HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-04-27 CDRB Packet
AGENDA
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
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:
5. Unfinished Business:
6. Design Review:
a. Feed Products North, 1300 McKnight Road North.
7. Visitor Presentations:
8. Board Presentations:
9. Staff Presentations:
a. Discussion on Frost Avenue Bridge Replacement
b. Development Review Procedure
c. Advisory Committees and Application Fees
10. Adjourn
MEMORANDUM
LOCATION:
DATE:
James Antonen, City Manager
Michael Martin, AICP, Planner
DuWayne Konewko, Community Development and Parks Director
Feed Products North-Conditional Use Permit Revision and
Design Review
1300 McKnight Road
April 7, 2010
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
INTRODUCTION
Project Description
John Fallin, owner of Feed Products North, is proposing to build a 947 square foot
addition to an existing building located on his 30 acre site. The addition would
approximately double the size of the existing 30-foot by 35-foot building to 1,997 square
feet.
Requests
Mr. Fallin is requesting approval of:
. A conditional use permit (CUP) revision to remodel and construct an addition to an
existing building. The city code also requires a CUP for structures in M1 (light
manufacturing) zoning districts that are closer than 350 feet to a residential district.
The proposed addition is within 350 feet of a residential district and there already is a
CUP for the site. The applicant is also requesting the existing CUP be revised to
remove the conditions of approval that require an existing trailer to be removed from
the site before any future development can occur.
. Design plans.
BACKGROUND
On November 28, 1998, the city council made several approvals for the expansion of
Bulk Storage including:
1. A conditional use permit (CUP) for the existing Bulk Storage site. A CUP was
necessary because:
a. The proposed shipping-dock addition would be closer than 350 feet to the
abutting residential districts. The proposed shipping-dock addition would be
120 feet from the residential district to the north and 195 feet from the
residential district to the south. The code requires a CUP for buildings in an
M-1 (light manufacturing) district that would be closer than 350 feet to a
residential zone.
b. Of the outdoor storage on the site. The city code requires a CUP for the
outdoor storage or display of goods or materials. Presently there are
landscaping supplies stored west of the main building and roofing supplies
stored at the east end of the site. Maplewood had never been granted a CUP
for outdoor storage at this site.
2. A CUP for a new office building between Lakewood Drive and McKnight Road.
The city required the CUP because the office building would be closer than 350
feet to the abutting residential districts. The proposed office building would be
310 feet from the residential district to the north and 59 feet from the residential
district to the south. This building was never built.
3. A parking waiver to have fewer parking spaces than the number required by
code. For a building the size of Bulk Storage, including the proposed addition,
the code requires 109 paved parking spaces (83 for the large building, 12 for the
Phase 1 shipping-dock addition and 14 for the Phase 2 shipping-dock addition).
4 Plan approval for the proposed building addition and new office building.
On July 12, 1999, the city council approved a revised CUP for the owner of the site to
add a trailer to the warehouse property.
On August 27, 2001, the city council approved a one-year time extension for the
conditional use permit (CUP) for this site.
On August 26, 2002, the city council approved a one-year time extension for the CUP for
this site.
On August 11, 2003, the city council approved a one-year time extension for the CUP for
this site.
On August 23, 2004, the city council approved a one-year time extension for the CUP
and approved a license agreement with the property owners. This agreement is so the
city crews may cross the property with trucks and equipment to city-owned property that
is east of Bulk Storage.
On August 22, 2005, the city council approved a one-year time extension for the CUP for
this site.
On January 26, 2009, the city council approved a lot division to split the Feed Products
site into two lots. The undeveloped lot is to the west of the main Feed Products parcel
on the other side of Lakewood Drive. The new parcel was approved for an office
building and has its own CUP that is not related to this request. Instead of building a
new office building on the new, separate parcel, the applicant is proposing to expand the
existing scale building. The parcel west of Lakewood Drive has been recorded with
Ramsey County and is a legal, separate lot.
2
DISCUSSION
Conditional Use Permit Revision
Office addition
The applicant is proposing a 947 square foot building addition. The addition and
remodel of the existing building is needed, according to the applicant, due to the age,
size and function of the current building. Staff does not have any concerns with the
proposed addition to the existing building and does not foresee any issues arising due to
the expansion.
To the north of the site there are Manage B wetlands that require a 75-foot buffer. This
addition is well beyond the required 75 feet, therefore there are no wetland impact
concerns. There are no other environmental concerns as the proposed addition is being
built on an area that is mostly impervious, except for a narrow three-foot strip of grass on
the west side of the existing building.
Existing Trailer
The applicant is requesting that the city council revise the CUP to allow the trailer as a
permanent structure. Though it was first intended as a temporary structure, the
applicant has found he needs it as office space for his business. Staff does not object to
this since the trailer is well concealed from homes and from streets. Furthermore, staff
has never received any complaints about the trailer. The trailer has been completed
with skirting and is kept in good repair.
