HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-04-26 CDRB Packet
AGENDA
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
Tuesday, April 26, 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. March 22, 2011
5. Unfinished Business:
6. Design Review:
a. Cottagewood Town House Development - South of Highwood Avenue, east of
Dennis Street, west of 1-494
b. Ramsey County Park Shelter, Battle Creek Regional Park
c. Design Review and Comprehensive Sign Plan Amendment, Maplewood Mall, 3001
White Bear Avenue
d. Maplewood Mall Stormwater Retrofit Project, 3001 White Bear Avenue
e. South Metro Human Services Mental Health Care Facility, 1111 Viking Drive
7. Visitor Presentations:
8. Board Presentations:
9. Staff Presentations:
a. Capital Improvement Plan
10. Adjourn
MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA
TUESDAY, MARCH 22, 2011
1. CALL TO ORDER'
Chairperson Ledvina called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m.
2. ROLL CALL
Boardmember, Jason Lamers
Chairperson, Matt Ledvina
Boardmember, Michael Mireau
Boardmember, Ananth Shankar
Vice Chairperson, Matt Wise
Present at 6:06 p.m.
Present
Present
Absent
Present
Staff Present:
Michael Martin, Planner
Michael Thompson, City Engineer
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Boardmember Wise moved to approve the aoenda as submitted.
Boardmember Mireau seconded the motion.
Ayes - All
The motion passed.
4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Chairperson Ledvina requested clarification of the recommendation on 6. a. number 8. Staff
stated that to better clarify the int(3ntthe wording could be changed to read:
The applicant shall coordinate the placement of the Southlawn drive-side entrance sion with the
support lines behind the metal panels similar with how the applicant has worked with the precast
reveal lines.
Boardmember Mireau moved to approve the January 11. 2011, CDRB minutes as amended.
Boardmember Wise seconded the motion.
Ayes - Chairperson Ledvina,
Boardmembers Mireau,
Shankar & Wise
Abstention - Boardmember Lamers
The motion passed.
5. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
None
March 22, 2011
Community Design Review Board Meeting Minutes
6. DESIGN REVIEW
a. Comprehensive Sign Plan Amendment, Maplewood Square Shopping Center, 3035
White Bear Avenue
1. Planner, Michael Martin gave the report and answered questions of the board.
2. Tom Schuette, Azure Properties, 95 South Owasso Boulevard West, Little
Canada, addressed and answered questions of the board.
Commissioner Lamers moved to approve the plans date-stamped Februarv 28. 2011. for a
comprehensive siqn plan amendment to allow a dynamic displav sian on the Maplewood Square
Shoppina Center, 3035 White Bear Avenue. Approval of the comprehensive sian plan
amendment is subiect to the followina conditions (additions are underlined and deletions are
crossed out):
Boardmember Wise made a friendly amendment expressing the desire for Simon Properties
(owners of Maplewood Mall) to work with this property owner (Azure Properties) and other area
property owners if Simon Properties should ever consider a dynamic display sign and wanted it
noted for the record as a preference of the board.
The friendly amendment was accepted by Commissioner Lamers.
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 gird's
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, allsigns 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 allClcated 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. +-
gjffi's 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 used 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).
Dynamic Display Signs
There may be one dynamic display sign on the north side of the building as shown on the plans
dated February 28, 2011. This sign must meet all requirements contained within the city's sign
ordinance and must be licensed by the city annually.
March 22, 2011
Community Design Review Board Meeting Minutes
2
Seconded by Boardmember Wise.
Ayes - All
The motion passed.
b. Ramsey County Park Shelters, Keller Regional Park
1. Planner, Michael Martin gave the report.
2. Director of Planning and Development with Ramsey County Parks and Recreation
Department, Scott Yonke, addressed and answered questions of the board.
Commissioner Wise moved to approve the plans date-stamped March 4. 2011. for the picnic
shelters proposed at Golf View and Round Lake within the Keller Reqional Park strikinQ the
word two in number 4. Approval is subiect to the applicant doinq the followinq:
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 lwG removed trees and how
the county will meet the requirements ofthe 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.
Seconded by Boardmember Lamers.
Ayes - All
The motion passed.
7. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS
None
8. BOARD PRESENTATIONS
None
March 22, 2011
Community Design Review Board Meeting Minutes
3
9. STAFF PRESENTATIONS
a. Complete Streets
i. City Engineer, Deputy Public Works Director, Michael Thompson gave the report on
Complete Streets and answered questions of the board.
b. 2010 Annual Report
i. Planner, Michael Martin gave the 2010 CDRB Annual Report
Boardmember Mireau moved to approve the 2010 Community Desiqn Review Board Annual
Report.
Seconded by Boardmember Wise.
Ayes - All
The motion passed.
c. Election of Officers
i. Planner, Michael Martin gave the report on Election of Officers
Boardmember Wise moved to nominate Matt Ledvina as Chairperson.
Seconded by Boardmember Lamers.
Ayes - All
The motion passed.
Chairperson Ledvina moved to nominate Matt Wise as Vice-Chairperson.
Seconded by Boardmember Lamers.
Ayes - All
The motion passed.
10. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned by Chairperson Ledvina at 7:30 p.m.
March 22, 2011
Community Design Review Board Meeting Minutes
4
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
LOCATION:
DATE:
James Antonen, City Manager
Michael Martin, AICP, Planner
Design Review _ cottagewood Town House Development
South of Highwood Avenue, east of Dennis Street, west of 1-494
April 18, 2011
INTRODUCTION
Project Description
Tom Wiener of Cardinal Homebuilders is taking over the Cottagewood Town House Development
with the intent to build 15 detached town houses. It would be on a 3.71-acre site on the south side
of Highwood Avenue, east of Dennis Street. Refer to the applicant's statement and the maps and
plans attached to this report. A homeowners association would own and maintain the common
areas.
The community design review board (CDRB) approved design plans for Cottagewood in 2006 but
more than two years have passed without a building permit being issued so that approval is now
null and void. Mr. Wiener is proposing to complete the development with slightly modified
architectural and landscape plans. All other design plans would follow the 2006 approval. The
previous contractor has completed the site grading, retaining walls, utilities and the base course
and paving for the private driveway. .
Requests
To build this project, Mr. Wiener is requesting that the city approve the project design plans
(architectural and landscape) for the site and buildings. .
The project plans show that there would be two styles of town houses and that they would have a
mix of exterior treatments. These include horizontal-lap vinyl siding, vinyl board and batten accents,
aluminum soffits and fascia and brick or stone veneer accents near the garage doors and on the
base of the columns. In addition, each town house unit would have a two-car garage.
BACKGROUND
On August 28, 2006, the city council made several approvals for this development. They included a
revision to the planned unit development, a preliminary plat and a resolution ordering the public
improvements. These approvals were subject to several conditions.
On September 19, 2006, the community design review board approved the design plans for
Cottagewood (subject to several conditions of approval).
On March 12, 2007, the city council approved the final plat for Cottagewood.
1
DISCUSSION
Town houses
The project plans show 15 detached town house buildings within the site with two different exterior
designs. The proposed town house buildings should be attractive and should fit in with the design
of the existing homes in the area. They would have a mix of exterior materials that include
horizontal vinyl siding with a stone veneer near the garage doors, on the column bases and on the
fronts, and the roofs would have asphalt shingles.
Staff does not have any major concerns about the proposed town house elevations since this
development will be on a cul-de-sac and would be somewhat isolated. In fact, only the buyers of the
town houses would be able to see the fronts of the new buildings. However, the project plans do
not specify the colors of the materials for any of the units. Staff should review and approve a color
scheme for all building materials in the whole development before the city issues a building permit.
The applicant has inquired about the use of patios or decks. Each unit is proposed to have a patio
door on a side elevation. The conditional use permit for a planned unit development that was
approved for this site requires setbacks of six feet from a side property line and 12 feet between
units. Given these setback requirements staff feels it would be difficult to add patios or decks and
still meet the city council requirements.
Trees, Screening and Landscaping
The previous developer had proposed to plant at least 74 new trees on the site, plant numerous
shrubs around the buildings and install several rainwater gardens and an infiltration pond with
landscaping on the site. The current developer has concerns about planting the previously
approved blackhills spruce trees along the west side of the development which were intended for
screening. The developer's concerns deal mainly with the trees eventually growing large enough to
fill the entire backyard space and potentially touching the homes. The developer is proposing to
replace the blackhills spruce trees with a row of lilac shrubs in order to provide screening between
the new homes and existing homes to the west. In addition to the 49 planted lilac shrubs, the
developer will be planting 45 additional trees throughout the site.
The previous approved landscaping plan had screening that met the requirements of being at least
six feet tall and SO percent opaque. While not required by code, the intent was to provide screening
between the new homes and the existing homes to the west. Staff is concerned about not meeting
this standard right away after the homes are complete. The lilac shrubs have the ability to grow
large and in several years provide adequate screening as outlined in the previous approval.
However, staff would recommend the developer provide a revised landscaping plan that would
better meet the intended screening from the start or potentially build a fence. Staff will be looking
for the CDRB to provide guidance in this area.
The developer has provided a landscape plan that shows the locations of the lilac shrubs and a
typicaliot landscaping detail. This plan is attached to this report. The developer will be required to
meet the previous approvals for the rainwater gardens and infiltration pond.
2
City Engineering Department Comments
Steve Kummer, of the city's engineering department has reviewed the applicant's plans and his
comments are attached to this report.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Approve the building elevations and landscape plans date-stamped April 11 , 2011, for the
Cottagewood PUD. The developer is also to abide by the 2006 CDRB approved site plan, grading
and drainage plans. This development will be on the south side of Highwood Avenue, west of 1-494
and east of Dennis Street. The city bases this approval on the findings required by the code. The
developer or contractor shall do the following:
1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this
project.
2. Complete the following before the city issues a building permit:
a. Comply or continue compliance with all engineering requirements as outlined in 2A of
the September 19, 2006 community design review board's minutes.
b. Submit a certificate of survey for all new construction and have each building staked by
a registered land surveyor.
c. Submit a revised landscape plan to staff for approval which incorporates the following
details:
(1) All lawn areas shall be sodded. The city engineer shall determine the vegetation
within the ponding area.
(2) Install screening along the west property line of the site where the vegetation does
not adequately screen the new town houses from the existing dwellings. These
additional materials are to ensure there is at least a six-foot-tall, SO-percent
opaque screen on the west side of the site. The location, design and materials of
the additional landscaping shall be subject to city staff approval.
(3) The developer shall install landscaping in the ponding areas to break the
appearance of the deep hole and to promote infiltration. Such landscaping shall be
approved by the city engineer and shall be shown on the project landscape plans.
(4) Shows all landscaped areas, excluding landscaping within the ponds, with an
underground irrigation system (code requirement).
(5) The plantings proposed around the units shown on the iandscape plan date-
stamped April 11 , 2011, shall remain on the plan.
(6) The manicured or mowed areas from the natural areas. This shall include planting
(instead of sodding) the disturbed areas around the ponding area with native
grasses and native flowering plants. The native grasses and flowering plants shall
be those needing little or no maintenance and shall extend at least four feet from
the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) of the pond. This is to reduce maintenance
3
costs and to reduce the temptation of mowers to encroach into the gardens.
Specifically, the developer shall have the natural areas seeded with an upland
mixture and lowland mixtures as appropriate.
(7) In addition to the above, the contractor shall sod all front, side and rear yard areas
(except for mulched and edged planting beds and the area within the ponding
area).
(8) The contractor shall restore the Highwood Avenue boulevard with sod.
(9) Show the in-ground lawn-irrigation system, including the location of the sprinkler
heads.
d. Show that a contractor has properly sealed all wells on property.
e. Get the necessary approvals and permits from the watershed district and provide the
city verification that all watershed district provisions are met before the city issues a
building or a grading permit for the site.
f. Submit a site lighting plan for city staff approval. This plan shall show the installation of
at least two streetlights and how the lighting on the buildings would add to the site
lighting. This plan also shall show details about the proposed light fixtures to ensure
they are a design that hides the bulb and lens from view to avoid nuisances. The light
fixtures must have concealed lenses and bulbs to properly shield glare from the
adjacent street right-of-ways and from adjacent residential properties. This plan shall
show the height and style of all outdoor lights and that the light illumination from
outdoor lights does not exceed 0.4 foot candles at all property lines.
g. Have the Saint Paul Regional Water Services (SPRWS) approve the proposed utility
plans.
h. The developer or builder will pay the city Park Access Charges (PAC fees) at the time
of the building permit for each housing unit.
i. Submit the homeowners association bylaws and rules to the city for approval by the city
staff. These are to assure that there will be one responsible party for the care and
maintenance of the common areas, outlots, the private utilities, trails, sidewalks, signs,
landscaping and retaining walls.
j. Submit revised, detailed building plans and elevations for each building type to city staff
for approval. These elevations shall show or include (but are not limited to):
(1) the colors of all materials,
(2) all elevations of all buildings (including the rear elevations of the walk out and
at-grade style units) and
(3) any shutters or window grids
k. Provide the city with a letter of credit or cash escrow for all required exterior
improvements. The amount shall be 150 percent of the cost of the work.
3. Complete the following before occupying each building:
4
a. Replace property irons that are removed because of this construction.
b. Restore and sod damaged boulevards and sod all turf areas.
c. Complete all landscaping and turf irrigation for that building and its rainwater garden(s).
d. Install the required concrete curb and gutter.
e. Install a reflectorized stop sign at the exit onto Highwood Avenue and install addresses
on each building for each unit. In addition, the applicant shall install "no parking" signs
within the site, as required by staff.
f. Install and maintain all required trees and landscaping (including the plantings around
each unit and around the pond) and an in-ground sprinkler system for all landscaped
areas (code requirement).
g. Install on-site iighting for security and visibility that follows the approved site lighting
plan. All exterior lighting shall follow the approved lighting plan that shows the light
spread and fixture design. The light fixtures must have concealed lenses and bulbs to
properly shield glare from the adjacent street right-of-ways and the nearby homes and
residential properties.
h. Install screening along the west property line of the site where the vegetation does not
adequately screen the new town houses from the existing dwellings. These additional
materials are to ensure there is at least a six-foot-tall, 80-percent opaque screen on the
west side of the site. The location, design and materials of the additional landscaping
shall be subject to city staff approval.
i. Install city approved conservation easement signs at the edge of the conservation
easement. The signs shall notify that there shall be no building, mowing, cutting,
grading, filling or dumping within the conservation easement.
j. Install all the required exterior improvements, including all exterior lighting.
k. Show that Ramsey County has recorded the final plat for this development.
I. The developer or contractor shall:
(1) Complete all grading for the site drainage, complete all public improvements and
meet all city requirements.
(2) Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits.
(3) Remove any debris or junk from the site.
4. 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.
5
b. The above-required letter of credit or cash escrow is held by the city for all required
exterior improvements. The owner or contractor shall complete any unfinished
landscaping by June 1 of the next year 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.
5. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may
approve minor changes.
6. This approval does not include signs. Any signage will be reviewed by city staff through
the sign permit process.
6
REFERENCE INFORMATION
SITE DESCRIPTION
Site size: 3.71 acres
Existing land use: Formerly a single dwelling and accessory buildings
SURROUNDING LAND USES
North:
South:
West:
East:
New Century PUD across Highwood Avenue
Interstate 494
Houses along Dennis Street and fronting on Highwood Avenue
House at 2684 Highwood Avenue and cellular telephone tower
PLANNING
Existing Land Use Plan designation: Medium Density Residential (MDR)
Existing Zoning: Planned Unit Development (PUD)
Application Date
The city received the complete CDRB application and plans for this development on April 18, 2011.
