HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/08/1998 b. Disc~
10, Adjourn
p:com-dvpt\cdrb.
AGENDA
MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
September 8, 1998
6:00 P.M.
City Council Chambers
Maplewood City Hall
1830 East County Road B
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Approval of Minutes - July 28, 1998
4. Approval of Agenda
5. Unfinished Business
6. Design Review
a. Telecommunications Tower, 1221 Frost Avenue - Sprint PCS
b. Carver Elementary School Parking Lot Expansion, 2680 Upper Afton
Road - ATS&R, Inc.
c. Battle Creek Regional Park Aquatic Facility, Upper Afton Road and McKnight
Road - Ramsey County
7. Visitor Presentations
8. Board Presentations
9. Staff Presentations
a. CDRB Representative Needed for City Council Meetings on September
14 arid 28
~ssion about the 1998 Summer Tour
~gd
MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA
SEPTEMBER 8, 1998
CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Erickson called the meeting to order at 6 p.m.
II. ROLL CALL
Marvin Erickson
Marie Robinson
Ananth Shankar
Tim Johnson
Matt Ledvina
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present (arrived at 7:22 p.m.)
i11. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
July 28, 1998
Boardmember Shankar moved approval of the minutes of July 28, 1998 as submitted.
Boardmember Johnson seconded. Ayes--all
The motion passed.
IV. APPROVAL OFAGENDA
VI.
Boardmember Robinson moved approval of the agenda as submitted.
Boardmember Johnson seconded.
The motion passed.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
None
DESIGN REVIEW
A.
Ayes--all
Telecommunications Tower, 1221 Frost Avenue - Sprint PCS
David Hagen of Loucks and Associates, representing Sprint PCS, was present. Mr.
Hagen said the proposal involves construction of an 80-foot monopole on the property
located at 1221 Frost Avenue, known as Al's Auto Service. Mr. Hagen said they
Community Design Review Board
Minutes of 09-08-98
-2-
believe the site plan complies with all of the requirements of the city's
telecommunications ordinance relating to setbacks, screening, and so forth. Mr.
Hagen passed around an 8 x 10 photo simulation of what the tower and antenna
would look like from Frost Avenue on the site.
Boardmember Erickson asked if the shed that now exists on the site would be taken
out. Mr. Hagen said there was a garage. Boardmember Erickson said there was a
garage at the fence and behind it was a shed. Mr. Hagen said their leased area and
fenced in compound area would be located directly behind the garage. Mr. Hagen
said there was a portable shelter to the west of the garage that would stay in place.
Mr. Hagen said that the compound area they would be fencing in for their equipment,
and for the equipment of collocators, is located right behind the garage.
Boardmember Erickson asked if the fencing that was shown would be in addition to
the fencing that is already there for Al's Auto. Mr. Hagen said that was correct. Mr.
Hagen said they were proposing a six-foot high chainlink fence with their standard
security measures on top to prevent people from getting into the compound area
where the base station and tower would be located.
The board discussed the tower height and the proposed landscaping with the
applicant.
Boardmember Shankar asked if the applicant would be painting the equipment on the
platform the same color as the tower. Mr. Hagen said that typically their ground
equipment is in a cabinet that comes in an off-white color and that is what they would
propose rather than painting it.
Boardmember Johnson asked if the applicant had said there was some type of
security on top of the fence. Mr. Hagen said that was right and that typically they put
barbed wire on top to discourage people from climbing inside the compound and
possibly climbing the tower or messing around with the equipment at the base of the
tower.
Boardmember Robinson said there was some concern about not removing any of the
trees on the north side of the property and asked if the applicant was in agreement
with that. Mr. Hagen said they had no problem with that.
Boardmember Robinson asked if the applicant was aware that, before getting a
building permit, the owner would have to dispose of the debris and the unused motor
vehicles, etc. Mr. Hagen said they were aware of this and have had conversations
with the owner. Mr. Hagen said the owner has indicated a desire to continue to
operate an impound lot for D & D Towing, which is based on the same property and
does a lot of towing for the Maplewood Police Department. Boardmember Robinson
asked if staff was aware that this property was used as an impound lot. Staff said
they were aware of this and that staff's recommendation did not affect this.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes of 09-08-98
-3-
Boardmember Erickson asked the public if there was anyone who would like to
address this issue. No one came forward.
