HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/09/2005
AGENDA
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
Wednesday, November 9, 2005
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: October 25, 2005
5. Unfinished Business:
6. Design Review:
a. 3M Building 231 (Utility Plant) and Building 246 (Cooling Towers) - 3M Campus
(South of Conway Avenue)
b. CVS Pharmacy Comprehensive Sign Plan - 2180 White Bear Avenue
c. Maple Leaf Ridge Business Center - 2483 and 2497 Maplewood Drive
7. Visitor Presentations:
8. Board Presentations:
9. Staff Presentations:
a. Community Design Review Board Representation at the November 28, 2005,
City Council Meeting
10. Adjourn
DRAFT
MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 25,2005
I. CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Longrie called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
II. ROLL CALL
Board member John Hinzman
Board member Matt Ledvina
Chairperson Diana Longrie
Vice chairperson Linda Olson
Board member Ananth Shankar
P rese nt
Present
Present
Present
Present
Staff Present:
Shann Finwall, Planner
Lisa Kroll, Recording Secretary
III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Board member Olson moved to approve the agenda.
Board member Hinzman seconded.
Ayes - Hinzman, Ledvina, Longrie,
Olson, Shankar
The motion passed.
IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Approval of the CDRB minutes for September 27, 2005.
Board member Hinzman moved approval of the minutes of September 27, 2005.
Board member Olson seconded.
Ayes ---Hinzman, Ledvina, Longrie,
Olson, Shankar
The motion passed.
V. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Ashley Furniture Neon Lighting
Ms. Finwall said Ashley Furniture's design review was approved by the CDRB earlier this year.
After approval by the CDRB neon lighting was added to the building exterior. City staff has
been trying to reach a representative of Ashley Furniture to address this issue but has been
unsuccessful. City staff would like the board to make a formal motion to indicate that the
CDRB would like Ashley Furniture to come before the CDRB for an amendment to the design
review if Ashley Furniture would like to maintain the neon lighting. Ashley Furniture has the
option to appeal the board's decision to the city council.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 10-25-2005
2
Chairperson Longrie asked what steps the city normally takes when changes are made to
building designs that weren't approved by the board.
Ms. Finwall said the staff member that worked on that project through the planning stage would
follow up with the issuance of the building perrnit. We review the building plans and ensure all
of the conditions are met that were approved by the city council. If the building did not meet the
guidelines city staff would notify the appropriate person and they would be required to revise
the plans or obtain an amendment from the board for the design. The director of community
development can make minor changes to the plan administratively but any1hing other than that
should come back before the CDRB.
Chairperson Longrie asked if there were any provisions for fines or citations?
Ms. Finwall said there are possibilities for issuing a citation for violation of the CDRB conditions
in the city ordinance. Another situation would be for conditional use permit review. A CUP
allows the city to have more control over a project and would allow the city council to review
the design change with the possibility of shutting down the actual use if there was a violation.
Board member Ledvina said this has been discussed in the past and the CORB has indicated
their concern regarding the neon lighting and the best thing to do is to make a motion and
recommend moving forward.
Board member Olson said she would like her comments reflected in the minutes. The neon is
very bright and it can be seen from St. John's Hospital, Sam's Club parking lot which is on the
other side of the freeway, and from the residential neighborhoods adjacent to Ashley Furniture.
The CDRB didn't approve the neon lighting and she feels the neon light is too bright. She
would like to see a light meter reading of this neon lighting because The My1h nightclub lighting
is much dimmer than the lighting on Ashley Furniture which is an intrusive feature on the
building and it affects the surrounding area.
Board member Ledvina recommended that the CORB direct city staff to place Ashley Furniture
on notice that they must either make an amendment to the approved plan or remove the neon
lighting.
Board member Olson stated she would be satisfied if the neon lighting was turned off. The light
shouldn't be on all night long.
Board member Ledvina said the neon lighting was not part of the approved design and it
should be removed or Ashley Furniture should apply to the board for an amendment.
Board member Shankar seconded.
Ayes - Hinzman, Ledvina, Longrie,
Olson, Shankar
The motion passed.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 10-25-2005
3
Chairperson Longrie said if Ashley Furniture comes before the CDRB with an amendment to
the design the CDRB can then discuss the conditions such as when the lights can be on or off
or the intensity of the neon lighting. She would support Ashley Furniture coming before the
CDRB with an amendment. She is disappointed that Ashley Furniture has not responded to
city staffs calls to open up the dialogue.
Board member Shankar asked if Ashley Furniture could go right to the city councilor did
Ashley Furniture need to come before the CDRB?
Board member Ledvina said that is a procedural issue that staff would work out.
Ms. Finwall said Ashley Furniture could remove the neon lighting and the issue would be
resolved or if Ashley Furniture applied for an amendment to the design for the neon lighting it
would have to come before the board to make a recommendation on to the city council.
The motion passed.
VI. DESIGN REVIEW
a. Edgerton Manor - 2021 Edgerton Street
Mr. Alan Menning, Manager of the Edgerton Manor at 2021 Edgerton Street, is proposing to
redesign the existing front door along Edgerton Street in order to allow entry at grade level and
provide a covered building entrance.
