The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2011-09-27 CDRB Packet AGENDA CITY OF MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD Tuesday, September 27,2011 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. August 23, 2011 5. Unfinished Business: a. Dearborn Meadow East, Building Elevation Revision, north of Castle Avenue 6. Design Review: a. LaMettry Collision Auto Repair, 2923 Maplewood Drive 7. Visitor Presentations: 8. Board Presentations: 9. Staff Presentations: a. Gladstone Area Streetscape b. Resolution of Appreciation for Michael Mireau 10. Adjourn DRAFT MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD 1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, AUGUST 23, 2011 1. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Ledvina called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL Boardmember, Jawaid Ahmed Boardmember, Jason Lamers Chairperson, Matt Ledvina Boardmember, Ananth Shankar Vice Chairperson, Matt Wise Present Present Present Present Present at 6:07 p.m. Staff Present: Michael Martin, Planner 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Boardmember Shankar moved to approve the aQenda as submitted. Boardmember Lamers seconded the motion. Ayes - All The motion passed. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Boardmember Shankar moved to approve the June 28, 2011, CDRB minutes as submitted. Boardmember Lamers seconded the motion. Ayes - Chairperson Ledvina, Boardmember's Lamers, & Shankar Abstention - Boardmember Ahmed The motion passed. 5. UNFINISHED BUSINESS a. Maplewood Green Building Program Update i. Planner, Michael Martin introduced the Assistant Building Official to give his presentation. ii. Assistant Building Official/Green Building Manager Nick Carver gave the report and addressed the board. August 23, 2011 Community Design Review Board Meeting Minutes 1 6. DESIGN REVIEW a. 3M Comprehensive Sign Plan Amendment i. Planner, Michael Martin gave the report and answered questions of the board. ii. Brendan Sapienza, of Meyer Scherer and Rockcastle representing 3M addressed the board and answered questions of the board. Boardmember Shankar moved to approve the plans for a comprehensive siQn plan amendment to allow for a new monument siqn at the 3M Center. south of Buildinq 229. The applicant shall complv with the followinq conditions: (chanqes are underlined and in bold) 1. Follow the approved plans. Planning staff may approve minor changes. 2. Obtain a sign permit. 3. The total overall heiqht of the siqn shall not exceed 28 feet. Seconded by Boardmember Lamers. Ayes - All The motion passed. b. Maplewood Toyota Service Entrance Addition, 2873 Maplewood Drive i. Planner, Michael Martin gave the report and answered questions of the board. ii. Owner of Maplewood Toyota, Steve McDaniels addressed and answered questions of the board. iii. Architect, Darwin Lindahl addressed and answered questions of the board. Boardmember Wise moved to approve the site and landscapinq plans date-stamped Auqust 9. 2011 and the buildinq elevations date-stamped Julv 21. 2011 for the service entrance addition. buildinq exterior improvements and pervious paver improvements at Maplewood Tovota. 2873 Maplewood Drive. Approval is subiect to applicant doinQ the followinQ: (chanQes are underlined and in bold) 1. Repeat this review in two years if the project hasn't been started by then. 2. Complying with the conditions in the city's engineering review by Steve Kummer, staff engineer, dated July 29, 2011. 3. Stripe all new or resurfaced parking stalls as required by ordinance. 4. Submitting cash escrow or an irrevocable letter or credit before the issuance of a building permit to cover the cost of installing all required landscaping, paver installation and parking lot striping. This escrow shall be in the amount of 150 percent of the cost of all landscaping. 5. The applicant shall replace the tree removed on the site with another tree on the landscapinq plan. Seconded by Boardmember Ahmed Ayes - Chairperson Ledvina, Boardmember's Ahmed, Lamers & Wise Abstention - Boardmember Shankar August 23, 2011 Community Design Review Board Meeting Minutes 2 The motion passed. c. Beam Avenue Medical Building, Northeast of Beam and White Bear Avenues, between Walgreens i. Planner, Michael Martin gave the report and answered questions of the board. ii. Dan Regan of Airlake Development addressed and answered questions of the board. Boardmember Wise moved to approve site plan date-stamped AUQust 10, 2011 and the plans date-stamped Julv 20. 2011. for the medical office buildinq to be located northeast of the Beam and White Bear avenues intersection. east of the Walqreens. Approval is subiect to the applicant doinq the followinq: (Chanqes are underlined and in bold) a. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. b. Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit, the applicant must submit to staff for approval the following items: 1) Revised grading/drainage/utility plans which comply with all city engineering department requirements as specified in the July 28, 2011, engineering report. 2) Revised landscaping and photometric plans to reflect the updated site plan, date-stamped August 10, 2011. 3) Revised landscape plan showing the following: a. Submit revised landscape plan to reflect updated site layout. b. Additional trees to be planted along Beam Avenue at a rate of 30-feet at center apart from one another. c. Applicant shall submit a planting plan to be approved by the city's naturalist for the area northeast of the proposed building where grading will disturb land within the wetland buffer area. 4) Any needed watershed district approval. 5) A cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit for all required exterior improvements. The amount shall be 150 percent of the cost of the work. 6) Submit to community development staff, an approved easement agreement between the applicant and the city outlining the use and maintenance of city park land and the shared parking lot. 7) The city council must approve the vacation of the unused right-of-way between the applicant's parcel and the city park parcel. 8) Approved revised site plan presented at the meetinq and the applicant shall work with staff reqardinq how deliveries are done on site. August 23, 2011 Community Design Review Board Meeting Minutes 3 9) Revise the site plan to extend the sidewalk to access the road and explore the potential of cross strippinq for pedestrian access to Walqreens. subiect to staff approval. d. The applicant shall complete the following before occupying the building: 1) Replace any property irons removed because of this construction. 2) Provide continuous concrete curb and gutter around the parking lot and driveways. 3) Install all required landscaping and underground irrigation. 4) Screen or paint the rooftop mechanical equipment to match the building color. 5) Install all required outdoor lighting. e. If any required work is not done, the city may allow temporary occupancy if: 1) The city determines that the work is not essential to the public health, safety or welfare. 2) The above-required letter of credit or cash escrow is held by the City of Maplewood for all required exterior improvements. The owner or contractor shall complete any unfinished exterior improvements by June 1 if occupancy of the building is in the fall or winter, or within six weeks of occupancy of the building if occupancy is in the spring or summer. f. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. Seconded by Boardmember Ahmed Ayes - All The motion passed. 7. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS None 8. BOARD PRESENTATIONS a. Boardmember Lamers updated the board on the Living Streets Task Force working group more information to follow this fall. b. Chairperson Ledina updated the board on the last city council meeting presentation. 9. STAFF PRESENTATIONS a. Planner Martin stated staff had two 15-day design reviews to hand out. b. Boardmember Shankar volunteered to be the board representative at the September 12, 2011, City Council meeting. 10. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned by Chairperson Ledvina at 8:00 p.m. August 23, 2011 Community Design Review Board Meeting Minutes 4 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: James Antonen, City Manager Michael Martin, AICP, Planner Chuck Ahl, Assistant City Manager Dearborn Meadow East, Building Elevation Revision Castle Avenue and Castle Court September 21, 2011 SUBJECT: LOCATION: DATE: INTRODUCTION Dearborn Meadows is a 15-unit town house planned unit development (PUD) on Castle Avenue and Castle Court, east of White Bear Avenue. This project was approved in 2003 and the construction of this project is nearly complete. There is a single twin home left to be built. The owners of this site have applied for a building permit but during staff's review the rear building elevation facing Castle Avenue did not have brick shown as required by the city council. The owners are asking the city to consider a revision to the condition that required the application of brick. BACKGROUND On May 27,2003, the city council approved a revision for the conditional use permit (CUP) for the Dearborn Meadows PUD. This revision was for the 15-unit town house development on Castle Avenue and Castle Court. The CUP revision for this development was subject to seven conditions of approval. On September 8, 2003, the city council approved the final plat for Dearborn Meadows East. This plat created nine lots for town houses in the second phase of the Dearborn Meadows development. DISCUSSION The remaining twin home to be built within this project has its rear elevation facing Castle Avenue. When the community