Boardmember Robinson moved to approve the site and landscape plans date-
stamped August 17, 1998, and the elevations date-stamped August 8, 1997 for a
telecommunications antenna and equipment on the property at 1221 Frost Avenue.
Approval is based on the findings required by code and subject to the applicant doing
the following:
Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued permits for this
project.
Before getting a building permit, provide a grading, drainage, driveway and
erosion control plan to the city engineer for approval. Specifically, these plans
shall meet the following conditions:
a. The erosion control plan shall meet all ordinance requirements.
b. There shall be a 12-foot-wide bituminous driveway from the existing
bituminous in the parking lot to the tower site.
Before getting a building permit, the owner shall remove and dispose of any
debris, unused motor vehicles, motor vehicle equipment or parts, tires and
ensure that the site is cleaned up.
4. The owner or occupant may not remove any of the existing trees on the north
side of the property
5. If any required work is not done, the city may allow temporary occupancy if:
a. The city determines that the work is not essential to the public health, safety
or welfare.
bo
The city receives cash escrow for the required work. The amount shall be
200 percent of the cost of the unfinished work. Any unfinished landscaping
shall be completed by June I if the building is occupied in the fall or winter,
or within six weeks of occupancy if the building is occupied in the spring or
summer.
The city receives an agreement that will allow the city to complete any
unfinished work.
6. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development
may approve minor changes.
Boardmember Johnson seconded. Ayes--all
Community Design Review Board
Minutes of 09-08~98
-4-
B. Carver Elementa~j School Parking Lot Expansion, 2680 Upper Alton Road -
ATS&R, Inc.
Todd VVichman, landscape architect with Armstrong, Torseth, Skold & Rydeen, Inc.
(ATS&R, Inc.), was present. Mr. Wichman said that they agreed with all of the staff
recommendations. Mr. Wichman said that originally there was a parking lot proposed
on the west side of the building and the school district would like to take that same
number of stalls and put them on the east side of the building to serve an east entry
that has since been added. Mr. Wichman said they were asking that the conditional
use permit be amended to show that change in the original 1995 conditional use
permit (CUP) approved plan.
Boardmember Erickson asked Mr. Wichman if the reason why the parking lot was
changed from the west to the east side was because of the entrance. Mr. Wichman
said it was primarily because of the entrance and school staff wanting to have closer
access to the building. Mr. Wichman said the owner also deemed that it was an
underutilized portion of the site and that they wanted to retain the western portion as it
is now for both athletic and recreational purposes. Mr. Wichman said that the east
site also abuts the clinic parking lot and some other parking lots so they felt it was a
compatible use in terms of not being as visible to the residential areas to the west and
across Upper Afton.
Boardmember Shankar asked if there was an elevator on the east side. Mr. Wichman
said there was an elevator once you go up the steps to enter that portion of the
building. Mr. Wichman said it would be used for their primary loading zone for
bringing in equipment to the school.
Boardmember Erickson asked if the islands were just concrete. Mr. Wichman said
the owner would like to propose landscape rock for maintenance purposes. Mr.
Wichman said that staff has asked them to provide a tree in each one of the islands
as well.
Boardmember Robinson asked what kind of trees they were proposing for those
islands. Mr. Wichman said they would go with an ash or maple. Mr. Wichman said
that the pin oaks that are there now do quite well in the boulevard but they weren't
sure how they would do in the island.
Boardmember Erickson said that staff's recommendation was to remove the two pin
oak trees into the landscaped medium. Mr. VVichman said that was an off site
location. Mr. Wichman said the driveway coming into the parking lot from Upper
Afton does impact the location of the two pin oaks that are located on city property
and they would prefer these trees be relocated somewhere on site. Mr. Wichman
said staff has suggested placing them to the east on the landscape boulevard on
Upper Afton Road near McKnight.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes of 09-08-98
-5-
Boardmember Erickson asked staff if the trees would be moved off the property. Staff
said they would be moved about a mile down the road. Staff said it was the city
engineer's suggestion that, because some of the trees didn't fare well when the city
did extensive planting along Upper Alton Road back in 1990, this was an opportunity
to try to take some of the boulevard trees that were planted and move them back into
the blank spots further down Upper Afton Road. Boardmember Erickson asked staff
to find out if these two pin oak trees can be moved at this time of the year and live.
