HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-02-28 CDRB Packet
AGENDA
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
Tuesday, February 28,2012
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. December 13, 2011
b. January 24, 2012
5. Unfinished Business:
6. Design Review:
a. Maplewood Town Center - Exterior Remodel and Sign Criteria Revision, 1845
County Road D East
b. Venner Plaza Shoppes - Design Review and Building Setback Variance, 1987
County Road D East
7. Visitor Presentations:
8. Board Presentations:
9. Staff Presentations:
a. Election of Officers
10. Adjourn
MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 13,2011
1. CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Ledvina called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
2. ROLL CALL
Boardmember, Jawaid Ahmed
Boardmember, Jason Lamers
Chairperson, Matt Ledvina
Boardmember, Ananth Shankar
Vice Chairperson, Matt Wise
Present
Absent
Present
Present
Present
Staff Present:
Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Boardmember Shankar moved to approve the aqenda as submitted.
Boardmember Wise seconded the motion.
Ayes - All
The motion passed.
4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Boardmember Wise moved to approve the November 22, 2011, CDRB minutes as submitted.
Boardmember Ahmed seconded the motion.
Ayes - All
The motion passed.
5. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
None
6. DESIGN REVIEW
a. Kennard East Professional Building, East of 3100 Kennard Street
i. Senior Planner, Tom Ekstrand gave the report on the Kennard East Professional Building
and answered questions of the board.
ii. Vice President, Alex Young, MSP Commercial, 401 Robert Sl. N., Ste. 225, Sl. Paul,
addressed and answered questions of the board.
iii. Senior Vice President, Genesis Architecture, Lynn Sloat, addressed and answered
questions of the board.
December 13,2011
Community Design Review Board Meeting Minutes
1
The board reviewed the proposal and did not feel that it was within their authority to act on the
proposal for a mobile MRI trailer. They felt that this was a land use related matter and not a
design matter. The board also disagreed with the proposed building signage on the south, or
street side of the building. They felt only building addressing was appropriate on that side of the
building.
Chairperson Ledvina moved to approve the plans date-stamped November 22. 2011. for the
proposed Kennard East Professional Buildinq. Approval is based on the findinqs for approval
required bv ordinance and subiect to the developer doinq the followinq: (chanqes to the motion
are underlined and in bold.l
1. Repeat this review in two years if the applicant has not obtained a building permit by that
time. After two years this review must be repeated.
2. Comply with the requirements in the Engineering Plan Review by Steve Kummer and those of
the Assistant Fire Chief, Building Official and the recommendation by Lieutenant Doblar.
3. Submit a plan for staff approval for the screening of roof-top mechanical equipment if they
would be visible from the upper windows of the homes to the north. Screening, if needed,
shall be installed by occupancy.
4. Before obtaining a building permit, the applicant shall provide an irrevocable letter of credit in
the amount of 150 percent of the cost of completing landscaping and other site
improvements. This 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, to assure compliance with the terms of the
developer's agreement.
. The letter of credit must allow for partial withdrawals as needed to guarantee partial
project payments covered under the terms of the letter of credit.
. The letter of credit shall be for a one-year duration and must have a condition indicating
automatic renewal, with notification to the city a minimum of 60 days prior to its expiration.
5. All landscaped areas shall have a lawn-irrigation system installed, except for those areas
proposed to be left natural. The applicant must, however, make sure to use hoses and
sprinklers until turf, plant and tree growth is established. The applicant shall enhance the
landscapinq plan in the vicinity proposed for the MRI trailer to provide screeninq with
veqetative materials or other tvpes of materials subiect to staff approval.
6. If outdoor trash storage is used in the future, the applicant shall provide a screening enclosure
that is compatible in design with the building.
7. A comprehensive sign plan shall be submitted for approval by the community design review
board. Siqns are not allowed on the south elevation.
8. All work shall follow the approved plans. Staff may approve minor changes.
9. Modifv the site liqhtinq to meet the code requirements for neiqhborinq residential areas.
December 13,2011
Community Design Review Board Meeting Minutes
2
10. The materials used in the construction of the site and buildinq shall match the buildinq
materials and desiqn of the existinq development to the west includinq retaininq wall
materials.
11. This approval does not authorize the storaqe of the MRI trailer at the site. The applicant shall
work with city staff to obtain specific approvals for that site use.
Boardmember Ahmed seconded the motion.
Ayes - All
The motion passed.
7. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS
None
8. BOARD PRESENTATIONS
Staff discussed the city council meeting December 12, 2011, regarding the approval of the St.
Paul Hmong Alliance Church expansion which was approved by the city council. Boardmember
Lamers was the board representative at the council meeting.
9. STAFF PRESENTATIONS
None.
10. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned by Chairperson Ledvina at 7:10 p.m.
December 13,2011
Community Design Review Board Meeting Minutes
3
MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA
TUESDAY, JANUARY 24, 2012
1. CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Ledvina called the meeting to order at 6:07 p.m.
2. ROLL CALL
Boardmember, Jawaid Ahmed
Boardmember, Jason Lamers
Chairperson, Matt Ledvina
Boardmember, Ananth Shankar
Vice Chairperson, Matt Wise
Absent
Present
Present
Present
Absent
Staff Present:
Michael Martin, Planner
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Boardmember Shankar moved to approve the agenda as submitted.
Boardmember Lamers seconded the
Ayes - All
The motion passed.
4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Approval of the
because Boardmember
approve the minutes.
minutes is continued until the next CDRB meeting
from that meeting and there is a lack of a quorum to
5. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
None
6. DESIGN REVIEW
a. Comprehensive Sign Plan Amendment for Safeway Driving School at the Maple Leaf
Center
i. Planner, Michael Martin gave the report and answered questions of the board.
ii. Owner of Safeway Driving School, 2251 Larpenteur Avenue, Maplewood, Charles
Hayssen addressed and answered questions of the board.
Board member Shankar moved to approve the revised comprehensive plan for Maple Leaf
Center. 2251 Larpenteur Avenue as follows (additions are underlined and deletions are crossed
out):
January 24, 2012
Community Design Review Board Meeting Minutes
1
1. The freestanding sign is approved but shall be limited to 20 feet in height displaying the
"Maple Leaf Center" and tenant names. "7 Eleven Le!je. The wereE: "el3en 24 heurs" shall so
emittee. The reaeer seare E:hall alE:e se emittee. The sign shall observe a 10-foot minimum
setback from property lines. Aeeitienal E:esurity li!jhtin!j E:hall se inE:lallee en tel3 ef the 20 feet
freeE:lanein!j E:i!jn ane E:hall net E:hine ente aejasent I3rel3ertieE: er reaewaYE:.
2 The exiE:tin!j 4 sy 12 feet"7 Eleven" manE:are E:i!jn E:hall remain.
3 Each tenant shall be limited to the following wall signs:
a. Individual tenant signs located on the mansard roof shall be limited to a height of 36:+g
inches. Centent ef manE:are E:i!jnE: E:hall insluee the name ef the ineivieual eE:tasliE:hmenl,
E:ush aE: "DaiE:Y ReallerE:." Mansard letters shall not be stacked al3l3liee more than two high
and shall not extend closer than two feet on either side to the border of each tenant's
rental area. This mansard signage shall be comprised of individual letters, internally
illuminated and ef a E:in!jle seier ane mounted directly to the mansard roof suilein!j by
concealed fasteners. Logos and "underscore-type" box signs, as proposed by Safeway
Drivinq School. are permitted subiect to the siqn heiqht and siqn placement requirements
above.
b. One 16-foot-wide 4.5-foot-tall (72 square foot) wall sign displaying all seven tenants to be
located on the east side of the building. This siqn shall ~ to be illuminated by five
decorative cowl lights installed above the sign. Surface material shall be repaired following
removal of sign. Letterin!j en the E:i!jn E:hall se slask with ul3 te twe ether selerE:. If a panel
on the sign is not used due to a tenant choosing not to participate in the use of the sign on
the panel, shall remain vacant. A tenant shall only have the use of one panel on the sign
per occupant.
4 All signage below the mansard roof shall be located on the doors, or windows accordinq to
city ordinance requirements for window signs.
5 All illuminated signs shall be extinguished no later than 11 p.m. or when the business is
closed.
e There E:hall se I3revieee aeeilienal exterier li!jhtin!j senE:iE:tin!j ef 10 feet hi!jh eeserative li!jht
E:laneare inE:lallee en eash E:iee ef the entranse eriveE:. Exterier li!jhtE:, exsel3t fer E:esurity
li!jhtin!j te se extin!juiE:hee after sUE:ineE:E: heurE:. The sity E:hall relain the ri!jht te review ane Ie
rel:luire meeifisatien ef any exterier li!jhtin!j whish saUE:eE: any uneue !jlare ane/er reflestien.
7 The ewner ane al3l3lisant E:hall a!jree te the aseve in writin!j.
8 All work shall follow the approved plans. Staff The eirester ef semmunity eevelel3ment may
approve minor changes.
Seconded by Boardmember Lamers.
Ayes - All
The motion passed.
7. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS
None
January 24, 2012
Community Design Review Board Meeting Minutes
2
8. BOARD PRESENTATIONS
Boardmember Lamers updated the board on the last council meeting as the CDRB
representative.
9. STAFF PRESENTATIONS
a. Trunk Highway 36/English Street Interchange Project (no report)
i. Deputy Public Works Director, Michael Thompson gave a brief report on the Trunk
Highway 36/English Street Interchange Project and introduced Mr. Harrington.
ii. Kimley-Horn & Associates representative, Tom Harrington, addressed the board and gave
the report on the project.
iii. Aesthetics Specialist, MnDOT representative, Dave Hall addressed and answered
questions of the board.
Boardmember Shankar stated he liked the character of the bridge on Rice Street. Boardmember
Shankar said he would prefer something unique to Maplewood. Boardmember Shankar asked if
they looked at the idea of having a bigger pilaster in the middle and down playing the two pilasters
on the end. In addition to the three taillights he asked !fthere was some way to introduce metal
elements to the bridge to create more of a human el~ni~nt. Boardmember Shankar stated he
liked the imprinted Maple Leaf pattern on the nois~WallsP!Jt wondered if there was a way of
using other relief patterns on the setback walls,
Chairperson Ledvina was happy with the overall design concept and prefers Concept C. In
looking at concept D he thinks the brick is too sparse. He prefers that the brick be more
impressive especially on the ends. The brick should be carried through the wing walls or
abutments and wrapped so it's visual on all sides. He likes the maple leaf design on the barrier
walls. Chairperson Ledvina stated he prefers the cleaner look on the example. He would like to
see more landscape berms. Chairperson Ledvina stated he appreciated that the neighbors have
been able to offer their input.
Boardmember Lamers said h~Jike;?Concept C and stated it ties the character of the Rice Street
and Margaret Street bridge sectighs bridges together which is a good feature. Incorporating the
berms rather than just going with the fixed wall is a good feature and it connects the initiatives
Maplewood has done to promote green sustainable options for stormwater buffers.
b. Election of Officers
Chairperson Ledvina moved to table the election of officers until all members of the board are
present.
Seconded by Boardmember Shankar.
Ayes - All
The motion passed.
10. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned by Chairperson Ledvina at 7:10 p.m.