The applicant is requesting the trailer become a permanent part of the CUP approval. If
the city council were to approve this revision request the trailer would not limit future
development of the site but the city could still use the CUP as a tool if any issues arise
from the trailer. Staff feels the trailer is adequately screened from the residential
properties surrounding the site.
Architectural and Site Considerations
The proposed office building is attractively designed with the building design modeled
after a 1900s train depot. The exterior would consist of galvanized corrugated metal
with several stone columns. The roof is proposed to be built with galvanized corrugated
metal but the applicant has also indicated that dark brown asphalt shingles could be an
option as well. A large portion of the building will be outfitted with a natural cedar deck.
Staff finds the proposed additional and remodel to be an upgrade to the existing facilities
on site. Also given the secluded nature of the site, staff also finds the impact of the
nearby residential areas to be minimal. The decision to model the building after a
historical train depot is a nice nod to the site's location and history.
Staff has no concern with landscaping, traffic or parking. The proposed building, though
possible to view from the bridge, would not be easily visible due to traffic speeds and its
separation and distance from Lakewood Drive. Landscaping, therefore, would not serve
3
to enhance the appearance of the building for neighbors or from streets. Staff feels that
landscaping could be provided should the applicant wish to provide some for his own
close-up view. The proposed addition would not cause any increase in traffic and the
applicant is proposing to provide ten parking spaces which would adequately serve his
needs. The CUP currently states the applicant does not need to provide a paved
parking area. Since the applicant is proposing 10 spaces, staff is recommending
revising the CUP to require any parking spaces be on a paved surface and be striped.
Though not required due to a previously approved parking waiver, the 10 proposed
parking spots would meet the code requirements for the proposed 1,997 square foot
building.
There is no proposal for any new site lights. Entry lights should be designed so they do
not exceed the parameters of the city's lighting ordinance. Standard front-door type
lights should cause no more problem than those on a single dwelling. If the applicant, at
some time, adds an outdoor trash container that is visible to neighbors or from streets,
code would require that he provide a screening enclosure.
Additional City Department Comments
Enqineerinq Comments
Refer to the engineering review comments attached to this report from Jon Jarosch, staff
engineer dated March 26, 2010.
Buildinq Official's Comments
Dave Fisher, Maplewood's Building Official, gave the following comments:
. The city will require a complete building code analysis when the construction plans
are submitted to the city for building permits.
. All exiting must go to a public way.
. The applicant must provide adequate fire department access to the building.
. Office buildings more than 2,000 square feet are required to be fire sprinklered per
Chapter 1306 of the Minnesota State building code. Verify with Fire Marshal.
. A preconstruction meeting is recommended with the building staff, contractor and
project manager.
Police Department Comments
No concerns with this project.
4
COMMITTEE ACTION
Planninq Commission
On April 6, 2010, the planning commission held a public hearing and recommended
approval of the proposed CUP revision for office addition.
RECOMMENDATIONS
A. Adopt the resolution approving a conditional use permit revision for the Feed
Products North office building, located at 1300 McKnight Road. This permit allows
the construction of an office building on land zoned M1 (light manufacturing) within
350 feet of residential property. Approval of this CUP revision is subject to the
following conditions (additions are underlined and deletions are crossed out):
1. All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city.
2. The proposed trailer must ee essupied within ane year af saunsil afJ!Jraval ar
the permit revision shalleesame null and ...aid. The saunsil may mElend this
deadline for one year.
a,g. The city council shall review this permit in one year.
4g,. A dcmi€lnated fJa'/ed pClrkin€l areCl shall not ee required unless the site usage
chan€les in same fashion warrantin€l the need far such fJarkin€l sfJaces. Any
parking spaces provided on site shall be on a paved surface and be striped.
431. Update the alarm system at the facility, subject to the approval of the Police
Chief.
99,. Provide several signs along the wetland edge on the warehouse site. The
number and placement of these signs shall be determined by staff. These
signs shall prohibit any building, mowing, cutting, filling or dumping in or
around the wetland.
+2,. Submit an industrial storm water protection plan to the Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency for their review and approval.
3. The awnm ar develaper ShClII rema...e the trailer tram the site eefare the city
issues a buildin€ll3mmit fer any future develal3ment.
S. The awner shall remave the trailer tram the site within five years. The
Cauncil may renew this al3J3ra'Jal if the owner requests it. .
7. The office trailer must be kept in good condition and repair, including the
skirting around the base.
5
B. Approve the plans date-stamped March 8, 2010, for the proposed Feed Products
North office building. Approval is based on the findings for approval 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. Comply with the requirements of the engineering report by Jon Jarosh dated
March 26,2010.
3. All work shall follow the approved plans. The city planner may approve minor
changes.