Ms. Finwall said the building was constructed in 1971, prior to state handicap accessibility
requirements. The front entry along Edgerton Street currently consists of a looped driveway
with a double stairwell leading up one flight of stairs to the uncovered front door. The existing
stairway is in need of repair or replacement.
The applicant proposes to remove the exterior stairway and front door and replace it with a
small vestibule located on the ground level as well as a covered building entrance. Only the
covered entrance will extend into the required 30-foot front yard setback by 20 feet, 4 inches.
The exterior of the vestibule will be a white-colored stucco, and the covered entryway will have
white columns with a brick base to match the building.
In addition to the entryway, the applicant proposes landscaping improvements to include two
small retaining walls constructed of brick to match the building. Within the retaining walls, the
applicant proposes new plantings to include three ornamental trees, 12 evergreen bushes, 28
deciduous bushes, and 38 perennials.
Board member Shankar asked if the handicapped entrance would take people to an elevator
not shown on the plans?
Ms. Finwall said yes.
Board member Longrie asked the applicant to address the board.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 10-25-2005
4
Mr. Alan Menning, Manager, Edgerton Manor 2021 Edgerton Street, Maplewood, addressed
the board. He said there is an elevator at the ground level as you walk in and right now there
is no access to get to an elevator for handicapped people. You need to go down the garage
ramp, through the garage, and up a ramp to the elevator. This is very difficult for people in a
wheelchair or for anyone with a walker. There are a number of predominately older residents
that live in this building that have either a walker or a cane.
Chairperson Longrie asked if the applicant had any materials to show the board?
Mr. Menning said no but he brought photos of the existing building. They are going to match
the existing building materials as closely as possible. Mr. Menning went through the photos
one by one and described the building materials and colors for the board.
Board member Olson asked if the applicant would be removing any trees on the site?
Mr. Menning said no.
Board member Shankar asked why the new doors are going to swing inward?
Mr. David L. Harris, Project Architect, 17675 Hogan Avenue, Hastings, addressed the board.
He said doors are a building issue. Whatever the building code states and what the building
official says is required is what they will be doing. He would have to check the occupant load
and he has not done that yet.
Board member Shankar said the reason he asks the question is that the applicant is spending
all this money to make this building entrance handicapped accessible and it appears on the
plan that if a person in a wheelchair is going to go through the first set of doors there is hardly
enough space before you get through the next set of doors.
Mr. Harris said he is aware of the handicapped codes in the State of Minnesota and when they
present the plan for a building permit that will be verified.
Board member Shankar said it seems to him that the crux of what the applicant is trying to do
is to make this handicapped accessible and you will need to give as much space as possible in
the vestibule.
Mr. Harris said yes and if the board is concerned about this that could be a condition of
approval.
Board member Hinzman said the shingle color of the entry area looks lighter than what
currently exists?
Mr. Harris said the colors represented on the plans are incorrect and the building materials will
match as closely as possible.
Board member Shankar said the colored canopy appears to be 13 feet 9 inches and he asked
if they are confident that clearance is high enough?
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 10-25-2005
5
Mr. Harris said they designed the canopy to comply with the standards of the fire department
which should exceed all reasonable standards. They could post the height; that might be
prudent.
Board member Shankar said he is concerned about the shingle color not matching.
Board member Olson said there is a note on the plans that states all new materials are to
match the existing building materials per David L. Harris, Architect, so she believed that would
be covered.
Board member Hinzman asked if the motion could be separated into two different motions?
Chairperson Longrie said that would be fine.
Board member Hinzman moved to adopt the front yard setback variance resolution attached in
the staff report. This resolution approves a 20-foot, 4-inch front yard setback variance for the
construction of a covered entryway for Edgerton Manor located at 2021 Edgerton Street.
Approval is based on the following findings:
a. Strict enforcement of the code would cause undue hardship because of circumstances
unique to the property and not created by the current property owner. The building was
constructed in 1971, prior to any handicap accessibility requirements. At that time the
building was constructed 37 feet, 8 inches to the Edgerton Street right-of-way, limiting
the buildable area for a handicap accessible entryway.
b. Construction of the proposed handicap accessible entryway will better serve the tenants
and meet the Minnesota Handicap Accessibility requirements.
c. The right-of-way along Edgerton Street in this area is inconsistent and there is existing
development on the west side of the street which is closer than that being requested for
the handicap accessible entryway.
Board member Ledvina seconded.
Ayes - Hinzman, Ledvina, Longrie,
Shankar, Olson
The motion passed.
Board member Shankar had additional questions regarding the building materials before the
next motion is made. Board member Shankar asked if the existing windows on the building
were painted white or vinyl clad?
Mr. Harris said everything on the building is in good shape and doesn't require replacing. The
photos he displayed earlier are an example of what actually exists on the building exterior.
Board member Shankar said the new sketch shows a wood grain material on the windows so
he was just trying to clarify that.
Mr. Harris said the applicant wants maintenance free products so the products are either going
to be maintenance free aluminum or vinyl clad but not wood.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 10-25-2005
6
Board member Shankar asked what the new entry doors would be made of?
