Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-05-24 CDRB Packet AGENDA CITY OF MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD Tuesday, May 24, 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. April 26, 2011 5. Unfinished Business: 6. Design Review: a. 3M Company Building and Site Renovations - 3M Center 7. Visitor Presentations: 8. Board Presentations: 9. Staff Presentations: a. Living Streets Task Force b. Old Goodwill Sign (No Report) 10. Adjourn WELCOME TO THIS MEETING OF THE COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD This outline has been prepared to explain the review process of this meeting. The review of an item usually follows this format. 1. The chairperson of the meeting will announce the item to be reviewed. 2. The chairperson will ask the applicant or developer of the project up to the podium to respond to the staff's recommendation regarding the proposal. The Community Design Review Board will then discuss the proposed project with the applicant. 3. The chairperson will then ask the audience if there is anyone present who wishes to comment on the proposal. 4. After everyone is the audience wishing to speak has given his or her comments, the chairperson will close the public discussion portion of the meeting. 5. The Board will then discuss the proposal. No further public comments are allowed. 6. The Board will then make its recommendations or decision. 7. Most decisions by the Board are final, unless appealed to the City Council. You must notify the City staff in writing within 15 days to register an appeal. jw\forms\cdrb.agd Revised: 11-09-94 MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD 1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, APRIL 26, 2011 1. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Ledvina called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL Boardmember, Jason Lamers Chairperson, Matt Ledvina Boardmember, Michael Mireau Boardmember, Ananth Shankar Vice Chairperson, Matt Wise Present Present * Absent Present Present *Boardmember Michael Mireau resigned prior to the meeting due to work commitments. Staff Present: Michael Martin, Planner 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Chairperson Ledvina requested moving Approval of Minutes to follow 6. Design Review and make a modification to move item 6. e. South Metro Human Services Mental Health care Facility t06. a. and move the other agenda items down accordingly. Boardmember Wise moved to approve the aqenda as submitted. Seconded by Boardmember Lamers. Ayes - Chairperson Abstention- Boardmember Shankar The motion passed. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Boardmember Wise moved to approve the March 22. 2011. CDRB minutes as submitted. Boardmember Lamers seconded the motion. Ayes - All The motion passed. 5. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None April 26, 2011 Community Design Review Board Meeting Minutes 1 6. DESIGN REVIEW a. South Metro Human Services Mental Health Care Facility, 1111 Viking Drive 1. Planner, Michael Martin gave the report on the South Metro Human Services Mental Health Care Facility, 111 Viking Drive and answered questions of the council. 2. Tom Pavl, President South Metro Human Services Mental Health Care Facility, 6363 Keswick Avenue North, gave a brief introduction and answered questions of the board. 3. Scott Werk, Architect, 475 East 4th Street, Saint Paul addressed the board. 4. Sean McFarland, 475 East4th Street, Saint Paul, questions of the board. Boardmember Shankar moved to approve the plans date-stamped March 17. 2011. for the proposed buildina. site and landscapina improvements to the former Ethan Allen Buildino. located at 1111 Vikino Drive. Approval is based on the findin(ls reauired bv ordinance and subiect to the applicant doin(l the followina: (chanaes to the motion are underlined and in bold\. a. Revise the site plan to reduce the amount of paving from the on-site impervious surface to under 60 percent of the total site. ElElualla the size Elf the prepased l3a1ia. 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. 