HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-03-22 CDRB Packet
AGENDA
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
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. January 11, 2011
5. Unfinished Business:
6. Design Review:
a. Comprehensive Sign Plan Amendment, Maplewood Square Shopping Center 3035
White Bear Avenue
b. Ramsey County Park Shelters, Keller Regional Park
7. Visitor Presentations:
8. Board Presentations:
9. Staff Presentations:
a. Complete Streets
b. 2010 Annual Report
c. Election of Officers
10. Adjourn
DRAFT
MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA
TUESDAY, JANUARY 11, 2011
1. CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Ledvina called the meeting to order at 6:01 p.m.
2. ROLL CALL
Boardmember Jason Lamers
Chairperson Matt Ledvina
Boardmember Michael Mireau
Boardmember Ananth Shankar
Vice Chairperson Matt Wise
Absent
Present
Present
Present
Present, arrived at 6:09
Staff Present:
Michael Martin, Planner
Michael Thompson, City Engineer
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Boardmember Shankar moved to approve the aqenda as presented.
Boardmember Mireau seconded the motion.
Ayes - All
The motion passed.
4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Boardmember Mireau moved to approve the minutes of the September 28. 2010. minutes as
presented.
Boardmember Shankar seconded the motion.
Ayes - All
The motion passed.
Boardmember Shankar moved to approve the minutes of the November 23. 2010. minutes as
presented.
Boardmember Mireau seconded the motion.
Ayes - Boardmembers Mireau,
Shankar & Wise
Abstention - Chairperson Ledvina
The motion passed.
January 11, 2011
Community Design Review Board Meeting Minutes
1
5. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
None
6. DESIGN REVIEW
a. Design and Comprehensive Sign Plan Approval - Metro Transit Park and Ride
Ramp, Northeast Corner of Beam Avenue and Southlawn Drive
1. Planner, Michael Martin gave the report and answered questions of the board.
2. Applicant, Lindsey Sheppard, Project Manager, Metro Transit Engineering & Facilities,
Minneapolis, addressed the board.
3. Gary Milne Rojek, Principal Architect, Bentz, Thompson, Rietow, gave the report and
answered questions of the board.
Chairperson Ledvina moved to approve the parkinq-ramp desiqn plans, the site plan, the
liqhtinq plan, and the landscapinq plan date-stamped December 2, 2010, for the proposed
parkinq ramp proposal for Metro Transit at the northeast corner of Beam Avenue and
Southlawn Drive. The applicant shall complv with the followinq conditions: (additions are
in bold and underlined)
1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this
project.
2. Submit a revised photometric plan for staff approval displaying code compliance.
3. Comply with any and all requirements in Virginia Gaynor's report, dated December 22,
2010.
4. Comply with any and all requirements in Steve Kummer's report, dated December 20,
2010.
5. Submit an irrevocable letter of credit or cash escrow in the amount of 150 percent of
the cost of completing the landscaping and site lighting.
6. These items must be provided before the city shall issue a building permit.
7. All work shall follow the approved plans. Planning staff may approve minor changes.
8. The applicant shall work with the support lines behind the metal panels similar
with how the applicant has worked with the precast reveal lines.
Chairperson Ledvina moved to approve the comprehensive siqn plan for the proposed
parkinq ramp proposal for Metro Transit at the northeast corner of Beam Avenue and
Southlawn Drive. The applicant shall complv with the followinq conditions:
1. All signs shall follow the approved plans. Planning staff may approve minor changes.
2. Any major changes to the comprehensive sign plan must be approved by the CDRB.
Seconded by Board member Wise.
Ayes - All
January 11, 2011
Community Design Review Board Meeting Minutes
2
A friendly amendment was added by Board Shankar that the applicant shall work with the
support lines behind the metal panels similar with how the applicant has worked with the
precast reveal lines.
The friendly amendment was accepted by the motioner and the seconder.
The motion passed.
7. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS
None
8. BOARD PRESENTATIONS
None
9. STAFF PRESENTATIONS
a. Election of Officers
Chairperson Ledvina moved to table the election of officers until all boardmembers can be
present.
Seconded by Boardmember Wise.
The motion passed.
The next CDRB meeting will be February 22, 2011.
10. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned by Chairperson Ledvina at 6:48 p.m.
January 11, 2011
Community Design Review Board Meeting Minutes
3
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
LOCATION:
DATE:
James Antonen, City Manager
Michael Martin, AICP, Planner
Comprehensive Sign Plan Amendment, Maplewood Square Shopping
Center
3035 White Bear Avenue
March 14, 2011
INTRODUCTION
Thomas Schuette, of Azure Properties, is requesting approval of a comprehensive sign plan
amendment for the Maplewood Square Shopping Center, located at 3035 White Bear Avenue.
Azure Properties owns the building. The site currently has a comprehensive sign plan in place
that regulates the placement and size of signs for each tenant. Comprehensive sign plans are
required for commercial buildings with five or more tenants.
Request
The applicant is proposing to install a dynamic display sign that would display advertisements for
the center's various tenants. The current comprehensive sign plan does not contain language
allowing this type of sign and city code requires dynamic display signs to be reviewed by the
community design review board (CDRB). See the attached plan for the proposed dynamic
display sign.
BACKGROUND
July 14, 1977: The city council approved the plans to build this shopping center.
October 26, 1992: The city council revised the sign plan for the Maplewood Square Shopping
Center to move the tenant signs from the lower fascia to the upper fascia for better visibility.
DISCUSSION
Azure Properties, owner of the Maplewood Square Shopping Center, is requesting city approval
to install a 37.9 square-foot dynamic display sign at 3035 White Bear Avenue. The sign location
is proposed on the north side of the building near the northeast corner. City ordinance requires
a dynamic display sign to be setback at least 100 feet from a side property line. The proposed
location faces a street so this requirement is being met. In order for the applicant to move
forward with this request the CDRB must approve an amendment to the site's comprehensive
sign plan. The dynamic display ordinance is attached to this report and if approved the property
owner would be required to abide by all the regulations. The owner would also be required to
receive an annual license from the city in order to operate the dynamic display sign. Staff was
verbally told by the applicant that although the sign is located within the Dive Bar's leasable area
it would display advertisements for all of the center's tenants.
Appeals
For reference purposes, the applicant, staff and city council may appeal the CDRB's decision.
An appeal shall be presented within 15 days of the CDRB decision. If the decision is appealed,
staff will schedule a hearing with the city council.
RECOMMENDATION
Approve the plans date-stamped February 28,2011 for a comprehensive sign plan amendment
to allow a dynamic display sign on the Maplewood Square Shopping Center, 3505 White Bear
Avenue. Approval of the comprehensive sign plan amendment is subject to the following
conditions (additions are underlined and deletions are crossed out):
Fascia Signs (North and South Elevations)
1. The allocated sign area shall be the upper fascia.
2. Signs shall be individual letter and shall be no more than thirty inches in height. T BirGE:' Dive
Bar's existing sign shall comply with the previous approvals.
3. Signs shall be internally illuminated.
4. A sign shall not concern more than eighty percent of the linear distance of the store to which it
is attached. However, all signs shall be set in at least twenty-four inches from the borders of the
tenant's lease area. All signs must be centered on the fascia.
5. Logos may be uses in the allocated sign area but are subject to a maximum height of thirty
inches. There shall be no more than one logo per tenant sign panel.
Fascia Signs (East and West Elevations)
1. The allocated sign area shall be the upper fascia.
2. Signs shall be individual letter and shall be no more than twenty-four inches in height. T BirGE:'
Dive Bar's existing sign shall comply with the previous approvals.