4. If outdoor trash storage is used, such containers must be kept in a screened
enclosure. The design and placement of the enclosure shall be subject to
staff approval.
5. Comply with all site-lighting requirements of the city ordinance.
6. All parking spaces shall be on a paved surface and be striped. The handicap
spaces shall comply with ADA requirements.
CITIZEN COMMENTS
Staff surveyed the 43 property owners within 500 feet of this project for their comments.
There were two replies and both were in favor.
In Favor
1. No concern with this proposal (Niezgocki, 2313 Maryland Avenue East)
2. No real comment, looks good. (Remackel, 1298 Myrtle Street North)
6
REFERENCE INFORMATION
SITE DESCRIPTION
Site size: 30 acres
Existing Use: Bulk Storage Warehouse facility
SURROUNDING LAND USES
North: Railroad right-of-way and single dwellings
South: Single dwellings
East: Additional Bulk Storage property
West: Lakewood Drive
PLANNING
Land Use Plan: M1 (light manufacturing)
Zoning: M1
Applicable Ordinance
Section 44-637(b) states that, in an M1 district, a CUP is required for any building within
350 feet of a residential district.
Criteria for Conditional Use Permit Approval
Section 44-1097(a) states that the city council may approve a CUP, based on nine
standards. See findings 1-9 in the resolution.
APPLICATION DATE
The city received the complete application for a conditional use permit revision and site
and design plans approval on March 11,2010. The 60-day review deadline for a
decision is May 10, 2010. As stated in Minnesota State Statute 15.99, the city is allowed
to take an additional 60 days if necessary in order to complete the review of the
application.
7
p:sec24-29\Feed Products CUPRevision_04131 0
Attachments:
1. Location Map
2. Land Use Plan Map
3. Zoning Map
4. Site Plan (2 sheets)
5. Building Elevations (2 sheets)
6. Floor Plan
7. Applicant's Project Narrative, dated March 1,2010
8. Photo of existing building
9. Aerial photo of site
10. Engineering Report, dated March 26, 2010
11. CUP Resolution
12. Applicant's Plans (separate attachment)
8
.. . ...". ".'.'..m_"'~.'_~_____~_:"":___--'--"~-=_"_~_:__":~:~__~_~_ .:.___M
;!
-,
1
1
:i
Ii
~1
PROPOSED
OFFICE
ADDITION
LOCATION
'j
;1
;!
i
'i
:;
11
lOCATION MAP
r
Attachment 1
~~
CJ
1'1"
r2 0
nlJ
<~~c,,,=~,",,,,,,,,
!llir{>!.'
-
cu
>
e
c.
c.
<(
c:
C)
.-
t/)
CD
C
"C
c:
cu
c
0 ~
Q) Q)
~
.- ()
t/) <{ ~ ~
() ~
~ <{
.- Q) ~ ()
> Q) ~ <{
c. ~ Q)
CD '" () c. ~
"" <{ '" Q)
~ c: ~ "" c.
:J Q) c: '"
c. :J ""
l() c:
c.. '" 0 :J
~ ""
c: ci 0 ~
:J ~ LI'i Q)
:::> l() ~
()
0 ~ N <{
() ~ <0 ~
~
OJ , <0 ~ Q)
:;::: ~ c.
<C! 0
I c: III '"
Q) N ~
:;::: ~ ""
"0 ~ c: c:
t/) .;;; III Q) III :J
Q) :;::: :2 :;:::
t) c: 0
0::: c: '" Q)
.i::' Q) Q) "0 ~
::J :2 0::: .;;; '"
.;;; '" >- Q)
"C c: Q) - 0::: ~
Q) 0::: ';;; <0
e 0 >- c: >- ~ -
- Q) - III c:
s: .;;; 0 .;;; Q) 'u Q)
0 c: c: '" ~ III E
c.. --' Q) E Q) :J Q) 'C c:
:::, 0 ::J 0 "0 E - ~
'" Q)
III ..c: Q) E
~ s: "0 ::J >
"C ::J 0 Q) .2> .~ 0 "0 0
0::: --' 2 :c 2 () c: (9
CD I I I
CD
u...
1D
"'0
U.o
..-
'"
o
o
I'-
Q)
OJ ()
c: III
o C.
:+:::; (f)
::J
_ ..10:: c:
:.;:; I- Q)
'" III C.
c: a.. 0
g~ j
;>.~~
~ ~
~~Q~
r.., t:;
o Q::
?-<~~
~ ~
u 8
z .....;(
en
~"
Q) 0
_ 0
Sn:l -E c>
00
..eN
..cO>
"'~
.- 0
" ~
z:i11
o
Attachment 3
. /
.1;;'..
R1 /
pi .~\.