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 applicant shall 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 Maplewood, 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. Boardmember Shankar moved to approve a parkina waiver to have 21 parkina stalls fewer than are reauired bv city ordinance. This approyalis based on the applicant's parkina needs for six staff. one transport vehicle and occasional visitors. If a parkino shortaae develops. the applicant shall provide more parkina spaces on site or (lain them by lease aoreement from neiohborina properties. Staff shall approve any revisions to the available parkina either by site plan revision or parkino aoreement with neiohbors. The appliCant shall provide a site landscaping plan and work with city staff to soften the feel of the building on all four sides. The applicant shall remove the existing pylon sign and add one additional parking stall in that space. Seconded by Boardmember'Lamers. Ayes -All April 26, 2011 Community Design Review Board Meeting Minutes 2 Boardmember Lamers added a friendly amendment that the applicant shall remove the existing pylon sian and add one additional parkina stall in that space. The motion passed. b. Cottagewood Town House Development - South of Highwood Avenue, East of Dennis Street, West of 1-494 1. Planner, Michael Martin gave the report and answered questions of the bOard. 2. President Cardinal Homebuilders, Tom Wiener, applicant for the Cottagewood Development addressed and answered questions of the board. 3. Deanna Wiener, Cardinal Homebuilders, addressed and answered questions of the board. Chairperson Ledvina asked if anyone in the audience would like to address the board. 1. Earl Chapman, Maplewood addressed the board regarding this project. Chairperson Ledvinamoved to approve the buildina elevations and landscape plans date- stamped April 11. 2011. for the Cottaaewood PUD. The developer is also to abide by the 2006 CDRB approved site plan. oradino and drainage plans. This development will be on the south side of Hiohwood Avenue. west of 1-494 and east of Dennis Street, The city bases this approval on the findinas reauired by the code. The developer or contractor shall do the followina: (chanaes or additions are underlined and in boldl. 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 1 g, 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 (as shown on the landscape plan I. TRese aElcliticmal R'lalerials are to ensure there is at least six feat tall, gO ~orGent apaque ssreen an the west side af IRe sileo The location, design and materials of the additional landscaping shall be subject to city staff approval. (3) The developer shall installlandscapin9 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. April 26, 2011 Community Design Review Board Meeting Minutes 3 (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 landscape 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 distributed 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 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. Gellhe 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 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): April 26, 2011 Community Design Review Board Meeting Minutes 4 (1) the colors or 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 (4) the developer must pick either brick or stone to be used throuahout the development. 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. I. The developer may add decks or patio subiect to code compliance and must be approved bv the city enaineer due to potential aradina and stormwater affects. 3. Complete the following before occupying each building: 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 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 sile 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 ofthe site. The location, design and materials ofthe 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. April 26, 2011 Community Design Review Board Meeting Minutes 5 I. The developer or contractor shall: (1) Complete all grading for the site drainage, complete all public improliements 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 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. Seconded by Boardmember Wise. Ayes - All The motion passed. c. Ramsey County Park Shelter, Battle Creek Regional Park 1. Planner, Michael Martin gave the report and answered questions of the board. 2. Landscape Architect with Ramsey County, Gus Blumer addressed and answered questions of the board. Boardmember Lamers moved to approve the plans date-stamped April 11. 2011. for the park picnic shelter proposed at the Battle Creek Reaional Park. Approval is subiect to the applicant doino the followino: 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 Jon Jarosch's staff engineering report, dated April 15,2011. 4. Staff may approve minor changes to the plans. 