certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall: . Comply with or complete all aspects of these plans or any required revisions. . Provide roof-equipment screening as required by code. . Provide in-ground lawn irrigation as shown on the plans. . Comply with all requirements of the fire marshal, building official and police departments as noted in the staff report. 4. The comprehensive sign plan is approved as noted in the written criteria date- stamped August 2, 2005. The only exceptions are that tenant wall signs may be allowed on the County Road D side to identify tenants. These signs would be subject to the size limitation noted in the sign criteria for store-front signs. Signs are not allowed on the end elevations and no ground signs are allowed without review board approval. 5. Tenant deliveries must be within the site and not via County Road D or the side roads. 6. The community design review board shall review any major changes to these plans. Minor changes may be approved by staff. Board member Ledvina seconded. Ayes - Hinzman, Ledvina, Longrie, Olson, Shankar The motion passed. This item does not need to go to the city council meeting for approval. ~ MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 19, 2008 Attachment 9 V. NEW BUSINESS a. Concept Plan Review - Legacy Village PUD Changes (Kennard Street and County Road D) 1. Rental Town House Site (Legacy Parkway - Kennard Street to Hazelwood) 2. Retail Site (Flandrau Street and County Road D) City planner Tom Ekstrand gave a brief presentation explaining that representatives of the Hartford Group wish to discuss with the commission alternative use and design ideas for the undeveloped areas of Legacy Village. Mr. Ekstrand said this item has been brought before the commission for discussion only and staff will not need a recommendation this evening. Mr. Ekstrand introduced Frank Janes of Hartford Group. Frank Janes addressed the commission and explained that Hartford Group is looking for informal discussion with the commission regarding the possible alternative use and design for the undeveloped area of Legacy Village. Mr. Janes explained to the commission the Hartford Group's possible commercial site development revisions. Mr. Todd Geller of Victory Capital Corporation explained that this corporation currently owns and manages about 600,000 square feet of retail, industrial and office space. Mr. Geller said Victory Capital Corporation expressed concern with the back of the building on County Road D, but did move forward with a purchase agreement. Mr. Geller explained the following design concerns with the building rear facing County Road D: 1) signage on both sides of the building, 2) delivery and loading in the front of the building, 3) security issues due to the parking lot being shielded from County Road D, 4) trash collection from the opposite side of the parking lot from the building, 5) car traffic lighting disturbance, 6) existing design does not allow for a drive-through, 7) facade is designed with four fronts of glass making a restaurant or coffee shop use with a kitchen or storage in the back nearly impossible. Commissioner Desai said he does not have a problem with this design of flipping the building and feels it may be an improvement for the neighboring town homes. Commissioner Hess said he also feels the revised retail/commercial design makes sense. Mr. Janes explained that the style for the proposed building would be very similar to the approved plan. Commissioner Pearson questioned how the delivery and loading is proposed for the new design. Mr. Janes explained that the new design is not perfect due to grade constraints, but the new design allows for deliveries in the area of the drive-through. Commissioner Pearson suggested that an area for the trucks to pull off of the roadway for deliveries should be considered. Mr. Pearson also was concerned about the poor soils in the area where the hotel would be located. Patrick Sarver, director of development for Hartford Group, said the current design allows two 12-foot travel lanes and a 6-foot parking aisle along the southern part of Village Trail East. Mr. Sarver explained that Hartford felt these areas could be used for delivery parking for short periods of time. Commissioner Boeser said that he likes the design of flipping the building, but was not in favor of parking the trucks in front of the town homes. Mr. Boeser said he does not like the entry on Village Trail East, because that allows commercial traffic to use that road. Mr. Boeser suggested blocking off Village Trail East completely to control commercial traffic in the residential area and having entrances on both County Road D and Flandrau. . Mr. Sarver responded that in order to be sensitive to the private drives in the area, the commercial drive and Village Drive East were positioned to handle the Ashley Furniture truck traffic for deliveries. Mr. Sarver said that Ashley Furniture has legal access to these roads. The commission discussed the traffic congestion in this area with Hartford Group's representatives. Commissioner Trippler was concerned that the continuity of the design of the Legacy area be maintained and encouraged the developer to preserve the established design. Mr. Trippler did not feel that flipping the building would improve the truck access or parking for deliveries. Mr. Trippler agreed with Mr. Pearson that there may be poor soils in the proposed site of the four-story hotel location. Commissioner Pearson mentioned the need for recreational facilities in the residential part of the development. Mr. Janes thanked the commission for their comments on the commercial proposal and proceeded to explain plans for the residential development. Mr. Janes explained that due to the current housing market, townhomes are no longer a viable product and therefore, the developer is instead proposing to build a rental apartment building. Mr. Janes said that the developer proposes to retain as many of the existing trees as possible. Commissioner Boeser commented that the plans for the childcare facility are a good choice for that area, but he does not think the plan for a four-story hotel fits in with the surrounding area. Mr. Boeser said that with the proposed hotel and apartments buildings and parking lots, he is concerned with maintaining the existing trees on that site. Mr. Boeser questioned the developer about plans for maintaining the overall look of the development. Mr. Janes said there is a two-acre parcel in the residential part of the project that will be dedicated to the city for development of a children's play area. Commissioner Trippler encouraged the developer to rotate the childcare facility ninety degrees to align the facility east and west on County Road D, with the parking lot located south of the facility. Staff commented that this might move the play area from behind the building and negatively locate it to the street side of the building. Mr. Trippler said he would like to see the hotel building limited to three stories and suggested the four-story hotel be revised to three stories to better the fit the style of the neighborhood. Mr. Janes thanked the commission for their comments and said that they would make revisions to the plans. Attachment 10 2. Final Plat - Beaver Lake Townhomes Fifth Addition (Maryland Avenue and Sterling Circle, west of Sterling Street). a. Planner, Ken Roberts gave the report and answered questions of the council. Councilmember Rossbach moved to approve the Final Plat of March 14. 