Boardmember Erickson asked if there was anyone in the audience who had questions
on this project. Fred McCormack, 230 Crestview Drive North, said his son attends
Carver Elementary and he felt the school desperately needs more parking.
Boardmember Shankar moved to approve the plans stamped August 14, 1998 for the
proposed parking lot expansion at Carver Elementary School. The applicant shall do
the following:
1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a permit for this project.
2. Complete the following before occupying the additions:
a. Restore and sod damaged boulevards.
Install continuous concrete curbing around the proposed parking and drive
areas. (code requirement)
Install site security lighting. (code requirement) Lighting shall not exceed
one foot-candle of light at any residential property line. The property owner
shall shield or aim the lights so the light source is not visible.
Move the two pin oak trees into the landscaped median in Upper Alton
Road near McKnight Road, subject to the city engineer's and staff's
approval.
Plant a 2 ~-inch-caliper, balled and burlapped tree in each island within the
proposed parking lot. Ornamental trees, such as crab apple trees, may be
1 ~ inches in caliper.
Remove the second dumpster that is out in the open or provide a larger
enclosure to conceal both dumpsters.
g. Provide a sidewalk from the northerly building entrance to the proposed
parking lot.
3. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development
may approve minor changes.
Boardmember Ledvina seconded.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes of 09-08-98
-6-
Co
Commissioner Erickson asked if, under B.2.e. of the staff report, we want to
recommend that the trees be the same as in the other medians. Staff said the code
has two different size requirements. If it is an ornamental tree they need to be 1-1/2
inches in caliper and if it is a standard shade tree they need to be 2-1/2 inches in
caliper. Staff said they can plant whichever variety of tree they wish as long as it
meets those sizes.
Ayes--all.
Battle Creek Regional Park Aquatic Facility, Upper Afton Road and McKnight Road -
Ramsey County
Boardmember Erickson stated, for the audience's benefit, that the community design
review board makes recommendations to the city council on the design of the building
only. The board will also be addressing the wetland variance issue.
Greg Mack, director of parks and recreation for Ramsey County, Steve Patrick, who is
with the architectural firm that prepared the building plans, and Larry Holmberg of
Ramsey County's staff, who is a landscape architect, were present.
Mr. Mack gave some background on Battle Creek Regional Park. Mr. Mack said one
of the elements within the master plan of the regional park was to provide a water
recreation area and since 1996 they have been working on various designs for this.
The plan they have come up with is a one and a half acre site that is made up of three
components which are as follows: a sand play component, an interactive water play
component, and a water slide component and each would flow into a different pond.
Boardmember Erickson asked if the sand play component had a fence around it. Mr.
Mack said that it would have an exterior fence and an interior fence around it.
Mr. Mack said the entry control into this area is a building which houses a shower
facility, a changing area, a bather prep, a lifeguard station, restrooms, and a small
office for fee collection. There would be fencing around the entire complex and
access would be through the central corridor. This building would also house all of
the water circulation and purification systems. This aquatic facility would be
constructed next to and take advantage of an existing 275 car parking lot that is in the
park, and in addition to that, they are proposing to construct a 150 car overfill parking
lot that would be on the south side of Upper Alton Road, with a connecting trail for
peak use of the facility and picnic area.
Boardmember Ledvina asked if there had been any effort to coordinate the design of
the building with the existing pavilion. Mr. Patrick said there wasn't because they are
totally separate structures. Mr. Mack said they have been looking at bringing the two
together with a roof system.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes of 09-08-98
-7-
Mr. Holmberg used a map to show the location of the proposed facility to the existing
facilities within the site, the adjacent properties, and the parking lot on the south side
of Upper Afton. Mr. Holmberg then discussed the wetland setbacks from the
development's fenced area which is 55 feet and from the corner of the parking lot
which is 70 feet.