5. Obtain the necessary permits. April 26, 2011 Community Design Review Board Meeting Minutes 6 Seconded by Boardmember Wise. Ayes -All The motion passed. d. Design Review and Comprehensive Sign Plan Arnendment, Maplewood Mall, 3001 White Bear Avenue ' 1. Planner, Michael Martin gave the report and answered questions of the board. 2. Senior Associate, Bill Wittrock, RSP Architects, 1220 Marshall Street NE, Minneapolis addressed and answered questions of the board. 3. Laurie Van Dalen, Maplewood Mall addressed and answered questions of the board. Boardmember Wise moved to approve desian plans. date-stamped April 11. :2011. for the proposed main entrances at the Maplewood Mall at 3001 White Bear Avenue. The applicant shall comply with the followina conditions: 1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. 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. Board member Wise moved to approve the comprehensive sian plan amendment. as outlined in the plans date-stamped April 11. 2011. for the Maplewood Mall at 3001 White Bear Avenue. The applicant shall comply with the followino conditions: (addition to the motion is underlined and in bold). 1. All signs shail follow lhe 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. 4. The applicant shall color match the sconces. subiect to staff approval. Seconded by Boardmembers Lamers. Ayes - All The motion passed. e. Maplewood Mall Stormwater Retrofit Project, 3001 White Bear Avenue 1. Planner, Michael Martin gave a brief report and introduced Cliff Aichinger to give the remainder of the presentation. 2. Administrator, Cliff Aichinger, Ramsey Washington Metro Watershed District gave a presentation and answered questions ofthe board. April 26, 2011 Community Design Review Board Meeting Minutes 7 Boardmember Lamers moved to approve the desian plans for the proiJosed Maplewood Mall Stormwater Retrofit Proiect, The applicant shall comply with the followina 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. Seconded by Chairperson Ledvina. Ayes - All The motion passed. 7. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS None 8. BOARD PRESENTATIONS Boardmembers discussed the Goodwill sign. 9. STAFF PRESENTATIONS a. Capital Improvement Plan for 2012.2016 1. Planner, Michael Martin briefly discussed the Capital Improvement Plan for 2012 - 2016. Chairperson Ledvina moved to approve the Capitallmprovement Plan for 2012-2016 as presented by staff. Seconded by Boardmember Wise. Ayes - All The motion passed. 10. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned by Chairperson Ledvina at 9:14 p.m. April 26, 2011 Community Design Review Board Meeting Minutes 8 MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: LOCATION: DATE: James Antonen, City Manager Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner Chuck Ahl, Assistant City Manager Design Review-3M Company Building and Site Renovations 3M Center May 18, 2011 TO: FROM: INTRODUCTION Project Description 3M Company is proceeding with several major internal building and campus improvements in and around Building 220, the multi-story executive building along 1-94. 3M will be constructing a new visitor and VIP entrance to the building. Outside work includes internal roadway changes, parking improvements, extensive landscaping and walkways to connect to other existing pathways. The first and second floors in Building 220 will remodeled internally for meetings, assemblies and displays. There will be removal of a parking lot which will be redesigned as a "Community Plaza" in the flavor of an Italian Piazza or square, including planters, picnic tables, gathering areas and shaded areas for employees and guests. The internal ring passageways around the complex will include meeting areas, graphic displays, interactive displays and a general showcase for 3M products and technology. The proposed exterior changes are: . Elimination of the 11th Street access from the 1-94 frontage road. . A new turnaround and drop-off area will be provided south of Building 220. . A canopy over the south entrance to Building 220. . A new parking lot south of the parking ramp (Building 229). . Conversion of the underutilized parking lot north of Building 220 into an Italian Piazza. . Removal of the two reflecting pools and fountain. . Adding pedestrian trails south of Building 220. . Adding substantial landscaping improvements. Request Design approval by the community design review board. DISCUSSION Engineering Report Refer to the engineering report from Steve Kummer, staff engineer. Mr. Kummer commented on the civil engineering data. This report should be incorporated into the motion as conditions to be met. 1 Site Considerations Parkino Staff would normally do a parking calculation based on building square footage and the types of uses on site when parking lots are proposed to be eliminated or changed in anyway. With 3M Company, this is nearly impossible due to the size of the campus and the multitude of uses on their grounds. 