Mr. Harris said they are not sure what material the doors are going to be or which particular
door they will use.
Mr. Menning went through the building material colors on the existing building and every1hing
will match the existing structure. At this time he is not sure what color the entry door would be
but possibly a hunter green with white trim. Using a white door would not look nice next to the
stucco.
Board member Shankar moved to approve the plans date-stamped September 20, 2005, for
the proposed covered entryway at Edgerton Manor located at 2021 Edgerton Street. Approval
is subject to the following conditions: (changes made by the CDRB if added are
underlined.)
a. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this
project.
b. Before getting a building permit, the applicant must submit to staff for approval the
following:
1) A revised landscape plan showing all sizes of the proposed plant species.
2) Sample building materials to be approved by staff. The new entry door frame
shall be hunter areen to match the existina shutters. All other buildina materials
shall match the existina buildina materials.
c. The applicant shall complete the following before final inspection of the covered
entryway:
1) Install all required landscaping.
2) Make all necessary repairs to the existing driveway due to damage by
construction.
d. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may
approve minor changes.
Chairperson Longrie seconded.
Ayes - Hinzman, Ledvina, Longrie,
Olson, Shankar
The motion passed.
This item goes to the city council on November 14, 2005.
Board member Ledvina said this is going to be a nice addition for the residents and it will be a
nice improvement to the site. He commended the applicant for a very extensive landscaping
plan and thinks this is very well designed improvement to this building.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 10-25-2005
7
Chairperson Longrie agreed.
VII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS
No visitors present.
VIII. BOARD PRESENTATIONS
None.
IX. STAFF PRESENTATIONS
a. Sign Code Revision Update
Ms. Finwall gave an update regarding the sign code revision. She said in September
staff finalized the draft sign code and since then city staff has been working on making
those updates and putting the sign code on the city's website with highlighted changes
to the code. The city is also doing an advertisement campaign and a small article was
included in the Maplewood City News. This article directs people to the city website.
The article will also be printed in the Maplewood Review. City staff also sent notices to
200 random business owners in Maplewood asking for feedback on the highlighted
changes of the sign code and directing people to the full sign code on the website. Staff
is looking for feedback on the proposed sign code by November 25, 2005, at which time
city staff will compile the information and bring it back to the CORB for discussion with
possible changes to the draft. City staff will then proceed to the city council with the
new code.
Board member Olson asked how many businesses are in Maplewood?
Ms. Finwall said she didn't have the exact figures but estimates 700 businesses.
b. World Town Planning Day - November 8, 2005
Ms. Finwall included in the board packet information regarding World Town Planning
Day which is sponsored in the United States by the American Planning Association and
its professional institute, the American Institute of Certified Planners. This is a special
day to recognize the role of planning in creating livable communities by promoting an
awareness, support and advocacy of community and regional planning among the
general public and all levels of government. The 56th annual World town Planning Day
will be celebrated this year in approximately 30 countries on November 8, 2005.
Ms. Finwall said the city council adopted the proclamation at the Monday, October 25,
2005, city council meeting. The proclamation is attached. The city wanted to thank the
members of the board for their planning efforts.
c. Reminder - November 8, 2005, CDRB meeting has been rescheduled to
Wednesday, November 9, 2005, due to elections.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 10-25-2005
8
d. Community Design Review Board Representation at the November 14, 2005, city
council meeting.
The only item to discuss is the design review of the Edgerton Manor, 2021 Edgerton
Street and Chairperson Longrie volunteered to be the representative at the city council
meeting.
x. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 7:45 p.m.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
PROJECTS:
LOCATION:
DATE:
City Manager
Ken Roberts, Planner
Design Review
3M Building 231 (utility Plant) and Building 246 (Cooling Towers)
3M Campus - South of Conway Avenue
November 1, 2005
INTRODUCTION
3M Company is proposing to construct two buildings on their campus on the south side of Conway
Avenue. Refer to the applicant's narrative, the maps and the project plans on pages five through 15.
The first of these, Building 231, would be adjacent to Building 210 and would measure 105- by 105-
feet in size. 3M would use this space as part of their utility (chilled water and steam) operations. The
exterior materials proposed for the elevations of Building 231 include orange-tan brick, prefinished
almond-colored metal panels, bronze-colored trim and windows.
The second project is the expansion of Building 246 (which is now west of Building 213). 3M uses
this building as a cooling tower and they are proposing to build two additional cooling towers next to
the existing tower. The cooling towers are, essentially, more "equipment" than building. 3M needs
these cooling towers as part of their water-cooling operations. The water that is cooled in the towers
is the "heated" water 3M uses in their campus building-heating operations. Building 246 (the cooling
towers) would match the grey/green color of the adjacent cooling tower to the east and have metal
louvers and openings to facilitate its water-cooling function.
DISCUSSION
Building Design
These buildings are necessary to support 3M's infrastructure and are in the middle of the 3M
campus. They are essentially adjunct facilities to the already existing buildings and the expansive
cooling towers. City staff finds the building designs, materials and elevations to be acceptable and
compatible with the existing adjacent 3M buildings.