3. Signs shall be internally illuminated.
4. A sign shall not concern more than eighty percent of the linear distance of the store to which it
is attached. However, all signs shall be set in at least twelve inches from the borders of the
tenant's lease area. All signs must be centered on the fascia.
5. Logos may be uses in the allocated sign area but are subject to a maximum height of twenty-
four inches. There shall be no more than one logo per tenant sign panel.
Pylon Signs
There may be one pylon sign at each end of the walkway (two signs total).
Dvnamic Displav Sic!ns
There mav be one dvnamic displav siqn on the north side of the buildinq as shown on the plans
dated February 28, 2011. This siqn must meet all requirements contained within the city's siqn
ordinance and must be licensed by the city annually.
2
REFERENCE INFORMATION
SITE DESCRIPTION
Site size: 3.43 acres
Existing Use: Shopping Center
SURROUNDING LAND USES
North: Commercial buildings
South: Commercial buildings
East: White Bear Avenue and commercial buildings
West: Maplewood Mall
PLANNING
Land Use Plan: C (commercial)
Zoning: BC (business commercial)
APPLICATION DATE
Staff received the complete application and plans for this proposal on March 1,2011. State law
requires that the city take action within 60 days of receiving complete applications. A decision
on this request is required by April 30, 2011, unless the city extends this review period an
additional 60 days.
p: sec 2NIMaplewcodSquare_Sign Plan Amendment_032211
Attachments
1. Location Map
2. Proposed Dynamic Display Sign date-stamped February 28, 2011
3. Dynamic Display Sign Ordinance
3
I
N
w
s
1-694
.
Attachment 1
I
L
.
Location Map
E
Attachment 2
94"
58"
Daktronics Galaxy RGB 3500 Series
Premium Signs, LLC
952-470-1830
September 21,2010
Attachment 3
ORDINANCE NO. 896
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE MAPLEWOOD SIGN REGULATIONS
Adopted January 25,2010
Revised July 10, 2010
Revised August 9, 2010
Section 2. Comprehensive Sign and Mural Plans
A comprehensive sign plan shall be provided for the following:
(a) Business premises with five (5) or more tenants on the premise and all multiple-story
buildings with two (2) or more tenants in the building.
(b) Dynamic display wall signs (also refer to Section 13 - Dynamic Display Signs).
(c) Large campuses consisting of buildings and land of ten (10) or more acres.
(d) Shared signs.
(e) All developments approved as a planned unit development.-
(f) Murals on business premises.
(g) Temporary sports facility sponsorship signs (also refer to Section 12 - Signs in Park
Designated Land Use in the Maplewood Comprehensive Plan).
(h) Long-term exemptions to temporary window and banner signs (also refer to Section 8 -
Signs Exempt from Regulations in this Ordinance).
Such a plan, which shall include the location, size, height, color, lighting and orientation of all
signs and/or murals, shall be submitted for preliminary plan approval by the city. Exceptions to
the sign ordinance of this article may be permitted for sign areas, densities, and dynamic display
changeover rates for the plan as a whole if the signs are in conformity with the intent of this
article, results in an improved relationship between the various parts of the plan, encourages
and promotes the removal of nonconforming signs through the use of shared signs, and in the
case of long-term exemptions to temporary window and banner signs show that there are
unusual circumstances with the request. In addition, murals must be tasteful, in keeping with
the business premise and surrounding properties, and not contain any defamatory, obscene,
treasonous expressions or opinions, including graffiti.
Comprehensive sign plans shall be reviewed by the community design review board. The
applicant, staff, and city council may appeal the community design review board's decision. An
appeal shall be presented to the administrator within fifteen (15) days of the community design
review board's decision to be considered by the city council.
Section 13. Dynamic Display Signs
(a) Findings. Studies show that there is a correlation between dynamic displays on signs and
the distraction of highway drivers. Distraction of drivers can lead to traffic accidents. Drivers
Attachment 3
can be distracted not only by a changing message, but also by knowing that the sign has a
changing message. In such a case, drivers may watch a sign waiting for the next change to
occur. Drivers also are distracted by messages that do not tell the full story in one look. People
have a natural desire to see the end of the story and will continue to look at the sign in order to
wait for the end.
Additionally, drivers could be more distracted by special effects used to change the message,
such as fade-ins and fade-outs. Finally, drivers are generally more distracted by messages that
are too small to be clearly seen or that contain more than a simple message.
Due to these public safety concerns, the city should only allow the use of these technologies
with certain restrictions. The restrictions are intended to minimize driver distraction, to minimize
their proliferation in residential districts where signs can adversely impact residential character,
and to protect the public health, safety, and welfare.
Local spacing requirements could interfere with the equal opportunity of sign owners to use
such technologies and are not included. Without those requirements, however, there is the
potential for numerous dynamic displays to exist along any roadway. If more than one dynamic
display can be seen from a given location on a road, the minimum display time becomes critical.
If the display time is too short, a driver could be subjected to a view that appears to have
constant movement. This impact on drivers would be compounded in a traffic corridor with
multiple signs. If dynamic displays become pervasive and there are no meaningful limitations on
each sign's ability to change frequently, drivers may be subjected to an unsafe degree of
distraction and sensory overload. Therefore, requiring a limit on display times on dynamic signs
is in the public interest.
A constant message is typically needed on an on-site sign so that the public can use it to
identify and find an intended destination. Changing messages detract from this way-finding
purpose and could adversely affect driving conduct through last-second lane changes, stops, or
turns, all of which could result in traffic accidents.
In conclusion, the City of Maplewood finds that dynamic displays should be allowed on off and
on-site signs but with significant controls to minimize their proliferation and their potential threats
to public health, safety, and welfare.
(b) Noncommercial dynamic display signs are allowed wherever commercial dynamic display
signs are permitted and are subject to the same standards and total maximum allowances per
site or building of each sign type specified in this ordinance.
(c) Standards for all dynamic display signs:
(1) The images and messages displayed on the sign must be complete in themselves,
without continuation in content to the next image or message or to any other sign;
(2) Every line of copy and graphics in a dynamic display must be at least seven inches in
height on a road with a speed limit of 25 to 34 miles per hour, nine inches on a road with a
speed limit of 35 to 44 miles per hour, twelve (12) inches on a road with a speed limit of 45
to 54 miles per hour, and 15 inches on a road with a speed limit of 55 miles per hour or
more.
(3) Dynamic display signs must be designed and equipped to freeze the device in one
position if a malfunction occurs. The displays must also be equipped with a means to
Attachment 3
discontinue the display if it malfunctions, and the sign owner must stop the dynamic display
within one hour of being notified by the city that it is not meeting the standards of this
ordinance.
(4) Dynamic display signs must meet the brightness standards contained in subdivision (h)
below.
(d) On-site dynamic display signs are allowed subject to the following conditions:
(1) Located in the Business Commercial (BC) or Heavy or Light Industrial (M-2 and M-1)
zoning districts only.
(2) The images and messages displayed on the on-site dynamic display sign must be
static and each display must be maintained for a minimum of two minutes; and the
transition from one static display to another must be instantaneous without any special
effects.
(3) Are allowed as part of a permanent freestanding sign, provided that the sign comprises
no more than fifty (50) percent of the total square footage of said sign face.
(4) Must be located at least two hundred (200) feet from any property where there are
structures used for residential purposes or from any park or open space land use district.
(5) Must be located at least one hundred (100) feet from any side property line.
(6) Display and advertisement of products, events, persons, institutions, activities,
businesses, services, or subjects which are located on the premises only or which give
public service information.