3M Company has always provided adequate parking for their needs. Staffhas no concern with their plan to convert an underutilized parking lot into the outside community plaza since they will also be providing a new parking lot. 11th Street Reconfiouration Staff sees no problern in eliminating the 11 th Street connection atthefrontage road. This is essentially the elimination of a private roadway connection into 3M Center which the applicant feels is unsafe and not needed. Access would still be provided from within the site to the proposed parking lot, the proposed VIP entrance and existing parking facilities. Landscapino The applicant has revised the landscaping plan since their initial submittal. The new plan replaces the native prairie plantings with numerous perennial gardens. Refer to the plans date- stamped May 17,2011 and disregard the landscaping plans in the larger plan set date-stamped May 4, 2011. The applicant is proposing to remove 38 trees to make way for the driveway, parking lot and pedestrian trail improvements. They propose to replace those trees with 89 new trees, 1115 shrubs, 14,801 perennials and 9,386 perennial grasses. The tree replacement requirements would easily be met. Remodeled VIP Entrance to Buildino 220 A new canopy is proposed over the existing south entrance into Building 220, The applicant is proposing a curved metal canopy to enhance this building entrance as a more formalized and impressive entrance for visitors to the building. Refer to the attached design perspective. RECOMMENDATION Approve the site plan changes on the plans labeled Site and Landscape Work/3M Community Project date-stamped May 4, 2011. Approve the landscaping plan and the entrance canopy design as shown on the plans date-stamped May 17, 2011. Approval is based on the findings required by ordinance and subject to the following conditions: 1. Compliance with the requirements in the engineering report dated May 13, 2011. 2. Minor changes may be approved by city staff. 2 REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Site size: Eight acres (project area) Existing land use: 3M Center SURROUNDING LAND USES This planned work is surrounded by 3M Center with 1-94 on the south. PLANNING Land Use Plan designation: I (industrial) Zoning: M2 (heavy manufacturing) APPLICATION DATE The application for this request was complete on MayA, 2011. State law requires that the city decide on land use applications within 60 days. The deadline for council action, therefore, is July 3, 2011. p:sec36\3M Renovations CDRB 5 11 Attachments: 1. 3M Center/Location Map 2. Site and Landscaping Plan 3. Engineering Report by Steve Kummer dated May 13, 2011 4. Building Canopy Design Perspective date-stamped May 17, 2011 (separate attachment) 5. Perennial Gardens Colored Details date-stamped May 17, 2011 (separate attachment) 6. Site and Landscape Work/3m Community Project plans date-stamped May 4. 2011 (separate attachment) 7. Revised Landscaping Plans date-stamped May 17, 2011 (separate attachment) 3 lVi, ~ ~ w ~ ( '\ ~ S ~ c::::J ""';fl " ~ -= @ ~ :;;; ~ ~ ~ ~~ au ~~ ~~ P-i 6J >- ~~ Z"'" <r:z .....:l~ ~ ~~ za <r:u ~~ ~C":) ..... U) ~ ~~ S'2 8."" ~~" ~ '.~" '" . 5 Z '>~.. '" ~~~~;~ ~ ~ im~!~n ~ liiiii ,:::t ~ uSm~n '" ~~m~ '" - '" ~ '" ~ ~ -~~~~~~$ u ~-~m~~ >< ~ ~~h97Hlf rn i'7-iii "" <.> ~~~~~~~~Y ~ ~~h~~ ,:::t ~2!mm;:'i mm ~ ~""~~~iii ~~~~~~ " . fl. L,l .J ~ 1 CJ -.~ ~ u l:l:i filII III Ili'l jliib III'! I"! 11:1" IIII 11!lll 1M! IINi. 11:11 !1l111 1111' il!I!! j!,1!I'i !IIIIII I ~b ,lllli .Ii!:! dllll 'IIIII!! III 1:1111 1'1111 "Iill !llll 11,1111 .,III! ill! 11111 Ilibl ' !illii ,Iill!! 11I11 " u ~ < N M i , 1 a.. 1< j:2 'z !~ "~ o o ...J f-i - a: w ~ z w o :2 M ~ I . i o , m :.J ~ " ~ w 0 u ~ "l>~r .. 0: " 90 0 I _ r 1110 I b ro ro !;l , ^ $'; 0 !II I · ~ N 0 H~ !i i N , ..lip 0 .., I, "' - - c::> -3:- N --------.,.,.>-''''''' ~ l:- t; .... M Z ~ =>>: .. 