2008 - Beaver Lake Townhomes Fifth Addition (Marvland Avenue and Sterlina Circle. west of Sterlina Street). Seconded by Councilmember Nephew. Ayes - Councilmembers Juenemann, Nephew & Rossbach Nav - Mayor Longrie & Councilmember Hjelle The motion passed. C). Concept Plan Review - Legacy Village PUD Changes (Kennard Street and County Road D). a. Rental Town House Site (Legacy Parkway - Kennard Street to Hazelwood). b. Retail Site (Flandrau Street and County Road D). c. Senior Planner, Tom Ekstrand gave a brief introduction of the concept plan review. d. Frank Janes, Hartford Group addressed and answered questions of the council. e. Tom Geller, Victory Capital Corporation addressed and answered questions of the council. f. Jeremy Yarwood, Planning Commission member gave the planning commission report. No action is required for this item. This agenda item is only for discussion, this item will be brought back to the council at a later date. L. NEW BUSINESS 1. Approval of 2007 - 2008 Contract Between the City of Maplewood and Maplewood Confidential and Supervisory Association. (Councilmember Nephew requested that this item be removed from the agenda. It wil/ be discussed at the Aoril14. 2008, city council meeting.) 2. Heritage Square Fifth Addition (County Road D, west of Highway 61). a. Preliminary Plat Revision b. Design Approval c. Senior Planner, Tom Ekstrand gave the report and answered questions of the council. d. Jeremy Yarwood, Planning Commission member gave the report from the planning commission. e. Mr. Shawn Siders, K. Hovnanian Homes addressed and answered questions of the council. Council member Hielle moved to approve the preliminarv plat date-stamped Februarv 1, 2008. for the Heritaae Sauare 5th Addition. subject to the followina conditions: (changes to the oriainal recommendation is in bold and underlined). 1. The applicant shall construct the northerlv trail connection between the existing trail on their site and the existina trail section approximatelv 300 feet to the west beneath the power lines. This trail shall be built accordina to the specifications of the city engineer. Staff shall hold escrow for this trail construction. The trail amenities for the north trail shall extend from the County Road D sidewalk to LaBore Road. March 24, 2008 City Council Meeting Minutes 16 Attachment 11 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT REVISION WHEREAS, Frank Janes, of the Hartford Group, applied for a conditional use permit revision to revise the planned unit development requirements of the retail site at Legacy Village at Maplewood. WHEREAS, this permit applies to the property located south of County Road 0, between Flandrau Street and Bittersweet Lane. The legal description is: Lot 3, Block 2, Legacy Village of Maplewood WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit revision is as follows: 1. On September 16,2008, the planning commission held a public hearing. The city staff published a notice in the paper and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The planning commission gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The planning commission also considered the reports and recommendation of city staff. The planning commission recommended that the city council approve this pennit. 2. On October 13, 2008, the city council considered reports and recommendations of the city staff and planning commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council conditional use pennit, because: the above-described 1. The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be in conformity with the City's Comprehensive Plan and Code of Ordinances. 2. The use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area. 3. The use would not depreciate property values. 4. The use would not involve any activity, process, materials, equipment or methods of operation that would be dangerous, hazardous, detrimental, disturbing or cause a nuisance to any person or property, because of excessive noise, glare, smoke, dust, odor, fumes, water or air pollution, drainage, water run-off, vibration, general unsightliness, electrical interference or other nuiSances. 5. The use would generate only minimal vehicular traffic on local streets and would not create traffic congestion or unsafe access on existing or proposed streets. 6. The use would be served by adequate public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, water and sewer systems, schools and parks. 7. The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services. 8. The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and scenic features into the development design. 9. The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects. Approval is subject to the following conditions (additions are underlined and deletions are crossed out): Retail/Commercial (Outlot A): a. The retail/commercial site is planned in concept only within the PUD and will come in for design review and approval at a later date, but the use is allowed as long as the provisions of the Be zoning district and conditions outlined here are met; b. The building(s) on the retail/commercial site mav be setback 83 feet. or that approximate distance. from the front lot line. The option is 15 feet as previously reQuired. shoulElee sitod on the north siEle of the parcel within 15' of the County RoaEl 0 rillht of way with all parking to the south; c. The applicant shall submit a comprehensive sign plan. One criteria to be established, however, is that pylon signs shall not be allowed. Monument signs may be allowed, but shall not exceed 12 feet in height; d. The architectural character and exterior building materials must be in keeping with the adjacent town homes and other buildings if present; e. Access to the site shall be from the side streets: willee off the east lell of the reuRElaeeut aREI aRother access drive eff Street C between the r-ouRElaeout aREI County ReaEl 0; and to County Road 0 at a shared drive'l:ay with the aEljacent furniture store site; f. All ground-mounted and roof-mounted mechanical equipment shall be screened according to ordinance; g. Over story trees must be planted along the south side of the site 6lllension ef Street B at an average of 30'-40' on center. h. Adequate separation, buffering and screening must be provided for the multi-family residential units from the front doors, parking areas, loading areas, and mechanical equipment of this commercial building; i. Noise levels shall be kept to that reQuired by the city's noise ordinance. The drive-up service lane and the service window to 11 p.m. shall be restricted to have no excessive p.a. broadcast noise after 7 p.m. j. The hours of operation and delivery times shall be worked out with staff. The Maplewood City Council this resolution on ,2008.