Parking
Parking is not an issue since these structures will not be occupied. There is parking available
nearby for any personnel checking on their operations.
Landscaping
There is sufficient landscaping in and around the site and the proposed structures. However, if it is
possible, it would be nice for 3M to add more trees somewhere between Conway Avenue and
Building 246 to provide more screening of the cooling towers.
OTHER COMMENTS
Police Department: Lieutenant Dave Kvan states that there are no public safety concems with the
proposed development.
Fire Department: Butch Gervais, Fire Marshal, had the following comments in regard to the
development: 1) The contractor shall install the fire protection system and it shall be monitored
according to state and local codes (sprinkler system); 2) The contractor shall install a fire alarm
system and it shall be monitored per state and local codes; 3) The shall be an emergency access
road of 20 feet in width provided to the site; 4) If there are any, storage areas with hazardous
materials must be properly marked; 5) The door where the fire protection system is located shall be
properly marked.
David Fisher, the Maplewood Building Official, reviewed the preliminary plans and provided several
comments. His thoughts are in the memo on page 16.
Engineering: The city's engineering department reviewed 3M's proposal for utility and
grading/drainage issues. Erin Laberee, the Assistant City Engineer, noted that if 3M intends to
request from the city a sanitary sewer charge reimbursement, they will have to add deduct meters
that read in 100 cubic foot increments to the cooling towers.
RECOMMENDATION
Approve the plans date-stamped October 27, 2005 for the following 3M building projects on the
south side of Conway Avenue:
1. Building 231 (to be adjacent to Building 210).
2. Building 246 (the two proposed chillers).
Approval is subject to the following conditions:
a. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project.
b. Before the city issues a grading or building permit, the applicant must meet all the
requirements of the city engineering department. If the city engineering department requires,
the applicant or project manager shall submit to city engineering staff for revised engineering
and grading plans. The revised plans shall meet all the requirements of the city engineering
department.
c. The applicant or contractor shall complete the following before occupying the buildings:
1) Replace any properly irons removed because of this construction.
2) If changed or disturbed, provide continuous concrete curb and gutter around
the parking lots and driveways.
3) Install all required outdoor lighting.
4) Restore any disturbed turf areas and landscaping.
d. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may
approve minor changes.
2
REFERENCE
SURROUNDING LAND USES
North:
South:
East:
West:
3M Campus across Conway Avenue
3M Campus
3M Campus
3M Campus
PLANNING
Land Use Plan
Designation: Ught Manufacturing (M-1)
Zoning:
Light Manufacturing (M-1)
Criteria for Approval
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.
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 hannonious, 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
We received the complete application and plans for this proposal on October 27,2005. State law
requires the city to take action within 60 days of receiving complete applications for a development
proposal. As such, city action is required on this proposal by December 25, 2005, unless the
applicant agrees to a time extension.
p: sec36-29I3M Buildings 231 & Towers
Attachments
1. Applicanfs Narrative
2. Location Map
3. Area Map
4. Area Map (Enlarged)
3
5. S~e Plan
6. S~e Plan (Enlarged)
7. Existing and Proposed Contours
8. Storm Sewer Plan
9. Proposed Building Elevations - 210/231
10. Cooling Tower Plans - Building 246
11. Building OIIiciaJ Comments dated October 28, 2005
12. Plans datlHllamped October 27, 2005 (separate attachments)
4
Attachment
3M Center, Utility Plant Upgrade - Narrative cr ~
25 October 2005 '
In February and March of 2004, permission was sought for BuiB~fs ~1~~ #246
located at the 3M Center in Maplewood, Minnesota. This pre-engineered building and
cooling tower were necessary as a solution to the chilled water demands at the 3M
Center. Permission was granted by the Design Review Board and the project was
completed by the swnmer of2004; soon thereafter the next stage of upgrades was
implemented by 3M. The following highlights the series of projects to completed in the
surrounding area for the upgrade of utilities at 3M Center:
Building #231, the Utility Plant Upgrade, for the 3M Center in Maplewood is a proposed
structure located amongst cooling towers, brick and metal panel utility buildings and a
water tank on the south side of Conway Avenue. When completed the building will be
connected to the existing adjacent Building #210 to expand chilled water and steam
capacities. The new structure will be approximately 105 feet square in plan and 45 feet
in height. The structure will consist of a low-sloped roof with parapets following the roof
lines of the existing buildings at the 3M Center. The exterior walls will be brick and
metal panels chosen to blend with the existing adjacent utility buildings. The trim colors
will be both silver-gray and medium-bronze which are also conducive to the existing
adjacent color schemes. Openings required for the function of the structure will be
~rimarily personnel and overhead doors as well as louvers, similar to the neighboring
structures. In all, the new Utility Plant Upgrade, Building #231, will blend into the
existing fabric at the 3M Center along Conway Avenue through the use of scale, shape,
color, and fenestration.