98 ::;: = N N I I Z , ! c:( 0 Ii ...J =::;-] <""iE"1>0 0- v I 'C) M L- z N I . . Ii i - N I !! II i 0- Il III c:( 1 0000'" 0 m en c ~ I ' ',~ z ili q . ,C:( iUhl ...J c Z I c:( I ! w 0 !:: ~ , , en ~ I I , ~ ~ ~~ '" I II !:i 0" (pO , , , I I i ~o/ i Ii 0~ , '-en, , oj , II n ~ ~ lid! II. 0 Ii '1!l11i I II 0 0 ' . . (;) I III ffi 0 I n ~ . H;!! I ro 133l:USH19 ro .v L " ~ c . < ~ ,., Attachment 3 Maplewood Engineering Comments 3M Building 220 Landscaping Improvements 5-13-2011 Page 1 of 4 Enaineerina Plan Review PROJECT: PROJECT NO: COMMENTS BY: DATE: 3M Building 220 Landscaping Improvements 11-07 Steve Kummer, P.E. - Staff Engineer 5-13-2011 PLAN SET: Original Set dated 5-3-2011 REPORTS: Design Calculations (Hydrologic) dated 5-3-11 by TKDA Summarv 3M is proposing a redevelopment of their exterior landscaping adjacent to Building 220. The proposal is to remove a portion of 11th Street, remove access to Hudson Place, and terminate the roadway at a front entrance to the building. The proposal is to remove the front fountain and pond, replace the pond with underground detention and infiltration facilities, restore with a native seeding, and reconstruct an existing plaza area. The design will add trails and walkways to the area. Reauest The applicant is requesting design review. The scope of this review includes aspects of site design including, but not limited to, geometrics, paving, grading, drainage utilities, temporary sediment and erosion control and permanent storm water management. The following are Engineering review comments on the design review, and act as conditions prior to issuing demolition, grading, sewer, and building permits: Sheet 200R 1) It appears that the applicant is planning on removing several storm sewer runs. Provide notes/details on methods of sealing and abandoning connections to existing trunk storm sewers. 2) Show existing sanitary, watermain and storm sewer not scheduled for removal on this plan sheet. 3) The fountain and pond bottom are not indicated for removal on this plan sheet. 4) Add note: "Prior to construction, notify and coordinate with all private utility owners regarding possible impacts to their facilities due to construction." - : 5) Add note: "Construction storm water runoff shall comply with NPDES and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) requirements." Maplewood Engineering Comments 3M Building 220 Landscaping Improvements 5-13-2011 Page 2 of 4 6) Provide sawcut and edge mill at each existing bituminous pavement edge. Sheet 014C 7) Show existing sanitary, watermain and storm sewer not scheduled for removal on this plan sheet. 8) Erosion control plan should provide for biolog checks (Curlex, compost log, or equivalent) within the curbline of the new roadway, curb openings and graded flumes leading into infiltration basins. 9) Provide construction details on the graded flumes leading to the bottom of the infiltration pre-treatment areas from the 3 curb cuts. The plan should provide some type of reinforced channel and energy dissipation for these concentrated flows. 10) Specify paving types for each path. The hatching of the proposed trails does not show up on the plans. 11) Provide inlet protection on storm sewer structures toward the north entrance of this site to protect inlets from construction tracking. 12) Is construction traffic proposed to enter on 11th Avenue between building 223 and 229? If so, show rock entrance pad at the location where the new pavement begins. 13) Provide reinforcement for swale along Grid NSOO from E1800 to E2000. 14) Submit Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan for review. Sheet 214C 15) The grading plan appears incomplete. a. Properly tie in all proposed grades to existing contours. b. Provide proposed spot elevations at building edges and thresholds where grade changes will occur. c. Provide finished-first-floor elevations. d. Review trail grading and revise accordingly (more specific comments to follow). 16) Show existing sanitary, watermain and storm sewer not schedule for removai as well as proposed storm sewer and structures on this plan sheet. 17) Provide spot elevations and grading detail at the new southerly entrance to Building 220 (Grid E2300, N700). New construction should meet ADA requirements by providing depressed curb openings and walks and ramps as needed. An inset into the plan sheet may be needed to properly show these construction details. 