(e) Off-site dynamic display signs are allowed subject to Section 12 (Billboard Signs in BC, BC-
M, M-I, and M-2), the above-mentioned standards for all dynamic display signs, and the
following additional condition:
(1) The images and messages displayed on the sign must be static and each display must
be maintained for a minimum of fifteen (15) seconds and the transition from one static
display to another must be instantaneous without any special effects.
(f) Incentive. Off-site signs do not need to serve the same way-finding function as do on-site
signs and they are distracting and their removal serves the public health, safety, and welfare.
This clause is intended to provide an incentive option for the voluntary and uncompensated
removal of off-site signs in certain settings. This sign removal results in an overall advancement
of one or more of the goals set forth in this that should more than offset any additional burden
caused by the incentive. These provisions are also based on the recognition that the incentive
creates an opportunity to consolidate outdoor advertising services that would otherwise remain
distributed throughout Maplewood.
(g) Reduction of Sign Surfaces
(1) A person or sign operator may obtain a permit for a dynamic display sign on one surface
of an existing off-site sign if the following requirements are met:
Attachment 3
a) The applicant agrees in writing to reduce its off-site sign surfaces by one by
permanently removing, within fifteen (15) days after issuance of the permit, one surface
of an off-site sign in the city that is owned or leased by the applicant, which sign surface
must satisfy the criteria of part (2) of this subsection. This removal must include the
complete removal of the structure and foundation supporting each removed sign surface.
The applicant must agree that the city may remove the sign surface if the applicant does
not do so, and the application must identify the sign surface to be removed and be
accompanied by a cash deposit or letter of credit acceptable to the city attorney
sufficient to pay the city's costs for that removal. The applicant must also agree that it is
removing the sign surface voluntarily and that it has no right to compensation for the
removed sign surface under any law. Replacement of an existing sign surface of an off-
site sign with a dynamic display sign does not constitute a removal of a sign surface.
b) If the removed sign surface is one that a state permit is required by state law, the
applicant must surrender its permit to the state upon removal of the sign surface. The
sign that is the subject of the dynamic display sign permit cannot begin to operate until
the sign owner or operator provides proof to the city that the state permit has been
surrendered.
(2) If the applicant meets the permit requirements noted above, the city shall issue a
dynamic display sign permit for the designated off-site sign. This permit will allow a dynamic
display to occupy one hundred (100) percent of the potential copy and graphic area and to
change no more frequently than once every fifteen (15) seconds. The designated sign must
meet all other requirements of this ordinance.
(h) Brightness Standards.
(1) The following brightness standards are required for all dynamic display signs:
a) No sign shall be brighter than is necessary for clear and adequate visibility.
b) No sign shall be of such intensity or brilliance as to impair the vision of a motor
vehicle driver with average eyesight or to otherwise interfere with the driver's operation
of a motor vehicle.
c) No sign may be of such intensity or brilliance that it interferes with the effectiveness
of an official traffic sign, device or signal.
(2) The person owning or controlling the sign must adjust the sign to meet the brightness
standards in accordance with the city's instructions. The adjustment must be made within
one hour upon notice of non-compliance from the city.
(3) All dynamic display signs installed after the date of adoption of the Dynamic Display Sign
Ordinance (August 20, 2008) must be equipped with a mechanism that automatically adjusts
the brightness in response to ambient conditions. These signs must also be equipped with a
means to immediately turn off the display or lighting if the sign malfunctions, and the sign
owner or operator must turn off the sign or lighting within one hour after being notified by the
city that it is not meeting the standards of this ordinance.
(4) In addition to the brightness standards required above, dynamic display signs shall meet
the city's outdoor lighting requirements (Section 44-20(1)).
Attachment 3
(i) Public Safety. If city staff determines that a dynamic display sign is not being operated
pursuant to this ordinance due to its location or display capabilities, city staff can require that the
sign be moved, removed, or modified after notice to the property owner.
OJ Licensing. No person shall operate an off-site or on-site dynamic display sign in the city
without first obtaining a yearly license as defined in the city licensing ordinance (Article II).
. Sign Ordinance:
First Reading - November 23, 2009
Second Reading - January 25, 2010
. Political Campaign Sign Ordinance:
First Reading - June 28, 2010
Second Reading - July 12,1020
. Temporary Sign Ordinance:
First Reading - July 26, 2010
Second Reading - August 9, 2010
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
James Antonen, City Manager
Michael Martin, AICP, Planner
Ramsey County Park Shelters, Keller Regional Park
March 9, 2011
INTRODUCTION
The Ramsey County Parks and Recreation Department, is proposing to build four park picnic
shelters within Keller Regional Park. The picnic shelters would be located at:
a. Golf View (Site F on attachment 2)-this site will have three new shelters and will also
receive a new bituminous trail.
b. Round Lake (Site H on attachment 2)-this site will have one new shelter and will also
receive a new bituminous trail.
Proposed Materials
The proposed picnic shelters would be roofed structures and constructed of cementitious
materials with BBa grills. The design of the shelters is similar to the shelter the CDRB reviewed
in 2009. Roof material would be asphalt shingles. Water and electrical service will be extended
to each shelter. Amenities will include drinking fountains, picnic tables and BBa grills.
BACKGROUND
On August 28, 2006, staff approved the plans for five replacement county park toilet buildings as
noted above. These structures are located at:
a. West side of Spoon Lake by the boat landing.
b. East side of Spoon Lake in the picnic area.
c. East side of the Keller Lake Island south of the parking lot.
d. East side of Keller Lake (south of Site C).
e. East of Highway 61/north of the Gateway Trail in the hilltop picnic area.
The review of those restrooms were handled as a staff review, with the necessary notification to
the city council and community design review board, due to time constraints at that time.
On August 11, 2009, the CDRB approved plans for three park picnic shelters and one park
restroom building. The structures are located at:
a. Keller Island Park - this site will also receive a new bituminous trail loop.
b. Lakeside - with a new asphalt trail connecting the existing restroom building and the
proposed picnic shelter.
c. Lower Keller and restroom - also with a new pedestrian trail.
d. A restroom building at Round Lake.
1
DISCUSSION
The applicant's letter indicates two trees will be removed as a result of this project. The
applicant is required to meet the requirements of the city's tree preservation ordinance. The
shelter proposed for the Round Lake site is near Keller Creek. City code requires a 100-foot
setback from streams. Plan sheet c2.7 in the attached design plans shows the location of the
shelter in relation to Keller Creek. The applicant's plans currently show a 65-foot setback. Staff
is recommending the applicant submit a revised plan showing the picnic shelter meeting the
stream setback requirements. The proposed picnic shelters would be attractive additions and
upgrades to these county parks and the community.
Appeals
For reference purposes, the applicant, staff or city council may appeal the CDRB's decision. An
appeal shall be presented within 15 days of the CDRB decision. If the decision is appealed,
staff will schedule a hearing with the city council.
RECOMMENDATION
Approve the plans date-stamped March 4, 2011 for the picnic shelters proposed at Golf View
and Round Lake within the Keller Regional Park. Approval is subject to the applicant doing the
following:
1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project.
2. Restore the construction and demolition site with turf. Sod shall be put in around the new
paths and buildings. Seed is acceptable in more remote areas where watering is limited.
3. Comply with the requirements outlined in Steven Kummer's staff engineering report,
dated March 15, 2011.
4. Submit for staff review, a plan detailing the location of the two removed trees and how
the county will meet the requirements of the city's tree preservation ordinance.