.i
."..",'
.,
,
i
l=.: /
. .-" {~~"LLUU_
_ ~.....-v-
.~
,..- ~
..,~, -- ...::,-'':;..~,
.....,~
.-.
.....~.. ,to..,
...,.........
>-
t-
U
..
'~'"
(",-'j
-........-.
'F
'. ,,"'.
;.... -
.~...,... .
""
i '
. l
PUO. .
. i t;'L
.' r-r ,:"-'
./.... 1. '! ~,.
'r
...._.1
....-..
t-
~
~
Z
~
u
~
ft
."'
., \ R3
.~ '
~ .~~.~\.
i \\:\'@ '".:
4
11
N
PROPERTY LINE I ZONING MAP
;~
="..:.,:,.:-,'-',/..:,'
, .
<~.,.,
- ,
,
,
, ,
,
,
,
,
,
,
>"'''''''''
,
"
,
,...-... /
, ,
"
,..,.
, ,
, ,
, ,
, '
, '
, '
, '
, '
, '
, '
, '
, '
, ,
, '
, '
, ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
" '
,,\, ,,----
\ \ ,,'/
\ ~ \
, , '
\ 1 ,\
\ \ \
, , ,
\ I' \
>~., \ I \
". " " , ,
\ \1' ;~\- --~~ ~L
.!... l.._-Jo--, ----- r
..\.--\~. ' -- ~
\
/\'
\
\\
\ \ .
\ ~\" ~\'
\{- ,\
\ \t, ~':\
\ \ "
\ \
\\
\\
~.\ \
~ \ \
\\
\\
\\\
\\
\.)-
------- --,--\-~-
....Wl'.._......_..._...,.......~/ ~\ \ \
~/\ \ \
~\ \ \
"\ \~\'
5'.\ \\\
-"&--1, \\~
"C" '.... \\\~
. , \~ \\ '
u D> ....... "-~ ,~.
~ /~\\\
~ ~\ \
'& 7. Y,c\ \~
Q Ol ~ \
~ ~ \l> \ \-
z..y \"
o \Y- \
o
"
-'III
"
:-
Attachment 4
))
:.(11,
o
~_......-, {
, .'
\//
~
~
lfl
.&
<-
~
~
y
~
.&
<-
\li
\I
~
~
"
~
~
(J)
.&
<-
~
~
y
~
<(
-
<"
~
;
C/)
LU
!;i
<(<--
~
(----"1
l':J1:')
~ =
'"
=
.-I
=
<(
::;;;
>,
III
J!!
i:i).
Ol
<:
'5
'5
m
"
Ql
III
o
0..
e
0..
~
.&
<-
-
-~-----
--iii~----
I ".
, ,
..3..!.~~ j"'.'i\;.;r~~=---t -
- '--~
- --
\g
\0
~~
~\)
\ d~
~
\ ~
\G
\
. -'.,,",...
..., '-~-
'. ...--
... 'H_,a__
. '-. ''-.n
., '''-...
. ----
\
Attachment 4
\
( "1
~ =
8 ~
= ,...
<o~.
~.
>"
>~
"'1/y
<Y0
/"
~
~=
@~
~ >>
~ Q)
\]
\~%
~ 0\
~~
Q~
. .__."."._~.,--~.'"^---,---,
.-.-....-..--_._--
- -----~
"
i
-<-
.....<!-......
.-".'-.'-, ".-,--".
Attachment 6
t
",'
, -,~
.zJ~9~.S
.m-,~
"VlEg.,6
...
:"
,,6-.G
','.,
"t; t.~~'''',
~
::I
-
()
::I'
.....
U5
0'>
C
:.;::;
en
'x
Q)
'+-
o
.....
Q)
+-'
Q)
E
";::
Q)
Q..
",
.'
- ~.
,,"IEO~.'tl-
io
"
'"
"'
"'
"
o
o
<(
Q.
~ ~
'0 _
ffi-~
:t: ~
"Y.,6
...0.,9
O-,9Z
"V. ,O~
t
,..
.....,.. ....
...,'
".."
"'"
'" '
.....
. -'
......
....
o
"~""
.'.0
";'.~:.:'
.n.....
........
.~
-"
...
'. Q)"'-.
':~::
o' .'
~.
N
.t=.:...
'. . . ~
. b'
..:. 'm
'. ,.
-.~. ..-.
.~.,
..,...."<:..::~.'r"._..
- -.- "
,-,'.-"-__,-.',...~'"C..'_..
._-.----.-...
..-'-''-'_._'----y.<.-..
Attachment 7
-:>
Feed Products North
1300 Mcknight Rd North.
Maplewood MN, 55109
City of Maplewood
1830 County Rd B
Maplewood MN, 55109
3/1/2010
RE: Conditional Use Permit
We are requesting approval of C.U.P for the addition and remodel of our existing office facilities located
at 1300 McKnight RD North.