January 24, 2012
Community Design Review Board Meeting Minutes
3
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT:
LOCATION:
DATE:
James Antonen, City Manager
Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner
Chuck Ahl, Assistant City Manager
Maplewood Town Center Exterior Remodel and Sign Criteria Revision
1845 County Road D East
February 17, 2012
TO:
FROM:
INTRODUCTION
Pope Architects, representing H. J. Development, LLP, is requesting approval of plans to
remodel the former Best Buy Store at Maplewood Town Center. In 2008, the community design
review board (CDRB) approved the remodeling plans for the westerly half of the Maplewood
Town Center shopping center building. At that time, the Best Buy portion was not available for
remodeling due to lease controls in place at the time. The applicant now has a proposal for
DSW Designer Shoe Warehouse to occupy the westerly 2/3rds of the former Best Buy Store
space. The remaining space would be available for lease to a future tenant.
The applicant is proposing the following renovations to the building and site:
. Demolish and remove the portion of the building that projects forward of the main front
wall of the shopping center. The front of this part of the building would then be finished
with a combination of brick and rock-face concrete block with column details. Colors
would be tan and brown tones to match the existing westerly half of this shopping center.
The fascia material would be EIFS (exterior insulation finish system).
. The east elevation will have brick and masonry columns added to that side and will be
painted to match the building's color pallet.
. The rear elevation will be painted to be compatible with the proposed changes and the
building colors established in the 2008 renovation of the westerly portion of the shopping
center. The rear elevation would also have column details provided around the rear
DSW sign.
. After the removal of the front projection of the building, this part of the site will be
restored with a row of parking as was originally in place when this shopping center was
developed.
. There will be a new landscaped area provided at the front easterly corner of the building.
This landscaped bed would be planted with a mix of Blue Rug Junipers, Gold Mound
Spirea and Pink Spire Crabapple. No other new landscaping is proposed.
. The proposed DSW sign and the sign for the vacant tenant space would require revision
of the comprehensive sign plan for the shopping center. Wall signs would be proposed
on the front and rear elevations.
BACKGROUND
August 27, 1986: The community design review board (CDRB) approved the plans for
Maplewood Town Center.
September 23, 1986: The CDRB approved the sign plan for the shopping center.
March 11, 1991: The city council approved an expansion for Frank's Nursery. Council also
approved a parking reduction for 58 fewer parking spaces.
May 24, 1993: The city council approved plans for an 8,400-square-foot building addition onto
Best Buy at Maplewood Town Center.
August 22, 2005: The city council approved plans for the new Best Buy store and also approved
a parking reduction of 36 parking stalls.
April 25, 2006: the CDRB approved a revised comprehensive sign plan for the new Best Buy
and Maplewood Town Center.
February 12, 2008: The CDRB approved the remodeling of the west half of the Maplewood
Town Center shopping center.
DISCUSSION
Building Design Changes
The proposed building renovations would be attractive. Staff is supportive of these
improvements.
Parking and Access
The parking presently meets code requirements. The addition of a new row of parking in front of
the building will improve access and provide more useable parking spaces for customers to the
DSW store.
Site Lighting
The lighting ordinance requires a maximum light intensity of .4 footcandles at the property line.
The photometric plan shows that the existing lights currently exceed that maximum. Control of
such lighting is difficult with the light spilloyer from adjacent properties and the street lights in
place. Staff recommends that the applicant meet the .4 footcandle maximum with any new lights
installed and work toward meeting this criteria when any existing lamps or bulbs are replaced.
Landscaping
The proposed planting bed would be attractive. Staff also compared the existing landscaping on
site with the originally approved landscaping plan. The original plan had a row of over-story
trees along the County Road D frontage. Over time, dead trees have been replaced. In front of
the proposed DSW store there is a space where two or three trees had been but no longer exist.
2
This area also has overhead power lines. Because of that, it is not wise to plaht new tall-
growing trees in this area and the alternative of short ornamentals may look odd by comparison.
Staff does not recommend anything additional in this area under the circumstances, but, looks to
the CDRB for their opinion on this matter.
Trash Enclosures
It appears that there are sufficient trash enclosures provided to contain the trash dumpsters
behind the building. There are several dumpsters sitting in the open, however. Staff
recommends that the property owner advise their tenants to make sure to use the trash
enclosures to keep the back of the site looking neat.
Comprehensive Sign Plan Changes
The proposed signage for the DSW Designer Shoe Warehouse and the vacant tenant space
seem appropriate. The proposed sign sizes are:
. The DSW signs are proposed to be the same on the front and the back of the building.
The sizes would be "DSW" would be 14 feet wide and 4.5 feet high. The "DESIGNER
SHOE WAREHOUSE" line of copy would be 28 feet wide by 1,5 feet tall. In total, this
would be 1 05 square feet of sign area.
. The sign for the vacant tenant space is proposed to be 25 feet wide by 3 feet tall on the
front and the same on the back. In total, this would be 75 square feet of sign area.
In both cases the area of the proposed signs would not exceed the allowance provided by the
sign code.
The current sign criteria for the shopping center allows tenant signs to be three feet tall if there is
one line of sign copy. Two lines of sign copy are allowed, but in that case, each line must not
exceed 18 inches in height with up to an eight inch space in between for a total sign height of 44
inches.
Revised Sign Criteria
Staff feels the proposed wall signs are appropriate for this shopping center. Best Buy was
allowed to have more prominent signage since they were the large anchor store in this complex.
DSW would be the same. The proposed three-foot-tall sign for the future tenant would also be
in line with the existing sign criteria for the other smaller tenants in this shopping center. With
that in mind, staff would support a total sign height of 44 inches for this future tenant space for
consistency with the existing sign criteria. There are no changes proposed to the pylon signs.
Engineering Report
Steve Kummer, Staff Engineer, reviewed the applicant's plans and forwarded recommendations
relative to the drainage, utility and paving plans. Refer to Mr. Kummer's report.
3
Fire Marshal
Butch Gervais, Assistant Fire Chief/Fire Marshal, reviewed the plans and has no comments
other than requiring compliance with all applicable fire safety codes.
Police
Chief Thomalla reviewed the plans and felt there were no public safety concerns. He stated,
though, that the contractor should be advised about construction site security to minimize thefts
of construction materials and vandalism to equipment.
Building Official
Dave Fisher, Building Official, had the following comments:
. Provide photos of the building before demolition.
. Verify aisle space for accessible parking is a minimum of 96 inches.
. Obtain separate building permit for each new space or build out. Provide architectural
plans with building code analysis at that time.
RECOMMENDATION
Approve the plans date-stamped February 7, 2012, for the proposed building upgrades and
signage changes to the Maplewood Town Center shopping center located at 1845 County Road
D East. Approval is subject to the applicant complying with the following conditions:
1. Repeating this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project.
2. The property owner shall inform the tenants in the building of the city's requirement to keep
trash dumpsters within the trash enclosures. If it is found that there are not enough trash
enclosures available for all tenants, the applicant shall provide additional enclosures, subject
to staff approval of placement and design.
3. The applicant meet the .4 footcandle maximum with anYllew lights instaU~d_aT1cl~Clrk to\Nard_
meeting this criteria when any existing lamps or bulbs are replaced. .
4. The wall signs to be allowed for the proposed DSW Designer Shoe Warehouse space in the
shopping center shall be a maximum letter height of 6.5 feet tall to allow for a six-inch space
between a double-row of sign copy. The signage for the vacant tenant space shall meet the
criteria allowed for the other smaller tenants in this building. This allows wall signs up to
three feet in letter height if a single line of sign copy is used. If two lines of signage are used,
each line shall not exceed 18 inches in height with up to an eight-inch space in between for a
total sign height of 44 inches. Tenant wall signs shall be allowed on the back side of the
building subject to these size limitations.
5. Comply with the requirements of the city's engineering department and building official as
stated in this report.
4
6. The community design review board shall approve major changes to these plans. Minor
changes may be approved by staff.
REFERENCE INFORMATION
SITE DESCRIPTION
Site size: 8.76 acres
Existing Use: Maplewood Town Center Shopping Center, Best Buy and the Pannekoeken Huis
SURROUNDING LAND USES
North: 1-694
South: County Road D, Circuit City, Toys R Us and the Myth Night Club
East: Aamco Transmission Shop
West: Slumberland
PLANNING
Land Use Plan: BC, business commercial
Zoning: BC
APPLICATION DATE
We received the complete application on February 7, 2012. State law requires that the city take
action within 60 days. A decision on this request is required by April 7, 2012.
p:sec35-30\Town Center Remodel of Old Best Buy 212 Ie
Attachments
1. Location Map
2. Proposed Site Plan
3. Engineering Report from Steve Kummer dated February 7, 2012
4. Town Center Sign Criteria
5. Plans date stamped February 7,2012 (separate attachment)
5
Attachment 1
.. @ ~'.:.1 N:'
~ M
DISCLAIMER: This map is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not intended to be used as one. This map is a compilation of records, infonnation and
data located in various city, county, state and federal offices and other sources regarding the area shown, and is to be used for reference purposes only.
URCES: Ramse un Octo e' 3] 2011 TI'" T ~"""W~'" n..,~.",.A"."h"".1.1 ')(\11 fiw('m1f\t<> "flI'eel nd ]'0 e' records data' October 2011 for camm ial
. I
.~~,
~._ !'lEST BUY
-.....~
.----..;....-
TOWN CENTER .----
SHOPPING CENTER 1'\'iI~
. -",~w;".
.'i
. ,f#hf_ "
'~ll!<M'~lf,;f
. ':'(jl\~lmllk_\t_
~t*Jj'6~S
. .1
~'j!'M
rni
.1Ifrl
r'W1 ~H
i~~ i\! ~~ \,l~
, Iii ,~~
$
;'el
i+'cli9'tJ
&.i~
~l
i'\ii~;,':';il
PROPOSED
. DSW
~,~)i~f"i!" q'"'l
"1
lv::.
'!l
""
:( ~6ll6
''>:''''
~j'
"'i"'/"fI\'tM--'~:"';_"i.\
1',-':nS;'<':;d""""'<i
r"Ht!'>'I\'i:b:r&'f;\il';?':
1';;.ij'N'fil~ W'.":~~l
,,;,:.!x;.M5t!-~;,')J&~ti,
~:~~~w,r\n
~"..,^"J!:lf"
~
V',1t,
f
--- ."'....
^~
"'"
~
,"""'ll"" 'fj
. . .---
..>;,:-
~/
~-
,
~
IT1~
,
0~
' ~~
'I
'~'"
w+.
lOCATION MAP
~.:':; MUI\lclpal1t169
1 ,",,' Roedcentetlioes(counly)
M countyRolid
~'.;.'~ ,rllto/~ate HWv
~ el'" Kwy
;./ Roads
. Water
Itt.'M 5ttl!ttUt~
o P4rce1polygons
Hlghwayshlelds
StreetNllmelabels
.~
f}i:l
l.'~
'I':!
:'~
I~
r
"
,
",
'" ~
~ ; ~
() l.lil~
!1 "~>4
g: ~5 .