5. Submit for staff review, a revised site plan detailing a minimum 1 OO-foot setback from
Keller Creek for the proposed picnic shelter located at the Round Lake site.
6. Staff may approve minor changes to the plans.
7. Obtain the necessary permits.
p:sec16\Ramsey County Park Shelters_032211
Attachments:
1. Location Map
2. Map of all Site Locations
3. Applicant's Letter, dated March 4, 2011
4. Golf View Site Plan
5. Round Lake Site Plan
6. Picnic Shelter Building Perspectives
7. Steven Kummer Staff Engineering Report, dated March 15, 2011
8. Plans date-stamped March 4, 2011 (separate attachment)
2
Attachment 1
Keller Lake Regional Park - Construction of Picnic Shelter Buildings
.
~
,
~j
"
ft"
.,
J1
l~~
~ I
~ ,~
~ ]
,
"' '
15 I
g "ll;;
-, .
+-'
<(
en
0')
c
.-
"'0
.-
::::l
CO
~
s....
CO
0...
-
co
c
o
--
0')
())
0::
())
~
CO
....J
I-
<D
+-'
<D
..c
(f)
o
.-
c
u
.-
0...
'-I-
o
C
o
:.;:;
U
::::l
!....
+-'
en
C
o
U
s......
CD
-
-
CD
~
! I ~ c
~ Iii .'1~ ;l;~~
Hj nl1itUH
~~~~~~ffi~.~~~i~~~
~ ~;g~1i 51lEO:j"" ,"",'
CO ~.~;; ."- -..~ . ~
.....,,, ~ ~Gi-~o;" -lioli "';-:.",.
o;~~~~_:&;!! l .E,';~P5f
JlU!H~ ~~!~~~~i~~."
,jlH..t.I~E-~:"!'!~"!'"
l,--~~F,''''f.:i!-lir ~l :;,:-go!!
"''' :L~ ~8i>d~J~
~ ~:;i;;~:j~8.j~~~:;j~~i~~:a
..---
<D
>,
co
5
..c
.Ql "
IZ
oes~
<D-
C'?"8
>,0
C05
50)
..c -
0)0..
._ co
I~
- ~ ~.
l~i~~L~!~~~~ i
F-~~n' ~,2"":;~'''~~
;3~i~H~_~J~.'lJ~~~
'.!'.:J.li'I"r,'!!~h'~
~ b b b b'" Q ~.l! .ll Jl-" ~ I
~~~:nU~UU~~.
~'~'~_~'~.'::~-~P~]:~ ~
i!!!!.~tt~E~E~:~ ~
i~~~~~&&~gg~~~~ ,~
~~~~--~..51--.~~ j~
~ ~ilLBJ f.;;u~;!H~H,' l);~
:i! m - - '" "''''''' ;li
~ ~:;:~~~ ~~;;~i ~~;~~'J :i:f'"
~ ~ 0 ~ 0 0 ~ 1.
c
~~!~.
."'111'>..
;;{;f
l'Zl.f
'}~.~E.
'.~ 'l!;; .
lHt
~H{~u
~~!';fH
~~r~:!l'
i&;>,";3,li
!~:;;~~;;,j~
RH
..,
_~~.l!~.'!
j~~~~~
~~dH
JlJ "
!'"~ n
I'" co
"'~"... t;;!;;
Z"---
0""""=
-"<:t
1-"
uC'?
:::)'
0::::>-
1--1
Cf)Z
zO
Os
Uw
0::::-
oGJ
u..0::::
1-0::::
00
Zu..
=t:I:::~
<D~
0)0
CON
..::.:::: -
Ul'-
CO..c
o...u
"'01-
._ CO
co~
f~
5al~ I
~g!~. )..
"'in~~\.
- f-~~ .-'.
~\.
~J
81"~
~"'u
Attachment 2
I
'll.I!'!1 :il.'
loll",' i "Ii
"Illl.i I,! l'i'
i'I!!' II: ",I'I!
~_ .~~ ~~ p ~ i ~Is!:!
~~ii~ ~~ ~t~ :~e ~rl!
~ 'I:I! U !I.l i~!l!i!
l" hl"!'1 ,"'1,1"
~ 1".11: 1'= !ii .i~hl!l;
~ ~m ,Illi; !lilli.
Cl ~ ., ~ ~ oj'
11
" ""',,.., I
.'11 i.1'lth.\."' I'll
,"I,":-"fl ,
Ii! ill;:::\
,?_i~~.'l J~'.fa
cl'''" 'I"IE'~"
.,;~, . ].11/ i 7:liti ~
~ .', :~~~-.',;
11
'3
::i
~z
UO
wF
a<
~g
~~
,,..,
\....."
e;
~
~
1;;
~
=I
;l
Y'
w
o
i
~
l<~
~~
It!i!
8
~
~
....t'.
m~
"-,
,"
~I '
~~ !
-"',
~d
,-:.
~ :
",
,
I
o
o
CO
...
Ii! -
. -.
~1"1 ~ ~
It, j
l!~~ . i
J~! ] I
II" I'
t;!~ Ii
~
.. :.5
./! ~
& ~
'" ~
.
l "
.
~
1 ~
~ -t!: ]
" " .
~ " 6
~ ~ 1D
t' :11;
.~"'~ ~
~~t~~~
;;
,
i
~
!
"
~
.
~~
~.~
,.
.,
~i
~
~~ l-;~if
,,- i~"
:~ rE~
] ~t:i ~j~2
! 1& lib
i~
:::~n
L I- ~ ~=~
~81;ijj
~~n~2
:;:: :sJ
i::: 5~
- ~
I ~~
"" zO
& 2i5
li: ~~
~ ....""
~ ~E
, =
J~jS
Attachment 3
Parks and Recreation Department
Gregory A. Mack, Director
2015 North Van Dyke Street
Maplewooq, MN 55109-3796
Tel: 651-748-2500
Fax: 651-748-2508
www.co.ramsey.mn.us
DATE:
March 4, 2011
TO:
Michael Martin, Planner
City of Maplewood
1830 County Road BEast
Maplewood, MN. 55109
FROM:
Scott Yonke, Director of Planning and Development
Ramsey County Parks and Recreation Department
2015 N. Van Dyke Street
Maplewood, MN. 55109
RE:
Keller Park Picnic Shelter Building Construction-Golf View and Round Lake Sites
Attached is our application and related documents for the Community Design Review Board process.
Please note the following:
,-:'
;i:~
The attached plans are not for construction.. The plans are 99% completed and no changes will
be made which will affect the Community Design Review Board decision process.
Application fees are pending review by the City of Maplewood of our request to wave applicable
fees.
Preliminary documents have been submitted to the Ramsey Washington Metro Watershed
District for review and design coordination. Formal application for permitting is pending.
A National Pollutant Discharge System Permit (NDPESlis required for this project. Application is
pending determination of project contractor.
Tree removals for this project (21 are minimal relative to the existing tree cover on the site.
Replacement trees are not included in this work and will be planted as part of future
landscaping work within Keller Regional Park.
A SWPPP is attached for review.
A copy of the NPDE5 permit application is also attached for reference. Ramsey County will
submit the application prior to construction.
We understand this project will be put on the March 22, 2011, Community Design Review Board agenda
for review. Please send us notification of this meeting. If you wish to discuss this project or require
additional information please do not hesitate to call me at 6S1-748-25OO, ex!. 330.
Thank you.
~fa'll J!lfllt Home Rule (llmllf.y
~d.l<oI ",,,,,,,,,",p'jJM\>llll. "101""...tlO~_,_""'~
..