The existing structure due to age, is inadequate in both size and function to serve the needs
of Feed Products North.
The proposed expansion will create a 1997 sq/ft building that will serve Feed Products North
adequately for approximately the next ten years. '
The current building is located on a 33 acre parcel, which is zoned M-1 Ught Industrial.
The architectural design ofthe proposed building is a replica of an early 1900's train depot,
Which considering the proximity to the adjacent railway lines would be in keeping with the
Character ofthe property.
The proposed facility would conform to the City of Maplewood':s criteria for approval of Conditional
Use Permit with. no deviation from the City Code's. .
Regards
Jo n C Fallin
o ner
"
- -.-
..,......,.-,,,..--...--,--.
,I
,
,i
~
.:;
jl
"
-;;
j
~
::
Attachment 9
:;;:
~
~ ,;.:!i
III .~ ~~ ~
l:[l.s 1il ~ '" ....~ ~
~]!&!:c~ ~i~~~
n!i"~~.ll.~~'i1
i~&j~]~~~~~~
,', \.\.~'\mi
"
.s
..
'.
.
~
"0
o
"
~ oil
~ g;
" 0
'~i>~
eg.,
,gt1.
.:~ ~~
'E~<a
o p...'.o
~8"
1J e~
l=l~ ~
.g 2"'d
""0
rg.<2",
E1h;
8~~
..s
,~~ ~
go;;; 0
8:;;",
:Eg~
"'co
".'"
15,g]
~..
11 ~:>;
~.s~
~r!'E
-'20-
~""e
'geo
~r5
:;:g
00
;:g"d
.- "
"g.B'i3
.00
~gtl
!SS
t::l@8
c_ "
t:l..!;l<E
h_
1l:;~
'g[;iM
e~"<;
ati~~
.""
~!35
~go
t),?i:Ql
~'lj ~
~ ~ ~
-;;"~j
~;>,3
"",Sf-<
:E~
....0
~.!g
-1le
.
u
00
S
Attachment 10
Enl!ineerinl! Plan Review
PROJECT: Feed Prod nets Bnilding Expansion
PROJECT NO: 10-04
REVIEWED BY: Jon Jaroseh (Maplewood Engineering Department)
SUBMITTAL NO: 1
DATE: 03/25/2010
John Fallin, owner of Feed Products North, Inc. proposing an expansion of the existing office
building at 1300 McKnight Road North. This building expansion would result in a 1,997 square-
foot building. The proposed expansion would be constructed in an area that is currently covered
by paved surfaces.
The applicant shall ensure that the following requirements are met.
Drainage
1. The applicant shall provide a plan detailing how drainage around the proposed expansion
will be handled. This plan should include any downspout locations and flow arrows.
Erosion & Sediment Control Plan
I. The applicant shall identify erosion and sediment control measures to be utilized at the
boundary of the disturbed areas and any stockpiles,
Miscellaneous
I. The applicant shall satisfy the requirements of all other permitting agencies.
2. The applicant shall ensure that the proposed handicap access ramp is ADA compliant.
Attachment 11
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, John Fallin, owner of Feed Products North, applied for a conditional use
permit revision to build an addition to an existing building on property zoned M1 (light
manufacturing) located within 350 feet of residentially-zoned property.
WHEREAS, Section 44-637(b) of the city ordinances require a conditional use permit for
a building in a M1 district closer than 350 feet to residential property. The proposed
building would be on a lot abutting residential property.
WHEREAS, this permit applies to the property located east of 1300 McKnight Road. The
legal description is:
That part of the West Half of the Southwest Quarter of said Section 24, Township 29,
Range 22, Ramsey County, Minnesota bounded as follows:
On the North by a line drawn parallel with and distant 95 feet Southeasterly, as measured
at right angles, from the center line of the main track of said railway company, as now
located and established; on the West by the East line of the West 66 feet of the Southwest
Quarter of Said Section 24 to a point on the West line of said Section 24 which is distant
450 feet South of the Southerly line of the 100 foot right of way of said railway company,
said Southerly line being a line drawn parallel with and 56 feet Southeasterly as measured
at right angles, from the center line of the main track of said railway company as originally
located and established, and on the East by the East line of the Northwest Quarter of the
Southwest Quarter of Section 24; excepting therefrom that part that lies Northwesterly of a
line drawn parallel with and distant 8.5 feet Southeasterly, as measured at right angles from
the center line of the most Southerly side track I.C.C. No. 114 of said railway company, as
now located and established all in the County of Ramsey, state of Minnesota.
EXCEPT that part of said West Half of the Southwest Quarter of said Section 24, lying
westerly of the centerline of the 99 foot wide road easement as described in document
No. 2325930.
WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows:
1, On April 6, 2010, 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 permit revision,
2. On , 2010, the city council considered reports and recommendations
of the city staff and planning commission.