~ '"? A~~
C/) ~ ~!ll ~
~ ~ e,~;
15 ~ ~~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~~ ~
f2 !:: III ~~ ~
19 ~ ~ ~II
w '" ~ ~ll. ~
~ I ~ di
c ~li/ g~1f
~ ~ 9
'" N 0
I I! -
<> e <> ~
I ~~ I !
l!; ~ ~ 9~ to>
S b~ hi "
~ '. n ~~
'" ~~ I!I;~ ~~
· ~~ '.~. h
~~. ~ ~h ~~
~.~ ~~.~S~
llll~ ~~~~~~
~.~ ~'m'.N
~;lIi a.~~;!g~
W iU~;
~ .
h
i~
d
~~~
iJ
dj
"~.g;
~cjg!
<c~...~..
g~z~.s
1Il,..::E",,:~
~~;flu.
...~~
~ "
Q, ~Vl
~ on:: ~ c fiJ;;!~5 ~ , ~.
~~ Iii
OW 6 gJ"'j:1a. ~ ~
iO~ N'" ~~ a.~ UJ Ii' ~
S;W w" Oa.fii.... ,
~!1 ,! i::i ........
~WU ~.~ 0: 1::1ii <
-'z ..id a. J: .-, :!IIij
~S; g "'z f;1 ~5 ill .
~Q fill . i
-'" h i J
;1:;:0 w ow <(
I- '" c
Attachment 2
$~
.
. .
>:c
0
~ 0
.
;~
~~ ~ 0
.
~ .
, "
~I
~~
.
~ I
~ .
~r I-
iJ~ ~
.
~ 0
0
~ 0 15
. 0:
. ~
~ & z
::>
, 0
()
~---
8\
~
~
(!)
;:
5
a.
UJ
I-
1ii
...J
~ if
~ ::l
I-
()
~ ~
:r:
()
~
...J
. <(
) ~
~
0
UJ
C/)
~.
o~
0: J'
a.r
"
Attachment 3
Engineering Plan Review
PROJECT:
PROJECT NO:
COMMENTS BY:
Maplewood Town Center - Phase II Remodeling
12-02
Steve Kummer, P.E. - Staff Engineer
DATE:
2-13-2012
PLAN SET:
CDRB Submittal
REPORTS:
Storm Water Management Report 2-7-12
The Applicant is proposing removations to the old Best Buy building within the
Maplewood Town Center shopping center. The existing Best Buy building is 39,670
square feet. The applicant is proposing to remove the front 40 feet of the building to
match fronts with the existing shopping center tenants. The renovated building will be
split into a 20,000 square-foot DSW store and a 9,402 square-foot vacant tenant space
on the east side of the store.
In place of the demolished building frontage, the applicant is proposing to add 19 parking
stalls along the front of the new building. Five (5) of the 19 stalls will be reserved for the
handicapped. A new concrete walk as well as landscaping is also proposed.
Request
The applicant is requesting design review. This does not constitute a final review of the
plans, as the applicant will need to submit construction documents for final review,
ratified agreements prior to issuing building and grading permits.
The scope of this review includes aspects of site design including, but not limited to,
geometrics, paving, grading, utilities, and temporary sediment and erosion control. The
scope of the review also includes storm water management. The comments contained
. herein are to be addressed by the applicant. The applicant must fully comply with storm
water regulations associated with this site and perform the analyses necessary to assure
full compliance.
The following are Engineering review comments on the design review, and act as
conditions prior to issuing demolition, grading, sewer, and building permits:
Drainage and Stormwater Management
1) The applicant is proposing underground infiltration. An test of the drawdown
capacity of the in-situ soils in the vicinity of the infiltration area with City or
Watershed District observation is required on site.
2) The infiltration area is proposed under the old building area which has likely
impacted the actual in-situ soils infiltration rate due to compact. Provide more
detail on how the plan will address compaction to assure that in-situ soils meet
the design infiltration rate.
3) Infiltration bed is 2 feet deep. In order to meet 48-hour drawdown time with HSG
"C" soils (0.2 inches/hour), max depth of BMP cannot exceed 10 inches.
4) Indicate EOF route for storm drainage system in front of building.
5) Provide one soil boring in the area of the infiltration basin.
6) Provide 100-year HWL on plans for infiltration system.
7) Provide dimensions of storm infiltration system relative to the building foundation.
Infiltration system shall not encroach to within 10 feet of the building.
8) Provide disturbed area amount on grading plan.
Gradina. Geometrics and Paving
g) Provide plan details on proposed handicapped accessible ramps from parking
lot.
10) Provide sawcut lines for disturbance area on grading and utility plan.
Utilities
11) Existing watermain along east and south sides of building is not shown on
survey.
12) Provide detail for watermain insulation.
13) Provide detail for connection to existing storm sewer.
14) Cut and bulkhead existing 12-inch storm sewer near eastern driveway entrance
at the property line in the boulevard. Applicant may leave existing storm sewer
section abandoned in place, but must provide as-builts indicating the work done.
15) Provide storm sewer manhole detail.
16) Provide separation distance between new storm sewer and existing sanitary.
Separation distance shall be a minimum of 18 inches from crown to invert.
17) Provide sanitary fixture unit design computations for the proposed tenant spaces.
18) Provide indication on auto-fire suppression flows to the building and the
sufficiency of the existing services.
Other
19) Applicant shall submit cash escrow or letter of credit amounting to 125% of the
yalue of the proposed parking lot grading work.
20) The developer shall submit a copy of the MPCA's construction stormwater permit
(SWPPP) to the city before the city will issue a grading permit for this project.
21) The Owner shall satisfy all requirements of all permitting and reviewing agencies.
22) The Own~r shall enter into a storm water BMP maintenance agreement,
prepared by the City.
- END COMMENTS -
Laserfiche WebLink
Laserriche' WebLink
Template: CD PC Agenda Packets
CD PC Agenda Packets ~ Date
Page I ofl
Attachment 4
Help I Logout I My Webllnk
I ltlltl P,geL'!of4~ J
L I~HAl [l1II~(\@[:J6.()2%JI(it) p,g"llto4,______.___J
Maplawoo~ > com~umty Development> Planning> Comprehensive Sign Plan> County R~ad D (1795) I Town Center (Best Buy)
---
-----
~.
MINUTES OFTHS M. APLEWOOO COMMUNITY DlESIG~REVIEW BOARD
1830 COUKTV ROIW B EAST, MAPLEWOOD. MINNE80TA
TUESDAY, APRil 25. 2000
.- .~.~.-
VI.
DESIGN
~
Tawn Cen-etr ComprGhonl1've 818n Plan Amendment (St8t auy) - 1795 O;lvnly
Rood 0 (6:10 - 7:05 p.m.) .
Ms. finwsll said Paul Andellon or WCL ASSQiCllites, represefltlng Bast Buy, [$
propo~lng slgnogo for tho now Best Buy .IOfOlocatod at 1795 COunty Rood D.
The new Beat Buy store la ctnrenUy urKler CQnatructlon and f~ located wlthln thlil Town
center Shopping Conlor. Best Bny Is proposing throo new wall signs on tholr building
and I. alBO proposIng 10 refeC9 tho eJdllting Frank'e Nursery freestanding slgn.locatad
along the hlghwa.y. AU exiatlng lJ!gIlS on the €lurrGnt store wltl be removed. The cUy'e
sIgn code requlre$ all mulu.tenant bundlngs with fiv& or more tonants to have Q
comprehensive sign plan approv$d by the community design review boatd (CORB). Ally
amendmenw to the- approved plan muat be revrowed by thfli CORBo Best euy Is
reqUG,Ung an amendment to Town C6(rttr's emung eomprehenslva olgn plan.
Chairperson Olson asked 81aff whJch of the wall signs she would reoommend rOl'nOvJng
In her propo,ed conditions?
Ms, Flnwall saId she would leave that up to the board and tile applicant
Board mambar Schurke saId on page 2 01 the staff report. In the second peragraph It
etales 'he dmfl sIgn code, when approved by the cl1y councA. would allow one wallelgn
for each streel upon whIch the property has frontage, plus one well sIgn for .elch dearly
differentiated dep8rtment.~ He asked what dlfferenUated department meant?
Board member Shanker said an example of a dlfferentia.ted department is like a
Pharmacy sign on the Target bliNding llhowlng different departmenti in the elore.
Ms. Itlnwallssld correct. .
Board member Schulke asked how many departments Beet Buy would have? ~~3
Board rMmber Shankar saId he thought 8est Buy would need a f1lgn like a~l1U?ou ~
Installation or something of that sort. -~ Ul
Board member Sohurke asked If there: was language' In the draft sign oodet that '"1("::)
whatdlffel'6ntlated department mesns? "0-
M.. Flnw.1I said no. tu ?it
Board Member Schurke asked what street ctaeslflcatlon mGant? Ho asked If .
694 represented a street classlflcallon? O. C1
Me, Flnwall saId yer.. The draft sign code does not define a Sirest In the sign code.
L_~'__~W"___'_'__~'_~"~'___~'~___'_.~__M_'_~~~'_~__'_._._.__M__~'~M____.__
Powered by Lasorfiche WebLink version 7.0.5. Laserfiche is a registered trademark of Compulink Managemel1t Center, Inc.
This copy is Illgislllred1o: City of Maplewood
http://dionysus/weblink7 /Doc View.aspx?id=4664I
2/17/2012
Laserfiche WebLink
Laserfiche' WebLink
Browse
Template: CD PC Agenda Packets
CD PC Agenda Packets - Date
Page 1 of 1
Help I Logout I My WebUnk
I I!JI!JP",' Of4~ I
I ~181 [I~~~ @ 36.02% Ill@! p""" to 4 J
Maplewood > Communlly Development> Planning> Comprehensive Sign Plan> Counly Road D (1795) I Town Center (Besl Buy)
Chalrperwn OlGon ssla euetometa at Ulo Myth nlghklub ere slac your potential clients.
The club coutd lie an asset for BEtst Buy loeated across: the street. so thIngs can work
both W81'.
Board momber Schurke 8.sll.ed If the walllJl;OnQ6& would be night sky shielded 8conces?
Mr. Andei$On !;Islet he wuld have to check bUt he thought these were all down lights.
ChaIrperson Olson saId she too thought tho wall 5CQnC6$ were dlrecllng the light
downward.
Board m.mber Shankar ssld hi. opinion I. .ven thoIlgh tile .Ign C<<le may be ror. .Ign
150 square feet In size that may be too small for a bulfdlng 45,000 square feet and
vleuelly get lost. He belIeves thIs building la large enough end the (ront wall "Ign ahould
ba .11.... 300 squa", reel bulshould be moved hlghe' up ..the buHdirtg Ulan Ihe16
(eet GY-t Inchee-In height. He thlnkB Beet Buy should remoVO the elgn on the WlIst side
fsclng Highway 694. Hs doesn't ee6 now adding the brick on the base of the pylon sign
would be a benefit:
Board member Ledvina said hG agreed with mOit of the staff recommendations. The
now sign code ehOllfd be u,ad .a a be,i' ror oval.eUng Ule elgn. for Best Suy. H.
would agree with Board member Sh8llkar thallhe f!'Qnt wall sIgn should be Ground 300
square fuet bul not 315.4 6tIUSl'9 feet a8 Best BUy proposed. The lltaff reoommendaUOn
Is for two wall slgns.and he doesn't haV&A prefer8fW;li whIch sign 1& removed but he
feels the slgn on the weet sfde hat the amaneet value. He would leave that up to the
applicant. Regarding the bo.e 01 tM plIO' $Ign on COunty Road O. b...u,elle.t Buy
doesn't own Uta! sIgn that would be d{ffloult to: require- Best Buy to. make eh8ngea to the
s1gl't. A comment was made that the mall woufd be getting sarno type of reMOdel and
maybe.t tbat "ma tf16 pylon .101> wHh Ule mult.ten.nf. II.ted ,",uld be updated.