design review board (CDRB) originally reviewed this project there was discussion about how the elevations facing Castle Avenue should be designed. The CDRB recommended the twin home building consisting of units 8 and 9 should have brick wainscoting on all four sides of the building. Units 8 and 9 are the twin homes that have yet to be built. The city council amended the CDRB's recommendation to state all elevations facing north (Castle Avenue) should have brick wainscoting. The building permit that was submitted for city approval showed no brick elements on the north elevation. The developer states that placing brick on the rear elevation would be costly and difficult because of the locations of decks, utilities and egress window wells. Planning staff conferred with the city's building inspectors and confirmed that while it would be more intensive work it would not be impossible to include brick features even with decks, utilities and egress window wells. Staff met with the developer who will be proposing extensive landscaping to be in place in lieu of the required brick. Staff feels this landscaping alternative has potential to achieve the same impact the brick would have in terms of softening the elevation as seen from Castle Avenue but is withholding any recommendations because the developer has not submitted any revised plans. At the September 1 27 CDRB meeting the developer will be presenting alternative options for the north facing elevation for the board's consideration. The board will be asked to make a recommendation to the city council on the applicant's request for a revision to the approved design plans. RECOMMENDATION Review the attachments prior to the September 27,2011 CDRB meeting. REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Site size: 3.6 acres SURROUNDING LAND USES North: South: West: East: Home Depot across Highway 36 Single and double dwellings on Cope Avenue Houses on Castle Avenue Houses on Castle Avenue p:sec11\fDearborn Meadows Elevation Revision Requset_CDRB_092711 Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Final Plat 3. Building Elevations from the original 2003 submission 4. May 5, 20003 CDRB Minutes 5. May 27, 2003 City Council Minutes 2 6 N Attachment 1 J /) "- , '" , q I; :: T /' y( ~ f\ /' Il. , '36 , '-C - ----- 1 - \ 1 ~ ) ,,- mIV// E '\.. I I I I I V " ... , -- -- '-- f-- ~/ I I I r- f-- :::1 I J~ u I~ ,/ :AUR:E CD Iv. >>/ ~ I~ ; I I 1:5 r 1 I: '" I L.--- --- <l OJ w '" CPA :: w l- f-- '---- e---- Ii: 1 I-- ; 13i f-- I-- I I trrB I I I I COUNTY ROAD II ,. R: Location Map Oearbon-r Meadows ',Attachment 2 '. ., r---~-I;~ ~ I ,. I I"; ~ .. I - I~'. L_~__ J~~ I ..., l'li:t;o. I " ~.1 I~~l~ I .~ - !~ii~ ',?, -:,-'- ~ i ~ ~.~""~' "l~ L__.:...._~\ \) ~:':~- ~ '-- ~:l-j (,,\ ~~ F~lP~"~~_~. ( {\_" _,'J \ 389"38'I8"lY _ -_', ,\,:- ...~:.} 108.00 ,\ g V A CA. ,_ l. C> a 0 0 I, ,/ ... ... ._ ,~. ' .. , ~ ~ 0 0 g _ -, .-~-<~J ~{~~J' i'<~"<t-b ~::~~ I "=~~~~,:~~o ,~it~:A:U~ ~___~___ ~ ~ 1 (.....) ~..:,..., I .,....L w (:1 1 :~, '.' t: :'1 ~: C "" 67,99 '" I ~ I (....) '~:' I g d~~~~~nl~~:"M3'52 F 0 ~S89"Z8~Il'W 0 ~ --11 r, ~t:""--,::~'C--' '-OI.\~~:Q:i--F~=-T:::::=::.i;~-'::-~~1::} I ij ~ " 1 "'" I S119"J8'18"W 1 {l l'-~ ~I ::~-' SS9~8'05'W 11'1893006 E I ,,/ >~ 1 67.00 I r- - - - - ---, ~ !q {'./- NS9'JS'05"E BO.W -. 1.00.... - 1 80.00 -, '"f!.,1>,..,,, 1 I I -, 'b- -- 40.001 4(1.00 I ,,p""'6 1 I .~~ I' ~I I I I ~ ~ . I '-... ^ rl...., -' ,"",v~ . ~ g~ I I 41""' I\l-jtl-\ ~{F,d'1 I I l: (:,~ i" '" t::.. l' '" 1 '" I ",' '-"I" '\<; &4>'"- 1 I ~ f ~ ~g~.' ?;g., ~g I t'"g~.' 1 ~g I ~o I o~~~. 1 I 1____~,----1 t" ~\;; 2, f~l : ~\;i 2l'~~A~:~~. : I I --I \':>: ~ ~ '~!il z I ~ I ~ 'F,# I , I -..."~ I \ ) ~--\. I I !. ll~I........ I I '-,'.' \ 'I . lito 1 I I I I I <.;' I I I I " I I 40.00 40.00 I 1 L _ _ _ _ --1 J /'1 S69a.wg5"W J ,~- 1 IS6~%WOflW I", 1 I I ,l: {/ J I:'~:::~ I[ 11 I[ ,.. : ., /lJJl/ .2>' __J <> t1 ~-2-f~~1;~~'fE~:'O~Nl::'~~~~~~r1rniE"~U;5-;-JAlCEYe- /-ktd1..mf:srr' Pip. ~-t=-;~~'--:;.:--~--~:~~--=-~ - - ~) ':::t r------r-:=---~7T--=:::~::~E~J~~!:&71~------,--~:.:--:-..,----y--1-----=-r I I I [~"ll '1""0 1 1 fl 1 I I 1 I I I I 1 I 01--&'" I 1 ify-, 1 I I 1 I I I I I J',~ I I /toY 1 1 1 I I I I I I .0$''1-,-,' I I \"'~Q" 1 ! 1 I 1 I 1 1 I ." I ..t"" ,-" .., '- I I o"~"'... 1 ! I I 1 I I I 1 " I l :~~~v tlJ'~:',', I 'n 1"-"0/":; 1 I .1 I" I I 0_" 1 I 0_" ,_ .. 1 1 ~__ <".,1.> I 1 I'" I . "' I 0- .. I \ I I I I I 1 1.1 I I I 1 I I I I ~:~ 1 1 .~( :~: lI.J .1 I I I I f 1 I ,,, ~ I 1 I 1 1 I I I. I ,-....,..- ^ ,-.... ,... I...... ,-.... ^' I (_i n: r~: I 1 [ I r....' J 1 I I I 1'1- ,_, ..~ ..-<. Ii I~" 1\1 I .....1:.1 f-- I 1 I ~~ 1,\ 1-( v. 1 I I 1..-' '1-' \, 'L'" I' -' , '.'. 1 . I I ! ,~-, , , \, ) I 1 1 .[ I _. ,_.'" I [ I I I I 1 I I I .... I I 1 I 1 1 I I I 1 I I I \ 1 1 I 1 I I 60 I ! 1 1 I I 1 I I 1 [1 I I 1 1 I 1 1 1 I I -I I I. 1 1 1 I I I 1 I L _._ _1_,.- ~I_ _ _.-1- _ _ _ _ ----L... _ _ _1_ _ _...1.. _ _ _1_ _ _...J. I "'O"}' .. ~ ~. M " ".. H ,10, .. SiRE:;; --- " .. " " .. " " /', " '" .. .. .. .. .. " .. ,Q.~.l..t: I F"d 1/2 "'<~ It-o;l Pill" R.LS.Ho.674J. . - ,. \\;3., .\~'O>." ""0),'" '\,~ " ,. . \~_:1~;r:H ,~..','er~~~e; HI9~..aYEa'~"4ooum...tM. 4J02J2_ _ /~---:;~;.;;,;I L.~~l:~,.:~9h ~2. 6ladt 6. 200.00 N69"Jll'lB"E 80.00 -, I I I I I I I .~ : 1 I NB9"JS'B"t; I <1-2.001 I I I ., I I z" [ I 0 I I ~~ 1 r I g~ I I . I ...~ ,-.... ., I 1--<' I h ~,. 1\1 I ,1........1"". 1 -:-'~~""~};'E ~ 42.001 '" 1 NB9"J0'1rE I I I SlI9"JS'10"W r .1 67.00_.1__ . \~~ '-- 1:O~ 1/", L__ -T--I I ~ I I' I I .. I I I _-L__-.J 40.00! I I I I: I I I I 40.001 '. . 40.0G\ I 1 ~g 2 i f'..: I g'" I ,-.......-1 ^ 111--_)/\ I- 1...1 ,-<_!,-" 4n.ool w ~8 ~r;; z o ~::l g~ . ':~,. 60.00 SB9"JS'1S"W , ()~:., I I I I ______L______L____ , , PROPOSED FINAL PLAT OEAReO~NMEADOu.J EAei & .-Fnd 1/2 mo~ """ Pill. / ttLS.N..r7llllli I. l o .~_ n "'-- '---... 'u n , '-' :1 , ,--- ,', C~ 5::; ~1 ,-, .' <\ '" oi,d ~tii T ~J5. .>- , ~"&~ ,--~ ~~~l " A ~?i , '0 , ~~ ~ '-- ", '" n" ", '-' -,- ->- 1--- ,,- ,-, '-' 'u ..\, GRAPHIC ecAL.I 'h..,.....Lj , . Sollla,llnab. {) N t....-;t;:~-l~~ :'DJ > 6~~9-K9-IS9 :.'.o"d d ll.Sq '~Il '~1-aH ~('~i1O~"~lfiWid . ^ , 'JJ~ I~ 1:)" lHOIIlAdO:> 's'n JH! JO NOUVlOI^ II( SI NV1d $1111 JO Jsn OJZIIlOHlO'l'Nn .ONI SN""d ;3~OH coot 0 ".LSNOJ NVVil'H::!)!:)V 3)!IVil 1m . ~ hi!_ ~~II, 11'l1~! 1 ...,. ~ 0 ;'1 ~ <x: <' = t: t B ~ I- ~~ ~ -!t;:i:= "'~ 1] :z ~~ 6 ~o 0 ::>.. ~ ''4 1 ~~ 0 ~ ~EI I- 0 :z ~ ~1 .rl I I I I ! ::> ~~ . idJl.--J11 II ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ 1dJ1.--J11 II co 1]1B ..:. ~ 0 EI ~ ~ ~ :z 1] ~ ------ 0 I '" 1 or- I- EI <( ~ O.J~ , > ILl ~ , i -l 0 ~ ILl ~ !EI ~ oc1: 0 <(' 1] . 0 I- ~~ ; ,I :z ~i1i~ 0 B ::> I 0 :r1 :r1 ~ .. --j:h---- 0 ~I ~1 ...,. :r1 ~ ~ ~ 1 I ~ ~ ~ I :;! :z I, ~,~~- 0 1 ~ '~ I- ~ ~ i: <( > ILl -l ~ ~ ILl B 1Ll~ !1]1 ~ D~ \f)~ . ~ .. i ~ ~ iji'l l i . . > ~ ~ ! ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ 11 <r < 2 ~ l- ii :n :z ~ ~~ ::> :r1 PROPOSED BUILDING ELEVATIONS l' 24 Attachment 4 DRAFT MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD 1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, MAY 13, 2003 V. DESIGN REVIEW a. Dearborn Meadow East - 15 Unit Townhouse Development on Castle Ms. Finwall said Mr. Pat Kinney is proposing revisions to the approved Dearborn Meadow townhouse development. In 2002, the city council approved plans for Dearborn Meadow with nine townhouses (in four twin homes and one single unit). The revised plan now has a total of 15 townhouses (in seven twin homes and one single unit) on a 3.58-acre site on the south side of Castle Avenue, north of Cope Avenue. Each building would have horizontal-lap vinyl siding, aluminum soffits and fascia and brick veneer on the fronts. The planning commission approved this proposal at their May 5, 2003, meeting. Staff recommends approval of the design review with several conditions. Board member Olson said she drove by the site and noticed a lot of water on the site. She read one of the neighbor's comments and they were concerned about the drainage issues as well. She asked staff if the city engineer expressed any concerns regarding the drainage and if the water from the nursing home was going to be flowing onto this site? Ms. Finwall said she would refer board member Olson to the city engineer's report on page 26 in the staff report. She said maybe the applicant could answer to those issues as well. Board member Shankar asked staff if Unit 1 and Unit 2 of Phase I was accessing directly off of Castle Avenue? Ms. Finwall said correct. Chairperson Ledvina asked the applicant to address the board. Pat Kinney, residing at 4108 Oakmeade Lane, White Bear Lake, addressed the board. The standing water on the site is there because the road is cut in, but there is no storm sewer drain installed on the site yet. The pond on the site was created to handle the drainage for this development and the next phase of development as well. The standing water will drain once the storm sewer drain is in and it will also handle the storm water runoff. He said the water does not flow from the nursing home onto this property. Chairperson Ledvina asked the applicant if he had any questions or concerns regarding the staff report? Mr. Kinney said no. Chairperson Ledvina asked Mr. Kinney if he had any building samples to show the board? Mr. Kinney said no he did not. He said the samples were shown when they applied for Phase I of Dearborn Meadows. Chairperson Ledvina asked if the applicant would be varying the color schemes of the buildings? Mr. Kinney said they plan on using the same color schemes as proposed in Phase I. Board member Shankar asked if the city is allowing them to have parallel parking on Castle Court? Mr. Kinney