State law requires that the city take action within 60 days of receiving complete applications for a
proposal. As such, city action is required on this proposal by June 17, 2011.
p:sec 13-28\Cottagewood\Cottagewood Design Review_CDRB_042611
Attachments:
1. Location Map
2. Site Plan
3. Applicant's Statement
4. Landscape Plan
5. Elevation A
6. Elevation B
7. Steve Kummer's review dated April 19, 2011
8. CDRB Minutes, September 19, 2006
9. Project Plans date-stamped April 11 , 2011 (separate attachments)
7
ti
N
~<V
~
;:y
I
:.,,,.
o
<3/0h
D >- li-'
-lHL
,0
a
'"
n
\
\
7
([ 1
Location Map
Cottage wood
Attachment 1
A
/ DO
//~ 0
Ii 0/0
I-=::~ tJ
~ ~ 't>o
o
(
D
\\J ....
~(
(l j-o
\
;~
~.
I f
, bGJ
o,{)
\3
,R--:-,
,,:,,',';S'.',' :;;;:,':i:;R~' ~
. __..-..........._ ,'J
:"-i ~l~~1t ,"' I"
LL, _ ~ .-.- '~..-::-- J f!
itiGh,','O:X; ,';' ,:,....EJ;<Z ", ll' ..';'''~'. 'Z .~
,. :;1._ ;,,;1.t11 ,r.'"~'l-' 1tt!'~''';''~J,
~ ......],1-... '". ",.~.-.., <<fl.1 . ',./;',
, ,,,..1'1,: I:lUdmtOOll.lvrNfJB !.lSr,,4 ~lt"
:".....<\.$1.,.:1. . " . 'I__
I, -...-' , ~ ~ . .. ... . I . ~:_
\ ~ r~U---~~ ~,~ :Q~' .~
1m ~ L,:j g ~~ ", -~co,
!'otl i r---.......f~~. ~ ~ "=I ~ .
~hl l I\:1:S. -n -:;;::.1
-, I! ~2' " ~~~1.~ n~ ~~~I ~k-
- ~l l.: t4 :g~~;ltr .... \ :..:1
'\ ~: . : ~'\ \ -\ C":>
'~ : :..__~~'u"!.l. 1" ..._~_':>. I
, .' r..i",Ri-'(~ j ,- iNIi"""l' ro,:
_"J! '11:"16""'1 [' ~1 'l):
i:""'''.,..'\j..... ....m;":O>'-l1
\. ~jf.~ >~ ,,- fW,;'1o"-'"l -1
it"r,-- .:._;:;;: ~ \, \':>1
',,""RnJ AS'\ k.An. z:
i: -".9t:~ 2 ~ rlil~it'M"i" I
I "'"oCl\', ,., I,
",I \L--__~~,,_~...~~l\:l ",:l :":
. ~ ,".T,n;.:c~ u"~ .'4"__~_ \ -~i'
c,.. l . III It ..J_.....,~!)I
~; , ~. 'I '5~' ,,... ~ lil141
,VI ~"~,..L :1-' \C1I.~11
.. I :' '~'l'!}:;".,,, MiI/" "l-:w..~~"- . :
f~~'':o.''t,:''~~ \';hiii"i'N1" I
!""04;:~!rl,: ,I!i Q. 1
. 'I ,_ ~ ~ .;o..J\Of:y...} 1
~ :";.~:~p--~ .. 3 r...r~~. I
: f-"~:~l~ . \,,\:;:t.~ 1:~ ~:
:..' Jt.;'l':"~ \. \\..~_ III~l I..,
,...,....Ioo..,.l.. ';~lI'j'I\: 1'''-
: :.1Y~!' ~~~i;! "1!!l""
r ~ <:.1.. 'iil . 'i\4r i
1 hlil~ll
e ,; i \"1"
fl'\.: 1'1
v~ ~ ('- I;!~I!
'-(-. t-o r ~ i~1
-1, e ~ ' ", I'
"~"l "i 1. ~'I ~
~... II to
.. j :
-~-f l
.. '.1
.: " I
~. ...'---:~? : l
I '
.\ '
....f' \
I "
I (";.,,-
I ,
,.....,iil 1
fl' ~I 1
.'~ I I
/~~ 'I 1 :
,. ')+ I I
') It'l
, I,
, ~~.. .," \ . I,
t.:~'i{~~~~~___l,j
'.... \; ~~.,.._''''''-
. --~=t~S
"
";
"
"
,?
1'1
toj:
'0 'ii
L, II,.
-, 1.\
~a ~I~
~ 1~
'" .
\
,~ 'i.).
'j \;.
1!,
<^
."
:~
"
.
/
/
c,
!
!
.] ~
J 1
3 ,
.
!
/
.r)"
/
,<
v,,"
:m
"11
'j.,
"I'
,
,.
"
",
1\
1.1
'm
(;1ft
'f/'
1"1
"
; 1 ~.7..
1"
"
11":
'"'
j.,
"
I,
("')'
a
~'
~
~'
~(
d
a
t::l'
"
,..
.>
^i'
/P
,J,f
','
. '-1'
','
.'\., I
1,---!
l ,
,
i
PROPOSED FINAL PLAT
Attachment 2
{J
N
Attachment 3
Cardinal Cottagewood
We are the new developers, builders ofthepreviously approved Cottagewood Development.
Cardinal Homebuilders, Inc. has been building homes since 1977 and have built a number of them in the
Maplewood community over those years. Cardinal has been in business since the early 1960's providing
real estate services mainly on St. Paul's east side. You can getfurther information about our company at
our website www.Cardinalhomebuilders.com.
We are proposing to abide by the previous developers agreements with the city, but are submitting new
front elevations and also asking that the landscaping plan have some changes made to it.
The landscaping changes are to remove the blackhills spruce trees along the west side of the
development and replace with a row of lilacs. Our purpose forthis is the blackhills spruce trees will be 6'
in base width upon planting and grow up to 20' in width overthe years. We only have 12' backyards so
the trees while initially intruding on the homes will ultimately be touching the homes and most likely
have to be cut down much sooner than intended. We feel that the lilac shrub can be maintained at a
narrower width and provide the privacy for both our homes and the adjoining lots over time. Also this
12' area is our drainage area and the trees would have to be planted within this area thus causing
potential drainage issues. We also changed this on Lot 1 on the east side for the same purpose.
We have changed the front elevations on our homes to meet our pricing and style looks for the current
economy. Our goal is to provide a quality home at an affordable price. We plan on building a model
home on the property this spring/summer and hopefully building others there during the course of the
summer. We look forward to working with the city on this project,
One additional item we would like to clarify is the use of patioS or deckS at the rear of the homes. Are
there any restrictions on building these? Ifthis is a staff item We would be glad to work this through with
them.
We look forward to working with the city on this project.
Cardinal Homebuilders, Inc
--:--\ .
. tW'/1 b)liN-
Tom Wiener,Pres.
1:\&pp02\510a-002\5103Landscape,dwtl. 9129120061:39:50 PM
,
;\
~eii
~;Ii
!;Ii
II~=~
~i3
~;j
I
I
I
I
--\
I
1
I
I
I .
__1:-:
,;; ijiiB
19l;~
5~i~~
~I ~ -!ii
!! i li!i
~ih~
at ~ ~!i
~. I i~;
~ X~i
~ Ii
. i!~
i ~i
; Ii!
, ~ ~il
I '1.
II
,
~
~
~
II
,
II 0 1 o'Jjf"4~
!~~di IliB i P i
~ilHq ~ q i
Attachment 4
"'""<.I
..
..
-.---
...
-.---
..
----
'"
---
"
---
"
----
. =-.
l' I -~>""------------
HIOHWOOD AVE E
_ ..,,-_-J__L
..:!2"'______________
! COTT AGEWOOD SUBDIVISION
~ LAUREN & COMPANY
ClTY.OF.UAP\.tWOOO. MlNIES(lTA
LANDSCAPE PLAN
.~_W~ pi =":
_._ _lIi1Oll . 0Il1Cl OI~
:.~ :.~... OlIlInIIlS1~
~ .~. .11D1U\.1I11lJ-OD1
AuIh.CoWtiog/assaciates S&\lllmd_jIng a__"""
L'~~ ,; II ., u:J
1
lSNOISI/lHli .. . .. 'ON.l3BWl
s:lllIlUO;) TBlI!Pm;) I .... :aLval~~J
I - V ldO- SNOI.LVAtl'1tl!
\Uo:l'S~J!lI:ul!-S)''''''''' ~.~.~~-06J..l~~ II
",,"NN~^'~"S m'OM'"~"V -,,,-,,'" '. '
S.L::"UlH:)l!V .
S3.J.VIOOSSV-~ SNIJ.NVS.ilUNn:>
tr\IS"ctt'''l' ='~l'l"l'l"l'<l
~ rl~:~:;
~.--,-
:'
::i 1-
,.
____--fl
II
II
II
II
II
II
[I
_~ II
II II.
II II
II I[
1III
Ii-Ii
II II
II II
II II
II II
il II
II II
II II
II II
II II
'II il.
I[ II
[I II
II II ~
--u-- - --;j .~. ~
:d ~
,
~ ~
of
.~
"D
i
---:.--'--__,_.:..:...,;Jl
II
II
-------Il
II
II
II
II
[I
II
II
II
II
1\
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
~ II
'" I
~ ,. I
w, II
~; II
t:j ~ II
. .
II
II
II
II
,1- ---:u
II
II
--u
O"':I'SI.\$I!'''''''-'l.\"'''''''''. ..tJ:"S-C(jt-IS~1
oms NI'l~'M".'S m"N""~"V",".M"~'. ._.
S~::>a~IHJ~V .
SBJ. V l;)OSSY ~ iINII.NVS'AQWnO
,
t
.~
q
DODD
DODD
DODD
DODD
DODD
ODD
DODD
DO
.j
;i
~
w-m-l19 I9SfWt'''''''''''
Ml~_' ,...........v-""'I:O.
~rl;;=;
z
<>
&~-~
~il'$
~'"
<Ii,l~
~~.~
- -----fl iJ)1--<(
li~H
. . Il.~~.~
11l1~;!;
II
II.
II
II
-- -Il II
II II
II II
II II
II II
II--H
II II
II II.
II II
II II
II II
II II
II II
II II
II II
II II
II II
II II
II II"
-~---u~ ~
, ~ ~
h
, 'a
I....."'..'''''' '>Ol ' '"
· S:ll1~OJ l1lll!PlllJ I .~IIQ,,~;i::l
I HldO- SNOUVAHTiI!
t
.~
.~
~""-'-'-.'-.-n
II
II
-~--n
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
l'i II
"
~ II
:rl;
. , II
~, II
~ ~ 'I
II
II
II
II
-- TI-----u
II
il
II
--jJ
Attachment 7
Cottagewood Development
(Cardinal Homebuilders)
4-19-11
Page 1 of 2
Enaineerina Plan Review
PROJECT:
PROJECT NO:
COMMENTS BY:
DATE:
PLAN SET:
REPORTS:
Cottagewood Development (Cardinal Homebuilders)
old 06-08
Steve Kummer, P.E. - Staff Engineer
4.19.11
CDRS Submittal (Design Review) 4.6.11
None
Summary
Tom Weiner with Cardinal Homebuilders is proposing to take over the Cottagewood
development and build houses on the existing prepared site.
Request
The applicant is requesting design review for the construction of homes on an existing graded
parcel with pre-installed sanitary sewer and water services as well as existing roadway. The
current in-place infrastructure has been accepted by the City.
General
1) The proposal shall comply with the CDRB conditions of September 19th, 2006.
2) The applicant shall work with Maplewood city staff to transfer ownership of all
agreements bound to this property to new ownership. A new developer agreement
and transfer of ownership of the existing stormwater maintenance agreement are
required prior to approval of building and grading Pl3rmits.
Erosion Control and SWPPP
3) Prepare a construction storm water pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) showing
erosion and sediment control measures to be used for each constructed lot (a
concept of one lot is fine) and for preventing sediment from leaving the site. Make
sure the SWPPP includes all applicable procedures for prevention such as concrete
washout areas, street sweeping operations and other procedures to prevent polluted
runoff from leaving the site.
4) Prepare a permanent SWPPP showing permanent establishment measures,
landscaping and timelines for establishing denuded areas after each home is
completed.
5) The existing storm water pond is showing some signs of erosion. Repair all eroded
areas of the pond and re-establish with seed and blanket.
Cottagewood Development
(Cardinal Homebuilders)
4-19-11
Page 2 of 2
6) No grading, disturbance or storage of construction equipment is allowed in the
southerly portion of the conservation easement off the end of the culs-de-sac.
Applicant shall also
Landscapino Plans
7) Prepare a site landscaping plan including proposed landscaping for the northeast
infiltration basin, proposed landscaping for each home and tree plans.
8) Manicure existing landscaping and prune existing trees on the site that were planted
as part of the Cottagewood development if the applicant intends to utilize the existing
landscape features.
9) Any changes in retaining wall configurations shall be approved by the City Engineer.
Gradino Plan
10) The applicant shall indicate finished-floor elevations for each home. Any changes to
floor elevations from the original grading plan shall be approved by the City
Engineer.
Site Utilities
11) The applicant shall coordinate televising of the existing sanitary sewer main with the
City of Maplewood Utility department as well as compensate for cleaning and jetting
of the mainline. This shall be completed prior to connecting new buildings for use.
12) The applicant shall coordinate main, water curb stop, and gate valve inspections with
Saint Paul Regional Water Services prior to hookup of water service to each home.
Other
13) Submit a signed copy of the MPCA construction storm water permit prior to grading
permit issue.
14) Satisfy requirements of all permitting authorities associated with this project. Provide
copies of written approval letters and permits.
-END COMMENTS-
Attachment 8
MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 19, 2006
VI. DESIGN REVIEW
a. cottagewood Town House Development - South of Highwood
Avenue, east of Dennis Street, west of 1-494.
Mr. Roberts said Mr. Phil Soby is proposing to build 15 detached town
houses in a development called Cottagewood. It would be on a 3.71-acre
site on the south side of Highwood Avenue, east of Dennis Street.
To build this project, Mr. Soby is requesting that the city approve the
project design plans (architectural, site, landscape, and lighting plans) for
the site and buildings.
The project plans show that there would be three styles of town houses
and that they would have a mix of exterior treatments. These include
horizontal-lap vinyl siding, vinyl board, and batten accents, aluminum
soffits and fascia and brick or stone veneer accents near the doors and on
the base. of the columns. In addition, each town house unit would have a
two-car garage.
On August 28, 2006, the city council approved the following for the
Cottagewood development:
1. A revision to. a conditional use permit (CUP) for. a planned unit
development (PUD). This revision was necessary since the city had
approved different plans for the site in 2003. The PUD gives the city
and developer a chance to be more flexible with site design and
development detailS (such as setbacks and street right-of-way and
pavement widths) than the standard city requirements would
normally allow. Specifically, the proposed PUD revision would allow
for smaller average lot sizes, for thl3 town houses to have a smaller
setback to the front, side and rear property lines than code allows
and to have the town houses on a private driveway.
2. A preliminary plat to create the lots in the development (15 lots for
the town houses and one lot for the common area).
The project plans show 15 detached town house buildings within the site
with three different exterior designs. The proposed town house buildings
should be attractive and should fit in with the design of the existing homes
in the area. They would have a mix of exterior materials that include
horizontal vinyl siding with a stone veneer near the doors, on the column
Attachment 8
bases and on the fronts, and the roofs would have asphalt shingles. In
addition, there would be a mix of lookout, full basement and walkout units,
and each unit would have aluminum soffits and an attached two-car
garage.
Staff does not have any major concerns about the proposed town house
elevations since this development will be on a cul-de-sac and would be
somewhat isolated. In fact, only the buyers of the town houses would be
able to see the fronts of the new buildings. However, the project plans do
not specify the colors of the materials for any of the units.
Staff should review and approve a color scheme for all building materials
in the whole development before the city issues a building permit.
Chairperson Olson asked how the traffic would impact the existing
neighborhood from this development proposal?