18) Grading of the southerly path that runs from 8th Street to grid E2S00 need some additional work. Provide grades at Grid E1900, N600 and Grid E2200-E2S00 Maplewood Engineering Comments 3M Building 220 Landscaping Improvements 5-13-2011 Page 3 of4 between N400-N500. Provide no more than a 5% longitudinal slope and 2% cross slope and provide ADA-prescribed landing areas as needed. 19) The garden/plaza area within Grids N700-N900 and E2000-E2200 is proposed with grades at less than 1 %. Provide more information on grading of shrub gardens in this area. Applicant may need to utilize area drains along with the low area CB northwest of Grid E2200, N800 in order to provide proper drainage for this area. 20) Is filling proposed around the base of Building 220? Provide more information on proposed grading around this building especially in the area of Grid E2300, N800. 21) Show spot elevations at all drainage curb cuts. 22) Show grading at handicap parking stalls and maximum 2% cross slopes on all walks (spot elevations indicating the general slope across each area will suffice). Sheet 314C 23) Provide "STOP" control and 8-inch painted (or 3M-taped) white bar at parking ramp (Bldg 229) exit. 24) Landscaping at the Bldg 229 entry/exit should be kept low to enable visibility of northbound vehicles coming from the visitor's entrance. 25) Provide backing space for the west-end stalls on the new parking lot. Sheet 414C 26) Differentiate between sanitary and storm sewer. Show any watermain services that may be impacted. Sheets 614C. 614D 27) Provide detaii for drainage curb cuts. Show monolithic fiume off the back of each curb cut providing downslope away from the back of curb to prevent grass or sod from impeding water flow. 28) Provide pedestrian curb ramp detail. Sheet 152 29) Provide specifications on seeding means and methods, specifically at the bottom of the infiltration basins. For example, is the seeding proposed to be broadcast and harrowed or punch-seeded? What is going to be done to protect the seeding at the bottom of the basins? Maplewood Engineering Comments 3M Building 220 Landscaping Improvements 5-13-2011 Page 4 of 4 30) Provide cash escrow or letter of credit guarantee to 125% the cost of all native restoration on the site. The restoration contract should include a minimum 3-year maintenance protocol for all native seeding and weed control on the site. 31) Seeded areas shown on the plan do not coincide with the proposed site contours. Turf seeding is shown in the infiltration basin just south of the parking lot. Please elaborate on this and whether or not this was intended. Storm Water Manaaement 32) Provide Existing vs. Proposed drainage computations comparing just the flows from the 7.8-acre drainage area. While it's understood that there is a reduction in impervious surface, the comparison between the flows in the 72-inch pipe and the proposed storm sewer system flows does not make this reduction readily apparent. 33) Include the infiltration volume of the pretreatment basins as part of the overall volume of infiltration provided. 34) Provide soil borings (hand-auger to 5-6 feet from proposed grade is fine) in the areas of the pretreatment basins. Other 35) Provide earthwork totals (import and export) for the grading work proposed for the site. 36) Submit a signed copy of the MPCA construction storm water permit prior to grading permit issue. 37) Satisfy requirements of all permitting authorities associated with this project. Provide copies of written approval letters and permits. 38) The applicant shall enter into a maintenance agreement with the city. The city will prepare the agreement. The applicant shall also provide a maintenance plan for the underground Triton system. -END COMMENTS- MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: James Antonen, City Manager Michael Martin, AICP Planner Living Streets Task Force May 18, 2011 INTRODUCTION Michael Thompson, Maplewood City Engineer, is working toward establishing a Living Streets Task Force to provide the city council with input in establishing a Living Streets Poiicy to guide future street development. Please refer to Mr. Thompson's attached report and documentation. Mr. Thompson's desire is that one member of the community design review board would volunteer to serve on this committee for approximately a five month period. Mr. Thompson will be requesting that the council authorize the estabiishment of this task force later this month. RECOMMENDATION Staff requests that an interested member of the community design review board volunteer to serve as a member of the Living Streets Task Force. p:community design review boardlLiving Streets Task Force Memo_052411 Attachments: 1. Memo from Michael Thompson on the Potential Living Streets Task Force 2. Community Design Review Board Comments Regarding Living Streets from March 22. 