Boardmember Robinson asked if thero had been any consideration of having a
crosswalk over Upper Alton for safety purposes. Mr. Holmberg said that because it is
flat on both sides in relation to the road people would walk across the road and not
use the bridge because of having to use steps or a ramp to get up on the bridge. Mr.
Holmberg said it would also be difficult and costly to put handicap accessible ramps
on the bridge. Mr. Holmberg felt that a crosswalk would be acceptable because the
traffic volumes on Upper Afton Road were not very high.
Boardmember Erickson asked if, being the park is 840 acres, there was a place on
the south side where the facility could be put. Mr. Mack said the original proposal
was to have the facility south of Upper Afton Road but, after considerable review, the
County Board felt that the natural part of the park area should be left alone and they
opted to move the facility to the north where there was already developed activity and
where there was an existing parking lot that could be taken advantage of. Mr. Mack
said they took it to the Metropolitan Council and they accepted the amendment of the
relocation.
Boardmember Erickson asked if there was anyplace on the north side of Upper Alton
Road going west where the facility could be put that wouldn't impact the wetland. Mr.
Holmberg said that were problems with flooding in this area during heavy rainfalls
because of how the flow of Battle Creek is distributed. There was a further discussion
about drainage into the wetland. Boardmember Erickson asked staff if the Corp of
Engineers gets involved with this. Staff said that by the city's definition it is a class
one wetland but the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District is the body that
will review the drainage elements. Staff said it is the city code that specifies what the
setback has to be.
Boardmember Erickson asked if there was exterior lighting on the building. Mr. Mack
said there was exterior lighting for security purposes only, with down lighting under
the soffits. Boardmember Erickson asked what the hours of operation would be. Mr.
Mack said it would be similar to their beach operations, which are Memorial Day to
Labor Day and from 11:00 a.m. to 8:30 p.m. Boardmember Robinson asked how
many of the facility's staff would require parking. Mr. Mack said it would be between
five and ten.
Mr. Mack had comments on the recommendations in the staff report. Mr. Mack said
that, regarding Item A of the staff report, they hoped the board would give
consideration to their variance request because of the hardship it would cause their
Community Design Review Board
Minutes of 09-08-98
-8-
construction if they had to move farther to the north. Mr. Mack added that once they
completed construction the 55-foot buffer that would remain would be a fence buffer
with very little opportunity to ever get in that area, so it would be controlled access in
that space.
Mr. Mack said that under Item B.3.c. it talks about dedicating a wetland buffer zone.
Mr. Mack said if the city council grants the variance then the zone would be
somewhat less than 100 feet. There are several wetlands throughout Battle Creek
Regional Park and to impose this kind of a transfer of rights to the city seems a little
bit extraordinary. Mr. Mack said that they are in the business of parks, there are
ponds all over, and several class one wetlands, in this case, Mr. Mack, said if the
variance was not granted the city would be asking them to give the city a recorded
easement over an area they are not even impacting.
Mr. Mack said that, as far as Item B.3.d. goes, once the level is established they
would feel comfortable with putting up signs if the city thinks that would be necessary
for maintaining the distance. Mr. Mack said they could put up signs that would say
keep back or don't mow, etc. Mr. Mack said they currently have a parking lot that is
within 70 feet of the wetland and they are currently maintaining a mowed picnic area
which is within 30 feet of the wetland. If there was no variance granted it would be
difficult for them just maintaining the current operation. Mr. Mack said they accept all
the other staff recommendations as stated and would like to proceed with the project.
Boardmember Erickson asked staff, in regard to Items B.3.c. and d., that if the facility
is built there when the city council grants the variance would these things then have to
take place. Staff said yes and that, even if the council was to deny the variance and
required the shifting of the building to meet the 100-foot buffer, the city would still
want the wetland buffer signs put up which is what the code requires.