9
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council
described conditional use permit, because:
the above-
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.
10. The proposed trailer will be substantially screened from neighboring single
dwellings.
Revision is subject to the following conditions: (additions are underlined and deletions
are crossed out):
1, All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city.
2. The ~re~ased trailor must llo occu~iod within ono year of oounoil approval or
the permit revision shClllllecame null and void. The cauncil mClY mElond this
deadline far ane year.
a,g. The city council shall review this permit in one year.
4g,. ^ desi€lnated paved pmkin€l area shall not llo required unless tho sito usa€lo
ohan€los in same fashion warranlin€lthe need for sush l3arldn€l spaces. Any
parking spaces provided on site shall be on a paved surface and be striped.
10
431. Update the alarm system at the facility, subject to the approval of the Police
Chief.
99,. Provide several signs along the wetland edge on the warehouse site, The
number and placement of these signs shall be determined by staff. These
signs shall prohibit any building, mowing, cutting, filling or dumping in or
around the wetland.
+2. Submit an industrial storm water protection plan to the Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency for their review and approval.
3. Tho ownor or dO'lolopor shall remo'/o tho tr3ilor from tho Gito boforo tho city
issuos (I building pormit fer any futuro dcvolopmont.
S. Tho SWAm shull romove the trailor from tho sito within fivo yoars. Tho
CauAcil may rono'll this al3pro'lal if the Gwner requests it.
7, The office trailer must be kept in good condition and repair, including the
skirting around the base.
The Maplewood City Council
this resolution on
,2010,
11
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
Michael Martin, City Planner
Michael Thompson, City Engineer! Deputy Director Public Works
Discussion on Frost Avenue Bridge Replacement
April 20, 2010
INTRODUCTION
The Community Design Review Board (CDRB) will discuss replacement options for the Frost Avenue
Bridge which was built in 1930. The Parks Commission and Environmental and Natural Resources
Commission are also invited to the meeting in order to provide feedback.
BACKGROUND
Staff brought this item for discussion to the Historical Preservation Commission (HPC) on April 15th,
2010. A presentation was made regarding the current condition of the bridge and replacement options,
including incorporating existing features into a new bridge. A similar presentation will be made to the
CDRB.
The bridge is a two span earth-filled spandrel concrete barrel arch structure. The bridge is currently in
its original condition except for the addition of guardrails and bituminous overlays. The bridge currently
accommodates two lanes of traffic. The limestone veneer has deteriorated and shown signs of
separation from the underlying wall with chunks of veneer found under the structure. Corrosion of the
rebar is evident by discolored staining on the arches. The most recent inspection provided that the
sufficiency rating of the structure was 48.2 out of 100 which means the bridge is structurally deficient;
making funding available for replacement.
During the HPC meeting, members stated they understood a replacement structure was needed but
wanted to maintain the look and integrity of the current structure. The following is a summary list of
ideas and suggestions from the HPC members:
1) Keep the current look
2) Use a form liner (cast) to replicate the exact texture into a new bridge and match existing colors
3) Salvage some of the existing limestone veneer and incorporate it into a new bridge in some way
4) Keep the character
5) Find a historic rock that is said to be in the area and reinstall a plaque on it
6) Install "Gladstone Ahead" sign to mimic an older sign in the area
BUDGET IMPACT
The city council authorized $140,000 to design a replacement bridge by using a process to explore
alternative designs in order to address stakeholder interest. Once the final design is completed the city
becomes eligible for state bridge funds to be used for the construction of a new bridge.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the CDRB discuss the improvements and provide feedback to staff in order to
proceed with design alternatives.
Attachments:
1) Frost Avenue Bridge Aerial Photo
2) Bridge Photos
Attachment 1
~
.g
g
...;J
~
~
"
""l
~
""l
"
Q
-
"
=
Eo-
rJ'J
o
"
IJ.
c
v
,2
~
"
'"
.~ >.~
n<
,*~a
';'~~
'E ::.S
00.:=
.e g~
o2:~
,~'E.g
:!2~
f~ b
u.::::;
:;;~ ~
,- 0 U
g.: ~
c'..,,.;:::
",;;10
:.Ene;
!- ~!"l
~11
~~:2:
]~3
~~.g
]~-E
.9.= e
'E~ ~
"Ow
.! ~ ~
;~-g
,- .. ..
"t:I~-
g~ 2
~;;1"
r::i...
;;;g~
:::l=0
g~.o
Q.~-
~.g=
-:,.,0
:g~::
sa......
2*"@
:f'''':~
~~.