Upon completion of Building #231, equipment within Building #232 will be relocated to
the aforementioned structure and the pre-engineered building will be removed. Once the
equipment is permanently housed in Building #231, connections will be made from the
relocated equipment to Building #246. Simultaneously to the proposed schedule for
construction of Building #231 and subsequent equipment relocation, two out-dated
boilers are to be removed from Building #210. The removal of these boilers and
associated stacks will make room for the remodeling of the interior of Building #210 to
expand plant operations. With the remodeled area, new fenestration will be provided for
the spaces on the southern fayade of Building #210.
After the Building #210 remodel, a boiler will be installed within Building #231, this
boiler and associated stack will be similar to the four (formerly six) at existing adjacent
Building #210. Once the boiler is permanently housed in Building #231, connections
will be made from the new equipment within this structure to Building #210. Sometime
following the boiler installation, two additional cooling towers are proposed to be built
alongside Building #246 in the coming years. The three cooling towers, side-by-side,
will function in unison with Building #231 to provide chilled water capacity for
sustaining activities at the 3M Center. The material, color and scale ofthe future Cooling
Towers will be similar to Building #246 as well as the existing line of cooling towers,
Building #213, on the south side of Conway Avenue.
APPLICANT'S NARRATIVE
5
3M Center, Utility Plant Upgrade - Narrative
25 October 2005
Stormwater Calculation supplement
Calculations showing routing and runoff quantities for the 10-year and 100-year critical storm events.
The footprint of the project is approximately one acre. The time of concentration (t,,) and runoff curve
number (CN) are assumed to 5 minutes and 95. 10- and lOO-year precipitation amounts are 0.6" and 0.9".
Using the SCS method, the critical 10- and 100-year runoffs are computed to be 0.24" and 0.47". Rain
water will be collected in rooftop drains and catch basins then routed within underground storm sewers to
the 72" trunk sewer in II"' Street beneath 1-94 and into Battle Creek.
6
Attachment 2
ml~
MINNEHAHA AVENUE
ffi~-
c
~
~
::t:
Cl
2
~
(J
::E
CONWAY AVENUE
IX
SITE
...
:::l
~
~
z
C(
U)
3M CAMPUS
1-94-
~
:::l
I-
Z
III
(J
III
...
~
~
o
LOCATION MAP
11
N
7
Attachment 3
----.--.,
.
I.
i! i
III i
:1, I
Iii
I!I
I.' I
I
I
I
I
II i
'!i. i
:':i
iil
t. :
"~----"'">,- ".
:"j
/.::::"'\
----,.,~
---~>~/
~'- ::~~::=::~~~~ -~-~,.:(
'\.... II
'j \~ I
\ ,I
I Ii
I"
I I
I II
I ,I
! I!
I'
I
'.
~ i
! i,
\ !
,i i,
II j
II I
II I
JI i
II I,
fl:
" ,
1\::-:____
!,l'
.
CONWAY AVENUE'
..J
:;)
~
l-
Z
<(
III
"
:! ~,,-
I; !
"
"
II
i\
i'
!i
'i
i,
Ii
,.
Q
i
l- ,-
:I:I
S2i
z'
:.::i
U:
::E',
:11
I,i:
',It
ili
iil
IIi
ill
III
Ill!:
i
i
!
I
I,
, ,
\:
"
"
"
"
i,
i'
i'
,i
I!
I'
I'
Ii
, !
1 ,
. ,
\1
--
. fi-~
..i ~..U
,~"-\
"
3M CAMPUS
I ,...--.:-..-.....
lr,:/'
," ,
I i
,
I
i
,
i '. /~/,...
~ I i",/
II. ) //1
! 1 ~. /
ii "
,i
"
I,
iJ \
'-::.-:~-.:~---._---
-~~------- '--':"'-.':::~.:.-:-:..:--::.-_._-
h_
" I
ii I
.y~'-----,~
,
//1,\
._'-------------
-"-.'
'-
AREA MAP
8
..,.
,
1
,
'fr
N
Attachment 4
"
'"
'lj:;
'II
Ij
;,
'I
"
I,
"
..
"
v
,
'~:C
~----~---~-------
":_0-: ::_-_-_-..,-____:.:-_-_____ -------------.~==~====~~~~=_~~~~_~~~~~~_~~~~_~~~~~~~_=_~_=_-_~_=_-__=__=_____-_-:~~~-~,
r ~ _~
~ ...
!:
"
"
II
I'
I
!
,
I
i
I
I
,
e
..
\ ,
, I
\1
'"
I
..
.~[
,.
il!i
i!l
.....
II
SITE
r,
, I
"
, ,
i i
: i
I'
I
,
"
I
I
i
I
I
I
!
~l i./
..
.
r.
.... .._~- -- --- --- --- ~-~-- \
,",
t\
, ! \\ \
r-'- -- --- -- --- --- -~_~_
-..-
----~~._:.:;
--
-----~
-"-.
(-.,
, I
I,
I'
, ,
,
, ,
! ,I
'I
'I,'
, /
, ,(
J
.'
,
------~~--
,.------
-', /
./
./
'~._-~-.i
f'.....