said yes. Chairperson Ledvina said he would like to see some visual differences in building colors. He asked staff if they had any thoughts on changing the color scheme of the buildings? Ms. Finwall said to just keep in mind that there are only eight twin homes and 1 single unit, so having one color for that few of buildings is different than if it were a 1 DO-unit development where color variety would be more important. Chairperson Ledvina said the reason he brings the color scheme up is that he thought it would add visual interest to the development varying the colors of the units such as light tan, beige, or cream. Board member Shankar asked chairperson Ledvina if the intent of the applicant was to match the development of Phase I? Chairperson Ledvina said yes it is, but there is still time to change the colors since Phase II has not been started yet. Board member Shankar asked where in the staff report was the condition about adding brick wainscoting. Chairperson Ledvina said the condition to add brick wainscoting was on page 11, item 2. e. Board member Olson said the applicant should add brick wainscoting on the east and west sides. Chairperson Levina said the board should be specific in the recommendation to add brick wainscoting to units 8 and 9. Board member Shankar said that means you would be requiring brick wainscoting on the backsides of units 8 and 9. Chairperson Ledvina said correct. Board member Olson asked if units 2 and 3 would be looking out at a plain wall as well? Chairperson Ledvina said that's what the building elevation shows. Board member Shankar moved to approve the plans date-stamped April 7, 2003, (site plan, landscape plan, grading, drainage plans and building elevations) for Dearborn Meadow. The city bases this approval on the findings required by the code. The developer or contractor shall do the following: (changes have a strike through them, additions are in bold). 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 approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall include: grading, utility, drainage, erosion control, tree, sidewalk and driveway and parking lot plans. The plans shall meet the following conditions: (1) The erosion control plan shall be consistent with city code. (2) The grading plan shall: (a) Include building, floor elevation and contour information. (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 a berm (two to four feet high) along the south property line of the site. (3) 'The tree plan shall: (a) Be approved by the city engineer before site grading or tree removal. (b) Show where the developer will remove, save or replace large trees. This plan shall include an inventory of all existing large trees on the site. (c) Show the size, species and location of the replacement trees. The deciduous trees shall be at least two and one half (2%) inches in diameter and shall be a mix of red and white oaks and sugar maples. (d) Show no tree removal beyond the approved grading and tree limits. (4) All the parking areas and driveways shall have continuous concrete curb and gutter except where the city engineer decides that it is not needed. (5) There shall be no parking on one side of the 28-foot-wide driveway (Castle Place). The developer or contractor shall post Castle Place with no parking signs to meet the above-listed standard. The city will allow parking on Castle Court. (6) The site plan shall be submitted to the fire marshal for approval regarding emergency vehicle access and turn around space. 1. Submit a certificate of survey for all new construction and have each building staked by a registered land surveyor. 2. Submit a revised landscape plan to staff for approval that incorporates the following details: (1) All trees would be consistent with city standards for size, location and species. (2) Planting (instead of sodding) the disturbed areas around the wetland 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 people mowing into the pond. (3) The ash trees must be at least 2% inches in caliper, balled and burlapped. (4) The plantings proposed around the front of the units shown on the landscape plan date-stamped April 7, 2003, shall remain on the plan. (5) 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 wetland easement). (6) No landscaping shall take place in the Castle Avenue boulevard. The contractor shall restore the boulevard with sod. (7) Adding ten more evergreen trees (Black Hills Spruce or Austrian Pines) to the proposed evergreen trees along the north and south property lines of the site. These trees are to be at least six feet tall and the contractor shall plant these trees in staggered rows on the berm. d. Present a color scheme to staff for approval for each building. e. Present a revised building plan for staff approval that shows brick wainscoting on the north all sides of all tt::le units 8 and 9 along Castle Avenue. f. If necessary, get an access permit from MnDot for the driveways that will be on Castle Avenue (as MnDot has not turned Castle Avenue back to the city). g. Provide the city with a letter of credit or cash escrows for all required exterior improvements. The amount shall be 150 percent of the cost of the work. h. The applicant shall provide a lighting plan for staff approval. 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. Sod all landscaped areas, except for the area within the easement, which may be seeded. c. Install continuous concrete curb and gutter along all interior driveways and around all open parking stalls. d. The developer or contractor shall: (1) Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits. (2) Remove any debris or junk from the site. e. Put addresses on each building for each unit. f. Provide a driveway turn around for Lot 7 on Castle Avenue. 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 of Maplewood for all required exterior improvements. The owner or contractor shall complete any unfinished exterior improvements by June 1 if occupancy of the building is in the fall or winter, or within six weeks of occupancy of the building is in the spring or summer. 5. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. Board member Olson seconded. Mr. Kinney asked if he could comment on the conditions the board changed or added? Chairperson Ledvina said yes. Mr. Kinney said he understands the concern about the brick wainscoting on the back of units 8 and 9 for consistency, but the building will have one walk out basement and one ground-level. He doesn't see how the brick wainscoting would be done or how nice it would look. Board member Olson asked how the rear of units 8 and 9 would relate to Castle Avenue? Mr. Kinney said the street slopes at that point. The single unit will be higher in elevation and then the elevation starts to slope down. Because of the elevations, the brick probably wouldn't be visible from the street. Board member Shankar asked if the front and back elevation for units 8 and 9 is the same or is there a slope? Mr. Kinney said there could be a possible lookout. Lot 8 has a flat lot and lot 9 is a lookout lot so the elevation slopes from east to west going downwards. Chairperson Ledvina asked Mr. Kinney what he would propose to improve the aesthetics from Castle Avenue? Mr. Kinney said he would be willing to plant more trees, which would add a pleasing appearance for the homeowner and it would buffer the highway noise. He thinks adding the brick wainscoting on the back of units 8 and 9 would not be visible from the highway anyway. Chairperson Ledvina said in his opinion the brick wainscoting should be on all elevations of the home. He doesn't think it would look nice to have brick on the rear elevation but not on the sides. Board member Olson said she thinks that would make the units more attractive because of its proximity to the highway and increase the market value. It is also easier to maintain brick than the vinyl siding. Board member Shankar said in his opinion the deck railings for unit 8 are going to stick out because they will be at eye level. Chairperson Ledvina added a friendly amendment to item d. on page 11. To read: the applicant shall review the current color schemes to identify possibilities of varying colors to improve the aesthetics of the overall development. The color scheme shall be submitted for staff approval. Board member Shankar asked what if the applicant comes back and tells staff that they looked at the color scheme possibilities and could not agree on anything? Chairperson Ledvina said the board should then be clear with the recommendation to read: the applicant should submit a color scheme that has multiple colors for siding materials. The color scheme shall be subject to approval by staff. Chairperson Ledvina said the curbing on the utility plan for Castle Court shows some right angle curbing. He would like to have the applicant and staff review the curbing plan to eliminate 90-degree angles and to smooth out those curbs. He asked staff if they had any comment on where that friendly amendment would go? Chairperson Ledvina made a friendly amendment stating: The city engineer and the applicant shall review the curbing plan to eliminate right angles on the east end of Castle Court. Board member Olson said she is concerned about the fire truck and utility issue. It says the Fire Marshal wants to make sure the end driveways are large enough for proper snow removal and to maneuver emergency vehicles. She wonders if there is turn around space at the end of Castle Place and if the fire truck access is the driveway of the residents if emergency vehicles need to get in there? Ms. Finwall said she assumes they would have to turn around at the end of the driveways. She said a condition could be added stating that concern under item 2. a. (6). ", . Board member Olson wanted to add that condition under 2. a. (6) stating the site plan shall be submitted to the fire marshal for approval regarding emergency vehicle access and turn around space. Chairperson Ledvina repeated that board member Shankar made the motion, board member Olson seconded. Ayes - Ledvina, Olson, Shankar The motion passed. This goes to the city council on Tuesday, May 27,2003. Attachment 5 MINUTES MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL 7:04 P.M., Tuesday, May 27,2003 Council Chambers, Municipal Building Meeting No. 03-11 A. CALL TO ORDER: A meeting of the City Council was held in the Council Chambers, at the Municipal Building, and was called to order at 7:04 P.M. by Mayor Cardinal. B. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE C. ROLL CALL Robert Cardinal, Mayor Kenneth V. Collins, Councilmember KatWeen Juenemann, Councilmember Marvin C. Koppen, Councilmember Julie A. Wasiluk, Councilmember Present Present Present Present Present H. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. 7:32 p.m. Dearborn Meadow East (Castle Avenue) Conditional Use Permit Revision for Planned Unit Development Preliminary Plat Revision Design Approval a. City Manager Fursman presented the staff report. b. Associate Planner Roberts presented specifics from the report. c. Commissioner Dierich presented the Planning Commission Report. d. Boardmember Shankar presented the Community Design Review Board Report. e. Mayor Cardinal opened the public hearing, calling for proponents or opponents. The following person was heard: Patrick Kinney, the applicant, 4108 Oakmede, White Bear Lake d. Mayor Cardinal closed the public hearing. Councilmember Wasiluk moved to adopt the following resolution approving a revision to the conditional use permit for a planed unit development for the I5-unit Dearborn Meadow and Dearborn Meadow East development on the south side of Castle Avenue: 7 RESOLUTION 03-05-092 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REVISION RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Mr. Pat Kinney applied for a conditional use permit (CUP) revision for the Dearborn Meadow residential planned unit development (PUD). WHEREAS, this permit applies to the IS-lot Dearborn Meadow East development the city received on April 7,2003. The legal description is: Lots 16 and 17, Block 6, Lots 27, 28, 29 and the east half of Lot 26, Block 7, Lots 1,2, and 3, Block 10, Lots 14 and 15, Block 11, and Lots 18-22, Block 6; and Lots 9-13, Block 11, all in Dearborn Park, together with adjacent alleys and streets, in Section 11, Township 29, Range 22, Ramsey County, Minnesota. (The property to be known as Lots 1-6 of Dearborn Meadow and Lots 1-9 of Dearborn Meadow East) WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: 1. On May 5, 2003, the planning commission recommended that the city council approve this permit. 2. On May 27,2003, the city council held a public hearing. The city staff published a notice in the paper and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The council gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The council also considered reports and recommendations of the city staff and planning commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approves the above-described conditional use permit because: 1. The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be in conformity with the city's comprehensive plan and code of ordinances. 2. The use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area. 3. The use would not depreciate property values. 4. The use would not involve any activity, process, materials, equipment or methods of operation that would be dangerous, hazardous, detrimental, disturbing or cause a nuisance to any person or property, because of excessive noise, glare, smoke, dust, odor, fumes, water or air pollution, drainage, water run-off, vibration, general unsightliness, electrical interference or other nuisances. 5. The use would generate only minimal vehicular traffic on local streets and would not create traffic congestion or unsafe access on existing or proposed streets. 6. The use would be served by adequate public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, water and sewer systems, schools and 8 parks. 7. The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services. 8. The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and scenic features into the development design. 9. The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. All construction shall follow the plans approved by the city. The city council may approve major changes to the plans. The Director of Community Development may approve minor changes to the plans. Such changes shall include: a. Revising the grading and site plans to show: (I) The developer minimizing the loss or removal of natural vegetation including keeping and protecting as many of the trees as possible. (2) All driveways at least 20 feet wide. If the developer wants to have parking on one side of the main drive (Castle Place), then it must be at least 28 feet wide. (3) All parking stalls with a width of at least 9.5 feet and a length of at least 18 feet. (4) Revised storm water pond locations and designs as suggested or required by the watershed district or city engineer. The ponds shall meet the city's design standards. 2. The proposed construction (of Dearborn Meadow East) must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the permit shall end. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 3. Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall meet all the conditions and changes noted in the engineer's memo dated April 24, 2003. 4. The approved setbacks for the principal structures in the Dearborn Meadow shall be: a. Front-yard setback (from a public street or a private driveway): minimum - 20 feet, maximum - 35 feet b. Front-yard setback (public side street): minimum - 30 feet, maximum - none c. Rear-yard setback: 30 feet from any adjacent residential property line d. Side-yard setback (town houses): minimum - 20 feet from a property line and 20 feet minimum between buildings. 9 5. The developer or builder will pay the city Park Access Charges (PAC fees) for each housing unit at the time of the building permit for each housing unit. 6.The developer or contractor shall: a. Complete all grading for the site drainage and the ponds, complete all public improvements and meet all city requirements. b. Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits. c. Remove any debris or junk from the site. 7. The city council shall review this permit in one year. Seconded by CounciImember Juenemann Ayes-All CounciImember Wasiluk moved to approve the Dearborn Meadow East preliminary plat based on the following conditions: 1. Sign an agreement with the city that guarantees that the developer or contractor will: a. Complete all grading for overall site drainage, complete all public improvements and meet all city requirements. b. * Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits. c. Pay the city for the cost of traffic-control, street identification and no-parking signs. d. Provide all required and necessary easements (including all utility easements and ten-foot drainage and utility easements along the front and rear lot lines of each lot and five-foot drainage and utility easements along the side lot lines of each lot). e. Cap and seal any wells on site. f Have XceI Energy install a street light at the intersection of Castle Avenue and the proposed private driveway (Castle Place). The exact location and type of light shall be subject to the city engineer's approval. g. Install permanent signs around the edge of the wetland buffer easement. These signs shall mark the edge of the easements and shall state that there shall be no mowing, vegetation cutting, filling, grading or dumping beyond this point. City staff shall approve the sign design and location before the contractor installs them. The developer or contractor shall install these signs before the city issues building permits in this plat. h. Install survey monuments along the wetland boundaries. 2. * Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall 10 include grading, utility, drainage, erosion control, tree, and street plans. The plans shall meet all the conditions and changes listed in the memo dated April 28, 2003, and shall meet the following conditions: a. The erosion control plans shall be consistent with the city code. b. The grading plan shall: (1) Include proposed building pad elevation and contour information for each home site. The lot lines on this plan shall follow the approved preliminary plat. (2) Include contour information for all the land that the construction will disturb. (3) Show housing pads that reduce the grading on sites where the developer can save large trees. (4) Show the proposed street and driveway grades as allowed by the city engineer. (5) Include the tree plan that: X Shows where the developer will remove, save or replace large trees. This plan shall include an inventory of all existing large trees on the site. X Shows no tree removal beyond the approved grading and tree limits. (6) Show drainage areas and the developer's engineer shall provide the city engineer with the drainage calculations. The drainage design shall accommodate the runoff from the surrounding areas. The undeveloped parcel to the east of this site shall have unrestricted access to the storm sewer with a capacity to accommodate post development runoff. c. The street and utility plans shall show the: (1) Water service to each lot and unit. (2) Repair of Castle Avenue (street and boulevard) after the developer connects to the public utilities and builds the private driveways. 