Mr. Roberts said its staff's opinion, based on statistics that each town
home would generate about 6 vehicle trips a day for each of the 15
detached town homes meaning about 90 trips a day. As such, the traffic
wouldn't create a large impact on the area.
Chairperson Olson asked if there were any significant trees on the site
and would the new tree ordinance apply to this proposal?
Mr. Roberts said there are some significant trees on the site and the
southern part of the site will be put into a conservation easement and
protected so trees are being preserved in that area. Some trees will be
lost and staff was not sure of the count.
Chairperson Olson asked the applicant to address the board.
Mr. Phil Soby, Owner and Developer, Lauren Co. Development, 200 East
Chestnut Street, Suite 204, Stillwater, addressed the board.
Chairperson Olson asked if he brought any building material samples to
show the board?
Mr. Soby said he apologizes but there was a miscommunication regarding
the color samples for the siding, shingles and stone so those aren't
available but he did bring a sample of the exterior light. The siding is vinyl
and will be offered in 7 earth tone colors. The buyer will determine which
lot they prefer and which townhome design they prefer, plan A, B, or C
and they will choose the building material colors they prefer. What has
Attachment 8
been determined is which units would be on the two lots facing Highwood
Avenue to address the concerns of. the design of the end units which are
designed so the garage is to the opposite side away from Highwood
Avenue. The more detailed elevation in the staff report that is shown with
the fireplace and the windows would be design of the elevation that would
face Highwood Avenue. There are two different types of siding, the siding
below the roofline is lap siding and the other above the roofline and the
side and front gables is referred to as a board and batten type siding
which is also a vinyl product and would be in a two tone scheme. For
example, the lower portion may be tan and the upper portion could be
linen color with white trim to give a dimensional look to the design. All of
the units would be done in the same manner in terms of the trim and four
sided architecture. The stone chase fireplace will be an optional feature
and expense and we are not sure how many customers will choose it. The
standard gas fireplace would be the doghouse bump out. Each town home
unit will have the same lighting fixtures throughout the site with a light on
each side of the garage door and by the entrance to the home. The
garage doors will be a cottage style to fit in with the craftsman style design
of the town homes. They want the town home units to have character and
will have custom features, they don't want the units to look uniform but
they still want things to be somewhat consistent in design throughout the
site.
Board member Hinzman asked if the garage doors on the town homes
would be a standard feature or an upgrade for the customer?
Mr. Soby said the garage doors as shown would be standard and would
have a lot of curb appeal.
Board member Hinzman asked if the board and batten vinyl siding would
project?
Mr. Soby said yes. The old fashioned manner for structures such as a
barn was to use a 1 x 2 product and that is the same projection this
molded vinyl product will have and be installed vertically 8 inches on
center. This gives a good shadow line detail and adds style to the home.
Chairperson Olson said you referred to these town homes as affordable
units. She asked what the asking price will be for these individual units?
Mr. Soby said what is considered to be affordable now is possibly
unaffordable to others but the goal is to keep the units under $300,000
and would be priced in the high $200,000's, however; these units have the
Attachment 8
"potential" to be priced over $300,000. There will be a base price of about
$275,000 and if the customer would like extra options added the price
would go up to around $300,000.
Chairperson Olson said this appears to be a proposal using quality
products with a nice design to the town homes and she likes that they are
detached units.
Board member Hinzman asked if there would be an overhang of the main
floor over the walkout elevation for the rear elevation?
Mr. So by said that's a flat surface with a rim board or starter board and in
a color band of the trim color. It's pretty close to where the bottom of the
floor trusses would sit at the top of the foundation.
Chairperson Olson asked how they are proposing to construct the
retaining walls and what product would you use?
Mr. Soby said in the areas where the retaining wall is drawn consecutively
on the site plan it will be one whole retaining wall. Where room allows they
will use a boulder retaining wall to keep with the natural look of the site.
There are a few areas where the retaining wall area is less in lineal
footage and they will probably have to use a retaining wall block in 12 inch
form, if room allows they will use a boulder retaining wall.
Mr. Roberts displayed on the screen where the retaining walls would be
on the site map.
Board member Ledvina said it appears they are going to have some split
retaining walls by the pond. He asked if the intention was to keep the
retaining wall less than 4 feet in height?
Mr. Soby said due to comments from the watershed district there has
been a revised plan for the pond layout in the last few days. The retaining
wall changed to one retaining wall at a height no taller than four feet. The
retaining wall will be two rows of boulders or sometimes they will start off
with larger boulders and taper down to smaller boulders.
Board member Ledvina wanted to clarify that they will in fact be using
boulders for the retaining wall whenever possible so that can be
memorialized as part of the conditions.
Mr. So by said to clarify we will use boulders whenever possible; when
space is tight we will use a 12 inch retaining wall block of some kind.
Attachment 8
Chairperson Olson said she wondered if there would be any problem with
erosion problems using boulders?
Mr. Soby said the experience has been that boulders are more stable as a
retaining wall and usually don't erode due to their expanse compared to
the use of a retaining block wall. We us a fiber net behind the boulders as
well which helps contain the boulder in place. The boulders are very
significant in size and we usually get high marks from the engineers with
this type of retaining wall.
Chairperson Olson asked to see the light fixture proposed for this
development.
Mr. Soby passed the light fixture around so the board members could see
the finish, size, and the style of the light fixture.
Board member Ledvina said he thinks this is a nice development. He likes
the layout of the proposal which is a vast improvement over past
proposals. He likes the detached town home units. He likes that this design
doesn't have overpowering garages that standout and overshadow the
unit itself. He likes the style of the town home units and he thinks a lot of
thought has gone into the style of the homes and the development site as
a whole and he thinks this proposal is very well done.
Board member Hinzman agreed with those comments. These detached
townhome units have tremendous curb appeal and will be well placed in
the marketing of these units and will be a nice transition from the single
family homes in the area with this density proposed.
Chairperson Olson said we need to discuss the shortcomings in the
landscaping that staff commented on.
Mr. Roberts said the only thing the plan did not call out was the exact size
of some of the plantings and there is a condition included in the staff
report on page 7 item (11) which reads shows the sizes and for all trees
and plants. The deciduous trees shall be at least 2Y:i inches in diameter
and the coniferous trees shall be at least eight feet tall.
Board member Ledvina moved to approve the project plans date-stamped
September 6, 2006, (site plan, landscape plan, grading and drainage
plans and building elevations) for the Cottagewood PUD. This
development will be on the south side of Highwood Avenue, west of 1-494
and east of Dennis Street. The city bases this approval on the findings
required by the code. The developer or contractor shall do the following:
(Additions are underlined and deletions are stricken.)
Attachment 8
1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building
permit for this project.
2. Complete the following before the city issues a building permit:
a. Have the city engineer approval final construction and
engineering plans. These plans shall include: streets,
grading, utility, drainage, erosion control, tree, sidewalk and
driveway plans. The plans shall meet the following
conditions and shall meet all the conditions and changes
noted in Michael Thompson's memo dated July 28,2006.
(1) The erosion control plan shall be consistent with city
code.
(2) The grading plan shall:
(a) Include building, floor elevation and contour
information for each home site. The lot lines on
this plan shall follow the approved preliminary plat.
(b) Include contour information for the land that the
construction will disturb.
(c) Show sedimentation basins or ponds as may be
required by the watershed board or by the city
engineer.
(d) Show all proposed slopes steeper than 3:1 on the
proposed construction plans. The city engineer
shall approve the plans, specifications and
management practices for any slopes steeper than
3:1. This shall include covering these slopes with
wood-fiber blankets and seeding them with a "no
mow" vegetation rather than using sod or grass.
(e) Show all retaining walls on the plans. Any
retaining walls more than four feet tall require a
building permit from the city and shall have a
fencl3 along the top. The developer or contractor
shall use boulder walls around the storm water
ponds located on the northeast corner of the
development and for the oradino associated with
the cul-de-sac. The boulder walls are
l
Attachment8
recommended for use in other areas of the
development if possible.
(f) Show the proposed street and driveway grades as
allowed by the city engineer.
(g) Show the drainage areas, and the' developer's
engineer shall provide the city engineer with the
drainage calculations. The drainage design shall
accommodate the run"off from the surrounding
areas.
(h) If required, show details about any proposed pond
fencing including the materials, gate, height and
color.
(3) The tree plan shall:
(a) Be approved by the city engineer.
(b) Include an inventory of all existing large trees on
the .site and shall show where the developer will
remove, transplant, save or replace large trees.
(c) Show the size, species and location of the
transplanted and replacement trees. The new
coniferous trees shall be at least eight feet tall and
shall be a mix of Black Hills spruce and Austrian
pine.
(d) Be consistent with the approved grading and
landscape plans and shall show no tree removal
beyond the approved grading and tree limits.
(4) The street, driveway and utility plans shall show:
(a) A water service to each lot and unit.
(b) The repair and restoration of Highwood Avenue
(including curbing, street, and boulevard) after the
contractor removes the existing driveways,
connects to the public utilities and builds the new
street, sidewalks, trails and driveways.
Attachment 8
(c) The street and the driveways shall have
continuouS concrete curb and gutter except where
the city engineer decides that it is not needed.
(d) Thl3 developer or contractor shall post the streets
and driveways with "no parking" signs to meet city
standards.
(e) The pUblic streets and private driveways labeled
on all plans.
(f) The common areas labeled asoutlots on all plans.
(g) Areas for proof of parking off the streets wherever
possible.
(5) The design of the ponding areas and any rainwater
garden(s) shall be subject to the approval of the city
enginl3er. The developer shall be responsible for
getting any needl3d off-site utility, grading or
drainage easements and for recording all necessary
easements.
b. Submit a certificate of survey for all new construction and
have each building staked by a registered land surveyor.
c. Submit a revisl3d landscape plan to staff for approval whiCh
incorporates the following details:
(1) All lawn areas shall be sodded. The city engineer
shall determine the vegetation within the ponding
area.
(2) The developer shall install landscaping in the
ponding areas to break the appearance of the deep
hole and to promote infiltration. Such landscaping
shall be approved by the city engineer and shall be
shown on the project landscape plans.
(3) Shows all landscaped areas, excluding landscaping
within the ponds, with an underground irrigation
system (code requirl3ment).
(4) The plantings proposed around the units shown on
the landscape plan date-stamped September 6,
2006, shall remain on the plan.
Attachment 8
(5) A concrete walk from the driveway to the door of
each unit.
(6) The manicured or mowed areas from the natural
areas. This shall include planting (instead of
sodding) the disturbed areas around the ponding
area with native grasses and native flowering plants.
The native grasses and flowering plants shall be
those needing little or no maintenance and shall
extend at leastfourfeetfrom the ordinary high water
mark (OHWM) of the pond. This is to reduce
maintenance costs and to reduce the temptation of
mowers to encroach into the gardens. Specifically,
the developer shall have the natural areas seeded
with an upland mixture and lowland mixtures as
appropriate.
(7) In addition to the above, the contractor shall sod all
front, side and rear yard arl3as (except for mulched
and edged planting beds and thearl3a within the
ponding area).
(8) The contractor shall restore the Highwood Avenue
boulevard with sod.
(9) Show the in-ground lawn-irrigation system, including
the location of the sprinkler heads.
(10) Shall be approved by the city engineer (including the
plantings in the ponds and rain water gardens)
before site grading and shall be consistent with the
approved grading and landscape plans.
(11) Shows the sizl3s and .for all trees and plants. The
deciduous trees shall be at least 2% inches in
diameter and the coniferous trees shall be at least
eight feet tall.
d. Show that a contractor as properly sealed all wells on
property.
e. Get the necessary. approvals and permits from the
watershed district and provide the city verification that all
watershed district provisions are met before the city issues a
building or a grading permit for the site.
Attachment 8
f. Submit a site lighting plan for city approval. This plan shall
show the installation of at least two streetlights and how the
lighting on the buildings would add to the site lighting. This
plan also shall show details about the proposl3d lightfixtures
to ensurl3 they are a design that hidl3s the bulb and lens from
view to avoid nuisances. The light fixtures must have
concealed lenses and bulbs to properly shield glare from the
adjacent street right-of-ways and from adjacent residential
properties. This plan shall show the height and style of all
outdoor lights and that the light illumination from outdoor
lights does not exceed 0.4 foot candles at all property lines.
g. Have the Saint Paul Regional Water Services (SPRWS)
approve the proposed utility plans,
h. The developer or builder will pay. the city Park AccesS
Charges (PAC feeS) at the time of the building permit for
each housing unit.
i. Submit the homeowner's association bylaws and rules to the
city for approval by the city staff. These are to assure that
there will be one responsible party for the care and
maintenance of the common areas, outlots, the. private
utilities, trails, sidewalks, signs, landscaping and retaining
walls.
j. Submit revised, detailed building plans and elevations for
each building type to city staff for approval. These
elevations shall show or include (but are not limited to):
(1) the colors of all materials,
(2) all elevations of all buildings (including the rear
elevations of the walk out and at-grade style units)
~ FO':isioRS to the nortR sidcs of tRc cnel IlRits near
Highwooel AvORIlO. to inolllde mor-efeatllrcs
inollldiRg 'NiRdo'NS aRd StORC waiRsootiRg.
(4) any shutters or window grids and
(5) the style and materials of balcony or porch railings.
k. Provide the city with. a letter of credit or cash escrow for all
required exterior improvements. The amount shall be 150
percent of the cost of the work.
3. Complete the following before occupying each building:
Attachment 8
a. Replace property irons. that are removed because of this
construction.
b. Restore and sod damaged boulevards and sod all turf areas.
c. Complete all landscaping and turf irrigation for that building
and its rainwater garden(s).
d. Install the required concrete curb and gutter.
e. Install a reflectorized stop sign at the exit onto Highwood
Avenue and install addresses on each building for each unit.
In addition, the applicant shall install "no parking" signs
within the site, as required by staff.
f. Install and maintain all required trees and landscaping
(including the plantings around each unit and around the
pond) and an in-ground sprinkler system for all landscaped
areas (code requirement).
g. Install on-site . lighting for sl3curity and visibility that follows
the approved site lighting plan. All exterior lighting shall
follow the approved lighting plan that shows the light spread
and fixture design. The light fixtures must have concealed
lenses and bulb to properly shield glare from the adjacent
street right-of-ways and the nearby homes and residential
properties.
h. Install additional trees along the west property line of the site
where the vegetation does not adequately screen the new
town houses from the existing dwellings. These additional
materials are to enSure there is at least a six-foot-tall, 80-
percent opaque screen on the west side of the site. The
location, design and materials of the additional landscaping
shall be subjl3ct to city staff approval.
i. Install city approved conservation easement signs at the
edge of the conservation easement. The signs shall notify
that there shall be no building, mowing, cutting, grading,
filling or dumping within the conservation easement.
j. Install all the required exterior improvements, including all
exterior lighting.
k. Show that Ramsey County has recorded the final plat for this
development.
Attachment 8
I. The developer or contractor shall:
(1) complete all grading for the site drainage, complete
all public imprOVl3ments and meet all city
requirements.
(2) Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at
the grading limits.
(3) Remove any debris or junk from the site.
4. If any required work is not done, the city may allow temporary
occupancy if:
a. The city determines that the work is not essential to the
public health, safety or welfare.
b. The above-required letter of credit or cash escroW is held by
the city for all required exterior improvements. The owner or
contractor shall complete any unfinished landscaping by
June 1 of the next year if the building is occupied in the fall
or wintl3r or within six weeks of occupancy if the building is
occupied in thl3 spring or summer.
5. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community
development may approve minor changes.
6. This approval does not include signs. Any signage will be reviewed
by city staff through the sign permit process.
Ayes _ Hinzman, Ledvina,
Board member Hinzman seconded.