~1 I
'" I
"
'> ' /" "
Ll.. ~z'
;5 ~;
(')
Attachment 4
I,
I
c~~
',0 ~i/
~_JI
.!
I
!I
~~ i
" !
"'<J liS i
H
"l'
-.J~ I,
/j!
z
"'\
"-
'-"
"
U .
CC f
(}'
=> .
U>
,
f- ,
iii
to',
'.-.)
,
,
1/
1/
y
.-"~-- --
I (~/._-'---"
'. \,jJ :',
\ " ('"
',' /) ,
~.'..-/''''''' .//
o
o
~
p;-
r ,"
s'
! "
" ' Ii
h ! ,~
~~ ~I ~~~
~
~~
,<,--,~
I , ~ \
"0"
" j'
,. '
" . I
,~...._-~ ,;
-_/{
.
I
~
,///6' -
.
'~i,i
~I \'
,
.//~--':"
"
i -
i ~
t
K
'"
~
u
~
il
~
~,
c'
~
, ~
g
~ ~ 1=
~ ~
.~ -" !i
,,[ ~
i>' ~ >'
~ E:I~ ~
!~l-~,fg
;
!
,l-
,
l
~
.
"
.
~:
l~
~i
,.
>'
:<.]
U
::: 2:1
~ o~
S. ~,J,
I go::::;
~ ~%
~ 8~
~ e~
~ ~
_~ ~2
_~I .4-
_ ---.Jl~ "-
_ :2;!1S-
j
;!
., !~
~ .!
1"'8:: i;~
c>
7b.-
~~
d-- b.-
r:;y
\ /
./j\J ,
"
,s'
~
"
<t(j
>'
.f
,
I
..
,
~
1-
1
.li
w
"
"j
o
z
=>
o
DC
~
-E g ~
.3 .~ 5
~ ~ ~
J~l~,,~
,
;
'-
~
~
.
.,
.
.
g~i
"'c;'
~.~
~]
<~
~1:i
l;'llll
- ~~i
",.g l~~c
zl!; $gg
I ililb
i~
"'1":I'l
~ <( ~I~'
~8iilll
1:d:f\II"
~<(-
!
, -
J~JS
" '. .,
Z :: ~~! ~~ ~~ 3 ~~
o Ii ~ ~j I * ~ ~ "~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~
i= .~; ~~~!I i~ ~~~ ii::! ill
~ ~~. ~~l~1~~ ~~ ~ UI f~; ~!
~ ~':'~~ ~~jI~$O~~i~ ~ ~~.. ~d~ ~i
IZUl ~;~ig~~~~~~~~~~~ i~~~i fi~g i~
2~ i "I,l ili:! hi!! I;!! 'I, I!" Ii ~ III
;;~ j Ii I !!n 'I! i!, Il i! I,! ;111 IJ I,! I!l
~ [u ~ h ~ ~ m ~ ~~ i t ~ ~ g ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ 2 ~ ~3
W" 00000 0000000000000 00000000
~
!I~
S'~
I
,
,
,
!
~g
"i
h
8~
"
U ~~
~
~F
li"
I
,
: I
, ,
i @-I
I i
!i I i
!,,11iJ ~:;. ~I\!:
~:l' :ii
OJ. ':iI! '"'~
e
,i '0~ I
;~'~ ~~'i i ~
. ,.
@
!-
,
I
,
,I
1i,
2
,
,I,
,,-
il:
~
~--- . -- - Attachment 6-- -
~
~I~
Ii
,
CI:l
L()
i (Y)
I CI:l
ll"~ I
,. l
!IJ ~
ill ~ q
j1ilc/ !l
II!- I
-hj J;L
c
.
E
*"
o
c
o
!
"
"
c
.
c
.
.
!
.~
w
.
~
w
~ ~ -~
D.. ~ ~
% rn 0
, C a
o .0 C\I
Of 1 ~
. ,
" .-g~ ~
!lrl~!,;2:
I' ,
- -,~
d ni~
11 ~I iH1
111,J'.
I.' ilb
lIB
~ IOl ~ i~~
z ,- ~"_
"8 lilll
~~ I I"
z_
2:t
~ ~~
" zO
. 03
. Ow
'" ll:S;
i f2li!
" ~"
" 00
ii'i 211.
~ L() :;:
l~!~
Attachment 7
Page 1 of 1
Citv of Mavlewood - Enl!ineerinl! Plan Review
PROJECT NAME: Keller Park Picnic Shelters
REVIEWED BY: Steven Kummer, P.E.,
SUBMITTAL NO: Submittal 1, March 5, 2011
REVIEW DATE: March 15, 2011
Commeuts ou the Keller Park Picuic Shelters Review:
I) The applicant is utilizing swales to mitigate flow rates and provide treatment from
existing to proposed development condition. There are a number of concerns with the
applicant's HydroCAD modeling that would indicate that the City's rate control criteria
are not satisified for this site:
a) Assumptions for time of concentration throughout the drainage computations seem to
universally assume sheet flow conditions for time of concentration in both the
existing and proposed conditions. This is not completely valid for the proposed
condition, as the applicant's grading plan creates channels and swales which should
be modeled with the manning's formula rather than the sheet or shallow-concentrated
flow equations for time of concentration.
b) Assumptions for time of concentration assume grassed swales (n ~ 0.150) in both the
existing vs. proposed condition. This is not completely valid for the proposed
condition, as the inclusion of impervious surfaces reduces average/composite
manning's n values over each sub-drainage area.
c) A rain garden is shown on the R WMWD spreadsheet to meet infiltration
requirements. However, rain garden construction is not shown on the plans and the
SWPPP indicates that only swales are used for storm water treatment. While
vegetated swales are a form of storm water BMP, very little, if any, infiltration would
be achieved through the swales with the Type D soils on site.
Applicant should consider filtration basins, pervious surfaces, or other ponding measures
to maintain existing conditions.
2) It appears that about 3-5 feet offill will be removed from over an existing MCES sanitary
sewer line. Applicant shall receive permission from MCES for this work prior to
construction.
3) Applicant shall prepare an erosion control or SWPP Plan Sheet for this project including
locations of the erosion control blanketing and installation.
*************** END OF COMMENTS **************
AGENDA REPORT
TO: Community Design Review Board
Environmental and Natural Resources Commission
Planning Commission
FROM: Michael Thompson, City Engineer / Dep. Director of Public Works
Steve Love, Assistant City Engineer
Steve Kummer, Civil Engineer II
Jon Jarosch, Civil Engineer I
Troy Brink, Streets Crew Chief
Ann Hutchinson, Naturalist
Virginia Gaynor, Naturalist
Mike Martin, City Planner
SUBJECT: Complete/Living Streets Recommendations
DATE: February 23,2011
INTRODUCTION
The Complete Streets sustainability work group was charged with studying the concepts of
complete streets/green streets and making recommendations to the commission and council.
The group has prepared background information, an overview of current operations and policies
for city streets for both new development and street reconstruction, and presents it
recommendations herein.
BACKGROUND
The Complete Streets group met April 28, 2010, June 29, 2010, and September 30, 2010. At
the June 29'h meeting Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District and Barr Engineering
presented the Living Streets case study they are conducting with North Saint Paul. Over the
entire period group members provided individual contributions and furthered their knowledge on
the topic. A few members attended Complete Streets workshops in Ramsey and Hennepin
Counties.
Terminology surrounding this topic can be confusing. Complete Streets typically refers to street
design that provides for multiple modes of transportation (auto, mass transit, pedestrian, bike).
Green Streets typically refers to street design that reduces environmental impacts by reducing
impervious surface, managing stormwater, and providing shade. Ramsey-Washington Metro
Watershed District and North St. Paul are using the term Living Streets to combine these
definitions.