3. Paying for costs related to the engineering department's review of the construction plans. 4. Change the plat as follows: a. Add drainage and utility easements as required by the city engineer. This shall include a 30-foot-wide easement for the existing 16-inch water main and easements for any other existing utilities on the site. The Saint Paul Regional Water Services (SPRWS) shall approve the description and location of the easement for the water main. 11 b. Show drainage and utility easements along all properly lines on the final plat. These easements shall be ten feet wide along the front and rear property lines and five feet wide along the side property lines. c. Label the north/south part of the private driveway as Castle Place, label Castle Street as Castle Avenue and label the east/west part of the private driveway as Castle Court on all plans. d. Label the common area as Outlot A. 5. Secure and provide all required easements for the development including any off-site drainage and utility easements. 6. The developer shall complete all grading for public improvements and overall site drainage. The city engineer shall include in the developer's agreement any grading that the developer or contractor has not completed before final plat approval. 7. If necessary, obtain a permit from the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District for grading. 8. If the developer decides to final plat part of the preliminary plat, the director of community development may waive any conditions that do not apply to the final plat. 9. * Submitting the homeowners' association bylaws and rules to the director of community development. These are to assure that there will be one responsible party for the maintenance of the private utilities, driveways and common areas. *The developer must complete these conditions before the city issues a grading permit or approves the final plat. Seconded by Councilmember Koppen Ayes-All Councilmember Juenemann moved to approve the Dearborn Meadow East plans date- stamped April 7. 2003. (site plan.landscaoe olan. grading and drainage plans and building elevations) for Dearborn Meadow. The city bases this approval on the findings required by the code and the following; conditions: 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 approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall include: grading, utility, drainage, erosion control, tree, sidewalk and driveway and parking lot plans. The plans shall meet the following conditions: 12 (1) The erosion control plan shall be consistent with city code. (2) The grading plan shall: (a) Include building, floor elevation and contour information. (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 a berm (two to four feet high) along the south property line of the site. (3)* The tree plan shall: (a) Be approved by the city engineer before site grading or tree removal. (b) Show where the developer will remove, save or replace large trees. This plan shall include an inventory of all existing large trees on the site. ( c) Show the size, species and location of the replacement trees. The deciduous trees shall be at least two and one half (2 0) inches in diameter and shall be a mix of red and white oaks and sugar maples. (d) Show no tree removal beyond the approved grading and tree limits. (4) All the parking areas and driveways shall have continuous concrete curb and gutter except where the city engineer decides that it is not needed. The applicant and the city engineer shall review the curbing plan to possibly eliminate the right angles on the east end of Castle Court. (5) There shall be no parking on one side of the 28-foot-wide driveway (Castle Place). The developer or contractor shall post Castle Place with no parking signs to meet the above-listed standard. The city will allow parking on Castle Court. 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 that incorporates the following details: (1) All trees would be consistent with city standards for size, location and species. (2) Planting (instead of sodding) the disturbed areas around the wetland 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 13 ordinary high water mark (DHWM) of the pond. This is to reduce maintenance costs and to reduce the temptation of people mowing into the pond. (3) The ash trees must be at least 2 1/2 inches in caliper, balled and burlapped. (4) The plantings proposed around the front of the units shown on the landscape plan date-stamped April 7, 2003, shall remain on the plan. (5) 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 wetland easement). (6) The contractor shall restore the Castle Avenue boulevard with sod. (7) Adding ten more evergreen trees (Black Hills spruce or Austrian pines) to the proposed evergreen trees along the north and south property lines of the site. These trees are to be at least six feet tall and the contractor shall plant these trees in staggered rows on the berm. This shall include adding trees between proposed Units 7 and 8 at the northeast corner of the site. d. Present a color scheme for the buildings with a variety of colors to staff for approval. e. Present a revised building plan for staff approval that shows brick wainscoting on the north sides of all the units that are along Castle Avenue. f. Ifnecessary, get an access permit from MnDDT for the driveways that will be on Castle Avenue (as MnDDT has not turned Castle Avenue back to the city). g. 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: a. Replace property irons that are removed because of this construction. b. Restore and sod damaged boulevards. Sod all landscaped areas, except for the area within the easement, which may be seeded. c. Install continuous concrete curb and gutter along all interior driveways and around all open parking stalls. d. The developer or contractor shall: (1 ) Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits. (2) Remove any debris or junk from the site. e. Put addresses on each building for each unit. 14 f. Provide a driveway turn around for Lot 7 on Castle Avenue. 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 of Maple wood for all required exterior improvements. The owner or contractor shall complete any unfinished exterior improvements by June 1 if occupancy of the building is in the fall or winter, or within six weeks of occupancy of the building if occupancy is in the spring or summer. 5. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. Seconded by Councilmember Collins Ayes-All 15 MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: LOCATION: DATE: James Antonen, City Manager Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner Chuck Ahl, Assistant City Manager Design Review and Conditional Use Permit-LaMettry Collision Auto Repair North of 2923 Maplewood Drive September 21, 2011 TO: FROM: INTRODUCTION Project Description Rick LaMettry, owner of LaMettry Collision, is requesting approval of a conditional use permit to build a new auto body repair shop north of his existing location, 2923 Maplewood Drive. Mr. LaMettry would then sell his existing building to Steve McDaniels, of Maplewood Toyota, to expand Maplewood Toyota's campus. Maplewood Toyota would use the building to service automobiles as it is presently used. Requests Mr. LaMettry is requesting that the city council approve: . A conditional use permit for automotive repair. . The building, site and landscaping plans. BACKGROUND August 8, 2005: The city council approved a conditional use permit for Steve McDaniels, of Maplewood Toyota, to build a temporary parking lot on the proposed site. The back half of the parking lot was constructed of a pervious parking material to comply with shoreland ordinance requirements. The front half constructed with a temporary gravel surface. Mr. McDaniels' intention was to build a permanent building on the graveled area. DISCUSSION CUP Findings for Approval The zoning ordinance requires that the city council find that all nine "standards" for CUP approval be met to allow a CUP. In short, these state that the use would (refer to the resolution for the complete wording): . Comply with the city's comprehensive plan and zoning code. . Maintain the existing or planned character of the neighborhood. . Not depreciate property values. . Not cause any disturbance or nuisance. . Not cause excessive traffic. . Be served by adequate public facilities and police/fire protection. . Not create excessive additional costs for public services. . Maximize and preserve the site's natural and scenic features. . Not cause adverse environmental effects. The proposed use meets these nine criteria. The site was previously intended for an automotive use by Mr. McDaniels. This was noted in the 2005 CUP when the city council granted the approval for the temporary parking lot. Condition 6 of the CUP stated, "The property owner shall obtain city approvals and begin construction of a permanent building on this site by September 30,2007. . ." Council subsequently extended this deadline until the summer of 2011 for the applicant to either begin the site development process or to pave, curb and landscape the gravel parking lot. EXISTING CUP FOR MAPLEWOOD TOYOTA PARKING LOT Staff suggests continuing the existing CUP for the temporary parking lot until construction begins for the proposed body shop. If the proposed building is not built for some reason, the existing CUP may remain. In that event, however, Mr. McDaniels should be required to pave, curb and landscape this parking lot as originally directed by the city council. Staff recommends reviewing this original CUP when construction begins for Mr. LaMettry's building or in one year, whichever