Olson
The motion passed.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
James Antonen, City Manager
Michael Martin, AICP, Planner
Ramsey County Park Shelters, Battle Creek Regional Park
April 19, 2011
INTRODUCTION
The Ramsey County Parks and Recreation Department is proposing to build a new park picnic
shelter at the Battle Creek Regional Park. This shelter would be located in the same location as
a previous shelter which was been removed several years ago. A new trail will link the park
shelter and the existing parking lot. Additional improvements are planned along the south side
of the existing parking lot and will consist of a new five-foot wide sidewalk, accessible parking
improvements and concrete curb and gutter.
Proposed Materials
The proposed park picnic shelter would be a roofed structure and constructed of cementitious
materials with a BBQ grill. The design of the shelter is similar to the existing water works
building at Battle Creek. Roof materials would be asphalt shingles. Water and electrical
service will be extended to the shelter. Amenities will include drinking fountains, picnic tables
and BBQ grills.
DISCUSSION
The applicant's letter and plans indicate two trees will be removed as a result of this project.
The plans also show two new oak trees to be planted near the parking lot. The applicant is
required to meet the requirements of the city's tree preservation ordinance. Staff has no
concerns regarding the 1 O-foot wide path from the parking lot to the existing trail along the entry
drive. The proposed park picnic shelter would be attractive addition and upgrade to this portion
of Battle Creek Regional Park.
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 April 11 , 2011 for the park picnic shelter proposed at the Battle
Creek 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
1
paths and buildings. Seed is acceptable in more remote areas where watering is limited.
3. Comply with the requirements outlined in Jon Jarosch's staff engineering report, dated
April 15, 2011.
4. Staff may approve minor changes to the plans.
5. Obtain the necessary permits.
p:sec1-28\Ramsey County Park Shelters_CDRB_042611
Attachments:
1, Location Map
2. Applicant's Letter, dated Aprii 6, 2011
3, Battle Creek Site Plan
4, Picnic Shelter Building Perspectives
5. Jon Jarosch Staff Engineering Report, dated April 15, 2011
6. Plans date-stamped April 11 , 2011 (separate attachment)
2
Picnic Shelter at Battle Creek Regional Park
Location Map
Area of
Detail
..'-. ..c:'",.....,._'-,:c...
Attachment 2
~
:1
.
..
Ramsey County
~j
;
~;
2015 North Van Pyke Street
Maplewood, MN 55109-3796
Tel: 651-748-2500
Fax: 651-748-2508
www.co.ramsey.mn.us
.;1
;,
';
J
MEMORANDUM
~
To: City of Maplewood, Community Design Review Board Members
From: Scott Yonke, Director of Planning, Ramsey County Parks and Recreation
Cc:
Date: April 6th, 2011
RE: Community Design Review Board Application - Battle Creek Regional Park Shelter Development
Project Summary
"
,
.!
Introduction
This memo is intended to summarize the Battle Creek Regional Park picnic shelter improvements for
your review. Ramsey county Parks and Recreation is proposing a new shelter on-top of thehill south of
the pavilion /water works parking lot, just west of the entry d rive off of Upper Afton Road. This shelter
is planned in the same location as the original shelter 40+ year old shelter that was removed several
years ago and will enhance the overall picnic facilities at Battle Creek Regional Park. Construction for
the project is scheduled to begin summer 2011 and will be complete by fall 2011.
t~
~
1
Shelter
The shelter is planned to be a prefabricated model, with additional custom design enhancements similar
to the water works building entrance. The shelter structure frame is planned to be tubular steel with an
asphalt shingle roof. A custom entrance "brow" dormer will be added to the North side of the structure.
The main roof is planned as a single ridge with eight columns, 4 on the north side and4 on the south
side. The columns are shown with a raised concrete core foundation and CMU surround. A
serVice/prep counter will be located on the south side of the shelter. The overall shelter size will be
40ftx 40ft +/- and will allow for (12) 6ftx 6ft seating for 75 people.
,.
Access
A new 10ft wide bituminous path is proposed to provide a continuous connection from the parking lot
and existing trail aiong the entrance drive to the shelter. This path will meet ADA guidelines and is
intended to serve as the main connection for the pedestrian and maintenance services. Additional
improvements planned along the south side of the existing parking lot will consist of a new 5ft wide
'. sidewalk, accessible parking stall improvements, and concrete curb& gutter.
;!
~!
MInnesota's FIrst Dome Rule(Joun~
~ttAltrtIlll\'I ~l,11edillapGf'ilttli im'l'ilrnurlll1ttO~i)DiWill!li,"hf:lt~Um~
e>
, -- -, .....,. '-'--'.'
..-...-.--------.-------..-...-
Utilities
Utility improvements will consist of both electrical and water services to the shelter for proposed
electrical outlets for the service/food prep counter and a drinking fountain withjug filler requiring the
water service. Exact utility locations, and sizes will be determined as part of the final design
documentation.
J.
Ramsey-Washington Watershed District
If the total area of site disturba nce is less than Y. acre, a final plan will be sent to the watershed for their
records. Previous discussions with the watershed district have indicated no format permitting is
required.
:i
Parking
It is anticipated the parking demand will be able to be accommodated by the existing parking facilities in
the park. limited restriping will occur with the addition ofthe handicap stalls noted under "Access".
,j
.
Amenities
Amenities planned for the shelter will consist of new picnic tables, grillS, and drinking fountain. These
amenities are planned to be similar type and material of the existing picnic site amenities. Existing grills
and tables removed for this project will be evaluated for use in other areas ofthe park.
Existing Trees
The immediate site area consists of small to mature green ash and oak trees. Minimal tree removal will
be required for this project. Ash tree removal will consist of removing two ash trees along the south
edge of the parking lot for sidewalk improvements. The ash tree removal will be completed as part of
the Ramsey County Ash Borer tree removal program. No mature oak trees are planned to be removed
as part of this project. One small 4" oak tree and an 8' maple is anticipated to need removal.
.i
."
Landscape Restoration
Weare proposing sod be used to replace disturbed areas cause,d by grading and construction of the
path and the shelter. Areas disturbed by the utilities to the east of the entry drive will be seeded. Sod
and seed are currently what the dominant ground cover is in this area of the park.
r;
'6
If you have any questions or need clarification on the existing conditions, design concept, or design
summary described in this memo, please feel free to contact me at 651-748-2500 ext 330 or
scott. von ke@co.ramsev.mn.us.
-~-
Mbmellllta's Ftrst Rome Rule County
ptl~ltsd (li!ltt'l:'1/ctoo;p.-rrill QllIll\lmum<ot]C"~jW:(lhlllmll':r~tt!P;t
.,
Scale 1"~50'
,.,
BATILE CREEK PROPOSED SHELTER LOCATION & CONTEXT
RAMSEY COUNTY PARKS & RECREATION
D,iTE:4!6/201I
"PMRj;
Recreation
~~_.~;.,Um""";t.j'
I~ ~~~u
~~ ~~~~~
1'~ ~~~~~
'ii!l
!lIe
",."'"
n~ ~H~~~~ ~~~
g....~ ~!J!~2;:o~ ~2
~~8~i~~~~~ Imi
'I' 'jl-!,' ,~!
i~~ ~..d ~@Sl l"'~
V' p' rg ~
~'Z
d~
'"
'I
,.
"I
~
~
~
~
m
<
~
g
Attachment 4
g WJJ g
~ D D
m
<
~
0
z
5 I~
0
^
z
0
z
0
~ D D
I
~~~ !ilj;~ cl~ '!H ~ ,~~ me"- 0 0 ~ I"
, ~~\:! ~ ~ ">1.'" 0
~ ',0 ~Q~ !!l -om g~~ 0 ~~
~o-n ~2g Qi
~~~ ....:i-< ' ,. l ,."
~~~ ~ g~ ',0 I ~ : ~~
00 ~O"" ~" ~i
~~ ~.~ ." ~~~
I ~~~ ~~" ;o~ "'~~ i ~~ ., ~~~
i!1iil~ ~ <>",." "
, "0 0'0 ~ g~
~~~. Sl~ 5",;;j id
I ,'. "~el
Vlio ia "'~ c.
~~ "I
, i/
,.. l~~
! 0 ~. I:i BATTLE CREEK SHELTER PROJECT ;
e {~ .
"tl ~" ; ~. ,. '.ac!
, !:lE RAMSEY COUNTY PARKS AND RECREATION llll '1
, .... ~~ !. (~~,~
b , Battle Creek RegiollalPaik II fO
~ ~ ~ t'
~ .
""
~~
.m
'>
!!1J
~>
Z
"
.
m
~
~
5
z
"
~
<
~
o
Z
r
o
o
^
Z
o
~
~
,"
l~
II
~,
'~
Attachment 5
Enl!ineerinl! Plan Review
PROJECT: Battle Creek Regional Park - Shelter Project
PROJECT NO: 11-06
REVIEWED BY: Jon Jarosch, Civil Engineer 1 (Maplewood Engineering DepartIDllnt)
SUBMITTAL NO: 1
DATE: 4-15-2011
Ramsey County is proposing to build a new picnic shelter at Battle Creek Regional Park. A trail
connecting the picnic shelter to the parking lot is also included in this proposal.
The following is a list of requirements for this proposal.
Drainage
I. It appears that there will be over 5,000 square feet of new impervious surface added as
part of this project. As such, this project will be subject to the City's storm-water
management ordinance including water quality and rate control requirements. The owner
shall ensure that these requirements are met.
2. It appears that the grades south of the proposed picnic shelter slope onto the shelter's
concrete pad. The owner shall detail how runoff in this area will be directed away from
the shelter.
Grading
I. The total of the proposed new impervious surfaces shall be listed in the plans.
2. All portions ofthe trail and pedestrian curb ramps shall be ADA compliant.
Erosion & Sediment Control Plan
I. Clearly identify disturbed area by delineation on the plans and provide a numerical value
of disturbed acreage. Any disturbance of one acre or more necessitates a National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit from the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency (MPCA). The approved grading and erosion & sediment control plans shall be
incorporated into the SWPPP.
2. Include a maintenance schedule of all erosion and sediment control devices used
throughout construction.
3. Specify a location and provide details for a concrete washout area.
4. All material stockpiles shall have sediment control (silt-fence, etc.) surrounding the base
of the stockpile. If the stockpile is to remain undisturbed for more than 7 days, the
stockpile shall be stabilized to prevent erosion.
Attachment 5
5. All storm sewer inlets receiving runoff from the disturbed area shall be protected prior to
any earth disturbing activities.
6. Silt fencing is shown in paved areas (parking lot, entry drive); which is not feasible.
Methods of sediment control for these areas (sweeping, bio-rolls, etc.) shall be detailed in
the plans.
7. Describe measures of onsite dust control {i.e.. ..water as needed) and also provide a
sweeping plan for adjacent streets.
8. The method of restoration for the area east of the park entry drive shall be detailed in the
plans.
Agencv Submittals
1. A set of plans must be submitted to Saint Paul Regional Water Services for their review.
2. The owner and project engineer shall satisfy the requirements of all other permitting
agencies.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
LOCATION:
DATE:
James Antonen, City Manager
Michael Martin, AICP, Planner
Design and Comprehensive Sign Plan Amendment, Maplewood Mall
3001 White Bear Avenue
April 19, 2011
INTRODUCTION
Project Description
Simon Properties, owners of the Maplewood Mall, is requesting approval for its design plans and
an amendment to its comprehensive sign plan in order to rebuild its entrances and install new
signage at 3001 White Bear Avenue.
Request
To proceed with this project the applicant is requesting that the community design review board
approve the exterior entrances design and comprehensive sign pian amendment.
BACKGROUND
The Maplewood Mall was constructed in 1974 and underwent an extensive remodel in 1988.
DISCUSSION
Entrance Design
The Maplewood Mall is proposing to redesign and rebuild four of its five main entrances. The
main entrance near the Barnes and Noble bookstores was recently constructed and is not part
of this project. The applicant's plans show the consistent design of the four new proposed
entrances. The proposed entrances will be anchored by a painted exposed steel structure. The
"Maplewood Mall" sign will be located on a backlit translucent panel. Each entrance with have
either a steel beam or trellis with down lights. Each entrance will utilize the existing concrete
columns, but they will be stained to match the color of the exposed steel at the top of the
entrance.
Staff feels the proposed entrances will be a welcomed improvement to the exterior of the
Maplewood Mall.
Comprehensive Sign Plan
In the past, exterior signage at the mall has been approved by the community design review
board (CDRB) and city council individually during the construction or remodeling of the mall or
anchor tenants. Therefore, there are no specific sign criteria for the exterior signage of the mall;
just that each sign get approved individually and be consistent and compatible.
A comprehensive sign plan is required for this site. The city's sign ordinance would allow one
freestanding and one wall sign for each street frontage. This site has four street frontages. The
applicant's proposed plans would technically exceed the code requirements on the number of
signs. With that said, the comprehensive sign plan allows the CDRB to provide the applicant
flexibility from code in the location, size and number of signs. Staff feels that given the type of
use, large size of the Maplewood Mall and the need for clear instructions for way finding
purposes, the proposed comprehensive sign plan is acceptable. In addition, the applicant is
proposing to remove one facade sign from the east elevation facing White Bear Avenue.
The proposed signs do enhance the visual appeal of the building facade. As proposed in the
applicant's plans, the Maplewood Mall would have four new wall signs at the main entrances,
four new freestanding monument signs and five new directional signs. Each sign will require a
separate sign permit prior to installation. The new signs would be in addition to the Maplewood
Mall facade sign near the Barnes and Noble store plus the individual anchor store signs. Staff is
recorTlmendinganychanges to the comprehensive sign plan be reviewed by the CDRB.
Department ComrTlents
Fire Marshal:
Butch Gervais, fire marshal, reviewed this proposal and stated that if any of the entrances have
to be closed for a short time that the applicant and mall owners need to contact him to work out
any issues.
Enaineerina:
Steve Kummer, staff engineer, reviewed this proposai and had the following comments:
1) It appears that the applicant is proposing to replace the exterior directional signage
and entry monuments within the Mall Loop road using the existing foundations. This
minimizes the probability of pavement disturbance. Applicant shall minimize disturbance
around the sign bases and clean up daily (sweep, pick up debris, etc.) that may result
from removal and replacement of the signage. If the foundations are proposed for
disturbance, please contact the Building Department immediately.
2) All removal/replacement operations for the entry monument at the White Bear Avenue
entrance shall occur in the outbound (eastbound) lanes of the rTlall entrance should the
need arise for a lane closure on the mall access road. Keep the inbound (westbound)
lanes from White Bear Avenue clear at all timeS. Utilize lane closures as necessary to
protect vehicles from debris.
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
A. Approve the design plans, date-stamped April 11 ,2011, for the proposed rTlain entrances
at the Maplewood Malll at 3001 White Sear Avenue. The applicant shall comply with the
following conditions:
1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permitfor this
project.
2
2. Comply with the fire marshal and engineering requirements as stated in this
report.
3. All work shall follow the approved plans. Planning staff may approve minor
changes.
B. Approve the comprehensive sign plan amendment, as outlined in the plans dated-
stamped April 11 , 2011, for the Maplewood Mall at 3001 White Bear Avenue. The
applicant shall comply with the foilowing conditions:
1. All signs shailfollow the approved plans, Planning staff may approve minor
changes.
2. Each sign requires a separate sign permit.
3. Any major changes to the comprehensive sign plan must be approved by the
CDRB.
3
REFERENCE INFORMATION
SITE DESCR.IPTION
Site size: 68.78 acres
Existing Use: Regional Mall
SURROUNDING LAND USES
North: Commercial properties
South: Commercial properties and Metro Transit Park and Ride Ramp
East: Commercial properties
West: Commercial properties
PLANNING
Land Use Plan: C (commercial)
Zoning: BC (business commercial)
APPLICATION/DECISION DEADLINE
The city received the complete application and plans for this proposal on April 14, 2011. State
law requires that the city take action within 60 days of receiving complete applications. The
deadline for city action on this proposal is May 13, 2011. As stated in Minnesota State Statute
15.99, the city is allowed to take an additional 60 days if necessary in order to complete the
review of this application.