Complete Streets LeQislation
The State of Minnesota passed Complete Streets legislation in 2010. The Commissioner of
Transportation has committed Mn/DOT to implement a complete street vision for the trunk
highway system. Cities are encouraged to adopt policies to meet their unique needs; however it
is not a mandate.
According to Mn/DOT, "Complete Streets does not mean "all modes on all roads"; rather, the
goal of Complete Streets should be to:
1) Develop a balanced transportation system that integrates all modes via planning
inclusive of each mode of transportation (i.e., transit, freight, automobile, bicycle and
pedestrian)
2) Include transportation users of all types, ages and abilities.
Examples of Complete Streets goals and principles listed in the report to the legislature include:
1) Reduce crash rates and severity of crashes.
2) Improve mobility and accessibility of all individuals including those with disabilities in
accordance with the legal requirements of the ADA.
3) Encourage mode shift to non-motorized transportation and transit.
4) Reduce air and water pollution and reduce noise impacts.
5) Increase transportation network connectivity.
6) Maximize the efficient use of existing facilities.
7) Strive for tax supported investments to provide maximum benefits to the community
and all user groups.
8) Safely integrate intermodal connections across the transportation network.
9) Promote safe and convenient access and travel for all users (pedestrians, bicyclists,
transit riders) and people of all abilities as well as freight and motor vehicle drivers.
The City of Maplewood finds some of these examples useful however the City wants to go
further in addressing the environment and active living instead of focusing solely on a
transportation vision.
Minnesota GreenStep City
The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) has launched the Minnesota GreenStep City
program. This is a assistance and program to cities achieve their
of 28 best The actions related to
complete streets/green streets include:
1) Adopt a complete streets policy that addresses street trees and stormwater, and modify
street standards accordingly.
2) Adopt zoning language for a selected area/project that is substantially equivalent to the
LEED for Neighborhood Development credits for Walkable Streets or Street Network.
3) Document the installation of trees, and green stormwater infrastructure, and utility
renovations as needed (sewer, water, electric, telecommunications) as part of at least
one complete street reconstruction project.
4) Identify and remedy non-complete street segments by, for example, adding a bike
route/lane or sidewalk.
5) Identify and remedy street-trail gaps (at least one) between city streets and trails/bike
trails to better facilitate walking and biking.
6) Implement traffic calming measures in at least one street redevelopment project.
The discussion portion of this report will focus on:
1) Actions or practices that have the most impact on the environment or associated
operations;
2) Assessing our operations to determine methods to become more sustainable and reduce
impacts on the environment;
3) Determining if the modifications will be practical, economical, and meet community
needs.
DISCUSSION
LivinQ Streets
Landscape Architect Fred Rozumalski from Barr Engineering and RWMWD Administrator Cliff
Aichinger gave the taskforce a very informative presentation on the Living Streets concepts they
developed for North St. Paul. RWMWD Administrator has given staff permission to use
information from their report and presentation and the following discussion uses materials from
the North St. Paul project.
Living Streets pulls together the concepts of complete streets, green streets, and puts additional
focus on quality of life aspects for city residents. Figure 1 below shows the components of
Living Streets. The model balances the "green" components (environment and social factors)
and the "grey" components (transportation and utilities) of the system.
Storm water capture and use
Trees
Pedestrians movement
Pedestrian safety
Bikes
Community
Aesthetic character
Traffic
Speed
Sewers
Gas
Electric
Telecom
Storm water drainage
INFRASTRUCTURE
FIGURE 1 - RWMWD/BARR REPORT
The taskforce thinks a Living Streets concept better fits our goals than a Complete Streets
concept. Maplewood's goals are similar to those developed by RWMWD and Barr Engineering
for North Saint Paul. We believe our Living Streets policy should:
1) Improve stormwater quality through expansion of the rain garden program, reducing
the impervious footprint of streets, and meeting or exceeding the 1" infiltration
standard.
2) Implement traffic calming measures through the use of techniques best suited for site
conditions.
3) Improve biking and walking conditions along natural connector routes and collector
streets through designation of bike lanes, sidewalks, or multi-purpose trails.
4) Create boulevard tree standards that provide environmental benefits (stormwater
management, shade to reduce heating and cooling costs, filtering air pollutants,
reduce urban heat island effect), enhance quality of life, and are practical and
affordable.
5) Minimize construction, replacement, and future maintenance costs in a manner that
is equal to or less than that of a standard street section.
Greatest Impact Items and AssessinQ Operations
The following items are high impact items that should be further assessed in order to become
more sustainable with the living streets concept:
1) Rain gardens - The city's rain garden program has represented Maplewood well in the
eyes of communities throughout the U.S. in terms of sustainability and "going green."
Our program includes installing rain gardens as part of street reconstruction projects,
conducting educational programs to support residents that install rain gardens on their
own, and promoting the use of rain gardens in new development.
The early street reconstruction projects that included rain gardens had high
resident participation and thus made a significant impact reducing stormwater volume.
But the number of residents requesting rain gardens on street reconstruction projects
has decreased over the years. In 2009-2010 staff made two changes on the Hills and
Dale project to try to increase resident participation and redirect staff resources: 1) have
contractor plant the home gardens, and 2) test a new "whole street" planting design.
Participation in the home rain garden program has increased dramatically on this project.
In coming years, rather than devoting so much staff time to supporting planting of the
home gardens (placing plant orders, sorting orders, delivery, coordinating planting day,
mulching), staff can now focus on education support for maintaining the gardens. We
believe nothing promotes rain gardens better than attractive, well-maintained gardens
from previous projects.
Staff recommends that we continue to investigate ways to increase resident
participation in rain garden programs, including ideas such as adjusting the
Environmental Utility Fee credits/incentives for qualifying best management practices
especially in locations where retrofits (curb cuts) on existing streets can be utilized.
Pros-
i. Minima/ maintenance required by city for home gardens, reduces
pollutants to lakes and wetlands, provides aesthetic enhancements to
neighborhoods, reduces volume of water within the system thereby
increasing existing capacity, can reduce storm piping infrastructure
requirements
Cons-
ii. Need to determine a long-term maintenance policy for residential gardens
(e.g. residents sign a form that they will maintain, etc.), need ongoing
educational support for home gardens, large city gardens require
maintenance and an experienced gardener, a garden could be filled in by
a resident in the future, cannot count on rain gardens because the
program is voluntary
2) Street sections - Currently our standard urban street section calls for a 32' wide street
section and cul-de-sacs require a diameter of 93'. Reducing the width of streets reduces
the amount of impervious surface and lessens the environmental impact. Over the past
years, the city has allowed for narrower streets in some new developments and has
incorporated parking bays and traffic calming designs (narrowing of street) on some
street reconstruction projects (Beam Avenue, English Street, Hazelwood Street). Our
Engineering Department will be exploring some of these design concepts on the Western
Hills street reconstruction project in 2010-2011.
A majority of vehicles have a width of 8.5' or less including fire trucks, school buses, and
garbage trucks. The required turning diameter for a fire truck or school bus is about 93'
which matches the current requirement for city cul-de-sac standards. However many
school buses no longer enter into cul-de-sac locations for pickup but rather pick children
up at the nearest cross street. Also, fire trucks and safety vehicles can maneuver within
cul-de-sacs with a much tighter diameter and those that also have island landscaping.
As seen in Figure 2, a street section of 22' can accommodate parking on one side of the
street with two cars comfortably passing one another on a residential street. A 22' street
section with parking on one side can also accommodate larger vehicles but there may be
some yielding when vehicles must pass one another near a parked vehicle.