comes first. Shoreland Boundary Area The proposed site is within the Kohlman Lake Shoreland Boundary area. The Shoreland Ordinance requires a maximum impervious surface of 50 percent. This was considered in 2005 when the city council granted the CUP to allow Maplewood Toyota to use the site for parking. At that time, the city engineer determined that the proposed pervious parking surface, along with grassy areas to be provided, would meet shoreland ordinance requirements. The applicant is proposing to keep the pervious parking area on the west half the site as part of his development proposal. Design Considerations Buildinq DesiQn The proposed building would be constructed of precast concrete panels with a textured, stucco- like surface. The front entrance/vehicle-estimate area would be brick with a blue metal fascia. There would be a corresponding brick detail on the northerly front corner of the building to match. Please refer to the building elevations and the colored photos. The photos are of the applicant's Lakeville shop. The proposed facility would match this building. The exterior materials of nearby buildings range from brick (the existing LaMettry Collision building and the Maplewood Toyota building south of LaMettry Collision) to concrete block (Gulden's Roadhouse) and precast concrete (Venburg Tire). City ordinance states that in considering the design quality of a proposed building, the community design review board should strive for compatibility with the existing buildings in the area. Section 2-290(b)(2) states that "the design and location of the proposed development shall be in keeping with the character of the surrounding neighborhood and is not detrimental to the harmonious, orderly, and attractive development contemplated by this division and the city comprehensive plan." The proposed building meets the goal of the ordinance and would fit the character of the existing buildings in this area. 2 Site Desiqn Elements Parking, Access: Access would be via the existing frontage drive which currently serves LaMetlry Collision. City ordinance requires two parking spaces for each repair bay, plus one space per bay for a mechanic-three per bay total. The applicant has said that there will be nine body-work bays, two mechanical-repair bays and four paint bays. This would total 15 bays with a requirement for 45 parking spaces. The site plan shows 23 parking spaces adjacent to the building. The pervious-surface parking area to on the back of the site would support another 100+ parking stalls. The parking requirements would be easily met. Site Lighting: Site lighting was installed for the temporary parking lot. There would be light poles removed that are in the location of the proposed building. Any replacement lights shall meet the design of the existing pole lights and shall comply with city ordinance to guard against light spillover and light intensity maximums. Landscaping: The proposed landscaping plan consists of shrub beds along the east side of the frontage drive with five Royalty Crabapple trees. There would also be shrubs planted near the building and another crabapple tree as well. The rear of the site close on the west side of the existing pervious-surface parking lot would have a continuation of spruce and pine trees. Trash Storage: Trash is shown to be stored in the building. If outdoor storage is used in the future, the city code would require an enclosure for all trash containers. Staff Comments Assistant Fire Chief Butch Gervais, the assistant fire chief, requires that the applicant provide: . A fire protection system to be installed per code requirements. . An alarm system to be instalied per code requirements. . The paint booths meet all code requirements. BuildinQ Official Dave Fisher, the building official, had the following comments: . The applicant shall provide a fire sprinkler system. . The building shall meet all applicable building codes. . It is recommended that the applicant have a preconstruction meeting with the city. Police Lieutenant Richard Doblar had the following comment: Construction site thefts and burglaries are a large business affecting many large construction projects throughout the Twin Cities metro area. The contractor/developer should be encouraged to plan and provide for site security during the construction process. On-site security, alarm systems and other appropriate security measures would be highly encouraged to deter and report theft and suspicious activity in a timely manner. 3 Citv Enqineer Steve Kummer, staff engineer, reviewed the proposal and has submitted the attached Engineering Plan Review. Mr. Kummer lists several conditions of approval that should be included as requirements if the project is approved. Mr. Kummer also raises the question as to whether the parking should be allowed directly from the frontage drive. This drive is a private driveway system and is not a high-volume roadway. Though this is not typical, it is also not in violation of any city ordinance and would serve the traffic circulation needs of the property. Neighbors' Comments Staff surveyed the 47 property owners within 500 feet of the site for their comments. Of the five replies, two were opposed, one was not opposed and two expressed concerns about the maintenance of the pond. The comments received were: . Why should LaMettry Collision move? It would bring commercial commotion closer to the homes, You can already smell paint outside the homes. . The holding pond should be protected from snow melt which contains debris and gravel. . Overstory trees should be planted to help screen the site from the west. Staffs reply: . We cannot comment on whether Mr. LaMettry should or should not relocate to this site. That is his decision. From the city's perspective, though, it has been expected that another automotive-repair building would be constructed on this site since Mr. McDaniels proposed the temporary parking lot in 2005. His plan at that time was to build an auto- service building for Maplewood Toyota on the front half of the site. . Regarding paint smell, staff asked the assistant fire chief if there is any hazard due to the smell of paint. Mr. Gervais explained that LaMettry Collision has the proper ventilation equipment in their paint booth, but sometimes when doors are open, paint odor can be detected. This is not a toxic issue. . Mr. Kummer recommended the gravel that has been pushed onto the pond slope needs to be removed and the slope restored with an approved erosion-control blanket and native seeding. The use of the pond to dispose of snow should stop since this practice litters and contaminates the pond. . Overstory trees would be good for screening the parking lot from the hillside to the west. There is limited room available on site for tree planting, though. Deciduous trees could replace some or all of the proposed evergreens, but then there would be no continual screening of the parking lot as code requires on the residential side. Granted, this is questionable due to the difference in topography. Staff's feeling is that the evergreens should be planted as proposed. Most of the yards to the west have existing tree cover that buffers them from the proposed site aleady. 4 SUMMARY Staff supports the proposed CUP. The existing CUP for car parking, which was issued to Maplewood Toyota, should remain until construction begins on Mr. LaMettry's building. Staff recommends one year for construction to start and for the termination of Maplewood Toyota's use of this site for parking. If Mr. LaMetlry's plans change and he does not build, the MaplewoodToyota parking lot should be improved with paving, curbing and landscaping as previously directed by the city council. COMMISSION ACTIONS September 6, 2011: The planning commission recommended approval of the CUP. RECOMMENDATIONS A. Adopt the resolution approving a conditional use permit for vehicle repair on the property north of 2923 Maplewood Drive. Approval is based on the findings required by ordinance and subject to the following conditions: 1. All construction shall follow the site plan date-stamped July 25, 2011. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 2. The proposed construction must be substantially started or the proposed use utilized within one year of council approval or the permit shall become null and void. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 3. If within one year of this permit approval the construction does not begin, the city shall review the status of the 2005 conditional use permit granted to Maplewood Toyota for their temporary parking lot on this site. Consideration shall be given to terminating that CUP, or requiring permanent parking lot improvements, based on the development plans of Mr. LaMettry. 4. The city council shall review this permit in one year. 5. The applicant shall comply with the pervious-surface requirements of the Shoreland Ordinance and the pervious-surface area requirements determined by the Maplewood Engineering Department. This was determined in 2005 for the existing parking lot, however, a reevaluation shall be made to assure code compliance. 6. The applicant shall comply with the conditions stated in the Maplewood Engineering Department's review of this proposal as prepared by Steve Kummer, staff engineer, dated August 10, 2011. 7. There shall be no plowing of snow from this site for deposit in the city's holding pond to the west. 5 B. Approve the plans date-stamped July 25, 2011, for the proposed LaMettry Collision building north of 2923 Maplewood Drive: Approval is subject to applicant doing the following: 1. Repeating this plan review if construction has not started within two years. 