P:ISEC2Nlmaplewood MalllMaplewood Mall Design_CDRB_042611
Attachments'
1. Location Map
2. Applicant's Letter, dated Aprii 5, 2011
3, Site Plan
4. Entrance Design Elevations
5, Sign Plan Designs
6. Pians date-stamped April 11, 2011 (separate attachments)
4
Attachment 1
1-694
~
N
W*E
S
Location Map
5 April 2011
City of Maple wood, MN
Community Design Review Board
RE: Community Design Review Board Application
Maplewood Mall Entries Remodel and Pylon, Monument, Directional
Exterior Sign Remodel
C;ommunity Design Review Board:
Simon Properly Group, owners and managers of Maplewood Mall is intending to
remodel four existing building entries and the existing pylon, monument and
directional signs. In conjunction with this proposed work, the interior of the mall will
undergo a modest remodel.
The original mall building was constructed in 1974 with an extensive remodel in
1988. The image of the latest remodel is dated and deteriorated. It is intended to
remove all of the finishes from the 1988 project and work with the underlying
structure to develop a new image with new lighting, better visibility to the front
doors, new materials and new signs. All entries and signs are intended to be visually
similar and consistent in design.
Entry 1 (UL, Near Borders)
No work is proposed in this application.
Entry 2 (Entry 4 Similar)
This is an original entry from the 1974 construction. It is intended to remove all
current [mishes and expose the existing truss structure and roof deck, a painted,
perforated metal fascia will be added to visually screen the exposed structure. A
pedestrian scale trellis will engage the existing column and connect to the existing
building. A dark color, stucco finish is proposed to be added on the building wall to
visually extend the scale of the entry.
Down lights will be mounted on the trellis to provide adequate lighting on the ground
plane. New wall sconces will be mounted to each side of the entry vestibule for
additionallight. New down lights will also be added to the roof deck to provide
adequate sidewalk lighting.
RSP ARCHITECTS
All
Minneapolis, Minnesota
Phoenix,Ariiona
Rochllster,Minnesota
T1anjinChina
1220 MarshallStreet NE
Minneapolis, MN 55413-1036
612,677.7100 main
612.677.7499 tax
www.rsparch,Gom
Community Design Review Board Application
5 April 2011
Page 2 00
The current signage will be replaced with a series of backlit, translucent panels with a
"MAPLEWOODMALL" semi-translucent vinyl graphic sign. The design intent is to
provide a lit panel, large enough in scale to be read from the parking field and act as
clear indicator of the mall entry.
Entry 3
This entry was built in 1987 asnew construction. It functions in part, as the entry to
the existing food court. It is intended to renovate this entry similar to all entries by
removing the existing finishes to expose the existing structure. An internally lit
"FOOD COURT" sign will mounted on the proposed trellis.
Entry 5
This entry was constructed in 1997. It is the largest of the existing entries and is
different in shape and scale. It is intended to remove all the exterior finishes and
expose the existing structure and roof deck. The "MAPLEWOOD MALL"
translucent panel sign, similar to the other proposed entries, will be mounted on the
existing acute angled dimension. The perforated metal fayade will only be mounted
on the predominately viewed faces. Additional lighting similar to other proposed
entries will be added.
It is intended that all pylon and monument signs be demolished and rebuilt in their
existing locations. They are also intended to incorporate similar materials as the
proposed remodeled entries.
Pylon Sign
The pylon sign is intended to be of similar scale and location as the existing sign:
Perforated metal panels will be backlit to provide a glow effect between precast stone
piers. The "MAPLEWOODMALL" is proposed to be internally illuminated and be
mounted on the public street side only. Minor additional landscaping will be added to
the island at the base, (not illustrated as part of this submittal). A metal trellis cornice
will complete the composition and be visually similar to the proposed entries.
Monument Sign
The monument sign is intended to be of similar scale and location as the existing
sign. Perforated metal panels will provide a backdrop for internally illuminated
letters. A precast stone pier and base will complete the composition. The
"MAPLEWOOD MALL" is proposed to be internally illuminated and be monnted
Community Design Review Board Application
5 April 2011
Page 3 of3
both sides. Minor additional landscaping will be addedto the island at the base, (not
illustrated as part of this submittal).
Directional sign
The directional signs are intended to be similar in scale, location and function as the
existing signs. Similar materials as proposed will be used on the monument sign. Up
to six selected anchor tenant signs will be shown with consistent fonts. The sign will
not be illuminated.
s~~
William 1. Wittrock,
Sr, Associate
Copy: File (4 )
P:\Retail\Pepper Co\Maplewood Mall\Documentation\04 Code Regulatory\ll04DSDesign
Review\L040511 WW .docx
w
"
~ "
!z llJ z
~ ~ ~
~ (i3 :J
I)..
i
i
:1
"
I:
"
Ii
)~
-~---.,~
-,
F_0.v
l,.;/, ,'~
( G
(\.~.." -
L
Attachment 3
~
(.:;;..,-------,-
z
~
~
C/)
z
~
-
C/)
'"
~
-
~
~
~
~
C/)
z
o
~
uJ
w
o
Uj
a:~
!IF
D.g
D.~
W~
D.8
~
2
-
C/)
a:z
I&I~
Dog
Do~
W~
Dog
"2
~
-
C/)
I:U
w;:
log
IL~
w~
log
~
2
-
C/)
:z
(!)
en
--'
<(
:z
o
i=
u
LU
a:
Cl
:z
(!)
en
:z
o
--'
>
c...
i i
bioi
~ .' I
~ ooj
I
I
:'r"~-~
i....-L
10::0'
~-~-_.-:-~; !
{~~,~!
.:;.
'r
"
:z
(!)
en
>-
:z
LoU
:2;
=>
:z
o
::2:
~'9
M N
"~:'
i)!j:fi
"y-,;;:.- /
2
o
o
~
o
~
u
w
"
Ci
,
2.
::S9
0.'-
:i.1I
rr"
wEe
0:;(-..-
z
o
o
2
9
>
a.
,
2.
::sc:r
0.'-
:t II
ffi~
<(;:0
2
o
o
"
2
W
.
o
2
o
:;;
,
2.
~9
0.'-
;i 11
ffi~
<(-
, 0
~~
t-:.tbl
'~'
'91-Qi
"tl't:
.....I.....j
~~
~I"
.....;....
~'"
;;.
"
',~"
'"rq
;""0
n1
2
o
o
"
<
Z
o
~
w
"
Ci
W
2
o
~
W
w
o
0.
00
:z ~,
<-
" "
~ ~
0:2'2-
LL....-
~
o
2
o
o
2
9
>
a.
w
z
o
~
W
w
o
rJL
00
:Z-,'
<-
~ II
O'
"~
u,_
2
o
o
"
2
W
.
o
2
o
:;;
,
W
2
o
~
W
w
o
0.
00
2.'
<-
'Z II
~Se
tL....,...
a:~
111>=
D.g
D.~
III~
D.g
z
~
~
C/')
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
LOCATION:
DATE:
James Antonen, City Manager
Michael Martin, AICP, Planner
Maplewood Mall Stormwater Retrofit Project
3001 White Bear Avenue
April 19, 2011
INTRODUCTION
Project Description
The Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District has teamed with Ramsey County, City of
Maplewood and Simon Properties, owners of the Maplewood Mall, in an effort to reduce the
level of nutrients from the watershed and in-lake loading that affect Kohlman Lake, The
wastershed identified the mall as a major land use that could affect the overall water quality in
the area.
Req uest
To proceed with this project the applicant is requesting that the community design review board
approve the design plans related to the Maplewood Mail Stormwater Retrofit Project.
BACKGROUND
The Maplewood Mall and watershed implemented Phase I of this project by installing rain
gardens at each of the Mall entrances.
DISCUSSION
Phases II and III are planned for the summer of 2011 and address stormwater infiltration in the
northeast and northwest quadrants of the Mall. Phase IV would address the south half of the
mall property but is slated for 2012 or 2013. For Phases II and III, the major stormwater
treatment practice is utilizing tree trenches. The use and location of the tree trenches are
outlined in the applicant's submittals attached to this report.
Also included in the attachments is a plan for revising the entrance on the east side of the mall
next to Barnes and Noble. This entrance plaza will provide a more aesthetically pleasing
entrance while also proving educational opportunities on stormwater management.
The installed improvements will routinely be inspected and maintained by the watershed district.
Department Comments
The city's engineering department was been working with the watershed district and Maplewood
Mall on developing these plans and are comfortable with the plans as proposed. All project and
construction plans will be approved by the city engineer.
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 design plans for the proposed Maplewood Mall Stormwater Retrofit Project. The
applicant shall comply with the following conditions:
1. All work shall follow the approved plans. Planning staff may approve minor
changes.
2. All project and construction plans shall be approved by the city engineer,
P:ISEC2Nlmaplewood MalllMaplewood Mall Stormwater_CDRB_042611
Attachments:
1, Applicant's Letter
2, Site Plan (separate attachment)
3. Tree Trench Design (separate attachment)
4, Mali Entrance Plaza Design (separate attachment)
2
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
James Antonen, City Manager
Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner
Chuck Ahl, Assistant City Manager
Design Review and Parking Waiver-South Metro Human Services
Mental Health Care Facility
1111 Viking Drive
April 21 ,2011
SUBJECT:
LOCATION:
DATE:
INTRODUCTION
Project Description
South Metro Human Services is requesting approval of a conditional use permit (CUP) to
operate the Community Foundations program, a mental health care facility with temporary
housing for 16 patients, at the former Ethan Allen furniture store located at 1111 Viking Drive.
The proposed therapeutic treatment facility would have the 16 transitional housing units as well
as space for counseling, clinical and office purposes. City ordinance requires a CUP for the
housing portion of this proposal. The CUP will be reviewed by the planning commission.
Design Review Request
The applicant is requesting:
. Approval of plans to remodel the building, add a patio and provide new landscaping.
. Approval of a parking waiver for 21 parking spaces. The city code requires 39 parking
spaces for this use, there would be 18 existing spaces on site.
DISCUSSION
Design Review
The applicant is proposing to remodel the building by doing the following:
. Add new windows on the east (front), west and north elevations
. Remove an existing window on the east elevation
. Add new doors on the north and west elevations
. Repair damaged stucco
. Remodel the entry vestibule
. Remove old lap siding and corrugated metal siding and replace with stucco
. Add a sky light on the north elevation
. Add landscaping
. Formalize parking on the north side of the building for three parking spaces
. Build a new 900-square-foot patio (approximate) in the back of the building to be enclosed
with a decorative fence
1
Impervious Surface Area
Staff's concern with the proposed patio is that the impervious surface area of the site should not
increase beyond its current coverage. The shoreland protection ordinance requires that
properties in Class 3 shoreland areas be developed to no more than 40 percent impervious
surface areas (building and pavement) and up to 60 percent with a "bonus" for making additional
water-quality improvements to the site. The site looks to be developed to approximately 70
percent impervious surface based on staff's calculations from the site plan.
Any new pavement would not be permitted since the site is already in excess of the maximum
impervious surface area requirements. Thatmeans the proposed patio could only be built if the
applicanteliminated an equal amount of paving elsewhere on the site. Staff recomrnendsthat
the paved area in the northwest corner of the site be reduced in size equal to the area ofthe
proposed patio.
Parkino
City code requires that the applicant provide 39 parking spaces-20 spaces for the office or
business related areas, three for the lower level warl3house space and 16 for the housing
spaces. The applicant has stated that they only have a parking need for six staff people at a
time, one shuttle van for transporting patients/residents and occasional family visitors. If an
estimated three visitors come at the same time, there would be up to 10 vehicles on site. This
would be fewer than the numberof available parking spaces on the site. By this example, the
18 existing parking spaces on the site would be adequate. If a parking shortage would develop,
the applicant should provide more on site, if possible, or by lease agreement from neighboring
properties.
Staff Comments
Buildino Official
Dave Fisher, the Maplewood Building Official, had the following comments:
. The city will require a complete building code analysis from a design professional. This will
include items such as fire separation, exiting, occupant loads, bathroom counts and any
updates resulting from this change in use.
. Building/construction plans are required by a registered design professional.
. Verification that the mechanical system meets code requirements is required.
. Verification of adequate bathroom facilities is required.
. The building is required to have an automatic fire suppression system. Verify that the
coverage is adequate for this use.
. Provide a fire alarm system. Verify these requirements with Butch Gervais, the Maplewood
Assistant Fire Chief/Fire Marshal.
. Handicap-accessible parking is required.
. A handicap-accessible elevator is required.
2
. The contractor shall have a pre-construction meeting with the city staff.
Assistant Fire Chief/Fire Marshal
. Install fire protection per code requirements.
. Install fire alarm per code requirements.
. Any doors that are locked 24/7 so people can't leave the facility must operate according to
code if any fire alarms are activated.
. There shall be proper exit signs and emergency lights.
. Afire department lock box shall be installed.
. The sprinkler-control room needs to be clearly marked.
. The alarm-control room needs to be clearly marked.
. lfthere is any area where biohazard is being stored it must bl3 clearly marked. These are
areas where biohazard materials and sharp containers are stored.
EnqineerinQ
Refer to the Engineering Plan Review by Jon Jarosch. In short, Mr. Jarosch will require
drainage, traffic and utility information prior to obtaining permits to begin construction.
Summary
Staff is supportive of the proposed improvements to the building and site, subject to the
applicant not increasing the impervious surface area of the site.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Approve the plans date-stamped March 17, 2011 for the proposed building, site and
landscaping improvements to the former Ethan Allen Building, located at 1111 Viking Drive.
Approval is based on the findings required by ordinance and subject to the applicant doing
the following:
a. Revise the site plan to reduce the amount of paving from the site equal to 0 the size of
the proposed patio. The applicant shall submit this revised site plan to staff prior to
getting a building permit.
b. The applicant shall comply with the requirements of the building official and assistant fire
chief listed and those in the city's engineering report prepared by Jon Jarosch, staff
engineer.
3
c. As required by ordinance, if outdoor trash storage is used in the future, the applicant
must provide a screening enclosure to keep the dumpster in. The location and design
plans shall be subject to staff approval.
d. The applicantshall provide cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit in the amount of
150 percent of the cost of the landscaping and other site improvements that may not be
installed by occupancy. An irrevocable letter of credit shall include the following
provisions:
. The letter of credit must clearly indicate that it is an irrevocable letter of credit in
the name of the City of Maple wood, payable on demand.
. The letter of credit shall have a stipulation indicating automatic renewal, with
notification to the city by certified mail a minimum of 60 days prior to its expiration.
2. Approve a parking waiver to have 21 parking stalls fewer than are required by city ordinance.
This approval is based on the applicant's parking needs for six staff, one transport vehicle
and occasional visitors. If a parking shortage develops, the applicant shall provide more
parking spaces on site or gain them by lease agreement from neighboring properties. Staff
shall approve any revisions to the available parking either by site plan revision or parking
agreement with neighbors.
4
CITIZEN COMMENTS
Staff surveyed the owners of the 18 properties within 500 feet of the proposed facility. Staff
received replies from others in neighborhood beyond this mailing radius as well. In all, staff
received 11 replies, two were in favor, five were opposed and four gave comments or raised
questions, but took no stance either for or against the proposal.
In Favor
1. We have no objections to this proposal. (Second Harvest Heartland)
2. I am fine with the proposed facility, however, our building is an active warehouse facility with
many trucks and noise next door to this facility. Trucks also use the road right next to the
proposed facility. This has never been an issue in the past as the building was for retail. If
used as a residential facility, I would not want complaints of noise and truck traffic to impact
on our building being used as it always has been-an active warehouse. I hope those
considering this location for residential purposes fully acknowledge this in seeking this
change. (Eric Larson)
Opposed
1. We do not want a mental house too close to our home. It will affect property values and
could have other problems too. (Pisanu and Vipa Sukhtipyaroge)
2. Some neighbors and I have the following concerns:
. Have any of the potential clients ever been convicted of a serious crime?