Board ml!m1b~r 80hurke moved to approv. the plans datHtamped Me.tM 28. 2006. for
a comprehensive sign plan amendment for tfIe Town center Sttoppfng Center located at
1605 County Road D.-Approvel riB 8ubjact to ttle following oondltlons (ohangos made to
tho oondltfon. by the CDRS d'u'lttg the mMtrll9 are undGrilned It a:dd.d and
atriokan If del.fad):
1, Repeat ttlls, rsvlew In two years if the. city has I"IOt Issued a sIgn permit to, the
Beat Buy st()re withIn thle: tima-fram9.
2. Beet Buy slgnage snail be limited to:
&, IbW. :Jw&. wall81gns, These wall signs 81& limited to ens aoo aouarA foot
5ri"l'"!_p:",.thl1 Mat ~evatlon~ 01\9160 &QUIne foot sian on either the north.
!Q!!ID. ~ west AI~tfona: and! one 18 MilaM foot sian on thlll north
j1Jl~vllflo", which advertises ttle mtlblte InetaU$.ltrons.111l ~ SqU8f8 feat-m
Ill'ElB QRd eat! be fcrGatalll SF! aRY "~I of, tl'le b\lrJdI~9
b. Two rroo.tendlng ofgn, a, follows:
l_..____.._.____....._......_.._...._._._._..._.........._.._____..__------.---..-.--...--.-..-......--.
PQwersd by Laserfiche Weblink varsiQII 7.0.5. Laserficlle is a registared lrademark of Compulink Management Center IlIc
TIlis CQPY is l'lIgislerad 10: ClI)' QfMaplowood '
http://dionysus/weblink7/DocView.aspx?id=46641
2/17/2012
Laserfiche WebLink
Laserriche' WebLink
Page 1 of 1
Help I Logout I My WebUnk
[jJ [jJ pa"l,mm:Of4 ~
~18J [JIII~~ @[31l.02% .<if> pa'''ii :to14 H]
Maplewood > Community Development> Planning> Comprehensive Sign Plan> County Road O"("i79s) I Town c;;t;-(B;SI Buy)
Template: CD PC Agenda Packets
CD PC Agenda Packets ~ Date
1)
oj b)
dlo)
2)
1.694: Ono frentaodil'l9 &lgn limited to t80 square feet in area and
25 feet In helght- Best Buy propoaea to use Ihe exletlng Frank's
Nursery (reestandlng slgn located atong 1.694. This algn Is 128
aqusr& feet In area and 25 feet In height. The followIng condlllona
to this freestandIng &l9n must be met prior to 18suance of Gny Best
Buy elgn pennh. on thO plOflOllY:
0)
lftr.e new sIgn face ex.cecds 128 square feet In area, Best
Buy must submit certified engIneering appl'Oval that 1he
olfl.llng fooUng. end ""00 food coO)llrtg capaclly which
meets bulrdlng code requIrements.
A4etaller;t tanlflleape plan IflIJllt b8 8\lltmlfted .. ~Is~ sl:l.e"'s
ral\dS~sp[AIJ ar.(Jllt1d the bllr" gf(h&-tltgn~
AU exlsUng Best Buy wallslgns located on thQ old 8(o(EI must
be removed once thQ ~d Baal Buv store Ie dosad. ~
I:ltutlfioatS' efQqQ1.lpanWQf.fhe.ne~t.' Best 81:.lY flWfe.
The sign cabfnet loCated on the exlstlng Best Buy
fr...tandlng sign st tho nof1hssst comer of tho Town Conlor
ShOf)pfng Center site must be removed C1noe IfMJ old 98at
Buv store Ia cfnllAd pAur tEl seFtmoottl sf GGGlIpal\Qy 91 the
new-8M4 guy Mere.
County Road 0: The existing Town Center ShoppIng Center sign
will i'Elmalfi, This 81gn Is approximately 26 feel In heIght Bnd
consists ot an Internalfy lHumlnaled sign cabinet poeted on two steel
beams! and advertises rour of the nialn tenants w~hln the center,
Including BefIt Buy. f."" fellw.~nlJ. seFidK/(m9 19 'tiki lInfellno
froaswndlng SIOR IHl:ld h MAt pl1ar ta- 11'19' 19ltUaooe-of 8~' Bssl91:1Y
'19. ponnk. o. lno p",,.tl\";
bl
0'
RQ,..!sQd el&';aU~As 9' 11'18 C-aYAly R'9a~ D-Glgn must be
aubmlttetf l$ erait' tor appN\.'Q1. The elovatJenB m\tllt 8110'"' Ii
feuHoGt-hlsh, SF hljher, bAsk er QeAsmt9 ma8~1A11' YAIt.ba6e
..nst",llIe~ e"'.Rd tho Q"IIllI'G stool b.am..
A detailed fanaeeape plElR-rnwt be lIubmlttell '::hish sha'."8
fandGcaplRiI ElrElYRd.fhe.basG lit IRa sign.
b)
3. All other tertent WllII.lgnega .hell ballmlled to:
a. SIgns cornpoeed or 11 arngle line of copy shaU not exGeed ttlreo f6t1t in height.
b. Signs c:ompoood of two IInoe 01 copy (otecked) eh~1 not oxc..d 0 le!to, height of
18 Inches par line with a maximum spsee between Hnes of eIght Inches, for 8
tolal flefght of 44 Inchea. If more ttlan two IInM 01 oopy are use~. the total heIght
.11811 not exceed 44 Inche..
L""_."_""""._,_"._._.""_"_."_"_.""......_.".........................,-...."...............-................--..."........-.-....-.."..-
Powered by laserflche Web Link van;ion 7.0.5. laserflche is a registered trademark of Compulink Management Center, Inc.
This copy is regls1ered 10: Clly or Maplewood
http://dionysus/weblink7/DocView.aspx?id=46641
2/17/2012
Laserfiche WebLink
Page 1 of 1
Laserriche' WebLink
Browse
Help I logout I My WebUnk
It'Ioo pa,;!...m :Of'~
~~ [l1III1)(\@[:J1l.()2'101l@) pa,es[... !IO!'
Maplewood > Community Development> Planning> Comprehensive Sign Plan> County Road D (1795) fTown Cen!er(Best Buy)
Template: CD PC Agenda Packets
CD PC Agenda Packets - Date
c. Thoro ml,.l8t be .a11"1 18 rnches of margin between any elgn end too end or 1h&
storefront.
d. All wall signa shall be compoeed: of Indtvld'ue:l, Inwnally-llt letters, not oanlater-
type .Ign..
e. Tenant wall.srgn~a is elfowec;l on both the front and rear elevations.
r. logoo ere p.rmhfod on \he sign f.",la, bul.hsn not .....d . height of four feet
and .hall rollow th.18.lnoh spacing requlte"",n!.
4. All holes from .ign mounUng $holl b. properly pstched end palnlod upon olgn ramoval.
6. The shopping center rdontl1lcatlon pylon sIgn shall be located mong County Road D and
be &ubjecHo ataff approval.
6. Staff may approve minor modificatIons to Ihe sign plans.
Board member Ledvfna seconded.
Ayet -ledvina, orson, Schu!'ke. 8hankar
The motion P85..d.
Tha board recommended that Best Buy remove theIr oompany sign from the sign panel of the:
mul1~tenant bUilding which would open f1p8ce up for another tenant on the TClwn Center sign.
l_.._..._,__...__........._._........m.___._.__........._..._._..__m._._._.__._._._.._.._m......_...._______
Powered by Laserficlle WebLink version 7.0.5. Laserficlle is a registered trademark ofCompulink Management Center, Inc.
Tllis copy is registered to: City of Maplllwood
http://dionysus/webJink7/DocView.aspx?id=46641
2/17/2012
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
LOCATION:
DATE:
James Antonen, City Manager
Michael Martin, AICP, Planner
Charles Ahl, Assistant City Manager
Venner Plaza Shoppes - Design Review and Building
Setback Variance
1987 County Road D East
February 21, 2012
SUBJECT:
INTRODUCTION
Project Description
Sheldon Berg of DJR Architecture, representing WBA 1200, LLC, is proposing to
construct an 11 ,200-square-foot retail building on the northeast corner of White Bear
Avenue and County Road D East. This 1.22 acre lot is currently being utilized as a BP
gas station.
The property is zoned as Business Commercial (BC) , which designates general retail as
an allowed use. The city's comprehensive plan guides this parcel as Commercial (C).
Requests
To build this development, the applicants are requesting that the city approve the
following:
1. Variance for the building setback from the Interstate 694 right-of-way.
2. Design review.
DISCUSSION
Building Setback Variance
The applicant is proposing a 20-foot variance from the building setback requirement from
the Interstate 694 right-of-way. As proposed, the northwest corner of the building would
be setback 10 feet from the north property line but would also be setback approximately
75 feet from the curb line of the access ramp to 1-694.
This site is difficult to redevelop because of the shape of the lot and the access
requirements of the city and Ramsey County. The applicant is only allowed a single
access point from County Road D East on the east side of the site which makes it
difficult to place the building anywhere other than the west half of the parcel. The unique
shape, along with a very wide highway boulevard (75 feet), provides a basis for variance
approval. The typical boulevard width is 12 to 15 feet. The proposed building would end
up with a setback from the highway shoulder of 85 feet. This is a much greater setback
than would typically be provided.
In 2000, the city approved a similar building setback variance for a cabinet-shop building
on the corner of Highway 61 and County Road C. This building is setback eight feet
from the Highway 61 right-of-way. Highway 61 is 78 feet from the curb to the edge of
the right-of-way line.
Design Review
Riqht-of-Way
The roadway improvements affecting White Bear Avenue and County Road D East are
now complete. The applicant is requesting a variance approval from the city's building
setback requirement from the Interstate 694 right-of-way.
Curb Cuts/Driveways
There are two existing curb cuts into the property, both along County Road D East. The
proposed site plan shows a single curb cut onto County Road D East. The city's
engineering department is recommending the proposed curb cut be shifted to the east to
help ease the potential of queuing. There will be no curb cuts onto White Bear Avenue.
Sidewalks
There are existing sidewalks along White Bear Avenue and County Road D East. This
project will not change the current placement of sidewalks. The sidewalk along County
Road D East will be connected by a walk to the building.
Site Layout
The building meets or exceeds the required setback of 30 feet from White Bear Avenue
and County Road D East. As already discussed, the building is proposed to be setback
10 feet from 1-694 right-of-way. The parking lot meets or exceeds the required setback
of 15 feet to the right-of-ways. The parking lot also meets the requirement of being
setback five feet from the easterly property line.
The proposed site layout is unique in that the back of the building will front White Bear
Avenue. This also provides an opportunity to have all four sides of the building be
attractively designed. Staff feels that extra care needs to be taken with the west
elevation and the landscaping between White Bear Avenue and the building to ensure
an attractive entrance into the city.