Mr. Mack wanted to know why there weren't wetland easements for the other
wetlands in the park. Melinda Coleman, Director of Community Development, said
the reason the city didn't have wetland easements up all over was because the
ordinance was recently adopted, so the city is catching up and getting wetland
easements as development projects come in. Mrs. Coleman said Mr. Mack had
raised a good issue about requiring another public agency to give the city an
easement and she was going to run that by the city attorney between now and the
time this goes to council.
Boardmember Erickson opened up the discussion for the public to be heard.
Gary Sherburne, 137 Crestview Drive, said he was there representing the
neighborhood and that their greatest concern was the noise that would be generated
by this type of facility. Mr. Sherburne brought a boom box and a tape with
background noise of the nature that would be generated by this kind of a facility and
said he could play it for the board. Mr. Sherburne also had a sound level meter with
him. Mr. Sherburne said that the level of noise which had been measured at the
fence of a similar facility was 65 decibels. Mr. Sherburne said they are requesting
Community Design Review Board
Minutes of 09-08-98
-9-
that a sound barrier wall be put around the facility rather than the chainlink fence that
is proposed and that there be design elements within the facility to dampen the sound
as much as possible.
Mr. Sherburne said that as far as the wetland setback variance is concerned they
would all be in support of the variance to keep the facility as far south as possible. He
said that an extra 80-feet closer would be disastrous and would push the noise level
up a couple of more decibels.
Tom Ekstrand, associate planner, said he had talked to Brian Timerson at the PCA
Noise Division and Brian did say that it is very hard to measure the decibel level of a
human voice. Mr. Timerson had said that he didn't feel this would be a problem
based on what he knew of this type of noise and he didn't think the noise level of 65
decibels would be exceeded. Mr. Ekstrand said that what he was hearing tonight was
that the noise level right at the edge of the facility was 65 decibels, therefore, if you
took that back the length of a football field there shouldn't be any noise violation
occurring at the homes, which confirms what Mr. Timerson said.
Hank Dembiczak, 140 Crestivew Drive, said that one of the things that has been
noted at similar facilities is that amplification is being used to control the activities and
it gets very loud, much more than the 65 decibels.
Mr. Mack said they do put amplifiers into their buildings that they use for
announcements that are necessary. Mr. Mack did say they have been working on
better ways to manage the noise levels at their various beach facilities. This summer
they started using the old type of amplification of paper and plastic, instead of the
more noisy hand held battery operated megaphones.
There was a discussion about a sound barrier for this area.
Mr. Dembiczak said that, in answer to Mr. Mack's comment about a sound barrier
being unattractive and out of character for this area, he feels the water slide is
unattractive and out of character for this area.
Jean Ashley, 2466 Brookview Drive, said that the real reason this facility wasn't being
built on Site B was because all the residents in that area really put up a fuss. There
were several large meetings that were packed with people who didn't want it at all and
there was enough pressure put on the commissioners that the project there was
stopped. She said Mr. Mack asked people at the final meeting if anyone would object
to a wading pool in the north side of the park. Nobody had a problem with a wading
pool. He didn't say anything about a water park at that time and had he, there would
have been another fuss.
Lee Kuhn, 2481 Brookview Drive, said he had thanked staff for the letter notifying him
of the meeting tonight. Mr. Kuhn said if they had letters leading up to this thing it
probably would have never gotten to this stage. Mr. Kuhn said that if granting the
variance hinders the project he would urge the board to do so.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes of 09-08-98
-10-
Fred McCormick, 230 Crestview Drive, said his issue was with the parking. Mr.
McCormick didn't feel the parking was going to be adequate with the overflow
situation that is being proposed. Mr. McCormick said people would be forced to cross
a busy street. Mr. McCormick felt the safety issues should be of major concern. The
suggestion of a foot bridge over the street is one that he would support.
Howard Freeman, 131 Crestview Drive, said he lived in the corner property. Mr.
Freeman is against this project. Mr. Freeman felt security access would be restricted
by putting this facility into the hillside as planned. Mr. Freeman said there was
already a security problem in the pavilion. Mr. Freeman felt that security problems
would be less if this facility were across the street and out in the open. Mr. Freeman
said that the sound barrier while it might help the sound is just going to create more of
a problem because you can't see what's going on. Mr. Freeman also made some
comments about the changing rooms in the facility and safety issues in crossing
Upper Afton Road.