. Are any of the clients sex offenders?
. Are the clients dangerous?
. Will the clients be confined to the facility? Will they be taking walks outside or around the
neighborhood? Will family members be visiting hence talking walks outside?
. If approved will the facility want to expand making the facility closer to the neighborhood?
. We are concerned that having such a facility so close to the neighborhOod might impact
resale value on homes?
. We have a young child in our household and we are very worried about having such a
facility so close to our house. We never would have built a house knowing that a Mental
Health Treatment Facility was so close. We feel that such a facility would be better
suited somewhere else. There are approximately 37 children in the neighborhood
(Cypress, Sextant, Demont and Adele Streets) and a daycare located in the
neighborhood on Cypress. We are very concerned for the children in the neighborhood.
(Kelly Ubel)
3. Refer to the em ails from Becky Bergerson.
5
4. Refer to the em ail reply from Kathy Kleve.
5. Refer to the email reply from Richard Kleve.
Comments, Questions and Concerns (these replies were neither for nor against)
1. If this is allowed, would it help to set the character of the neighborhood more so than it is
now and make it more difficult for any neighborhood redevelopment? What kind of security
would the facility have? (Huey's Saloon and Grill)
2. Since 1987 (when they started) have they had any serious problems with people getting lose
or harming anyone outside of their property? (Eugene and Jeannette Kern)
3. Much to my surprise I was informed by a neighbor tonight that there is Section 8 housing
going in across from the park and ride on County Road C and 61 next to the trailer park. In
addition I have heard but not confirmed that the old Ethan Allen building by Huey's may be a
new location for people with issues in transition. As a Maplewood community member for 17
years this is of great concern to me. This would mean on one big block there would be
Section 8, a trailer park and whatever may be going into Ethan Allen. (Bonnie and Dan
Keran)
4. I run a family based daycare out of my home. I am concerned about how available the
residents would be to the neighborhood. If they would have access to Kohlman Park and be
able to roam through the neighborhood. Would any sexual predators be part of the
rehabilitation program? When is the proposed date for the facility to open? How would this
affect the value of our homes? I have 8 daycare families that would be interested in some
more information as well, (Michelle Dansky)
6
REFERENCE INFORMATION
SITE DESCRIPTION
Site size: 25,700 square feet
Existing land use: The former Ethan Allen Furniture Store now vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USES
North: Gervais Avenue, single dwelling, K&W Roll-offs, the Northernaire Motel, Huey's Saloon
and Grill and Sunset Realty
South: Highway 36 and Keller Lake
East: Highway 61 and Second Harvest Heartland
West: Thomas Tool Company (now vacant), Links Paint and Promotional Resources and
Hermanson Dental
PLANNING
Land Use Plan designation: C (commercial)
Zoning: M1 (light manufacturing)
CODE REQUIREMENT
Section 44-1092(3) of the city ordinances requires a CUP for residential programs.
APPLICATION DATE
The application for this request was complete on March 17, 2011. State law requires that the
city decide on land use applications within 60 days. The deadline for council action, therefore, is
May 16, 2011.
p:sec9\South Metro Human Services CDRB Report 4 11 te
Attachments:
1, Location/Zoning Map
2. Land use Plan Map
3. Site Plan
4. Applicant's Written Narrative date-stamped March 17, 2011
5. Applicant's Written Response to the Neighbor's Concerns date-stamped April 6, 2011
6. Email Responses from Becky Bergerson dated March 29 and March 31,2011
7. Email Response from Kathy Kleve dated March 29, 2011
8. Email Response from Richard Kleve dated March 29, 2011
9. Engineering Report from Jon Jarosch dated April 1 , 2011
7
Location/Zoning Map
Location/Zoning Map
Attachment 1
Copyright
MaplewoodBaseMap
Chad Bergo
Parcels: This data set is available to everyone. Fees and policy are published In the Ramsey County Fee Schedule. Charges are
variable and are subject to change. See the Ramsey County Fee Schedule for specific information on fees and policy.
htto://maps.ci.mapIewood.mn. us/aspnet_ cIient/ESRI/W ebADF /PrintTaskLayoutTempIates... 4/13/2011
~" ~
~~ ~
~~I
~Q ~
~ 1\. ~
u'1 8
Attachment 2
U)
z
o
~
a
Zw
~>
o~
LLa
a~Cl
w-Z
U)Z:;2
o~-
Q.:!!>
o:!!...
11::0:::
Q.U...
~
'"
~
~ ~
u ~ ~
<( u Q)
~ ~<( ~
Q) u
Q} ~ <(
c. ~ Q)
III U C. ~
"'" <( III Q)
c:: ~ - c.
0. :J Q} '", .I!l
ll'1 c.:J '", .L.ssaVO~\f
CO III l::! :J
...... "'" "'0
, c:: 0 0 ~ LLO
~ ll'1 :J ...... ~ co
LO U ri
ol::! N <(
~(O ......
CI) ~
Iii , (0 ...... Q)
I :;::: ~ c.
en (0 0
c:: . ltl ...... III
Q) N .- ~ -
CI) :J ~ - '",
"C c:: Iii
'(jj Iii Q) :J
~ Q} :;::: 32 :;:::
c:: 0
CO "C 0::: c:: III Q}
Q} Q} ...... 0
Z,32 "C 0
..J C 0::: "(jj C') lXl.
.- III
III Q} Z, Q} ~
r::: CO :ii 0::: '(jj 0::: l::!
..J Cl >- c:: >- (0 - Q)
- ~- c::
- Q} Q} .!!! Iii u
CO 3: '(jj Cl '(jj Q) ltl
c:: III U Iii E c::
E ~ 0 c:: E Q} :J (jj 0 c. Ul
-l Q) 'C c:: CJ)
Cl E :;::: ~"
- Cl .2 "C - ~ ::l
III Q} c:: Q} 0
- !!! 3: "C ..c: Q} E ::l :> - -'" Q} _ 00
:::J :;::: ~
.J::. ::l Q} en x 0 "C 0 III ltl C. ltl.e_
0 J: ~ S ~ 0
..... 0::: -l ::2: () c:: C> c:: a. 0 ON
~ .c ~-
:::J 00111101110 .eN 0
"'~
LL 'Qi ~ Z
Z-"l
ALLa\...lllllt::IIL 3
NE
ORNAMENTAL
PERIMETER
FENCE WITH
",,'i::E
. ~~'" .,
"'fi!>,,,o
GERVAIS AVENUE
SERVICE
DRIVE
NE
PATIO
GENERAL SITE NOTES
1. ALL TREES SHOWN ARE EXISTING
c-;;~
Q ~c;~,,~~~; PLAN
o 50 100
~
~
150
200 FT
Q
ORNAMENTAL METAL FENCE
ticale; v AHlt:.::i
Q
~...
~':
ORNAMENTAL METAL
SWING GATE
::icale: 1/1:1" = 1 .U"
.t..........
........,.
--~
,-
---
~o:::.=-._
,
'L
I;Ill'llHCIsmrM
-~-
.....~lI~CoIlIrc
---
--
--
:..~-:,;....-
_00_-
Iftdm=.-
No,
Date
Appr
ReVision NotSB
.~ NNING WENDE ASSOCIATES, INC,
275 FOURTH STREET EAST, SUITE 620
SAINT PAUL, MN 55101
';::::':..:' PHONE: 651.221.0915 FAX: 651.222.6259
"o-t-tf7 'b
"l'uCIt?
~OIV
SOUTH METRO HUMAN SERViCES
COMMUNITY FOUNDATIONS RELOCATION
1111 VIKING DAIVE EAST
MAPLEWOOD, MN 55109
SITE PLAN
-'
2008-04
""'.....
8M
..._.. "'_No
RL
20110222
AS-1.1 a
2009-ll1-SoLllh..-,.".Mopl odS."""
rfD)~@~f]ID~~
illl AHa.! 7 2011 WI
South Metro Human Services
Community Foundations -1111 Viking Drive East
By
Attachment 4
CUP & CDRB Application Narrative
South Metro Human Services (S:MHS) is requesting a Conditional Use Pemllt for the 1111
Viking Drive property to be the new home of the Community Foundations program that
has served mentally ill individuals in Ramsey County since 1987. S:MHS will undertake a $2.5
million rehabilitation of this long vacant property, the former "Ethan Allen" retail store, and
transform it into a therapeutic treatment facility with 16 units of transitional housing and
2,500 square feet of counseling, meeting, and office space.
Since 1987 South Metro Human Services has operated the Community Foundations
program in a four-stOlYtum of the century apartment building in Saint Paul. This facility is
one of :Minnesota's oldest Intensive Residential Treatment Services (IRTS) facilities and has
effectively served over 550 individuals in its 24-year history. S:MHS and its funding
partners, the :Minnesota Department of Human Services (MN DHS) and Ramsey County
Human Services, believe it is time to transition the Community Foundations program to a
state of the art facility and to a location that would better meet the needs of the clients and
the community. The goal is to upgrade the facility by locating it in a suburban location that
can provide a safer and more dignified housing option that is better suited for treatment,
stabilization, and recovery.
The proposed rehabilitation of 1111 Viking Drive East in M"aplewood would include:
. 16 single room dwellings for clients requiring continuous care and supervision. Each
dwelling space includes a kitchenette and bathroom in addition to a studio-style
sleeping room.
. Two lounges and private secure patio to encourage clients to participate in group
activities.
. A licensed commercial kitchen with a communal dining area to accommodate up to
20 people.
. 8-10 offices for professional staff to alternately be used as offices and counseling
spaces.
. Multiple conference rooms for meetings and group therapy trainings.
. Interior common spaces that can be observed from the Business/Reception Office,
Conference Room and one private office. Access to the building is controlled and
supervised by the Business/Reception Office.
. Native exterior landscaping and parking lot to accommodate 16-18 vehicles
. Secure back entrance and loading dock accessible to commercial kitchen
- 1 -
Intensive Residential Treatment Services (IRTS)
There are an estimated 42,000 adults in Ramsey G:lUntywho suffer with a serious mental
illness. Community Foundations is one of six IRTS programs in Ramsey County licensed by
the Minnesota Department of Human Services (MNDHS). IRTS exist to provide time-
limited mental health services in a residential setting to recipients in need of more a
restrictive environment (versus community settings) and at risk of significant functional
deterioration if they do not receive these services. IRTS are designed to develop and
enhance psychiatric stability, personal and emotional adjustment, self-sufficiency, and skills
to live in a more independent setting. The efforts and compassion of programs like
Community Foundations, coupled with the courage and persistence of people with SPJVIT,
derr:onstrate that many clients can do well in the community with adequate support and
semces.
The Community Foundations program offers a full range of treatment service components
in orderto provide comprehensive 24 hour treatment and care. The facility is licensed to
provide housing for no more than 16 residents at a time (approximately 70 unduplicated
clients per year) fora maximum of 90 days (average stayis 48 days). Oients come diagnosed
with a range of a serious and persistent mental illness including Major Depressive Disorders
(25% in 2010), Bi-Polar Disorder (13%); Schizoaffective Disorders (38%) and Schizophrenia
(19%). The services provided are designed to promote individual choice and active
involvement in the treatment process. These treatment service components are designed to
promote recovety and psychiatric stability through the use of established rehabilitative
principles and best practices based on contemporary research. The service is intended to be
short term and directed toward transition to a more permanent living situation.
South Metro Human Services
South Metro Human Services has a long and respected history of providing clinical mental
health services to adults in Ramsey County. SlV[HS is a tax exempt, non-profit agency
founded in 1986 and opened its first program Community Foundations in 1987. Currently,
SlV[HS has several hundred employees and serves over 2,500 clients per year in Ramsey;
Hennepin, Anoka, Washington and Dakota Counties. SlV[HS has become one of the largest
providers of mental health support services to low-income and formerly homeless adults
living independently in Ramsey County. In 1988, SlV[HS expanded by opening the ACCESS
program which works with mentally ill persons who are experiencing homelessness in
Ramsey County. Also in 1988, SlV[HS became one of the providers of Rule 79 Case
Management services in Ramsey County. Over the next ten years, the number of SlV[HS
programs increased in Ramsey County by providing Chemical Dependence Case
Management, Housing Services Programs, Representative Payee Services, CADI/TEl Case
Management and Pre-Petition Screening. The largest growth period began in 2003 with the
addition of the Adult Foster Care Program and the opening of the Dayton house in St. Paul.
In 2005, SlV[HS added Assertive Community Treatment teams in Ramsey, Hennepin and
Anoka counties as well as the creation of the Adult Rehabilitative Mental Health Services
[ARMHS] program.
-2-
City of Maplewood's Criteria for Approval
The proposed use of the property meets and exceeds all of the City of :Maplewood's Oiteria
for Approval including:
1. The use will be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be in
conformity with the City's Comprehensive Plan and Code of Ordinances.
. This facility use meets the following goals outlined in :Maplewood's Housing Action
Plan including to:
o Provide for the housing and service needs of a disabled population
o Provide housing and services to meet the needs of non-traditional
households
. The building will be designed and constructed with respect to the :Maplewood's
Design Review requirements and the International Building Code.
. Reuse of this existing building as a mental health treatment facility is in an area
designated as Light :Manufacturing in the City's Land Use and Zoning :Maps.
. Consisting largely of commercial activities; i.e. counseling, mentaV medical treatment
and office space, the transitional housing use is allowed under a conditional use
permit.
. South Metro Human Services owns numerous properties (primarily Adult Foster
Cu: Homes) in the metro area that demonstrate a practice of exemplary property
rnamtenance.
2. The use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area.
. The proposed use is a short term residential treatment facility and the supporting
offices for S.MHS staff.
. The proposed design and rehabilitation of the property will work within the existing
character and not alter the architectural footprint of the current building structure.
. The proposed design and rehabilitation of the property includes minimal exterior
alterations and will have only positive impact on the existing character of the
surrounding area. '
3. The use would not depreciate property values.
. Currently there is no data that suggests the proposed use would have any positive or
negative effect on property values.
. The proposed rehabilitation of this long vacant property includes a significant
financial investment to improve interior and exterior features of an essentially bare
commercial structure.
. S.MHS, even though it is a SOlc3 non-profit organization, pays property taxes on all
of its properties.
. The building interior will be completely remodeled in a manner and with durable
materials appropriate to long term use of the facility.
. The building exterior will be enhanced with additional windows, a skylight, a new
entry and renovated wall surfaces.
. The appearance and value of the building will be enhanced with landscaping,
retaining walls, a patio, and fencing.
- 3 -
4. The use would not involve any activity, process, materials, equipment or methods of
operation that would be dangerous, h=dous, detrimental, disturbing or cause a
nuisance to any person or property, because of excessive noise, glare, smoke, dust, odor,
fumes, water or air pollution, drainage, water run-off, vibration, general unsightliness,
electrical interference or other nuisances.
. The property will be properly maintained and the proposed use will not be a
nuisance to any person or property, because of excessive noise, glare, smoke, dust,
odor, fumes, water or air pollution, drainage, water run-off, VIbration, general
unsightliness, electrical interference or other nuisances..
. A minimum of 2 staff members will be on site 24 hour per day. S:MHS staff will take
every step to monitor residents so that they do not adversely affect the surrounding
community. lvIanyassume that individuals with mental illness will cause additional
nuisance, commit criminal acts and exlubitviolent unpredictable behavior in the
community where they reside. Our experience, statistics and contemporary research
indicate that this stigma is simply not true and that individuals in treatment for SPl\tII
are more likely victims of crimes rather than perpetrators.
5. The use would generate only minimal vehicular traffic on local streets and would not
create traffic congestion or unsafe access on existing or proposed streets.