Parking
City code requires retail stores to have one parking stall per 200 square feet of retail
space. This development requires 56 parking stalls based on these requirements. The
applicants are proposing 56 parking stalls, which includes three handicap accessible
stalls. The general use parking stalls will be 10 feet wide by 18 feet deep, which meets
city code requirement for a retail (high turnover) use. The applicant is proposing 10
spaces along the easterly property line for employee use only. These stalls will be nine
2
feet wide by 18 feet deep, which meets city code requirement for employee parking.
Staff recommends these spaces have signs designating them for employee use only.
Landscapinq
The landscape plan shows 18 trees, including 15 deciduous trees and 3 ornamental
trees, and 16 shrubs. The plan also calls out underground irrigation for all landscaping
as required by code. The applicant is also proposing two rainwater gardens on the
southwest and northeast corners of the sites. A black vinyl chain link fence is proposed
near the rainwater garden in the southwest corner of the site. Staff feels the southwest
corner of the site is highly visible and needs to have a fence more decorative in nature.
The city's engineer and naturalist have commented on these rainwater gardens. Their
comments are attached to this report.
Staff feels the landscaping plan is a good start but needs to be developed further,
especially in the area between the west side of the building and White Bear Avenue.
Within this area, the applicant is proposing deciduous trees, shrubs and perennials. As
proposed this area will be lacking for the height of the planting and year-round coverage.
There are opportunities for additional trees, shrubs and non-deciduous elements within
this area. Also, with the access point from County Road D East being shifted further
east there are additional opportunities for trees and shrubs between the rainwater
garden and the driveway.
Staff recommends the applicant submit a revised landscaping plan for staff approval that
incorporates the planting ideas expressed above as well as a plan showing a wrought-
iron fence instead of the proposed vinyl chain link fence.
Lighting
City code requires the submittal of a lighting and photometrics plan which ensures all
freestanding lights maintain a height of 25 feet or less and that the maximum foot
candles of illumination at all property lines does not exceed .4-foot-candles. The lighting
and photometrics plan shows two freestanding lights (25 feet in height) and three wall
pack lights on the west side of the building and nine downcast lights on the east side of
the buildings. As proposed the lighting and photometrics plan meet all city requirements.
Trash Enclosure
The location of the proposed trash enclosure is on the northeast side of the building.
Staff recommends the applicant be required to submit design plans of the enclosure for
approval.
Signage
This retail center is proposed to have three tenants and is not required to have a
comprehensive sign plan. The center is required to follow the city's sign ordinance. All
signs are required to have a permit approved by city staff.
3
Building Elevations
The exterior of the building will be constructed with face brick, metal siding, metal
awnings, clear anodized aluminum storefront windows, and metal parapet caps. The
applicant has indicated to staff it would be submitting a revised elevation for the west
side of the building incorporating more window elements. This is an applicant-driven
change, not a staff request. However, staff would agree that the west elevation is a
good start but more elements should be incorporated to make it more attractive as it
faces White Bear Avenue.
Staff recommends that the west elevation (White Bear Avenue) be revised to incorporate
more design elements. This can be accomplished by the addition of true or false
windows. This will give the building more of a human scale appearance.
OTHER COMMENTS
MnDOT: Molly McCartney, senior transportation planner, reviewed this project for
MnDOT. MnDOT has no concerns with the proposed variance for the building setback.
Ms. McCartney's comments are attached to this report.
Building Department: Dave Fisher, building official, reviewed the development proposal
and has the following comments: This building is required to have a full fire sprinkler
system per 1306 of the state building code. Plans are required to be submitted by a
Minnesota registered design professional.
Police Department: Lieutenant Richard reviewed the development proposal and has the
following comments: This design would help alleviate traffic congestion from vehicles
leaving the 1987 County Road D property.
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 any other appropriate security measure
would be highly encouraged to deter and report theft and suspicious activity incidents in
a timely manner.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Adopt the resolution attached to this report approving a 20-foot building setback
variance from the Interstate 694 right-of-way. The code requires a 30 foot
building setback. This variance approval is based on the following findings:
a. Compliance with the code would cause the developer undue hardship
because of the unusual shaped lot and access requirements. The lot
shape makes it difficult to meet setback requirements because of its
tapered shape.
b. Approval of the building setback variance would be in keeping with the
spirit and intent of the ordinance because of the wide highway boulevard.
4
c. Approval of the building setback variance would be consistent with the
city's comprehensive plan and would encourage the redevelopment of a
commercial site.
d. The applicant is proposing to use the property in a reasonable manner
that would otherwise not be permitted by the city's building setback
requirements. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances
unique to the property not created by the landowner and the variance will
not alter the essential character of the locality.
2. Approve the plans date-stamped January 17, 2012, for the Venner Plaza
Shoppes retail building to be located at 1987 County Road D East. Approval is
subject to the applicant doing the following:
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/landscaping plans which comply
with all city engineering department requirements as specified in
the February 9, 2012, engineering report.
2) Revised landscape plan showing the following:
a) Additional trees, shrubs and non-deciduous elements in
the area between White Bear Avenue and the west side of
the building.
b) Additional trees along County Road D East between the
rainwater garden and driveway.
c) A wrought-iron fence located between the southwest
rainwater garden and the building.
3) Revised west elevation (White Bear Avenue) incorporating more
design elements. This can be accomplished by the addition of
true or false windows.
4) Obtain a permit from Ramsey County for construction on county
right-of-way for the driveway access, utility work, and sidewalk.
5) Any watershed district approvals, as needed.
6) 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.
5
c. Signage on the property is not part of the design review approval. Sign
permits will need to be approved by staff for any and all signs.
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.
6) Install employee only parking signs for the 10 spaces on the east
side of the site.
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.
6
REFERENCE
SITE DESCRIPTION
Site size:
Existing Use:
1.22 Acres
Gas Station
SURROUNDING LAND USES
North:
South:
East:
West:
Interstate 694 (Right-of-way)
County Road D East and Caribou Coffee across the street (Zoned BC)
Perkin's Restaurant (Zoned BC)
White Bear Avenue and Wendy's across the street (Zoned BC)
PLANNING
Existing Land Use
Designation:
Existing Zoning:
Commercial (C)
Business Commercial (BC)
Criteria for Approvals
Variance
Section 44-13 of the city code allows the city council to grant variances. All variances
must follow the requirements provided in Minnesota State Statutes. State law requires
that variances shall only be permitted when they are found to be:
1. In harmony with the general purposes and intent of the official control;
2. Consistent with the comprehensive plan;
3. When there are practical difficulties in complying with the official control.
"Practical difficulties" means that the property owner proposes to use the
property in a reasonable manner not permitted by an official control. The plight
of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by
the landowner and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of
the locality.
Design Review
Section 2-290 of the city code requires that the community design review board make
the following findings to approve plans:
1. That the design and location of the proposed development and its relationship to
neighboring, existing or proposed developments, and traffic is such that it will not
impair the desirability of investment or occupation in the neighborhood; that it will
not unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring, existing or
proposed developments; and that it will not create traffic hazards or congestion.
7
2. That the design and location of the proposed development is in keeping with the
character of the surrounding neighborhood and is not detrimental to the
harmonious, orderly and attractive development contemplated by this article and
the city's comprehensive municipal plan.
3. That the design and location of the proposed development would provide a
desirable environment for its occupants, as well as for its neighbors, and that it is
aesthetically of good composition, materials, textures and colors.
Application Date
State statute requires that the city complete its review of these requests within 60 days
of having a complete application. The date for the materials having been considered to
be complete by the city is January 17, 2012. Therefore, the deadline for the city making
a decision on these requests is March 17, 2012. State statute allows the city to extend
this review period an additional 60 days if more time is needed for review.
P:\SEC2N\1987 County Road D Redevelopment_01 06112\1987CountyRoadD_DesignReview_PC_022112
Attachments:
1. Location Map
2. Land Use Map
3. Zoning Map
4. Existing Conditions
5. Site Plan
6. Grading Plan
7. Utility Plan
8. Lighting Plan
9. Landscape Plan
10. Building Elevations
11. Engineering Plan Review
12. MnDOT Plan Review
13. City Naturalist Plan Review
14. Variance Resolution
8
Attachment 1
1987 County Road D East Retail Redevelopment
Location Map and Aerial Photo
109
081
Retail
building
site
<(
a::
<(
w
llJ
W
.....
co
CI'>
....
CI'>
g
g
N
3100
3094
3088
COUNTY ROAD 0 E
g
CI'>
CI'>
....
1987 County Road D East Retail Redevelopment
Future Land Use Map
Attachment 2
9 b
lQ
N
g
N
Attachment 3
Retail
building
site
<(
a::
<(
w
llJ
W
COUNTY ROAD 0 E
1987 County Road D East Retail Redevelopment
Zoning Map
,;Jjd
t~:n:!
-...,
>;>>1
i:>~
"-I
;)0
~
ffi
i
G
~
>
~
I. ,
~"c
~ ~ ,t "
q ~~ !
h H!
~8
l::i2
" "
~ j~~
G 8",->
~ ~z~
~ 2~~
~, ~"
~\ F]~
Ul il-f"
~ ]31
~ ~ 2f
>
~
"
"'
^
~
Cl R
&1 t
~
~
z
<
"
~ ~ ~;
g ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~
3 ~H
~ cd
r.; ~ ~ ~
~
~~;
~~~;~
~;~~~ ,
L~,~~ ,
~~~f~ ~
if ,
I , i~B~ !
, I
, ~ ~;~!i
~ , ['"~~(,
B ~~;~~ "'
~ y c
~ l
, !'" 0 ~
F'! .
! , ii!~!! ~
z ,
0
t g
"
~ :1"" ill
~ ~~~",. ,"
~ 0 , ":lil ~
< C ~'-'~ ~"c ~
~ I ffi ~ ~~~d~
~ ~ ,
"' " "'
~ i'i, ~ ~ t" ~~~
, .'.Ie . ! " ,"".
~ <~QfE"c~ ~~1 1~ ~,~~
1-' ~t2~~~~::2 ~ i.. '" (
~ 0 rB8~f8~ S~~ ~~ 5~
i= g ri8~2ih~~ ~~E ~~ -ilp
, l~-< fril'~8),_'5Z~b ~0 1j ~ ~
~ ~ S.r~~d~~_3~i=J~ 6~f
! :~ ~~!fF~Z]H~;~ H ~
~ ~'~ ~~~\S~f~r,~l[~~ ~~~
8 ~~ mW0 ~~~a~~_~r~ 3~t
~3~~ ~:fgKi?~~~~;~!i ~ ~ ~
~C~~ ~~iy;~j~~~~~l~ ~1~F
~~\Jp ~~~~,~~~~E~~~;)g ~~ ~ ~ c
!l'''] "t,;:;;:~~ zi"'" ::'~, ~,~ -" 7!2
"r!'j" "'~SF~.Ls3 ~~''-l~)->~ ~~
fz, ~?~~~~I~~ Y~8~1~~m~~
_o~ ""'i1jg~~ 7C,,~~,,~~~~~~
:;)~;e:< II~. ;h?:,,~:l'~.@::OL~:tt'" fu ~ ~
',',0 ~]~~~~~~~t~~~h~~~~~~
51 ~ ~,'f~i!~~~J~~~~9~~~r~~
'\" 6~ "'iJ~5~~s.,;;,~g~1l~1>!H~
"'l''''it ,zo;os-,o,. 6"t[ ~!~ ~ ,,~.~
:;:~~~1C)!n3~~"~~;'j..i,,\,,~) ~9~~~
i$~i6~~~~~~~~"'I~~~~i~~~I~~~
~~~~~~g~~~~~~ ~B~~SL~~~~~
- be',,-
't;--\,.~g :.L Ij\~
~,[
Attachment 4
"
",
m
,
/
r
.