2si?
e5~
i;~i
.~ 5 ~
g.'~~
;.~~
lS]o
",eo
:.:.J.S!N
~~~
-<~.:;:;
d ~
25 ;2
~
8
"
~
~
Ylaplewood Bridge Maintenance Recommendations
Attachment 2
Photo Date March 22, 2009
Frost Avenue Br #4984
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
James Antonen, City Manager
Michael Martin, AICP, Planner
Development Review Procedure
April 19, 2010
INTRODUCTION
This memo is to inform the community design review board on the development-review
process that the city staff goes through when reviewing land development applications.
Preliminary Review
It is rare that an applicant would submit a request without first contacting a member of
the planning staff to review their proposal. Typically, staff holds one to three preliminary
review sessions with an applicant. Complicated projects like subdivision proposals or
special financing requests like Gethsemane Lutheran Church's TIF (tax increment
financing) application may require additional preliminary meetings.
At a preliminary meeting, city staff reviews developmental issues such as:
. Is the proposal allowed by the zoning?
. Is the proposal in compliance with the comprehensive plan?
. Would the use be appropriate with the neighborhood?
. Is a traffic study and neighborhood meeting recommended?
. Is the building design appropriate?
. Is the site plan well laid out and in compliance with access and parking
requirements? We discuss other issues such as the requirements for lawn irrigation,
handicap-accessible parking needs, trash storage requirements, and site lighting. Is
a comprehensive sign plan required?
. Are there any environmental issues involving shoreland, wetlands, slopes, tree
removal and woodlots?
. Are there utility, grading, drainage, traffic and erosion-control issues?
. Are there any public safety issues such as those affecting fire truck and paramedic
access? Security lighting needs? Building splinkering requirements?
. Review of building code requirements.
. Review of all fees associated with the proposal.
Once an Application is Received
When an applicant submits an application to the planning department, the planner
assigned to the project would involve all applicable city departments, These are usually
engineering, building official, fire marshal, police, environmental planner, city naturalist
and environmental health official as needed. Staff also notifies external agencies like,
the appropriate watershed district (there are three in Maplewood), MnDOT, MnPCA,
Xcel Energy, school districts and the MnDNR.
Staff would provide the pertinent city departments and external agencies with a copy of
the proposal, in narrative and plan form, and request their comments usually within a
one to two week period. The planner then is the coordinating person incorporating all of
the comments received into the report. The comments received help to create the staff
recommendation and conditions of approval.
What Specific Issues Does Each Department Address?
These were touched on above. In summary, the various city departments comment on
the following things:
Enqineerinq: Grading, drainage, erosion control, easement needs, slope assessment as
it relates to site layout and drainage, sidewalk needs, access and street layouts, traffic
considerations. The reviewing engineer will note deficiencies with the civil plans and
recommend needed changes. These conditions will be referenced in the planning
recommendation either by reference to the engineer's report or by restating those
conditions.
Police and Fire: Security lighting, construction security, intrusion alarms, traffic and any
potential nuisances. Common nuisances are those involving lighting glare, noise and
traffic increase.
Environmental. Open Space and Parks: Wetlands, shorelands, slope impacts, tree
removal and tree preservation, open space impacts, pedestrian trail and park needs and
park impacts.
Planninq: Site and building design considerations, land use considerations such as
zoning and comprehensive plan compliance, involvement of the neighborhood to get
their input and coordination of all comments received from other city departments and
outside agencies.
Timeline for City Review
State Statute Number 15.99 requires that city's review and decide on land use requests
within 60 days of receiving a complete application. The city, however, may add an
additional 60 days to this review period at our discretion. After that, any future
extensions must be by written agreement or request by the applicant. One example of
multiple extensions is the Gethsemane Senior Housing proposal, which had four such
extensions due to the complexity of that proposal.
2
City Council Decision and Building Permit
Once the staff and advisory committees complete their reviews, the proposal is
forwarded to the city council for a final decision.
After the city council approves the project and development plans, the applicant may
apply for a building permit. At that time, staff makes sure that the applicant has met all
city council conditions. Staff continues inspecting the construction project through to
completion. The building department will assure that the construction meets all building
codes. All involved city staff will do their part to assure that the civil engineering,
architectural and site plans (including all site amenities) comply with the approved plans
and conditions of approval.
Staff Available for Comment
Michael Thompson and Michael Martin will be available at the meeting for questions and
comments by the community design review board.
p:\ community design review board\in service training\development review process memo_042710
3
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
James Antonen, City Manager
Michael Martin, AICP, Planner
Advisory Committees and Application Fees
April 19, 2010
INTRODUCTION
In conjunction with the presentation of the city's development-review process, staff
wanted to give an explanation of the various city advisory committees and their areas of
review. Staff is also including a list of the community development and parks
departments' 2010 application fees.
DISCUSSION
The City of Maplewood has eight established advisory committees. They provide advice
and recommendations to the city council on matters concerning their specific areas of
concern and expertise. The following is a brief description of each group:
Business and Economic Development Commission-7 Members
The business and economic development commission is the city's newest commission.