. It is anticipated that approximately 30 vehicular trips will be made to and from the
facility in a twenty-four hour period.
. Automobile traffic generated by the proposed use will be minimal. During the day,
no more than ten staff members will be on site. At night two staff members will be
present onsite.
. W'hile most residents do not have personal use of automobiles, they will occasionally
have visitors.
. Occasional deliveries will be made at an anticipated frequency of less than two
deliveries per day.
6. The use would be served by adequate public facilities and services, including streets,
police and fire protection, drainage structures, water and sewer systems, schools and
parks.
. This program will have minimal impact on public facilities and services including
streets, fire protection, drainage structures, water and sewer systems, schools and
parks.
. Currently, the Community Foundations program requires approximately five police
responses per month at the current location in Saint Paul. Lacking negative urban
influences and providing a more isolated location the new facility is expected to
require less support by law enforcement.
. To provide for increase plumbing required for the proposed use and for the
additional of a fire protection system, the water and sewer capacities will need to be
increased.
- 4-
7. The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services.
. Due to the addition of a fire suppression system and the increase in domestic
plumbing fixtures, larger water and sewer services will be required to serve the
building. This work will be a project cost paid by South :Metro.
. The utility work will disturb the recendy reconstructed Gervais Avenue. South Metro
will incur additional costs to repair the public right-of-way.
. Additional costs of water and sewer service will be paid by South :Metro, the building
owner.
. No extraordinary impacts on public facilities or services are anticipated.
8. The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and scenic
features into the development design.
. Impervious surlaces on the site will be reduced.
. Storm water management on the site will be improved to meet current requirements.
. Changes to the existing building will be primarily aesthetic improvements.
9. The use would cause rninimal adverse environmental effects.
. No adverse environmental effects are associated with the proposed use.
. Potential adverse environmental impacts of construction will be mitigated.
- 5 -
Attachment 5
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE TO
NEIGHBOR'S CONCERNS
1. Have any of the potential clients ever been convicted of a serious crime?
2. Are any of the clients sex offenders?
3. Are the clients dangerous?
rrv fE @ fE 0 lil fE
lill APR 06 2011 i
First of all, we stress that Co=unity Foundations is a mental health treatment pr
not a corrections program or a program the treats sex offenders. This program serves
adult men and women for whom maintaining independent living stability in the
co=unity has been an ongoing challenge because of mental illness. The goal of the
program is to provide an alternative to hospitalization and offeI mental health treatment
that will help the client transition to a pemanent, appropriate ,and dignified housing
situation in the co=unity.
As a co=unity mental health services program licensed by the Minnesota Depattment
of Human Services, Co=unity Foundations is held to specific treatment planning
standards and peIformance outcomes. The staff that are on-site 24/7 are fully
credentialed and have years of experience working with the population we serve. As part
of the required treatment planning prior to admission of each resident, the facility staff
complete a diagnostic assessment and an Individual Abuse Prevention Plan. These
assessments detail the applicant's immediate needs and personal history, including needs
related to his or her health and safety, past medical treatment and previous legal issues.
If an applicant has a criminal record, it is reviewed as part of this process...it is not
automatically a cause for denial. The assessment determines whetheI the individual is of
immediate risk to themselves, to other program participants, to South Metro staff or of
risk to the residents of the surrounding co=unity. Once this is established it is then
determined if Co=unity Foundations is an appropriate treatment option for them
moving forward. Not all referrals are accepted into the program.
Co=unity Foundations is not a program for sex offenders. The program has neVeI had
a sexual crime involving a Co=unity Foundations participant against a resident of the
surrounding co=unity. Further more, we do not serve any level 3 offendeIs, but as
licensed facility, Co=unity Foundations would be required to notify the neighborhood
if we had a level 3 offendeI. Sexual offenses that have been reported to police have
involved program participants as victims, not perpetrators of a crime.
We undeIstand that many fear that individuals with mental illness will commit criminal
acts and exhibit violent, unpredictable behavior in the co=unity wheIe they reside.
Our experience, statistics and contemporary research indicate that this stigma is simply
not true and that individuals in treatment for mental illness are more likely victims of
crimes ratheI than perpetrators.
4. Will the clients be confined to the facility? Will they be taking walks outside or
around the neighborhood? Will family members be visiting hence talking walks
around the neighborhood?
Clients are not confined to the facility and are free to leave the facility at any time. A
minimum of 2 staff membeIs are on site 24 hours per day and staff do take every step to
monitor participants to guarantee each participants safety.
Because this is a short-term treatment program (max 90 days), the primary focus is
stabilization and treatment. Individuals in the program have a relatively full schedule
meeting with caseworkers, attending psychiatric appointments and participating in a
variety of groups. At the cUttent site, which is located immediately adjacent to other
residential property, participants do not typically go for "leisure" walks in the
neighborhood. We believe that at the Viking Drive site this will stay consistent. CUttent
staff does not recall any negative interaction between participants and the neighbots. We
also believe with improved living facilities and attractive connon spaces, including a
secute back patio, program participants will be encouraged to spend more time within
the confines of the facility addtessing their needs.
We expect that program participants will on occasion walk along the frontage road when
accessing public transportation at the Park and Ride on Route 61. We believe use of
public transportation will be infrequent because most of the transportation needs of
residents to and from the facility will be handled by South Metro staff (the facility has a
van), connnnity case-worke!s, friends, family or medical transportation programs. We
believe they will be less likely to ventu!e into the sUttounding residential neighborhood.
5. If approved will the facility want to expand making the facility closer to the
neighborhood?
No. IRIS facilities may serve a maximum of 16 individuals at a time and the rehab
of this building is designed for this purpose.
6. We are concerned that having such a facility so close to the neighborhood might
impact resale value on homes.
CUttently the!e is no data that suggests the p!oposed use would have any positive ot
negative effect on property values.
If anything we believe we are adding value by purchasing and !ehabilitating a long vacant
p!operty. The p!oposed rehabilitation of this long vacant p!operty includes a significlUlt
financial investment to improve interiot and exterio! featu!es of an essentially bare
conne!cial sttuctu!e. The building interiot will be completely remodeled with durable
materials in a manne! appropriate to long-term use of the facility. The building exterio!
will be enhanced with additional windows, a skylight, a new entry and !enovated wall
surtaces. The appearance and value of the building will be enhanced with landscaping,
retaining walls, a patio, and fencing. There will be no exterior signage to indicate the
natu!e of use of the facility.
Concerns for children in the neighborhood
CUttently, Connnnity Foundations exists in a residential neighbo!hood with a
population of cbildten equal to and probably greater than the neighbomood adjacent to
1111 Viking Drive. The facility is also adjacent to the Mt. Airy Homes public housing
connnnity that has a high density of childten. Staff do not recall any incidents
involving Connnnity Foundations and youth from the connnnity.
-
Tom Ekstrand
Attachment 0
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Bergerson, Becky [Becky.Bergerson@capella.edu]
Tuesday, March 29, 2011 3:11 PM
Tom Ekstrand
Proposed Mental Health Treatment Facility
Red Category
Categories:
Hi Tom,
I am writing in regards to the South Metro Human Services proposal submitted earlier this month. I live in the residential
neighborhood immediately adjacent to the business area that includes the old Ethan Allen facility.
I am planning to submit formal comments but first have a few questions:
1. What are the notification rules for a proposal such as this? My house is.3 miles (driving) from the tocation in question, but I
did not receive any information first-hand. One of my neighbors heard about this from yet another neighbor (who might
live slightly closer as the crow flies but further driving-wise) and passed out copies of your letter. I am concerned
2. Would the proposed facility be locked down, or would residents be able to come and go as they please?
3. If a registered sex offender were to take up residence in this facility, would the neighborhood be notified or would the
offender be somehow "protected" as a transitional resident of the treatment facility?
From:
Sel1t:
To:
Subject:
Bergerson, Becky [Secky.Bergerson@capella.edu]
Thursday, March 31, 2011 9:43 AM
Tom Ekstrand
I object to the proposed mental health treatment facility
Hello,
My name is Becky Bergerson and I reside at 2471 Cypress Street in Maplewood. My spouse's name Is Kevin, and we have two small
children (18 months and 4 months). We purchased our home in October 2006. Kevin works as a Director of Marketing at th"
Sportsman's Guide in SOuth St. Paul and I am an Analyst at Capella University in downtown Minneapolis. We \York hard, take care Of
our home, and follow the rules. We are good people and good citizens.
It took us a long time to find our home. We wanted it "all," a nice newer house.in a quiet neighborhood filled with kids, a great
backyard, good schools, lakes and parks close by, etc. We felt very fortunate to find our home...and we paid a considerable amount
of money for all of these great things. We would never have chosen this location if there were a mental health residential facility
within .3 miles of our home. It feels crass to say that, but it's true.
I feel that this facility will decrease the safety of the neighborhood. I feel that it will increase police activity in the neighborhood. I
think it will lower property values. I think it will create a more transient neighborhood.
I'm not sure how much response you're getting to this proposal, but I'm quite sure you would have gotten more if you had notified
all residents of my neighborhood. I'm also guessing there is a bit of a language barrier in play. We have numerOus Hmong families
in our neighborhood - families who love their kids as much as I love mine and would likely have the same concerns - but families for
whom English is difficult. Even if they had been notified they may not have understood what the proposal entails.
It seems odd to me that South Metro Human Services thinks that a suburban location such as this will be an improvement. Outside
of the daily rush hour-only commuter buses, there is no convenient public transportation. Grocery stores and Target are not all that
close by.
I did not receive a response to my previous message, so I need to ask that you acknowledge this one. I'd also ask again that you
notify me when a public hearing is scheduled.
Thanks for your time.
Becky Bergerson '
At tac h!D.l?.Di.L_____.
From: Kathy Kleve [mailto:kathyodo@comcast.net]
Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2011 9:42 PM .
To: Tom Ekstrand
Cc: Marvin Koppen; James Llanas; Will Rossbach; John Nephew; Kathleen Juenemann
Subject: Proposed Mental Health Facility at Ethan Allen
Mr Ekstrand
I am writing regarding the recent letter that was distributed to a seiect few residences/businesses in the vicinity of the
Ethan Alien building regarding the proposed mental health facility. While my intent of this is to share my concerns on this
proposai, at the same time I would like to understand what the criteria is for notification in this type of situation.
We just happened upon the information, and given we are five houses away from someone that did receive this, I do not
understand, nor am I happy with, the process by which so few people were notified.
Regarding the proposed facility. I do understand the need to have places to house and rehabilitate individuals in these
situations, however, I will be brutaliy honest in the fact that I don't want it in my backyard.
We moved to our house in Maplewood 5 1/2 years ago. Since that time, we have lost over 28% of the value of our home,
I am in the mortgage business so what has happened over the last few years in the mortgage market is not foreign to me.
However, there are areas of the Twin Cities that have not lost as much value as others, with Maplewood being one on the
end of higher property loss values (yet we will be paying higher taxes again in 2011).
Introducing a facility such as this in a neighborhood that has not only a number of young children, but a home daycare in
close proximity is concerning. From my perspective, we already have our share of issues that can affect the value of our
neighborhood, in particular, I am speaking of the Northernaire Motel and some of the activities that apparently transpire
there.
What information do you have at your disposal that wili assist with making this proposal, or, is this already a foregone
conclusion and this is a mere formality to make folks think what they say can make a difference? (I can't help but make
this assumption after having worked with you when Maple Leaf Ridge Business Center was built in 2005/2006. That was
a situation where the citizens were not heard, the City did what it wanted, what benefited the developer, and our opinion
didn't matter, and we didn't even ask for that much.)
What type of staff does this place employ? From the little information I was able to gather, these used to be state funded
facilities and the state did away with these and now they are ali non-profit. I can't imagine that the quality, training or ratio
of staff to patient in a non profit setting can possibly be at the level that Is needed for this type of facility and to ensure the
safety of the area.
What information do you have available about this organization and it's current facility? Have there been complaints filed
against them? If so, for what and how have they been resolved? What are the licensing requirements for this place?
There are probably numerous other questions/concerns I would have had I had the time to do some further leg work on
this, and rest assured, I will do futher fact finding and I will be attending any meetings regarding this subject.
I strongly oppose this facility going in in our neighborhood due to safety and property value concerns,
I can oniy ask that the residents actualiy have a voice in what happens here,
I look forward to futher information being shared with the people affected by this.
Thank you
Kathy Kieve
2498 Adele Street
Maplewood, MN 55109
612.518.2572
2
tom Ekstrand
Attachment 8
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Richard Kleve [rkleve08@gmail.com]
Tuesday, March 29, 2011 6:02 PM
Tom Ekstrand
Proposed Mental Health facility
Mental Health Facility - Ethan Allen bldg.pdf
Dear Mr. Ekstrand,
I would like to respond to your request for opinions regarding the proposed re-Iocation of the South Metro
Human Services Mental Health Treatment Facility.
First of all, I was disappointed and dismayed, as were most of our neighbors, that none of us received the
attached letter and noone is apparently seeking an opinion from the majority of the neighborhood (apparently
only those along Sexton Ave.).
I would like to offer my thoughts on the matter:
- The letter from So. Metro M.H. is quite vague about staff ratios for
supervision and the education and training requirements of the staff in
this facility. Frankly, one of the key issues is the quality of staff (which is
usually pretty low in these types of places) and the number ofstaffto
supervise and control.
-These type of facilities popped up almost 20 years ago as
the state had a great (misguided) idea to close state mental hospitals and save money.
This year's legislative budget closes even more (basically everything) with
a plan that these non-profits will care for individuals in the community.
The costs are less because the non-profits usually pay their staff minimum wage and
minimal to no benefits which is why the quality of the staff would be a major
concern.
- I want to express my concern over safety issues that effect the value of our home/neighborhood.
There is a Daycare facility in the neighborhood with very young children, as well as a neighborhood park.
The neighborhood is full of young children. I don't believe this kind offacility would be a good fit for this area.
- Besid~s all the safety issues for the neighborhood, my other concern quite frankly is for the patients. I can't imagine putting such a
facility within 100 feet of the intersection of two major highways (36 & 61). The safety issues are obvious. I don't want to see
patients lying in the ditch (ala our neighborhood deer) as I drive by in the morning.
- I am all for these patients getting an updated facility. Why can't they use the $2.5million to renovate their existing facility?
- According to SMHS, these patients are suffering a serious mental illness. They state that their patients are at risk of significant
functional deterioration. I don't want to put our children at risk with this type of facility located in our neighborhood. I believe you
will find a very united and robust opposition from the families who live in this neighborhood.
1
Please feel free to contact me if you wish to discuss. We will attend any hearings on the subject united and in force.
Best regards,
Richard Kleve
2498 Adele St.
Maplewood, Mn 55109
2
Attachment 9
Enl!:ineerinl!: Plan Review
PROJECT: South Metro Human Services
PROJECT NO: 11-04
REVIEWED BY: Jon Jarosch (Maplewood Engineering Department)
SUBMITTAL NO: 1
DATE: 4/1/2011
South Metro Humane Services is requesting a conditional use permit for the former Ethan Allen
building at 1111 Viking Drive. They are proposing to convert the building into a therapeutic
treatment facility with 16 housing units. This conversion will require the replacement of the
existing sanitary sewer and water services to the site. Other exterior modifications to the site
appear to be minimal in this initial submittal.
The following is a list of requirements for this proposal.
General
1. An exterior site plan shall be submitted for approval detailing the extents of all exterior
improvements including pavement removals, new pavement areas, proposed grading,
erosion control, drainage flow arrows, and permanent stabilization of all disturbed areas.
2. The developer shall provide information regarding the change in impervious areas (paved
areas, patio, etc.) on the exterior of the site. If there is an increase in impervious areas on
the site, additional measures may be required to reduce the volume of storm-water runoff.