"~
,
i
/
\, "
I
,
;,:::-----f
,
---- ---~-
"
I
"
'., ;
" I'
", \1
, "
1---._----
, .
,
I
----........------
.::'-----
-
.
,~/
~,---------,
.'/
'Ii'
ji
1,1
I'
"
9
11
N
AREA MAP (ENLARGED)
o
~
_.n
CONWAY AVE.
Attachment 5
i~ ...~~~....~.. ~
..........o~ ". <60 ".
8 rnttttttttttttt
~
~Clllllllllllllllll
-HD
+tD
-tt{) 8
-tt{) N:~ N ~ ~ ~ ~
;. "'t':"I-.' ".";"'"'. ,'. '''''.'".--E?<. ;. ....Nl{.:.'...
:---.-' <-9':o;;,<~'G:~"_:sJ1
,.-;. ,,>G>;'_:~" ,,:_:"<, ':,:-'_: -, ',,'-' >"
~"M,_n -~ ""lAN' .".. .....
I'--":~:':"
I ':< ,', au
:~__ .e__: '.. .... ......
I t':c~: VIl.CWl1D-- :: -- "'
L. I II
--.
--
="'-
.
,
,
,
~ .'.'''',u'
(f~ 0/'"~~p2)
~S1
ORAWINt. lNl"IF'Y
lien Sl'lEl'\.Nl,I.ITUlYPINfI'-
0D2 srrEl'HJTOS.UTUIYPINfI\-.otI(
0Cl3 O'o'ElWJ.EL.E'olUIDNS.llUlDMl210/Z31.lIIl.ITVPINfI_
~ 1llUIlMGww.1lONS,~231.lIll./ll'PlNflUI'GIWlE
OD!I DllSTa~toN'IllUltS,-~ZJ1.un..rrrPlNfl_
00li CATCH _ I< STllIIMSlWEI. MDiNG13\. UTUIY PINfIl.IPGIIIIID[
0117 FllSrfUlORPlNl.ltMlIH:lll.UTUIYPlNfllI'CIMlll:
0DlI 5tCDNDNXlIIPI.AH,IIUlUINGU1.lIIUIYPINfI_
IIlII llWIOFUlOIIPINl.__2JI,UTlUlYPINfI_
CUll .<ODITlOIW.COlUICTOIIERS.lIl.lIUlIlIG24e.ururrPlNfl_
SITE PLAN
10
11
N
Attachment 6
~~-
, .d:).... ..
"0.....'.....'.+. ....'.....
..: . '. . ~'.
. . '. . -',
, ' . ,. .
. .
....~,...
" .'. '.
0........,....' ,
,'.. . Ll
,",,-. -. a .
o
-"""""
TOwE"
CONWAY AVENUE
SCREEN WAll..
"'.......
. -:.-
'~';H"
Y ~.()\:IO
0,
.'.
..'
....
L.J
L.J
'"
....
V>
I
I
~I~
~h 68 ~ ~ ~ ~ 2 Sl
SITE PLAN
(ENLARGED)
1f
N
11
'. -". _. ~ '. \. I \ -----..
- / .. i,.:: <. 'CONWAY AVENUE \..
~ ;-;:~ ~. . '''''1 .:;.fii:~c;~"':C~cc.:::'::;;,.~.
~...- I' i i i Ii i i i ~ /" _ ,\ .'" i .:.:-..::::.___........~:=:: '- -. ...
.$ I ~. ~~Iil::' J: ~ ==.,< .,T 246 \: ,} _j _7-
~ _, / __, __, U' __. __.
"~no 0"CHILLf D.-.:. U j' ::,.:;:/./\j:-:1.0 '.''':d. ,r=:..-' L I 0
\ j WATE~ ~ 0 1'..t'".:i.=:~?~F;\ :~~ =mu_,,,j _
" ..!,. .~~AN~~ N.,~->~ Lk_ .,:':. 1@{....
-" -- " ;:=':~
! ./' '\.:; _ AD~~ \..,;
i/ '-~ ..~/ /" . ''t.... -..-._.. ..,i -: ...;' "" \~~ ;=::r-
. ..... .' /c~~..:;-:.:,,-, ~:: r,~_/ !.!- _~4 I
~ ,:- ---. .... '~~- l ~ (__~ ~:__,~ .~ ~:)) .~~-:: ---~---- -- m.__._.________._ -.,,;--~:-.~~--. -'-.
/" CZ':) /,~ \.0\ ~-i;:::: ::~=::-=(::7.:: =~'=ii:.""-' -L I-\Yt..I'JU.j:.
i i~h_./ 1.\ (' ! ! ;!) ~:1~'~;jf::S--":~ .:..-' . . j)' ,.
; ,_ ,I".... ____ , . ..~ . c;::g] 0
/ \ i i l..L \ - ':::: :. : ,,\.
l I " \, i \ r \~~S-;oVMol/ ./,/ ,;--~'= ~!_=::
\ '.\ 'i! '. '-L!Ut)
,. -' v< ....\\\i,~,.~?~.i:~~
i " '\ " \"'\>"-'>>'~" "-. ...---.........._ =r~ ~+' \ \ I: 0 \
'. -- ------__ r---
... ..-__.....L./
.. ~~==~_.:::::======~: :::::::::'::~. 1- '." k.= .....', ~'..J'...'.-.-:< .,.