",
"
,"
o
,
.0
/r
11\/
0,<
xG----,
III \) ~
()
,
\)
~R 0
w? ~ ~~
i ~ cj.::; ~ '-'
~~ ~~ ~~d
I z z z ~ ~ ,~0i ~
2 i} R; ~ ~ (;]38
~ii'!' m!
"g i g' i "
,,~,~~~ p~,~p
H ~ 8: ~~
,;Jjd
t~:n:!
-...,
>;>>1
i:>~
"-I
")0
" ,!
n i~
f~ ~=
~; ~'5
I; !l
~~ ~~
III Z~ ~2
~ ~~ ~'"
~ J~ ~@
~ ;h~ ~2
G ~t: f,;
~ ~~ ~'
2 ~~ LI"
ili ~1 ~~~
,
,j~
t:tc>
Ui
<.~-'
i~~
t.\,~.
!Ii
""
~"I)
~~~'"
Pf~
8~CI~
"sl"l"
~.~ ~2 A~
~~~ ~__c~.! '~:!;:~
!~l ~i; liii!il
,f~ Qc c~~p~y~
'"~ 5',,' ~,' 7 ~-::i "
,:;,; ,~,~ ~~~:;~ ~~
~~~ ~~g Eq<2~'*
~.'.'~ y < ~~~~~~~
~~t . ~~~ ~U~~~~~
~~~~ ~i<' f~~"j"~
!l'l i': j'l!"!
~~~~ ~~i ~5~~~~~
~~~4 ~8F ~~2~~&~
;lel l'l ';!".'."
~ .~"'\ !t~~ ~"" ~~-"!!
~~~! ~~: ~~~~ili
!~ ~~i~
~~ ~~$~
H ~~~;
il~ 1~h
~~ !~~~
~,~ "~I B
~E :;~ 2
)~ ,g2)!!j
;h~ J'tti~
f~ M~G
~L ~~~~
~~ H)~~
H ~l~~@]
~~-'~""
~! ~~~~~
a
2 i~
lrl 2~
~ ~ 05'
i1 I ,;
~t ~~
il j j,
i;jf "if
)[ ~ 2~
;, ! !!
~t ~ ~~
~~ ~ %1
9} &J )~
'" 'I'
~~ ~ 8',
L
,
,
,
;..
'--\:;
'4:
.
~H~
'- 2'",~.
<f.-lio&,
~m~~
~8
l::i2
" ,<
~ j~~
.98"';;,
~ '".
~ 2~~
~
ffi
~J"
~\ F]~
!!j il--f"
~ ]31
~ ~ 2f
c
~
II!
~lrl ~!
~~ ~~
~J ~~ ~
~; ~~ ~
~";:co; u
~~ ~E ~
~5 ~~ ~
"a .,-~
n
~"
ffi ~m
~!:-;
~ ~~
! ~~
~ ~~~
! ~~~
~ h~ 3
;.~-- ""~ '
p~ ~\!~ ~
~~ ~n ~
e. 'I! I
'i!2 ~fg ;g
!! :lj
2
,
!
~ ~~
;R 8~
!
!
2",
"
~,
q
'I
I~ ~~
~2 f~
~ fC "~H
L;i ~_.'~,
-,
~~ *~
~" ~t
~9 ~:t
"'" ;:;1'
~"' ~:;:
~@ ~~
"
\
,
,
!~
"
~'j
~2
~~
~~
i':
,
i
,
,
~
;
G
i ~
G ""
L -
~ ~
r
iji"
'L"B
!jl
D
~
Oi
~
<(
m
;,~__,::_,:,;:.r
. ~
- _b()'\ --=.,c'
I.
~ ~
'!
1,
.\
, '~o
$: ,i'
L ,
i '''0
! ~ ~ ;~,
.
v
Z<
",0
_L
~~
'0
~
~
~
Attachment 5
"
",
m
,
/
r
.
",
"
,"
u
,
\)
"
,
!
o
!
,
l
~
~~
q
II
" ,
<,~ ~
h ~
~~ ~
,
I
] I
fl, 'I
,,' H
1,L"
f~'~!!~
l!'d
;~!~n
,''''''
th~[~
.'ft"-."i'i'
~~~;~;
"2:t'~3~
I!hll
~~s;~~
~~.t,,,-;o
~jo:~~~
Co"",
!i;;qs~
~'i'~~~~
~H~~~
'"",'.Q/
)g~~~d
i1~".,r:;:;'!d:~
,;Jjd Attachment 6
!
t~:n:! . , ~J" I" >
..1"e O. "
_--:-""0 ~H ffi j~ < " ",
, F]~ ~~~ "
'.;>>1 " ,
i:>~ G g~ " i ~ "!
~!~ g " il-f" G :::inof/ /
"-I ~ ~ ~ , l:,l<l<f<f
~':')' lljJ!" 11 ]31 ~ ~ '! " , """ r \l
s' " > ol!lflD "
Oc,,,, G " ~2f ffi 1, 1 i ",
~ "
., ,"
, ~~ 2'2 g~ z2 !
,,~ ~~ 9
S;- ,,~~ H~ ii ~~~~$)
, ~~ "t", , , i
lh I "~~ n"S>c '" C.. !
~S [i~ ;;'~ 1 ~~~~~~
! d- i ~~u , j.. , ~~~"'~:; ~~ I " ,
j' !! ;~~ t". ~
i~ 'J j! l ~G~8~\j ~~ 2W
i:l~ , Ii ;\~,1 , :"~~~ i i: - , ~~~~~~ ~ :j~ I i: ~
~~ e~~ , ! ~ ,"of
~~ I 3~'" ~I ll'! c ! P"ll Ii ~ ,:'6 l ~t
~i 6t~ ::iG~~ c , [j~~ !
-I ~ ~ ~~ ~"~ni';' Ie ~- ~~
, 6'" I!' , ~~~~ ~ 1 ~~~~~3lJ , i~8
I: ~\ ~~ ! ~~ ~ J~ ,,~ .. Pi 'Ii i ~ 2 ~~
,,~ , ~~ ,.I , ~" ~~ J ~~~ , ; ~~
. !' " :Si2~,,~it~ ~~
", , ~~~ , ~(5~ Q ~~ '" ,; !
r ! 'I ~~ "''' 1m , " , ]' z~~~~~~ "I . I f!~' Ie S ~~~
G ~'" , , ~ 11:'l,' " ~d ,
" ~~ :@ ~~ I"~ I ~~ , , !
, Is -, ~",_" ~ti " ",:t:E ~~!
0 ! ~I i!! 4'" / n~ i
! ~~ h j , ~[ \l:i~Qr~ .... i
, ,,, ,,~ ~
~ ~~ -J ::J~2~ '! i ;J~~J ~~ ",'~
'< ~~~ j , j, "'~
n ~~3 ~3~~ l' ~::'~l!;~f~ ,.-,p ,
! U ~~~ "'~ ~~ )~ "
~~" !i~~ ;( H ~ l~ 5~~;~s~ '"~ "
~ 1 j , ~:i'" I~ 0
2~ ~j~ ~2D~ ~~~~:2? ~1i "
11! ~" ~~~ "'~ l: i 61, / "
" , H W p~ 1~ ~!~i if ~~ ~~ ~~~~~d J;' 0 ",
" ,. "' .
" I !!l ~: :! !! !! II ~~~~i~i 8~ "
. ,I :,! J~ ~ "
" ,,,~:;~:Cili ~,~ " !
~~[:
_'-~,(7;
","" '2>';'::](1 :-1 H\,-\
Attachment 7
,;Jjd ! I" / "
t~:n:! . , ~J" ~ ",
~H~ " j~ m
" F]~ , , ~
'""'0 , , Ie
>;>>1 G g~ " /
i:>~ ~h~' g . , f" ~ ~ " r \l
-5io"t ~ ]31 ~ '! .
"-I ~m~~ 11 ~ ",
~'~')' . ~2f ffi 1, "
G " ., ,"
fi'ill " j' ih'C; ! ,
-, ~~~ !! ~~ >Hi'" , .,;~ I ! ,
K:;: ~. D~f' ~,,~
:~ ~}i ,~ ~~~ ~f~ !l !ei 'I
~" ~~~~. l~ d ~~~ ~~ ~~~
H ~~ 0"' ~~<i n~ h i~i
'3 "m~ ~~ :1
~! 1m ~~ C':~ u';R !J_ -, tit
~ 2 , f~"' ~~~ ~~ "! Ie !
,,' ;;; , ~~~ ~~~ "I' ~~" tiih'"
~~ ,"
5 , 1 I" :j -" -,"
~<::l !! ~~< "'! ~wi SL\l
~ " ~I;)!. t~
~)J <-:i~;;: Ii ~ 1 ;;! ~~ 'j\ ~ ~~~ ,,, "'~~
~" Ii! l'"
s~ ~~~~ I ~CEl ~~ i , ~~ '.'- i ""
8h I,: ".,~ i-~~ I' 8 !Ii
~:~ ~!E~ ~~ il I ~~~ ~~ II! ~f,~ C'~ " I
~" ~2 ~~~ ;e\: ~~~ j
~~ 1111 , ~,4! " ~~~ ;1,; I I I
~t {I, ~~~ , -" ~! if.il' ~:
Il ;: ~ ~~~ 1! ~,,1; ~ "I' I
it ~fj s. ~~ ~~~ :t::; "I' h~ . ~
'" " ~~ :t , '18 &<I~ ~y~ 0"
~ ~t L, ks ~~~ ~5; " l ,I! I T
"' , " '"~
~ fCt "b" ~d
~~ ~jr:~ ,,, J:~ i H~ ~~ ~t~ Ie"';;; ~~~ 8: "~ "
~~ ~)-'" ~<;!~ ~2 , ~~~
, "''''GO! ~:; , ,S! ,
r ,,~ij ~~ ~U "s":'
.. ill ~~ii ~~ t;';) ~~ ~~~ "I m ~~~ 8~ ~I""
~ ~l :5 ! ;1 ~z~ 11'; ~H
1=--___
J
, '~o
$: \i~
L e
i ''''''
! ~ ~ ;~,
,
"'~
~'"
~~ ~~~
*"~~~"'.
:i^'f,.,~ii
111m
~'i'~jjE
, 3"'1~",
\."~ c,~
i~~~i!
. ~c
~","',,;LV~t.t7''<,
-'
.J
Q
",
,,,
,,,
"
7
~~
'4:
~;;
~~t
g~~~
6"'(>,i\'
~~i~~
ih~~///
l/ H
;~"
t~~'
;..
'-\:;
/'
- .be',,- ."J' '0\,.~g :.L Ij\~
Attachment 8
W'HJTE BEAR AVE NORTH
(S) D
:;!
..
"
!:
~ ,
,. o ~
[~
. ..