FIGURE 2 - RWMWD/BARR REPORT
If parking is needed on both sides of a residential street then a street section of 26' can
accommodate two parked cars and a passing vehicle in between, with yielding required
at the pinch points. This concept is shown in Figure 3.
FIGURE 3 - RESIDENTIAL STREET - RWMWDIBARR REPORT
A general windshield survey showed that not many cars are parked along city streets
during daytime. City ordinance prohibits cars parked on city streets from 2:00 a.m. to
6:00 a.m. The taskforce recommends we reevaluate street parking in Maplewood and
develop guidelines about levels of street parking that should be provided in different
scenarios.
On current street reconstruction projects, residents are sometimes asked whether they
would like the street narrowed. In the past, few neighborhoods have wanted to decrease
street width. The taskforce recommends that the city thoroughly explores street widths,
cul-de-sac diameters, street parking, street standards, and develops a policy that helps
minimize environmental impacts. This should include educating residents about the
costs and benefits associated with street widths and exploring incentives for
neighborhoods that reduce street width during street reconstruction projects.
Pros-
i. Reduces impervious area, reduces pollutants and runoff volume, slows
traffic by narrowing, reduces future replacement costs and maintenance
because the footprint would be smaller than current standards
Cons-
ii. Reduces area for on-street pedestrians if no sidewalk exists or is wanted
in the boulevard, safety vehicle needs, idea may not be accepted by
residents
3) Active Living Opporlunities - Providing a designated system of sidewalks, trails, and
bike lanes increases the likelihood for walking and biking. During development of
Maplewood's 2030 Comprehensive Plan, the city evaluated our sidewalk and trail system
and identified future trails and connections needed. Currently City Code requires
sidewalk installation adjacent to collector streets, however, it will be important to start
providing on-street bikeways to promote active lifestyles in addition to sidewalks. Figure
4 depicts a typical layout of a collector street with biking and pedestrian facilities.
FIGURE 4 - COLLECTOR STREET - RWMWDIBARR REPORT
This typical collector street section would accommodate parking on one side of the street
in addition to biking lanes on either side. A sidewalk would also be placed on one side
of the street. Bump outs would be provided to provide for some traffic calming and also
providing additional opportunities for stormwater treatment. A review and revision of
standards would need to be conducted to determine the type of street best
suited for this treatment.
Pros-
i. Promotes walking and riding bikes, reduces need for vehicle use on short
trips if proper infrastructure is in place, traffic calming using bump outs
Cons-
ii. May require wider streets to accommodate biking lanes, impacts into
boulevards, additional costs for striping and maintenance, difficulty to plow
and maintain in winter especially with bump outs
4) Pervious Pavement- Maplewood has installed pervious asphalt parking lots at the
public works building and at Geranium Park. Both are functioning well, but studies are
still ongoing to determine life expectancy and maintenance protocols for this type of
system. The city of Shoreview recently installed pervious concrete on a roadway in a
smaller neighborhood and to date considers the project a success. It is important that
the city continues to explore the latest infrastructure technologies.
Pros-
i. Reduces need for storm sewer pipes, reduces pollutants and volume of
runoff, quieter when driven on compared to regular pavement, firmer
stable walking surface
Cons-
ii. High cost, maintenance issues, predictability
5) Tree Plantings - Trees provide many benefits to the community. They help treat
stormwater, filter air pollutants, provide shade which can lower energy consumption, add
value to homes and enhance the aesthetics of a neighborhood. The city's current right-
of-way ordinance does not allow tree plantings within public rights of waylboulevards,
however, the city typically requires planting boulevard trees on Planned Unit
Development projects. The city has no policy regarding replanting trees that die. In
addition to boulevards, trees could be considered within cul-de-sac islands as a green
street feature. The taskforce recommends that we review the city's policies on boulevard
trees. A review should include cost estimates for tree planting and maintenance to
enable comparison with standard design.
Pros-
i. Provides shade to homes thereby reducing energy needs, provides a
neighborhood feel, aesthetically pleasing, trees utilize excess runoff and
act as a filter, shades pavement which reduces hot/cold cycles increasing
pavement longevity, reduces urban heat island effect
Cons-
ii. Conflicts with utilities in the boulevard, requires ongoing
maintenance/pruning/removal/replanting if diseased
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Community Design Review Board, Planning Commission, and
Environmental and Natural Resources Commission provide input on objectives and developing a
successful framework in which to create and recommend a Living Streets policy to the city
council.
Attachments:
1) Resolution
RESOLUTION
DECLARING SUPPORT FOR ESTABLISHING A LIVING STREETS POLICY
FOR THE CITY OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA
WHEREAS, the Living Streets concept is designed to assure safety and accessibility for
all the users of our roads, trails and transit systems, including pedestrians, bicyclists, transit
riders, motorists, commercial and emergency vehicles and for people of all ages and of all
abilities; and
WHEREAS, Living Streets reduce congestion by providing safe travel choices that
encourage non-motorized transportation options, increasing the overall capacity of the
transportation network as well as decreasing consumer transportation costs; and
WHEREAS, Living Streets will help the City of Maplewood reduce greenhouse gas
emissions as more people choose an alternative to the single occupant vehicle; and Living
Streets is consistent with the US Mayors Climate Protection Agreement which the city has
endorsed: and
WHEREAS, Living Streets support economic growth and community stability by providing
accessible and efficient connections between home, school, work, recreation and retail
destinations by improving the pedestrian and vehicular environments throughout communities;
and
WHEREAS, Living Streets enhance safe walking and bicycling options for school age
children, in recognition of the objectives of the national Safe Routes to School program; and
WHEREAS, Living Streets can help reduce crashes and injuries and their costs; and
WHEREAS, a Living Streets provide environmental and social benefits including:
1) Improving stormwater quality
2) Reducing impervious surfaces
3) Providing traffic calming measures
4) Improving biking and walking conditions
5) Protecting and enhancing the urban forest
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that in order to develop and maintain a safe, efficient,
balanced and environmentally sound city transportation system for people of all ages and
abilities, transportation and development projects shall incorporate a philosophy that expands
transportation choices and further incorporates the Living Streets theme and key concepts listed
above; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the staff shall prepare a Living Streets Policy and shall
concurrently review city ordinances, engineering standards, policies, and guidelines in order to
make recommendations ultimately to the City Council on a Living Street Policy that will reduce
impacts to the environment, be practical and economical, while also meeting community and
stakeholder needs.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
Matt Ledvina, Community Design Review Board
Michael Martin, AICP, Planner
2010 Annual Report
February 14, 2011
INTRODUCTION
Attached to this memo is the draft of the community design review board's (CDRB) 2010 Annual
Report. The CDRB has produced this report every year to forward on to the city council for its
review of the board's work throughout the previous year.
DISCUSSION
The format of the 2010 Annual Report is similar to previous years. Staff has included a section
for 2011 activities. This was done with the intention of the CDRB having a discussion at its
February 22, 2011 meeting to develop its goals for the upcoming year. Staff included the in-
service training opportunities and the continued development of vegetation guidelines as a
starting point. Staff will be looking for feedback from the CDRB as to what it would like to
accomplish in 2011 outside of its design review duties.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Please review the attached draft 2010 Annual Report and come to the February 22, 2011
meeting prepared to discuss.