~ \ '" .... :--- ' '\ \ ',~---- ---.,.'... -'--'- -,-- --_/~--: \,-~', ", ~'\ ---.\. \:.... \ ----
n ,-:---' ~>.".>9<l._""::=.' ,', ..-... , ' V ,.~, \. '. r. L---:J
f"II ..' / ~ '-. --,-- _.../- \,.. '\, --~ ----- \ ... \ ~~--_ "-_. \ --. ... -..... -,__' '---1
'~\ ^ ,,, ,~ .~, \ '''' _.:~, .... ::.".. ...--~~~..:..:::._.::~.::~~2~ ~.:.:: .. ~=::.. '. ,...::~~
~ "."..:'-...:LV~. '~_...._..._..... _~ ~(_.'~~',,~:~,,:,,:;;:~__". ~
,.-
ill,.
"I
\
.. \
\.
\
\
,
f-\
'iW
-/ w-
.' cr:
tJi'
'W::
P;;.
, ..
'..'
- l3
i i
Attachment 7
210
-
-
21 :3
.,
b~ \
EXISTING AND PROPOSED CONTOURS
\r
N
12
o
',~ '\
_ W
W
- 0::
f-
(f)
I
f-
Lf)
r:? __
(....,
$'~
NCHILLED'i\-
c-
o WATER l-
. - ~ TANISd
I '1,'
~
"":~ r
c::;) ~
= a
/
'." i:. ~,
,-
... '7
~, '^~, u ~"~
'-' rr"
. I
"
Attachment 8
,
,
.
CONWAY AVENUE
I .
f-i-'
"
"" !"=Il.--
_ '1.:,
U) , ,'c,
o i ! ",," . L
! I -
N'i,,'
:rrlL .'
1 ":." 2 1
, ,,) rn"-"I'-' ~
.~ior~::~;. _' ~~-
_i_ _:, ~ A
~ ,;,tfo..~. ... ..
j c:::;).tI. i I :
I ./ .'=- . I'
1./ i' ,'-
i ./ --
,/."': I'",,', 1 ~
/ ..... ,~> 1:-;;;:':
,/ I: i"- 2 08
111~ :1q
mc~
11/ --
~
/ l-- _)
.-/ _ I\t~ ! I
c:::::' I~"""""--- I
n--~r-..~~'-
-
..-'..__r.....-...
246
_. _., __. ')__:1 __7-
.Z L 110
,,=-1 UJ! m~ ,..I.
"- ',,'.-'
"-.. ~ "
" ; ""',' '-:".:=" -==-
.....- .......
,-
:21 0
..J
- - J
" L .AVE.N~E
~ka / \
218
II
STORM SEWER PLAN
13
,
'\
,
~f.
_I'--
~
-0.j
II '
"
.....-
I
1
'i!
N
Attachment 9
.f
, i1
: I:
I '1
~ G
. ..l,J~~:"'~:
~,
o I i 0
I:
, I
i!
IoIl:DIUoO_E
SIOC_
W[Ili\IWIllONIE
,,=
o
.,
Sl.\O_'
~-,
,~ -J
I
--
~
--
~
_.-
~
~~.T"_=""J1!!.
"V[II-GlW'
_OS$[.....
.--
DIlNQ:.T""lIIIICIC DOOIIAS5tIIII..
MORTH tLEVATION
~'I".'-O
_.-
~-
..
_.-
~
~.,
SOUTH ELEVATION
SI;AU;\f10.'-o
PROPOSED BUILDING ELEV A liONS -
BUILDING 210/231
14
11
N
Attachment 10
_ro,_
......'III:\;lllI!,:'j;"-
".
--"......''''''''
....,.........-.-....-
......._~-.'-,-
_...............-ct'
,....".,--
....,~..Ott<_........
..."..w"'.tt__......
""""...'<<IIlUI<..................
....-......
-"'lillc..
"'"............"..,-,,-
.. ,.....,'... IS T!I".. ..,_, __, 'I...........
"......_"'''....PltfllUlo.US.'lEL
..GtM__"'-'-""'K_'TUI.
"'_I'[JII'-'''~EVlT.C'''''''''''l-
... ..sa:.""..,.................'OC..'....L
-i
0Dal['~../1
~ .. !
---
.
v,_'....w'-,...
.~
~
,
PI AN vlr\ol
,...-.....,............","'."..
r..."....., "",_...,,,,,..'TtOO "''''''''
....-.....-_,.,"_n.......>D.DT.
.--.. CE.IDL"'" " "--<. '.""".e.........'
..............
--......-
-
-
--
-
..........u
lJ
-
''''-0'
~
'........
~
~mITH n rVATTnN
'.
....--..
'''.'"la
15
11
N
COOLING TOWER PLANS - BUILDING 246
Attachment 11
Memo
From: David Fisher, Building Official
To: Ken Roberts, Planner
Re: 3M Projects - Proposed building addition to 210 (to be 231)
and two more cooling towers
Date: October 28, 2005
- The building setbacks must comply with the 2000 IBe for exterior wall
protection.