~
"
to
to
;i ~~ f"
..,'-
..
~
"
n
n
'" ' ~
i ~ / ~~~
~.. I I r' ] ~;:
o I II../!'
~ 0; I I III:
~ ) T ~;~:;*~~~~ffl!'"
~---,.It II: II := $= $= =
" ill u..._1L- - -11-- 1- \
~ """~~41= ~ ~LI== L"='
/: \ I
t"'" i ~ I . I ~ I! i
ll, !.:: II ~d!!
!ll Ii! I !.;:l
hi " i 1 'Ill II!
!. i i!
110'
.
I ",,,,,,,,,,,, ~ e ~ , ~
!
I:::::""",,'
! ,............,
I
,
~
~
..~
=::i
~"
o
'"
"
..
..
;;
..
~
..
..
~ ~ ~
~ ~
~
~ ~ ~
0-
"
o
cD
\
n
o
c
z
~
~
I tit t I
II' ,\
~
o
~
d
OOA ~O
"l(S'l r
%s~ ~
'=>0 v,..., ~
/,=> '-~
~
~
d
n
~
o
~
!
II
m
o
o
o
~
DJR
ARCHITECTURE, INC
~t'.~~;~::!~;1~:i~~;;,:~~,~~!:F
,;Jjd ! I" .. "
t~:n:! . , ~J" <" ",
~H~ " j~ z' .
. F]~ ~~ ,
'""'0 " ,
>;>>1 G g~ " "G/ / ~
i:>~ ~h~' g . il-f" ~ ~ ~z< r
'ffio't ~ ]31 ~ '! '" .
"-I ~m~~ 11 ' '" ",
~':')' . ~2f ffi I, "
G " ., ,"
~~ ~~
II
:Ji1i 1:;:1\
II ~~
"
~<O ~,
~* "
~~ ~,1
6>' d
~~ r
f: ~ ~7 ,
.. l: j'
,,)j;
~? ., i
';]16 ~~
, , B~ 0
l ! " " ,
~[ ,.~
E ~ l , I I;s~ !
.. , , " ". " ~
z , ! 8~
, , J .. ",<; "ill ~
~ J r I ~~ 8~
~ " r ,..
, , i " '! ,
, , ~ is< ~
,..
, ,,, <~
I ;"': "
. ;':!}- ..,
, ~ r ~~
~ ~ ~1, ..
F l ~"
i ~ i' I
! i I 11 "
! < !..,
~ i , ~ < ~~ ,1' ,:if
0 , i ~ ..,
2 1'i
. ~ !i ~ , 2 ,~'!i "D\;i 'OJ
" ~ ~~ ~~-~ n
" , ~ ~
'" .., l'~:~ ,
r , , , i ~ >10' ~~~ t~ ,
/ I ,
~ " ~'r
3" I , ~~~ ~i; ;~ 2,-,
" - , , to'
. --'"
"
.~
"
\I
"
II
p
~~
's~
Ii
d
"
,-
'f:)'j
~.~
~~
~~
II
~~
1,
n
i'~
"
:;:~
2~
,..
Ii
'I'
~ ~,
@ ~
~ '3
l
~ ~
~ :s
8 ~
,
,
I
~
, ..
..Ii
ili
~ ) 'i:
. !
~
,
~~~
i!1
~'i'''
<Ow>'
t~[
~:jJ!:
tOJ~
..
!
I
i:
; I
: [!
~1"
~~_o
: z
, -
:
9
,
D
"
o
,;;
n<7, -1'-, '"",,;1'J ::1_ H\.-1
",
_6'
_~oo
~I-~~
"
j~
,-
,
0
g
,
~
~
I
i
!
'~"~"":
"P""'''"'~''''''''"",","
'"'O~"'"""'''-'''"'
'""~"~~"-=~_D
"'""'''''''~''"'''-~""'
Attachment 1 0
~
~I
~
~
"
~
!
~
~I
o
~
l
o
~
Attachment 11
Enqineerinq Plan Review
PROJECT:
PROJECT NO:
COMMENTS BY:
Venner Plaza Shoppes (1987 Co Rd D)
11-29
Steve Kummer, P.E. - Staff Engineer
DATE:
2-9-2012
PLAN SET:
Preliminary Plans
REPORTS:
Storm Water Management Report 1-4-12
The Applicant is proposing to redevelop the current 1.18-acre BP Service Station site at 1987
Co Rd D into a 3-tenant retail building with a total floor area of approximately 11,000 square
feet. Improvements to the site include new landscaping, a 56-stall parking lot and storm water
treatment enhancements.
Request
The applicant is requesting design review and a code amendment for the building setback from
the rear property line. This does not constitute a final review of the plans, as the applicant will
need to submit construction documents for final review, easement documents and ratified
agreements prior to issuing building and grading permits.
The scope of this review includes aspects of site design including, but not limited to, geometrics,
paving, grading, utilities, and temporary sediment and erosion control. The scope of the review
also includes all aspects of storm water management. The comments contained herein are to
be addressed by the applicant. The applicant must fully comply with storm water regulations
associated with this site and perform the analyses necessary to assure full compliance.
Engineering staff has reviewed impacts to traffic operations in the area of County Road D east
of White Bear Avenue.
The following are Engineering review comments on the design review, and act as conditions
prior to issuing demolition, grading, sewer, and building permits:
Drainaqe and Stormwater Manaqement
1) The applicant is proposing infiltration for the rain gardens. An infiltration test with City or
Watershed District observation is required on site.
2) Submit specifications and sequencing for the proposed rain garden construction such
that impacts to the basin bottom do not affect the infiltration capability of the soils.
Attachment 11
3) Model the rain garden outlets routing the horizontal orifice through a culvert.
4) Applicant shall model secondary outflow (EOF) from Rain Garden 2.
5) 4:1 maximum allowable slopes within rain gardens.
6) Install catch basin structure to capture inflow from parking lot into Rain Garden 1 in lieu
of a rip-rap lined swale. Outfall shall outlet at bottom elevation of basin.
7) Provide alternative for rip-rap EOF from Rain Garden 2.
8) Provide method of pre-treatment of runoff into rain gardens such as grass strips, swales,
sumped catch basins or other methods of capuring large debris prior to discharge into
the basins.
9) Provide one soil boring per rain garden to support soils infiltration assumptions for
infiltration.
10) Provide drawdown computations for the ponding areas based on infiltration tests. Pond
drawdown time shall not exceed 72 hours.
11) Provide 100-year HWL on plans for both rain gardens.
Suspected Soil Contamination
12) Petroleum-contaminated soils on this site are suspected. Applicant shall submit Phase I
and Phase II studies, provide narrative on site soil remediation means and methods, and
address storm water infiltration restrictions on site due to contaminated soils.
Grading and Retaining Walls
13) Graded embankments shall not exceed 3: 1. This includes the rain gardens.
14) A structural analysis of the existing westerly retaining wall is required if surcharge fill is
placed or soils disturbance occurs within a distance of two (2) times the height of the
upslope side of the wall.
15) Applicant shall submit shop drawings for the retaining walls on site. No tiebacks or
structural fill associated with the northeast retaining wall is allowed on the adjacent
property or Mn/DOT right-of-way unless both temporary and permanent easement rights
or agreements are obtained, with executed copies of said easements or agreements
submitted to the City.
Attachment 11
16) Contact Virginia Gaynor with the Maplewood Parks and Recreation department
regarding the rain garden grading and proposed seeding as well as any restoration
activities that will occur on the westerly embankment.
17) Provide grades for the proposed handicap ramps through the driveway entrance.
Utilities
18) Align FES 5 outfall to at least a 45-degree angle relative to ditch flow line.
19) Flatten slope of pipe run from CB4 to FES 5 such that flow velocities are less than 4
feet/second.
20) Provide rip-rap and flared-end section outfall design detail.
21) Provide manhole and catch basin construction details.
22) Provide details for construction of connection to existing sanitary sewer service.
23) Provide fixture unit design computations for connection to existing sanitary sewer
service.
24) Utility cuts into County Road D or White Bear Avenue are not allowed.
25) Consider the installation of an underdrain and filter for the southwest rain garden (see
under Domestic and Auto Fire Water Service).
Other
26) Applicant shall submit cash escrow or letter of credit amounting to 125% of the value of
the proposed parking lot grading and final stabilization work.
27) The developer shall submit a copy of the MPCA's construction stormwater permit
(SWPPP) to the city before the city will issue a grading permit for this project.
28) The Owner shall satisfy all requirements of all permitting and reviewing agencies
including MnDOT, MPCA and RWMWD.
29) The Owner shall enter into a developer agreement, prepared by the City. The
agreement shall include maintenace of storm water BMP's as well as stipulations
associated with a proposed water utility public improvement benefiting the
property.
Attachment 11
Domestic and Auto-Fire Water Service
As part of the White Bear Avenue/County Road D Improvement, owners and tenants along the
corridors were solicited for upgrading water servcies. A letter was mailed to property owners
and tenants on 4/2/2010 specifically discussing service upgrades if redevelopment was
anticipated.
The proposed utility plan shows a new water line connecting into County Road D. This
connection will not be permitted and the applicant shall comply with the following conditions:
. Explore alternate connections for both domestic and auto-fire water service and work
with the City to facilitate a new connection.
. Dedicate a drainage and utility easement along the south property line to a width
dimensioned from the property line to a line 30 feet north by a length from the westerly to
easterly line of the property. The applicant shall prepare the easement description,
exhibit and coordinate the necessary dedication and recording of the document.
. Dedicate a drainage and utility easement along the west property line to a width
dimensioned from the property line to a line 10 feet east by a length from the northerly to
southerly line of the property. The applicant shall prepare the easement description,
exhibit and coordinate the necessary dedication and recording of the document.
. Understand that the setback requirements will continue to be based on the current legal
property line and not current, revised or proposed drainage and utility easement lines.
. Incur all costs assocated with the installation of the new water service.
Should the applicant require a certificate of occupancy prior to the completion of the public utility
work, the applicant may connect onto the existing domestic water service to the site. However,
once the public portion of the project is deemed complete and water service is available, the
applicant must connect the building auto-fire service to the new main within 30 days of
availability.
Geometrics and Traffic
City staff, with the assistance of Kimley-Horn and Associates, the Engineer-of-Record for the
White Bear Avenue improvements, reviewed the traffic operations associated with the driveway
access and new development. Following are summary findings:
. The applicant is proposing to eliminate the existing westerly access from County Road D
and utilize the existing eastern access. The consolidation of the access points will
reduce the amount of conflict points on County Road D. However, the eastern access
point currently does not allow eastbound left turns into the property to pull out of the
through lanes.
. The potential exists for queuing on westbound County Road D to block the driveway
entrance for eastbound left turns. Because of the lack of left turn storage for the eastern
driveway entrance, blockage of the eastbound thru-Iane on County Road D may ensue,
Attachment 11
creating a potential hazard and operational deficiency. Since most vehicles visit the site
from White Bear Avenue, it is possible that this deficiency has a 50% chance of occuring
during peak periods.
. According to the ITE Trip Generation Manual, the potential PM peak trip generation
potential for the existing use (BP Service Station) is 167 trips. The proposed use trip
generation potential is 48 trips -- or just less than 1I3rd the current use.