Ronald Schlangen, 130 Crestivew Drive, said this facility would be in his backyard
and he doesn't want it there. He asked that if this facility was going to be put there
that the city take the time to do the research on the noise levels and mitigate the
sound.
Kathleen Schlangen, 130 Crestview Drive, said that a meeting in April Mr. Mack
promised they would work with neighbors on design to control sound. She didn't feel
this was done and that they needed someone's help. She also said it seemed silly to
her to have one structure in the park of one design, concrete, and to have just feet
away another building in a completely different style. She said it just doesn't flow.
Joseph Grill, 27 Mayhill Road, said that Upper Afton Road was a very busy street. He
also said that to have a parking lot on the south side was ridiculous when there was
already a parking lot on lower Afton. He also said that a lot of older people enjoy
walking on the north side because it is a shorter distance than on the south side. He
said if this facility is put in it would completely change the type of park it is now. It
won't be a nice quiet place for the older people in the neighborhood to walk around in
anymore. He doubted there would be any wildlife coming to that area anymore once
this facility is built.
Boardmember Erickson closed the public part of the meeting. There was a
discussion between the boardmembers and staff regarding the wetland variance.
Boardmember Erickson asked whether Item B.3.c. and d. of the staff report should be
deleted for further review. Staff will investigate this and report to the council on their
findings°
Community Design Review Board
Minutes of 09-08-98
-11-
Boardmember Ledvina moved to recommend that the city council:
Approve the variance request for a 35-foot encroachment into the required 100-
foot-wide wetland protection buffer around the class 1 wetland south of the
proposed aquatic facility. This variance would be such where no permanent
structures would be constructed within the 100-foot-wide easement. The
applicant would be required to restore the wetland vegetation to its existing
condition to the extent possible following construction.
Approve the plans (stamped August 18, 1998) for the proposed Battle Creek
Regional Park Aquatic Facility, based on the findings by the code. The property
owner, Ramsey County, shall do the following:
1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for
this project.
2. Provide the following before the city issues grading or building permits for
the proposed aquatic facility:
A detailed grading, drainage and erosion control plan, subject to the
city engineer's approval. This plan shall show at least 65 feet of
undisturbed wetland-protection buffer from the adjacent wetland.
b. A revised landscape plan that identifies the proposed plantings around
the aquatic facility.
A revised landscape plan for the overflow parking lot that shows the
relocation of the five boulevard trees to be removed for the new curb
cut. The applicant shall move these trees to the north side of the
proposed parking lot.
3. Complete the following before occupying the building:
a. Install a reflectorized stop sign at the exit from the proposed overflow
parking lot at Upper Alton Road.
Construct a trash dumpster enclosure for any outside trash containers
for this facility. (code requirement) The enclosures must by 100
percent opaque, match the color of the building and have a closeable
gate that extends to the ground.
Dedicate and record a wetland-buffer easement for the wetland buffer
south of the aquatic facility. This easement shall describe the
boundary of the wetland buffer and prohibit any building, mowing,
cutting, filling or dumping within the buffer.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes of 09-08-98
-12-
Install wetland-protection buffer signs along the wetland buffer south of
the aquatic facility. These signs shall state that there shall be no
building, mowing, cutting, filling or dumping within the buffer.
4. If any required work is not done, the city may allow temporary occupancy if:
The city determines that the work is not essential to the public health,
safety or welfare.
The city receives a cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit for the
required work. The amount shall be 200% of the cost of the unfinished
work.
The city receives an agreement that will allow the city to complete any
unfinished work.
5. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community
development may approve minor changes.
6. Staff shall investigate conditions 3. c. and d. above to determine if they are
required by ordinance.
Boardmember Johnson seconded.
The motion passed.
Ayes--all
VII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS
There were no visitor presentations.
VIII. BOARD PRESENTATIONS
Boardmember Johnson discussed the Gervais Court review at the last city council
meeting.
Xi. STAFF PRESENTATIONS
Representative for September 28, 1998 City Council Meeting: Mr. Erickson will attend this
meeting.
X. ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 8:42 p.m.