2. Any new light poles that are installed shall match those on the site presently in place. 3. An in-ground landscaping irrigation system shall be installed as required by code for all landscaped areas. The proposed evergreen trees to the west may not be irrigated, but the applicant shall assure the watering of these trees for their survival. 4. The applicant shall not plow snow or dump snow into the city's holding pond west of the site. 5. The applicant shall submit cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit before the issuance of a grading permit to cover the cost of installing all required landscaping. This escrow shall be in the amount of 150 percent of the cost of all landscaping. 6 CITIZEN COMMENTS Staff surveyed the 47 surrounding property owners within 500 feet of the proposed site for their comments about this proposal. Of the five replies, two were opposed, one was not opposed and two expressed concerns about the maintenance of the pond. Opposed . I do not see the need for LaMettry to move. Maplewood has already done more than enough for Toyota. This move would put LaMettry right behind me. More noise for us. It is hard enough to try and sell homes up here because of LaMettry and Toyota. (Buchman, 2954 Duluth Street N.) . We don't like the idea because we sometimes smell paint outside out home. If they move to the proposed lot, it will be closer to the homes. (respondent unknown) Not Opposed . I personally am not opposed to this relocation. (Schmaecher, 1256 County Road D) Additional Comments . My main concern is the holding pond area. Snow is piled and dumped in the area where the fencing currently ends. There is a huge pile of debris, gravel and litter that needs to be ' removed. What steps, if any, is Mr. LaMettry going to utilize to keep the pond area free of debris and trash and piling of snow when removing the snow from the parking area? (Taylor, Manteca, CA) . I don't object to LaMettry Collision relocating here, but they should take steps to not dump snow in the pond like they have in the past. There should be additional overstory trees planted for a better screen for the homes to the west. (call received by telephone, no name given) 7 REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Existing Use: Temporary parking lot for Maplewood Toyota Site size: 2.7 acres. SURROUNDING LAND USES North: Gulden's Roadhouse and the future Heritage Square 5th Addition town homes South: LaMettry Collision East: Highway 61 West: Single dwellings PLANNING Land Use Plan Designation: M1 (light manufacturing) Zoning: M1 Criteria for CUP Approval Section 44-512(8) requires a CUP for vehicle maintenance facilities in M1 and Be (business commercial) zoning districts. Section 44-1 097(a) states that the city council may grant a CUP which must be based on the nine standards for approval noted in the resolution. APPLICATION DATE We received the complete application and plans for this proposal on July 25, 2011. State law required that the city take action within 60 days of receiving complete applications. The review deadline for city council action was September 23,2011. However, staff extended this review period an additional 60 days. The current review deadline for this proposal is now November 22, 2011. p:sec4\LaMettry Collision CUP CDRB Report 911 te Attachments: 1, LocationlZoning Map 2. Land Use Map 3. Site/Landscaping Plan 4. Project Narrative dated July 8,2011 5. Engineering Report by Steve Kummer dated August 10, 2011 6. CUP Resolution 7, Plans and photos date-stamped July 25, 2011 (separate attachments) 8 LOCATION/ZONING MAP Page I of 1 Attachment 1 LOCATION/ZONING MAP r=,\j;lt,~ t,T , o - BleAM AVENUE MAPlEWO TOYOTA 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 a.nd are subject to change. See the Ramsey County Fee Schedule for specific information on fees and policy. hltp://maps.ci.maplewood.mn. us/aspnet_ client/ESRI/W ebADF /PrintTaskLayoutTemplates... 8/26/2011 ~Q ~ s ~ ~~I 8~ ~ ... CD c.. <U :E I CD '" ~:) (O"C ...JS::: c:: m m-J E ~ -:1 .s::::... ~L! ~ - u ~.- ~ ~ l!! Q) .- s... u a. l!! <1l <( mua.1- ~ ~ ~ l!l.. :> <1l <:: III Lt) a. =:l :g ~So=> I "c d o. ~ ~ !1> ~ ....I "I""" LC) - 00 'N~ -cci "I""" ..... C51~"I"""CO :';::::;<0. oa. <:: tIl III Q) N .- :s. ~ "'C-c: s:: '00 Cij <1l Cij :> Q) :.;::::; ""C :.;::::; 0:: <::'00 <:: ~ ~Q)Q)~T"" :!:: :2 0:: '00 (V) ~~~2o <1l 0:: '00 u.. . o>.s::~e-..... Q) ..... co ~ m C _ u 3: '00 Cl III <1l'- <1l -;;; tIl o <:: <:: III ~ tIl E <:: a. -I<1lE<1l:><1l.;::<:::8 (j) ~ ::::::o~Cl"'CECiiQ)::::'I cL..oo ~ :s: :.a ..cO> E :::s > ~ i: CO ~ 0 Q :::s 0 Q) .!2'.~ 0 "'C 0 rn CO a. ~ 1: 0 0:: -I 2 J: 2 () -= 0 -= 0. 0 :S.&:-; []lIIIIIIJIII[JDfl c:>-z wo::o 00...._ O....!!1 Il.W-lw liP~ <5!::: Il.-I<..JOO Attachment 2 I . .j" 3tH"I']'j'] e' ..~ _ _L "1"'__ - 1,_ ._~"_L . d_._l _ t, ~ I ,., t-,^~Qn~I~I:-r;g\l~{~~D' 1IL<?:' ! 0,1 'qY;\/}\ !~i L I . ~I "fktbj.l~il]~ ~i~ ~ C I II \ - il~j\ "S~\~lf~~n "'..[.. /' I, / '1 8\ j ~ f~ ?" 1 1 ~-". I \ if [,.. ,,' ,L, 1. " f"'"'''' \,,' ", 1 .,-(" \ " ,: ." ,"'"y "(', I ,,It' '9i(. '~J:"&. ..~!J3j, ( "'I'll ' : q n 'j'-'\ \1 ,l"" \, ~>k:' % II I I ,,,I .'~, , 'I III :\1 ' ,,~~, L. . I I" _ AM)/d Cl3113>1 lSiia~Cllf Olo <Lo <D M o o "'< ... o z ~;; ,~J 9g99-iOt(l1i9)"'J OO~;~!1O~ ('99) ""0'1<1 l!\99N1'1'u'O.] ....!llI ~OO "'.01 ~O! ON0'70ZH ,~- -- ~ul i~u ~8t~ J , II ill U. "~ Iii i .~ i<o 1:1 ~ lal", ", o ~'ilI il! " ,'I! ih OJ"' 1','1 ~ u~~ I . ~ ! I ~ --- --- --- --- :;!.~.:,. --- --- ...._-~ Ii "I\u' .."".an " " " " " " , " %~k II \~\ 11. ,......) II ~.~ , ......., I 1-I-r'I",'! I I 1..1 1.,1 1"1 i I '_1"1 I I I I I I '''''1=~ ..l.~-,k-l-_.J._'-l-.!-i._~ ----=.::-.-=.'.===-:':..:::,- _.7.. ~ .--" -. - 91/ - -.- --- -._-- ...810 .-.. ..... ..__.669 __ I ,. i \ \ ... ! , I ~ \ ~ "'-"~.----- .~ -------- ---'~ -- ---- -' ".- -., -- ".. --.-- -~ -- -'--7 r-=.~~~~-7<~.:.~;-~i~~ .~-..../ Ii .. /1.1 ~ \,.....", ~." -;:,~;'- ,..:: -)tf~~;!;;i:':(-'- p r<\ -,' ," ~t-9It(~I!l):OUOLl<l llt99 "" '1<<lSSV~IfYKl OYOU QlIOJXQJ o~., z~' .t1UU1fJ'l )l31U NrIfI llrlY3StlNf'l NOISlT10:J S'.(lUJ,fJn'7 2Z r-7' -I. , ~~! iHHUl ~! !H!!!~! !IB I ii:li Ii I If!!' If!l 1llllIIIl '. 1M hI! II .1 j.! hll)P ! IJ I jfnl!!ll) ; I im! ! liHii I l~ ;, ~ad~~ ~~Ill;!~18h Ii l!! ..~~~.. ~ "....J llaOl:! g. 1111 ~s~~ ..J.... '- l I II I I lllhl f " "I 'l""I' , , Il 'I I , . lJ ,:1 ! il 11';'1 t III ,dill! lill,.l -I"~ ""'I'lrll, II 'J I" {t . r . 11 :1"' l'll'!, I qji I I, II' "'11 ",," I "'..'.1" '1-1' 'I I'll HP l"fl III 1_ Ii Ii "! ~. I hi , . Hl'lj,' 11111:["=11, q ~ ,i' = . ; II q! i" I ild i ! Illl! i! U il 11 II II! !I. I;, t If(S ! ;; ~ III I , ' II , - " I ,! . , ! . d! "~1l ~.~~ 2~ ~g h ~ ~~ ~ ~ .1 /1 i II' ',' 01,. ~'i" ~ % !l 1~! ~Z ~ ~~ J ~ ; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ t:~:tt.2,.:: ..........00."'"'0'.... ..."',..,,"~,,.-. ...,,,,,,,,,,.-,,,,,,,,,.~,."-. ..,."..""- oo",\""","...""...\""",,\.~~5~~t:r=~ Attachment 4 Richard LaMeltry C/O LaMettry's Collision 3209 Galleria #1804 Edina, M N. 55435 7/8/2011 City of Maplewood 1830 County Road BEast Maplewood, MN. 55109 RE: Conditional Use and PUD Application (2011) To Whom It May Concern: This proposal is for a new structure to relocate the existing auto-body shop located next door to the property to facilitate the future use of the Toyota dealership. This new structure would not change any of the existing conditions or standards or character of the existing properties. The property was , developed for this purpose and was designed not to generate any additional traffic, cause any additional costs for public facilities or services or cause any additional adverse environmental effects. This project is not any different than what already exists, would complete the intended development and would provide additional tax base for the city. Thank you, Richard LaMeltry Attachment 5 Maplewood Engineering Comments - LaMettry's Collision 8-10-11 Page 1 of 3 Enaineerinq Plan Review PROJECT: PROJECT NO: COMMENTS BY: DATE: LaMettry's Collision 11-21 Steve Kummer, P.E. - Staff Engineer 8-10-11 PLAN SET: REPORTS: Design Review Dated 6-15-11 HydroCAD Computations dated 7-14-11 Summary LaMellry's Auto Body and Collision is proposing to construct a new building on a vacant parcel north of their existing building at 2923 Maplewood Drive (Highway 61). The vacant parcel was created as part of a 1997 lot split which involved the expansion of Maplewood Toyota to the north side of Beam Avenue. Water and sanitary sewer is already stubbed to the lot. Since the site will disturb more than % acre, the site must meet the City's rate control and infiltration rules. Access to the site is via an existing private frontage road that connects Gulden's, LaMettry's, Venburg Tire, and the Maplewood Toyota repair garage along the west side of Highway 61. No access points to Highway 61 are expected to be revised. Request The applicant is requesting design review and a conditional use permit. The scope of this review includes aspects of site design including, but not limited to, geometrics, paving, grading, 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 to be addressed prior to issuing any City permits: General 1) Provide "true" scale drawings. The reduced drawings submitted do not match the scale as specified on the plans. 2) Provide a copy of the geotechnical evaluation to the City. Provide information on assumed soils infiltration rates for the infiltration structure. 3) Provide note: "Perform all work in conformance to applicable City of Maplewood and State of Minnesota requirements." 4) Indicate limits of construction along north and east sides of the site. Provide orange safety fencing along limits. Maplewood Engineering Comments - LaMettry's Collision 8-10-11 Page 2 of 3 Storm Water Manaqement 5) If the existing infiltration pipe will take drainage from the lot to the south, then an easement agreement between the two properties is required. 