Requirement: Based on staff review of the traffic and queuing analysis, staff requires that the
driveway entrance be moved to align with the eastern parking aisle closest to the existing
Perkins property. Staff finds it prudent relative to future traffic volumes and intersection queuing
to provide as much length of storage as possible for left turns entering the site from County
Road D.
Attachment 12
Waters Edge BUilding
1500 County Road B2 \^lest
Rosevllle, MI\j 55113
February 6,2012
Michael Martin, AICP
City of Maplewood
1830 County Road BEast
Maplewood, MN 55109
SUBJECT: Vinas Retail Center Site Plan MnlDOT Review #S12-002
SE Quadrant of 1-694 and White Bear Avenue
Maplewood, Ramsey County
Control Section 6286
Dear Mr. Martin:
Thank you for the opportunity to review the Vinas Retail Center Site Plan. MnlDOT has
reviewed the plan and has the following comments:
Water Resources:
Due to the current configuration of the drainage outlet in the northeast corner ofthe property, a
MnlDOT drainage permit is required. To eliminate the need for a MnlDOT drainage permit, the
drainage can be redirected to the inlet structures at the parking island. From there, the drainage
can either flow into the southwest rain garden or be piped directly to the southeast rain garden.
If a drainage permit is pursued, please provide the following:
1. A grading plan ofthe existing & proposed project,
2. Drainage area maps for the proposed project, showing both existing and proposed
drainage areas and flows (with flow arrows),
3. Hydrologic, and hydraulic computations/modeling before and after proposed
reconstructions (ie., Hydro-CAD input assumptions, calibration data, results for 10,
50, and 100 year storm events), and
4. An electronic copy of any computer modeling used for the hydraulic computations.
Direct any questions regarding drainage to Richard Cady of MnlDOT Water Resources at (651)
234-7524.
Permits:
Any use of or work within or affecting Mn/DOT right of way requires a permit. In addition to a
possible drainage permit, an access permit and possibly a utilities permit will be needed. Permit
forms are available from MnlDOT's utility website at http://www.dot.state.mn.us/utilitvl. Please
include one 11 x 17 plan set and one full size plan set with each permit application. Each
application has specific requirements, please be aware ofthe above drainage permit
Attachment 12
requirements. Direct any questions regarding permit requirements to Buck Craig (651-234-7911)
ofMnlDOT's Metro Permits Section.
Review Submittal Options:
MnlDOT's goal is to complete the review of plans within 30 days. Submittals sent in
electronically can usually be turned around faster. There are four submittal options. Please
submit either:
1. One (1) electronic pdfversion ofthe plans. MnlDOT can accept the plans via e-mail
at llw1rClcl9yr9yi9",.5,c1Clt@s1:it9.111,11,l1.5 provided that each separate e-mail is less than
20 megabytes.
2. Three (3) sets offull size plans. Submitting seven sets offull size plans will expedite
the review process. Plans can be sent to:
MnlDOT - Metro District Planning Section
Development Reviews Coordinator
1500 West County Road B-2
Roseville, MN 55113
3. One (1) compact disk.
4. Plans can also be submitted to MnlDOT's External FTP Site. Please send files to:
ftp:/lftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/incoming/Metro Waters Edge/Planning Internet Explorer
may work using the ftp so please use an FTP Client or your Windows Explorer (My
Computer). Also, please send a note to 1ll9tr()c19Yr9yi9\Y~,c1()1@s1il19)1l1l.1l.5 indicating
that the plans have been submitted on the FTP site.
If you have any questions regarding this review please feel free to contact me at (651) 234-7794.
Sincerely,
Molly McCartney
Sr. Transportation Planner
Copy:
Sheldon Berg, AlA, LEED AP
Associate
DJR Architecture, Inc.
333 Washington Avenue North, Suite 210 Union Plaza,
Minneapolis, MN 55401
~\;J9.rg(g;cljrcillg,s()1ll
Copy Via E-Mail:
Lee Williams, Right-of-Way
Jennie Read, Area Engineer
Nancy Jacobson, Design
Gayle Gedstad, Traffic
Attachment 12
Clare Lackey, Traffic
Scott Carlstrom, Water Resources
Richard Cady, Water Resources
Buck Craig, Permits
Tod Sherman, Planning
Ann Braden, Metropolitan Council
Attachment 13
Rain Garden Plantinq Review
PROJECT:
Venner Plaza Shoppes (1987 Co Rd D)
PROJECT NO:
11-29
REVIEWER:
Ginny Gaynor, Natural Resources Coordinator
651-249-2416, Virginia.gaynor@ci.maplewood.mn.us
DATE:
2-14-2012
PLAN SET:
Preliminary Plans
This project redevelops the 1.8-acre BP Service Station site into a 3-tenant retail building.
Maplewood's engineer commented on rain garden slopes, riprap, inlets, and other issues
related to the rain gardens. This review is limited to the rain garden planting plan.
The city requires that rain gardens be planted, not seeded. If the rain gardens exceed 5000
square feet, we work with the designer to do a combination of plants and seed, but a minimum
of 5000 square feet should be plants. It does not appear that the rain gardens on this project
exceed 5000 square feet.
Please submit a complete landscape planting plan for each rain garden.
1. The plan should take into consideration the engineer's comments regarding rain garden
slopes, riprap, and inlets.
2. Plant selection. Species shall be appropriate for soil moisture conditions. The plantings
can be native and/or non-native plants and include trees, shrubs, and/or perennials.
Please avoid including miscanthus grass as we are concerned about the potential
invasiveness of this grass.
3. The plan shall indicate species, container size, spacing, and quantity. Perennials will
ideally be in #1 containers. Native prairie plants may be in 4" pots, but at this size would
need to be planted closer (typically 16"-18" if in mixed planting). If the design calls for a
mixed prairie planting, the ratio of grass:forb should be included with a species list.
4. The garden should be mulched with shredded hard wood mulch.
5. You may want to include boulders or rock near the inlet or elsewhere in the garden.
Riprap should not be used.
6. These will be fairly large gardens to maintain so we encourage you to design the
gardens to keep maintenance as low as possible. Shrub massings, if natural shapes are
encouraged, can be very low maintenance. A mix of native prairie grasses and flowers
is low maintenance after the first year or two. There are several new large rain gardens
at the Maplewood Mall that are relatively low-maintenance, which may provide design
ideas.
7. Please include a note on the plans regarding first year establishment needs.
Attachment 13
8. A black vinyl fence is proposed for the north side of rain garden 2. Because the fence is
immediately adjacent to a walkway, and in a very prominent area visually, it should be
ornamental rather than vinyl-coated chain link. Depending on how the slope and boulder
wall is handled, a fence mayor may not be necessary.
Please do not hesitate to call to discuss the above. The city is open to considering the latest
ideas in rain garden design.
Attachment 14
VARIANCE RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, Sheldon Berg of DJR Architecture, representing WBA 1200, LLC,
applied for a 20-foot building setback variance to build a retail shopping center building
10 feet from the Interstate 694 right-of-way.
WHEREAS, these variances apply to the property at 1987 County Road D East. The
legal description is:
THE WESTERLY 250.00 FEET OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PROPERTY:
THAT PART OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER
OF SECTION 35, TOWNSHIP 30, RANGE 22, RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA,
LYING NORTH OF THE NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF COUNTY ROAD D AND
LYING SOUTHERLY OF THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF
INTERSTATE HIGHWAY NO. 694 AND LYING EASTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE
OF WHITE BEAR AVENUE, AS DESCRIBED IN NOTICE OF LIS PENDENS, FILED
AS DOCUMENT NO. 1676468, ACCORDING TO THE GOVERNMENT SURVEY
THEREOF.
WHEREAS, Section 44-20(6)(a) requires that buildings be setback 30 feet from
street right-of-way.
WHEREAS, the applicant is proposing that their building have a 10 foot setback.
WHEREAS, this requires a variance of 20 feet.
WHEREAS, the history of this variance is as follows:
1. On February 28, 2012, the community design review board recommended that
the city council this variance.
2. The planning commission held a public hearing on March 20, 2012. City staff
published a notice in the Maplewood Review and sent notices to the surrounding
property owners as required by law. The planning commission gave everyone at
the hearing an opportunity to speak and present written statements. The council
also considered reports and recommendations from the city staff. The planning
commission recommended that the city council this variance.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council
described variances since:
the above-
1. Compliance with the code would cause the developer undue hardship
because of the unusual shaped lot and access requirements. The lot
shape makes it difficult to meet setback requirements because of its
tapered shape.
2. Approval of the building setback variance would be in keeping with the
spirit and intent of the ordinance because of the wide highway boulevard.
1
Attachment 14
3. Approval of the building setback variance would be consistent with the
city's comprehensive plan and would encourage the redevelopment of a
commercial site.
4. The applicant is proposing to use the property in a reasonable manner
that would otherwise not be permitted by the city's building setback
requirements. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances
unique to the property not created by the landowner and the variance will
not alter the essential character of the locality.
The Maplewood City Council
this resolution on
,2012.
2
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
Community Design Reyiew Board Members
Michael Martin, AICP, Planner
Charles Ahl, Assistant City Manager
Election of Officers
January 17, 2012
INTRODUCTION
The City of Maplewood's Commission Handbook requires the community design review board
(CDRB) elect a chairperson and vice-chairperson. Matt Ledvina currently serves as
chairperson and Matt Wise as vice chairperson.
DISCUSSION
The Commission Handbook states officers should be elected at the first regular meeting in
December. However, the CDRB did not hold elections in December, so the commission will
need to nominate and elect officers at its meeting in January. Staff is recommending the CDRB
elect a chairperson and vice-chairperson to serve in 2012. On January 24, 2012, nominations
will be taken for officers to serve through 2012. The handbook has a section which deals with
the role of the chairperson and vice chairperson. Below is the excerpt from the handbook:
Role of the Chairperson and Vice Chairperson
Commissions generally appoint the chair and vice chair at set times of the year. Although the appointment
is usually for a year, the chair and vice chair serve at the pleasure of the commission. The willingness and
ability of an individual to serve as the chair or vice chair should be taken into consideration. Commissions
should try to give all commissioners an opportunity to serve as chair. The responsibility of service as chair
or vice chair does take extra time.
Responsibilities of the Chair.
. Preside at all official meetings of the board, commission, or committee.
. Consult with the staff liaison in drafting the meeting agenda.
. Attend City Council meetings, in person or through another commissioner as designee, as needed
to represent the commission, board, or committee with the approval of the commission, board, or
committee.
. Sign correspondence from the commission with the approval of the City Council.
The effective chairperson also, during meetings:
. Solicits opinions and positions from reticent commission members.
. Protects new thoughts from being rejected prior to fair evaluation.
. Discourages blame-orientated statements.
. Keeps the discussion focused on the issue.
. Builds trust by even handedness and fairness to all the participants.
Responsibilities ofthe Vice Chair.
. Substitute for the Chair as needed.
The section is silent on the procedure for election of the chairperson and vice chairperson.
CDRB members should voice nominations for chair and vice chair, and the body will then vote
for the positions. If only one nomination emerges for each position, a motion can be made to
formally appoint that person to the post. If there is more than one nomination, the CDRB should
vote publicly to decide which candidate will be appointed.
RECOMMENDATION
Consider nominations and elect a chairperson and vice chairperson for 2012.