2011 Attachment 1 Potential Living Streets Taskforce Staff has presented Living Streets concepts to the Planning Commission, Environmental and Natural Resources Commission, and Community Design Review Board (summary of meetings attached). The discussion has focused on a few key areas: 1) Improve storm water quality through expansion of the rain garden program, reducing the impervious footprint of streets, and meeting or exceeding the 1" infiltration standard. 2) Implement traffic calming measures through the use of techniques best suited for site conditions. 3) Improve biking and walking conditions along natural connector routes and collector streets through designation of bike lanes, sidewalks, or multi-purpose trails. 4) Create boulevard tree standards that provide environmental benefits (storm water management, shade to reduce heating and cooling costs, filtering air pollutants, reduce urban heat island effect), enhance quality of life, and are practical and affordable. 5) Be cognizant of construction, replacement, and future maintenance costs The feedback thus far has been positive in moving forward with the creation of a Living Streets policy. To help refine the focus and generate buy-in a task force is proposed. It is the intent of the staff to propose a formation of Living Streets Task to the city council in Mayor June 2011. It is anticipated that the membership could be formed to include: ~ 1 member of the Environmental and Natural Resources Commission ~ 1 member of the Community Design Review Board ~ 1 member of the Planning Commission ~ 1 member of the City Council ~ 1 member of the business community (Business & Economic Development Commission?) ~ 1 staff person from Public Safety (Police or Fire) ~ 2 staff persons from Public Works (1 engineering and 1 maintenance) ~ 1 person from Community Development ~ 2 at large resident volunteers / appointees?? Again, at this time this is only proposed, however if the council does want to proceed with a task force staff would like to be prepared to move forward with selected volunteers from boards and commissions. It is anticipated the time commitment would be no more than 3-4 meetings over the next 5 month period. Thanks! ----Michael Thompson, P.E. City Engineer / Dep. Director of Public Works Attachment 2 COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD SUMMARY LIVING STREETS DISCUSSION MARCH 22, 2011 The following is a recap of discussion items: 1. City Engineer Michael Thompson gave an introduction of Living Streets. 2. Questions of the Commission then commenced: a. Mention of finding a way to provide a special assessment incentive b. Talk of a sidewalk incentive c. Talked about that if there are no walks and the streets are not narrowed then traffic will not slow down and there also is no place for pedestrians to walk safely d. Education is a big part of successful implementation e. Talk about the benefits and how residents will see improvements as a result of Living Streets concepts f. Mention that Maplewood is a leader in the environmental sustainable approach with stormwater and rain gardens ' g, All concerns must be carefully analyzed but if this is to be successful a "big picture" approach is needed h. A long term vision is good but each neighborhood needs to be part of the soiution, possibly more easily accomplished through incentives, policing, setting timelines i. All members appear to strongly support the Living Streets effort and looking more closely at the concepts that could be part of a poi icy and ultimately perhaps an ordinance (to add more authority) j. Mentioned that stakeholder involvement is key and that perhaps a task force of the various commissions and board is suited to reach out to constituents to understand concerns and solicit feedback to ensure future buy-in 3. Michael thanked the Commissioners for the feedback and that these items would be presented to the Environmental and Natural Resources Commission in April. The plan is to return again to the CDRB for further discussion after compiling feedback from the board and commissions. This summary is onlv mv recollection and is not to be referred to as detailed fact. Please watch the video proceedinqs for detailed discussion. By Michael Thompson, City Engineer - , ;