6) Provide construction details on the proposed underground 36-inch infiltration pipe including access port locations. Provide a written procedure for periodic maintenance of the system. 7) Verify that proposed building FFE is at least two feet above the 100-year HWL of the pond to the west. West Pond 8) Remove excess open-graded aggregate material from the pervious parking area that has migrated from the parking lot into the pond, Re-establish the sideslope with an approved erosion control blanket and native seeding. Erosion Control 9) Plans should call for compost log or biolog around the perimeter of the site with the silt fence. The concern is being able to properly bury the silt fence within the hard-pan gravel that currently exists on the vacant parcel. Site Plan 10) Does the easement agreement for the private frontage road permit the placement of the parking stalls along the east side of the building to directly access the private frontage road? 11) Provide site import/export computations including assumed compaction factors. Other 12) Submit a signed copy of the MPCA construction storm water permit prior to grading permit issue. 13) Satisfy requirements of all permitting authorities associated with this project. Provide copies of written approval letters and permits. 14) The applicant shall enter into a maintenance agreement with the City. The City shall either prepare the agreement or coordinate preparation of the maintenance agreement with the Watershed District. 15) The applicant shall provide a letter of credit or cash escrow for 125% of the proposed site improvements that includes the cost of grading, erosion control, and permanent establishment/seeding. -END COMMENTS- Attachment 6 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Richard LaMetlry applied for a conditional use permit to construct a building for automotive repair. WHEREAS, this permit applies to property located north of LaMettry Collision, 2923 Maplewood Drive. The legal description is: SECTION 4, TOWNSHIP 29, RANGE 22, EX N 409.5 FT & EX W 197.4 FT OF NWL Y 469.5 FT & EX S 698 FT THE FOL; THE E 723.4 FT LYING WL Y OF HWY OF SE Y. OF NE Y. (SUBJ TO RD & EASEMENTS) IN SEe 04, TN 29, RN 22. WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: 1. On September 6, 2011, the planning commission held a public hearing to review this proposal. City staff published a notice in the paper and sent notices to the surrounding property owners as required by law. The planning commission gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The planning commission also considered the repQrt and recommendation of the city staff. The planning commission recommended that the city council approve this permit. 2. The city council held a public meeting on to review this proposal. The council considered the report and recommendations of the city staff and planning commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council described conditional use permit because: the above- 1. The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be in conformity with the City's Comprehensive Plan and this Code. 2. The use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area. 3. The use would not depreciate property values. 4. The use would not involve any activity, process, materials, equipment or methods of operation that would be dangerous, hazardous, detrimental, disturbing or cause a nuisance to any person or property, because of excessive noise, glare, smoke, dust, odor, fumes, water or air pollution, drainage, water run-off, vibration, general unsightliness, electrical interference or other nuisances. 5. The use would not exceed the design standards of any affected street. 6. The use would be served by adequate public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, water and sewer systems, schools and parks. 7. The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services. 9 8. The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and scenic features into the development design. 9. The use would cause no more than minimal adverse environmental effects. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. All construction shall foliow the site plan date-stamped July 25, 2011. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 2. The proposed construction must be substantially started or the proposed use utilized within one year of council approval or the permit shall become null and void. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 3. If within one year of this permit approval the construction does not begin, the city shall review the status of the 2005 conditional use permit granted to Maplewood Toyota for their temporary parking lot on this site. Consideration shall be given to terminating that CUP, or requiring permanent parking lot improvements, based on the development plans of Mr. LaMettry. 4. The city council shall review this permit in one year. 5. The applicant shall comply with the pervious-surface requirements of the Shoreland Ordinance and the pervious-surface area requirements determined by the Maplewood Engineering Department. This was determined in 2005 for the existing parking lot, however, a reevaluation shall be made to assure code compliance. 6. The applicant shall comply with the conditions stated in the Maplewood Engineering Department's review of this proposal as prepared by Steve Kummer, staff engineer, dated August 10, 2011. 7. There shall be no plowing of snow from this site for deposit in the city's holding pond to the west. The Maplewood City Council approved this resolution on ,2011. 10 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: Community Design Review Board (CDRB) Ginny Gaynor, Natural Resources Coordinator Gladstone Area Streetscape September 21 , 2011 for September 27, 2011 meeting INTRODUCTION In April 2011, Maplewood City Council approved Gladstone Area Improvements Phase I. Construction has begun but most of the landscaping for Phase I will be completed in 2012. In 2007, the CDRB reviewed the streetscape for this area. At the September 27, 2011 meeting, staff and consultants will review the streetscape plan with board members. DISCUSSION On April 25, 2011, City Council approved Phase I Improvements for the Gladstone area. Attachment 1 shows a layout of the street, trail and sidewalk Improvements. The project was divided into two Bid Packets: 1. Bid Packet #1: Improvements currently under contract, being completed in 2011-2012 a. Street improvements along Frost Avenue from Highway 61 to Phalen Place, including a roundabout at East Shore Drive b. Frost Avenue bridge replacement c. Historic marker rest stop near Frost Avenue bridge d. Trail and sidewalk improvements on Frost Avenue and East Shore Drive e. Stormwater and wetland improvements 2. Bid Packet #2 -- Improvements to be bid for construction in 2012 a. Overhead utility burial b. Improvements at Gladstone Savanna c. Paving of trails and sidewalks d. Streetscape plantings Construction is well underway on items in Bid Packet #1. Trees will be planted on the roundabout this fall, but the rest of the landscaping will be done in 2012 as part of Bid Packet #2. In 2007, the CDRB reviewed the concept plans for the streetscape for this area. At the September 27, 2011 board meeting, staff and consultants will provide an overview of the plans adopted and update the board on the project. RECOMMENDATION No action required. Attachment 1: Phase I Street, Trail, and Sidewalk Improvements ~ < . . u 2 , < r . . ~ < o o o o '0 '. \ \ \ / / / / / ""--~ ~ ~ '. I I ! o o / / / \ ~ , <:v l. < 00< ~~~ ~~~ =>of!' zoo ng ot:o~8 \2~~~ r:iZ~g ( OF;';<;' , '-~'-,-, "- E-<..............CflN ffi~~ffi~ ~o:t;:lt5 OP-.~~..., ......:l >-,>~ "' 00 > 0:::8:: "' ~:l Q ~- "' ~~ 0::: u~ ~ ~ <( "' "' 8 z C/O o '8 t; "'" ~ ~ tJ ~ 1;1" "' '" ~ C/O ~ 011: o 0 - i!j is I ~ Q ~ o o o ! ! ~ <( en ~ o ~ j z : in <( ~ ~ o " !mlil - . ~ c B . ':I tin hI i~I U:: n ,~ " l~ !; Ij-"'O\,"OlSO"'O\="31dll"V",\""O.""'\" """'" ,,'" '''"'''"'',';;o-''',"01''''\I'O\'''-'''''''']1\>L181"'3'\1'''' MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: James Antonen, City Manager Michael Martin, AICP, Planner Resolution of Appreciation for Michael Mireau September 21, 2011 INTRODUCTION Attached is a resolution of appreciation for Michael Mireau. Mr. Mireau served as a member of the community design review board (CDRB) for two years (May 26, 2009 to April 26, 2011). RECOMMENDATION Approve the attached resolution of appreciation for Mr. Mireau. Attachment: 1. Resolution of Appreciation Attachment 1 RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION WHEREAS, Michael Mireau has been a member of the Maplewood Communay Design Review Boardfor two years, since May 26, 2009, until April 26, 20ll, and has served faithfully in that capacay; and WHEREAS, the Communay Design Review Board has appreciated his experience, insights and good judgment; and WHEREAS, Mr. Mireau has freely given of his time and energy, without compensation, for the betterment of the cay of Maplewood; and WHEREAS, Mr. Mireau has shown dedication to his duties and has consistently contributed his leadership and tifJort for the benefIt of the cay. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOL VED for and on behalf of the cay of Maplewood, Minnesota, and its citizens that Michael Mireau is hereby extended our gratitude and appreciation for his dedicated service. Passed by the Maplewood cay Council on , 20ll Will Rossbach, Mayor Passed by the Maplewood Communay Design Review Board on , 20ll Matt Ledvina, Chairperson Attest: Karen Guilfoile, cay Clerk