Attachments:
1. 2010 CDRB Annual Report
1
Attachment 1
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
James Antonen, City Manager
Matt Ledvina, Community Design Review Board Chair
Community Design Review Board 2010 Annual Report
February 22, 2011
INTRODUCTION
Annually the community design review board (CDRB) reports the board's actions and activities for
the city council for the previous year. In 2010, the CDRB reviewed the following 20 items during its
10 meetings:
Type of Proposal
# Reviewed
New Development Proposals
7
1. T -Mobile Fencing Proposal (1961 County Road C East)
2. Lower Keller Picnic Grounds Parking Lot (West Side of Highway 61 at the South End of
Keller Lake)
3. Feed Products North (1300 McKnight Road North)
4. Goodwill (2580 White Bear Avenue)
5. The Shores at Lake Phalen (940 Frost Avenue)
6. Metro Transit Park-and-Ride Parking Ramp Proposal (Beam Avenue and Southlawn Drive)
7. Design Approval - The Woodlands of Maplewood (Sophia Avenue, East of McMenemy)
ExpansionslRemodelslRevisions
2
1. Landscape Plan Revision for Century Trails Apartments (Be net Road and Monastery Way)
2. Shores at Lake Phalen - Landscape, Photometric and Signage Plans (940 Frost Avenue)
Miscellaneous Reviews and Actions
1
1. Frost Avenue Bridge Replacement
Attachment 1
Type of Proposal, continued
# Reviewed
Special Proiects and Presentations
10
1. 2009 Annual Report
2. Vegetation Guidelines for Maplewood
3. Development Review Procedures Discussion
4. Advisory Committees and Application Fees Discussion
5. Extreme Green Makeover
6. Green Building Code
7. 2010 Summer Tour
8. Architectural Guidelines Discussion
9. Changes to Granting of Variances Discussion
10. City Hall Campus Plan
Total 20
COMPARATIVE INFORMATION
Year
Number of Items Reviewed
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
25
25
27
33
27
15
18
20
MEMBERSHIP
The CDRB consists of five members appointed by the city council. Membership terms are for two
years, with extensions for additional terms approved by the city council. The current membership
is as follows:
Board Member
Membership Beqan
Term Expires
Ananth Shankar
Matt Ledvina
8/8/94
3/10/97
2
4/30/13
4/30/11
Attachment 1
Matt Wise
Jason Lamers
Michael Mireau
2/12/07
5/26/09
5/26/09
4/30/13
4/30/12
4/30/12
In 2010, the city council took action to stagger the terms of members serving on the CDRB and to
stagger term expiration dates among all of the city's advisory boards and commissions.
Previously, CDRB terms expired on the first of the year - like most other city advisory boards and
commissions. To avoid the flood of reappointments in January, the city council moved the CDRB's
term expiration date to April 30 of each year. In addition, because four of the five CDRB members
had terms that were set to expire in 2012, the council extended two of the terms to 2013 for
staggering purposes. Matt Ledvina is the only member due for reappointment in 2011. Mr.
Ledvina has submitted an application for reappointment, which the council will consider in the
spring.
DISCUSSION
2010 Actions/Activities
In 2010, the CDRB reviewed 20 items, a slight increase from 2008 and 2009. The CDRB saw an
uptick in projects reviewed as the economy is slowly recovering. In 2011, the CDRB expects to
see increases in its number of projects reviewed. As in 2008 and 2009, the decreases of building
projects to review in 2010 has allowed the CDRB an opportunity to spend more time of
administrative projects and long-term goals. The CDRB began work on establishing vegetation
guidelines for major corridors in the city. The CDRB created a subcommittee to work with MnDOT
on this project, which will continue throughout 2011. The CDRB also spent a considerable amount
of time in 2010 working with staff to ensure city projects are proceeding with design considerations
made.
The CDRB reviewed one new housing project that will work to increase housing options within the
city. The Shores at Lake Phalen project will add 105 new senior housing residential units. In
addition, the CDRB reviewed the 27-unit Woodlands of Maplewood development. In 2007, the city
approved the The Woodlands of Maplewood but those approvals had lapsed and the new
developer needed the CDRB to review his revised building plans. The CDRB also worked on
several key commercial and institutional projects in the city. The CDRB has consistently
demonstrated keen interest and skill in their reviews of these development projects to ensure they
are of the quality of design and materials that complement the surrounding areas and improves a
site's aesthetics.
Another reason for the drop in reviews is that the city has seen the amount of vacant land available
for new developments diminish. In addition, many of the projects that occurred in 2009 were
smaller in nature allowing city staff to process many of the city's remodels and additions as 15-day
reviews, as allowed by code, rather than the more formal review by the CDRB. Because of the
developed nature of the city, many of the new commercial and residential developments reviewed
by the CDRB are either redevelopment of existing buildings or in-fill development. The CDRB will
continue to be a vital advisory board to the city council in the future, particularly with more
redevelopment and in-fill development projects on the horizon.
3
Attachment 1
2011 Activities
In addition to its design review duties, the CDRB lists these potential activities for 2011:
1. Continue having in-service training sessions for the CDRB.
2. Continue developing policy guidelines for vegetation use along public rights-of-way.
CONCLUSION
In 2011, the CDRB will continue its dedication to the quality design of buildings and developments,
ensuring a high quality of life for the citizens of Maplewood.
RECOMMENDATION
Approve the CDRB's 2010 annual report.
P\com-dev\community design review board\annual report (2010)
4
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
Community Design Review Board Members
Michael Martin, AICP, Planner
Charles Ahl, Assistant City Manager
Election of Officers
February 10, 2011
INTRODUCTION
The City of Maplewood's Commission Handbook requires the community design review board
(CDRB) elect a chairperson and vice-chairperson. Matt Ledvina currently serves as
chairperson and Matt Wise as vice chairperson.
DISCUSSION
The Commission Handbook states officers should be elected at the first regular meeting in
December. However, the CDRB did not meeting in December, so the commission will need to
nominate and elect officers at its first meeting in January. Staff is recommending the CDRB
elect a chairperson and vice-chairperson to serve in 2011. On January 11, 2011, nominations
will again be taken for officers to serve through 2011. The handbook has a section which deals
with the role of the chairperson and vice chairperson. Below is the excerpt from the handbook:
Role of the Chairperson and Vice Chairperson
Commissions generally appoint the chair and vice chair at set times of the year. Although the appointment
is usually for a year, the chair and vice chair serve at the pleasure of the commission The willingness and
ability of an individual to serve as the chair or vice chair should be taken into consideration Commissions
should try to give all commissioners an opportunity to serve as chair. The responsibility of service as chair
or vice chair does take extra time.
Responsibilities of the Chair
. Preside at all official meetings of the board, commission, or committee.
. Consult with the staff liaison in drafting the meeting agenda.
. Attend City Council meetings, in person or through another commissioner as designee, as needed
to represent the commission, board, or committee with the approval of the commission, board, or
committee.
. Sign correspondence from the commission with the approval of the City Council.
The effective chairperson also, during meetings:
. Solicits opinions and positions from reticent commission members.
. Protects new thoughts from being rejected prior to fair evaluation
. Discourages blame-orientated statements.
. Keeps the discussion focused on the issue.
. Builds trust by even handedness and fairness to all the participants.
Responsibilities of the Vice Chair
. Substitute for the Chair as needed.
The section is silent on the procedure for election of the chairperson and vice chairperson.
CDRB members should voice nominations for chair and vice chair, and the body will then vote
for the positions. If only one nomination emerges for each position, a motion can be made to
formally appoint that person to the post. If there is more than one nomination, the CDRB should
vote publicly to decide which candidate will be appointed.
RECOMMENDATION
Consider nominations and elect a chairperson and vice chairperson for 2011.