3. The developer shall provide flow rate information for the increase in sanitary sewer usage
from the proposed development.
4. The developer shall submit plans to Saint Paul Regional Water Service for the water
service upgrades to ensure their standards are met.
5. The developer shall submit plans detailing the water and sewer service connections to the
main-lines. These plans shall include detail regarding the size, depth, slope, and location
of the proposed services.
6. The developer shall submit plans detailing the restoration of Gervais Avenue after the
installation ofthe new services. The restoration of Gervais Avenue will be subject to the
requirements of the City of Maplewood's Right-of-Way ordinance.
7. The developer shall submit a traffic control plan detailing how traffic will be detoured
around Gervais Avenue during the installation of sanitary and water services.
8. The owner and project engineer shall satisfy the requirements of all other permitting
agencies.
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
City Commissions
Charles Ahl, Assistant City Manager
Capital Improvement Plan for 2012 - 2106
April 21, 2011
INTRODUCTION
The Capital Improvement Plan is an annually prepared document that begins the process for
preparation of the 2012 Budget. The Capital Improvement Plan is being released for review by the
various Commissions and a Public Hearing on the CIP will be held at the Planning Commission on
May 17, 2011. Following the receipt of recommendations from all the Commissions, the City Council
will be asked to adopt the CIP. Adopting the CIP does not commit the Council to the proposed
projects, nor implement the assumptions made during the preparation; however, this is the basis for
the 2012 Budget as we proceed to begin preparing for the 2012 Budget document.
Each Commission shall review and comment on the impact of the assumptions and recommended
projects within the Capital Improvement plan. A recommendation of approval, approval with
conditions, or denial should be made and forwarded to the Planning Commission for consideration at
their Public Hearing on May 17th. The Commission should appoint a member to attend the Public
Hearing at the Planning Commission on May 17'h, as well as to the City Council meeting on May 23'd,
when final adoption of the CIP will be considered.
Backoround Information
During the April 11 th Work Session the City Council discussed a referendum for various facilities along
with the status of the 2010 final revenue and expenditure summary. The scope of the budget process
starts with the assumptions of funding that might be available from 2010 [such as extra funds from
2010 being used for the MCC Pool and the Phone System] as well as a discussion of the major capital
projects. The Council indicated that a referendum may be of interest, but nothing major is ready to be
considered. The CIP was prepared assuming no referendum at this time. That can be changed as
the process is evaluated, but the staff assumption is to attempt to implement goals without the benefit
of a referendum discussion. Similarly, the staff has assumed that the Council endorses the uses of
2010 funds being carried forward for improvements to the Pool at MCC and replacement of the phone
system. Those projects are not included in the 2012 - 2016 CIP.
Attached to this report is a Draft of the 2012 - 2016 Capital Improvement Plan for review. The
Transmittal Letter highlights the major projects and revisions within the Plan for consideration, The
biggest revision is the inclusion of the new Fire Stations and expansion of the Police Department,
which adds nearly $7.0 million in improvements to the plan over last year's proposal. The document
explains each of the proposed projects, as well, analyzes the impacts on the budget for the various
funds, along with the tax impact necessary to implement these projects as proposed.
Capital Improvement Plan Process
The process for the Capital Improvement Plan [CIP] begins in February of each year. The Council
provided guidance by adopting goals for the coming years. A clear goal of the Council was financial
sustainability combined with a focus on funding for City facilities. The key issue involved the
Maplewood Community Center funding as well as a long-term vision for public safety facilities, The
staff submits projects based upon those goals, and the finance staff analyzes the funds available for
capital projects along with the impacts of the staff proposals. A number of revisions are made in the
project submittals based upon the analysis of finance, as well as management priorities to achieve the
attached CIP plan. This document reflects the final accumulation of that process.
2012 - 2016 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
PAGE TWO
Summary of CIP
The 2010 - 2014 CIP was approvl3d at a $77.76 Million level; while last year's 2011 - 2015 CIP was
approved at a reduced $65.74 Million level. The staff, again based upon the Council input on priorities
for investment in the MCC and public safety facilities, has slightly decreased the proposed 2012 _
2106 CIP to $65.32 Million. Itshould be noted that the original staff submittals to management totaled
$102.79 Million in needed requests. Each project was analyzed, and management determined that
nearly $38 Million in proposed projects should be removed from the next 5 years of consideration. A
majority of those projects are listed in the Declined Category; it is noted that some projects were
revised to lower estimates and, while proceeding, are proceeding at lower levels; thus the Declined
projects total only $28.9 Million.
The proposed 2012 - 2016 CIP can be divided into three sections based upon the need for new
revenues as follows:
1. New annual revenue for Public Safety Facilities:
$620,000
a, What does this investment provide?
i. New Fire Stations:
1. A new station within the South Leg of Maplewood on or near the 3M
Campus to be built in 2012 - 2013 without the need for a referendum.
We have assumed that we could implement an assessment to a partner
and then sell bonds for both the assessment as well as the Fire Station
expense to provide for the $4.0 million expense. Significant bond work
and discussion with partners are necessary to make this a reality.
2. Refurbishment/replacement of Fire Station #7 at Hazelwood and County
Road C in 2014 - 2015. This assumes that the Century Avenue, Londin
Lane and McMenemy Street stations are abandoned; the property sold
at a value of $2.0 million by 2013. This funding would then be used for
the construction of new Fire Station #7 at the same location.
ii. New money to the Fire Truck Replacement Fund
1. Prior to the recession, the City was providing an annual levy to be placed
in a fund for the replacement of fire trucks on a rotating basis. The last
levy dollars that were placed in the fund was a $45,000 transfer of
General Fund dollars in 2009. This proposal provides a plan for an
annual levy of $100,000 so that funds are available to replace a fire truck
in 2014 and again in 2016.
iii. Police Department Expansion beginning in 2011 - 2012
1. A space needs study is just beginning; however, this plan provides for
expansion at City Hall. An allocation of $825,000 is estimated to be
spent for unspecified facilities but would include finishing vacant space
at Public Works for relocation of a department from City Hall to make
space for expanding the Police Department. No referendum is
necessary to make this work.
iv. Begin to reduce the Deficit in the Ambulance Fund
1. Whiie this is not a capital expenditure issue, the continued shortfall in
planning for the Ambulance Fund is addressed with this approach. An
assumption by previous finance staff on revenues was discovered that
creates some revenue revisions in 2011 and 2012. These policy
decisions, combined with the continual shortfall in coverage by Medicare
for up to 60% of the calls, created a cash shortfall in this fund.
2012 - 2016 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
PAGE THREE
2. The Ambulance Fund cash issue revolves around the write-off of millions
of revenue dollars due to reimbursement expenses from Medicare, The
lack of a write-off in 2009, created an assumption of extra funds, which
need to be addressed. Without going into significant financial allocation
funding techniques, this change creates a shortfall in the General Fund.
3. The proposal calls for.a levy, possibly under the Public Safety /
Emergency Services levy authority, that would be outside levy limits. A
levy, of up to 2.0%, was considered as an assumption as part of this
plan. This item will be reviewed in detail in June - July 2011 as part of
the overall discussion of the 2012 Budget, but is an assumption of this
plan as presented. The staff recognizes that the Ambulance Fund will
begin a very slow revision to a positive cash flow and will begin a
process to reduce the negative cash balance.
4. This allows for the replacement within this plan of an Ambulance in 2013
and a second ambulance in 2016.
b. What is not in this plan?
I. Fire Training Facility / Marshlands Proposal
1. Due to the unknown funding status at the state, we have placed this
proposal on hoid. The sequence of the project requires that the MnDOT
property be conveyed to Maplewood jurisdiction. This conveyance is
necessary as a match for state bonding, but cannot occur until state
bonding is received. Because the property is currently right of way, there
is no property description number which means that comprehensive
planning cannot occur. Without that planning and jurisdiction of the
parcel, we cannot access the County grant funds for clean-up; and we
do not want to accept the jurisdiction of the property because MnDOT
wants us to create wetland credits in exchange for the parcel, of which
funding is tied partially to the state grant funds.
il. Rehabilitation of Fire Station #2
1. As part of Chief Lukin's proposal for the fire department, he identified
needs for improvements at the three main fire stations. We have
identified a funding approach for two of the three stations, but this third
project will need to be deiayed to post 2016. An alternative would be to
raise the levy an additional 1 % above the recommended 2% to generate
an estimated $175,000 per year for this need.
iii. New Police Facility
1. This program expands the Police Department at City Hall in the amount
of $825,000 to address immediate needs. A proposal for a newly
expanded Police Department at an undisclosed location was proposed
in the amount of +$1 0 million, but has been put on-hold; and will likely
require a referendum question. The proposed improvements within this
plan will be implemented to provide for immediate needs and could be
used if a future referendum is passed and expansion is approved at the
existing City Hall.
2012 - 2016 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
PAGE FOUR
I. Public Safety Program Cuts [to be reviewed in June - July]
1. Police: we have estimated that a reduction of $150,000 will be made
from the current allocation to the Police Department; likely from the over-
time allocation, as well as personnel expenses moving forward.
2. Fire: we have estimated that a reduction of $110,000 will be made from
the current allocation to the Fire Department in the Ambulance Fund,
likely from expenses and personnel cost savings; in addition a reduction
of up to $100,000 will be needed from the General Fund portion of the
Fire Department to reduce the growth in the program. These reductions
will need additional evaluation within the next 2 - 3 months to determine
the extent of reductions and level of service to be provided,
2. Additional Funds to cover Debt Service
$250,000
a, What does this investment provide?
I. Support for the Debt Service Fund on Previous Projects
1. The Debt Service Fund will peak in 2014 and begin decreasing in needs
in 2015. With the revisions in state aid funding, the allocation for debt
has been reduced and needs to be supplemented, in addition, the City
debt incurred in 2007 - 2010 for the advanced street improvement
program is coming due and this increase is necessary to maintain our
top bond rating.
il. Continued investment in the Streets Program
1, The streets program is significantly reduced by this proposed CIP, but
continues to invest and returns to recommended levels in 2015 - 2016.
In the interim, projects such as TH 36 - English; the Gladstone project
and overlay of MSAS streets are implemented that do not require
significant impacts to debt service.
b. What does this not provide?
I. Public Works Program Cuts [to be reviewed in June - July]
1, Public Works: we have estimated that a reduction of $150,000 will be
made from the current allocation to the Public Works Department; likely
from expenses and personnel expenses. This reduction will make the
2012 Streets program net neutral to the 2012 budget, as that program is
estimated to add $140,000 in extra levy expense.
3. Additional Funds for Operating and Facility Expenses
$460,000
a. What does this investment provide?
I. Support for new Operating Expenses in 2012
1. Three major expenses are anticipated in 2012 that will have an impact
on the amount of funds available for capital expenses next year.
Approved employment contracts and employee step increases will add
approximately $125,000 to 2012's budget; while we are assuming $4 per
gallon fuel, which will add $75,000 in expenses; while the IT Fund has
been used for advancing expenses and increased costs to return to
sustainability [this is not an expansion of IT services] of $40,000 is
required to remain net neutral to overall needs.
2012 - 2016 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
PAGE FIVE
I. New Capital for Improvements at MCC
1, The five-year MCC Sustainability Plan proposed by staff and reviewed
with the Council on April 111h is partially implemented with this plan. An
allocation of $150,000 has already been proposed in 2011 and an
additional $100,000 will be allocated in 2012 to meet the requested
$250,000 annual needs.
2. This plan will move significant additional funds into Parks and
Recreation as follows:
a. Levy for 2011:
I. MCC Fund Levy - $340,000
il. MCC Capital Levy - $ 0
iil. Rec Program Fund Levy - $225,000
iv. General Fund Transfers - $ 70.000'
v. Total - $635,000
vI. . - Note this does not include the $150,000 for the Pool.
b. Levy for 2012:
I. MCC Fund Levy-
il. MCC Capital Levy -
iil. Rec Program Fund Levy -
iv. General Fund Transfers -
v. Total-
$340,000
$100,000
$200,000
$ 70,000
$710,000
il. New Funds for CIP Fund for Facilities
1. In previous years, a levy was implemented for Capital expenses. It is
proposed to re-instate that levy in the amount of $95,000 per year.
These funds are used for improvements of existing Park equipment and
Community Fields along with improvements to City Hall and
departmental equipment. The 2012 proposed improvements include
$100,000 to existing park facilities.
2. Future plans include replacement of Election Equipment, improvements
at the Nature Center and carpet replacement at Public Works.
b. What does this investment not provide?
I. Additional identified needs at Maplewood Community Center
1. The requested improvements at MCC are significant. While a proposed
allocation in 2011 of $150,000 for the pool is likely, the MCC staff has
estimated a need of $250,000 annually beginning in 2012. Only
$100,000 of funds has been proposed at this time. The staff recognizes
that the MCC Fund still shows a negative balance, but additional steps
will be taken and it is anticipated that eventually the fund will begin to
show a positive cash flow in future years.
il. Additional Funds for Park Development
1. The number of projects proposed for improvement within Maplewood
Parks will far exceed the funds projected to be available from PAC
Funds. An annual levy of $140,000 would be necessary to meet these
needs. This has not been proposed. Projects at Goodrich Park, Joy
Park and Legacy Park have been delayed or reduced due to the lack of
funding.
2012 - 2016 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
PAGE SIX
iii. General Fund Program Cuts [to be reviewed in June - July]
1. Citizen Services - we have estimated that a reduction of $42,000 will be
made from the current allocation to the Citizen Services Department;
likely from expenses and personnel expenses.
2. Community Development: - we have estimated that a reduction of
$60,000 will be made from the current allocation to the Community
Development Department; likely from personnel expenses shifts and
possibly an increase in permit revenue.
3. Executive/Legal/Finance - we have estimated that a reduction of
$40,000 will be made from the current allocation to the Executive / Legal
/ Finance programs; likely from expenses and personnel expenses,
4. Park and Recreation Programs - we have estimated that a reduction of
$50,000 will be made from the current allocation to the Park and
Recreation Department; likely from expenses and personnel expenses.
Budoetary Consideration
As noted within the CIP Document and this memorandum, the proposed approach can be
implemented with a 3 - 5 % projected levy increase. The final amount will depend upon the level of
reserves that the Council wishes to have going into 2012, along with the estimate of revenues for
2012. We have assumed that 2011 revenues, other than the noted tax levy increase, will be equai to
2012 revenues; with no major increases or decreases. The Finance Manager has some concerns
with a couple of revenue assumptions and is monitoring the situation. Those items will be reviewed
along with the impacts of cuts within the various departments and programs during the budget
meetings in July 2011 as the Council moves forward with budget determinations and directions.
One final consideration is the current legislation on a state level that may impact City operations as
well as the tax levy. Current proposals that have been approved by the State House and Senate are
now in conference committee before being presented to the Governor. This legislation, if adopted, will
have a potentially positive impact on City operations, by reducing retirement compensation required by
the City; as well, the legislation calls for elimination of Market Value Homestead Credit [MVHC] in
2012. As Maplewood loses significant funds to MVHC, the elimination of the MVHC program would
amount to an estimated effective 3.0% levy reduction to residential property owners, and thus a 3 - 5
% levy increase would likely appear as a decrease or minimal increase to most residential property
owners. Non MVHC property would see a greater increase. The final decision on tax policy is weeks
[or more] away, but may have an impact on the Council's final decision on any levy increase.
As noted, these are the assumptions that the CIP was based upon for presentation to the
Commissions and City Council. The assumptions will be reviewed in detail as the process proceeds
over the next months.
Recommended Action
The Commission should review the proposed projects within the 2012 - 2016 Capital Improvement
Plan. A recommendation of approval; approval with revisions or conditions; or denial should be made
prior to the May 17'h Public Hearing at the Planning Commission. Said recommendation from the
Commission will be presented to the Council on May 23rd.
Attachments:
1. Draft 2012 - 2016 Capital Improvement Plan