Three of its seven members must be Maplewood business owners. This commission
advises the city council and Maplewood economic development authority on issues
relating to development and redevelopment. The commission will also provide
comments on appropriate land use proposals.
Planning Commission-9 Members
The planning commission is responsible for preparing the comprehensive plan, advising
the city council on all land use matters, subdivision proposals and all
development/redevelopment proposals, The only exception would be those issues that
are entirely design related. The community design review board would review these
issues.
Community Design Review Board-5 Members
The community design review board reviews building design, site plans, landscape plans
and comprehensive sign plans. When there are no zoning or land use plan issues, the
CDRB has approval authority. Their decision is not forwarded to the planning
commission or city council. All CDRB decisions can be appealed to the council,
however, during a 15-day appeal period following their actions,
Housing and Redevelopment Authority-5 Members
The housing and redevelopment authority reviews housing proposals and
redevelopment plans, code enforcement as it relates to neighborhood upkeep and
neighborhood quality and reviews housing financing proposals such TIF (tax increment
financing). In recent months, the HRA has been following mortgage forfeitures in
Maplewood to consider those impacts on the city,
Park and Recreation Commission-9 Members
The parks commission reviews issues such as land acquisition for parks, park
development, open space management, trail provision and sports and leisure programs.
Environmental and Natural Resources Commission-7 Members
The mission of the environmental and natural resources commission is to preserve,
protect and enhance the city's environmental assets and to work with other city
commissions to establish appropriate ordinance controls and policies.
Historical Preservation Commission-8 Members
The goal of the historical preservation commission is to protect the city's heritage by
preserving, conserving and wisely using the significant historical, cultural, architectural or
archeological objects, structures and sites in the city.
Police Civil Service Commission-3 Members
The police civil service commission does not review development matters, as do the
above commissions. The police civil service commission is responsible for overseeing
the selection process for sworn officers and acting as a hearing body for discipline and
discharge issues for the Maplewood Police Department.
FEES
Staff has also included the 2010 community development application fees for the various
applications we process,
p:\ community design review board\in service training\ advisory committees_042710
Attachment:
1. 2009 Community Development Application Fees
2
2010 Community Development Fees
Attachment 1
Administrative variance $ 500
Building Relocation $ 925
Comp Plan Amendment $1,650'
Conditional Use Permit $1,650'
CUP Revision $1,000'
Final Plat $ 430
Front Yard Setback Auth $ 500
Home Occupation $1,385
Lot Divisions $ 500'
Planned Unit Developrnent $2,735"
Preliminary Plat $2,050
Prelim Plat Revision or Extension $ 990
Public Vacation $1,200'
Rezoning $1,650'
Variance $1,385'
Woodlot Alteration Permit $ 375
Comrnunity Design Review
Cornm/Multi-family
Minor Construction
Residential
Revision
Comp Sign Plan
PLANNING FEES
COPIES
Comprehensive Plan ($46.95 + 3.05) $50
Sign Code (4,69 + .31) $ 5
Zoning Code (37,56 + 2.44) $40
Zoning Map (4.69 + ,31) $ 5
Annual PC & CDRB Minutes $20
Annual PC & CDRB Packets $125
8Y,"x11"
(no charge if under $1)
$ .25 per page
+ sales tax
Large format copies
$5.00 per page
+ sales tax
HEALTH FEES
$1,650
$ 500
$ 500
$ 500
$ 500
Restaurant Plan Review - Existing $325
Restaurant Plan Review - New $675
'plus $46 for county recording fee - #3683
$ 130
$ 150
$ 75
$ 130
$ 30
$ 100
$ 500
Tax-Exempt Mortgage Revenue Financing-
Commercial
Amt paid with application (non-refundable)* $3,400
Base charge (% of bond issue) 1%
Maximum (in addition to application fee) $28,600
MISCELLANEOUS SERVICE FEES
Contractor License
On-site Sewage Systerns
Property Owner List
Truth-in-Housing License
Truth-in-Housing Filing Fee
Zoning Compliance Letter
Abaternent Fee
SIGNS
Tax-Exempt Mortgage Revenue Financing-
Residential (multiple-family dwellings):
Amt paid with application (non-refundable)*
Base charge (% of bond issue)
Maximum (in addition to application fee)
$3,400
1%
$28,600
Tax Increment Financing:
Application Fee (non-refundable)
$6,760
*No application fee on refinancing bonds.
Billboard Sign Permit $ 500
Dynarnic Display Sign Permit $ 175
Freestanding Sign Permit $ 175
Project Notification Sign $ 200
Temporary Sign Permit $ 45
Wall Sign Permit $ 110
Wetland Sign $30 + tax =$ 31.95
Wetland Sign Installed $65 + tax=$ 69.23
plofficeldept fees\201 0 CD Fees