- The city will require a complete building code analysis when the
construction plans are submitted to the city for building permits.
- All exiting must go to a public way.
- Provide adequate Fire Department access to the buildings.
- The addition to Building 210 (231) is required to be fire sprinklered.
- I would recommend a pre-construction meeting with the contractor, the
project manager and the city building inspection department.
16
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
APPLICANT:
LOCATION:
DATE:
Richard Fursman, City Manager
Shann Finwall, AICP, Planner
CVS Pharmacy Comprehensive Sign Plan
Crosstown Sign, Inc.
2180 White Bear Avenue
November 2, 2005
INTRODUCTION
Crosstown Sign, Inc. is proposing to install signage at the new CVS Pharmacy located at 2180
White Bear Avenue. A condition of design review approval of the pharmacy was that all signs be
approved by the community design review board (CDRB).
DISCUSSION
Background
The city's sign code specifies that all multi-tenant buildings (buildings with five or more tenants)
must be reviewed by the CDRB for approval of a comprehensive sign plan. All other signs are
approved administratively and must comply with the sign requirements of each specified zoning
district.
During the November 9, 2004, CDRB meeting the board expressed concern over the size of the
proposed signs for the pharmacy in relation to the size of the proposed building and the
surrounding properties. While the city's sign code does not require approval of single-tenant
building signs by the CDRB, the city's CDRB ordinance does state that the CDRB is charged with
reviewing the general architectural considerations of a commercial site including the colors and
materials to be used in the site, the physical and architectural relationship of the proposed
structures with existing and proposed structures in the area, and the appropriateness of
"graphics" to be used on the site. The ordinance further states that the CDRB may recommend
any actions that it deems reasonable to its action of approval.
Because of the prominent location of this site near city hall and the community center, site
location on two major intersections, and adjacent residential property, the board included a
condition of design review approval of the pharmacy to have all signs on the property be
approved by the board prior to installation.
Sign Code Requirements
The CDRB should reference the board's recently adopted draft sign code when reviewing this
proposal. The draft sign code, when approved by the city council, would allow one wall sign for
each street upon which the property has frontage, plus one wall sign for each clearly
differentiated department. The size of wall signage is determined by the gross square footage of
the principal structure on the property. CVS Pharmacy is 13,013 square feet in area and would
be limited to wall signage of 100 square feet or less for each sign.
One freestanding sign is permitted for each street upon which the property has frontage. The
total size and maximum height of the freestanding sign is determined by the street classification
of the closest street to which each freestanding sign is located. CVS Pharmacy is located on a
minor arterial (White Bear Avenue) and a collector (County Road B) and would be allowed a
freestanding sign which is 140 square feet in area and 20 feet in height. Changeable copy
message boards are permitted as part of a permanent freestanding sign but are limited to
comprising no more than 70 percent of the total square footage of the sign.
A freestanding sign must maintain a 1 a-foot setback to all property lines and must meet the city's
visibility requirements by maintaining a 25-foot triangular clearance from the intersecting rights-of-
way. The freestanding sign must be designed to be architecturally compatible with the building or
project, with the base of the sign, including pylon sign poles, consisting of materials and colors
compatible to the building or project. The area around the base of the sign must be landscaped.
On-site directional signs of six square feet or less which are designed to help facilitate the
movement of pedestrians and vehicles within the site and identify the location and nature of a
building not readily visible from the street are permitted. There is no maximum number of on-site
directional signs specified in the draft sign code.
Proposed Signage
Crosstown Sign is proposing four wall signs (two CVS signs and two drive-thru pharmacy signs),
one freestanding sign, and seventeen on-site directional signs for the CVS Pharmacy. In order to
comply with the draft sign code, one drive-thru pharmacy sign would need to be removed.
The sizes of the wall signs vary from 132 square feet for the CVS Pharmacy signs and 28 square
feet for the drive-thru pharmacy signs. In order to comply with the draft sign code, the CVS
Pharmacy wall signs would have to be reduced in size to 100 square feet.
The freestanding sign originally proposed with CVS Pharmacy's design review last year included
a 25-foot high, 120-square-foot sign with an electronic message board. Due to the board's initial
concerns over the size of this sign, the applicants are now proposing a 15-foot high, 65-square-
foot sign with a manual message board. The proposed freestanding sign meets the height and
size requirements of the draft sign code. However, it is unclear if the location of the sign meets
the required 1 a-foot setback and 25-foot visibility triangle requirements. Condition of approval
should include a site plan verifying that the placement of the sign meets these requirements.
The proposed freestanding sign will be constructed of EIFS material around the sign, two-foot
high brick piers, and a decorative EIFS cornice top. Condition of approval should include that the
brick be installed on the entire length of the columns, rather than just two feet, and that a
landscape plan be submitted which shows landscaping around the base of the sign to include
low-maintenance shrubs and perennials.
RECOMMENDATION
Approve the plans date-stamped October 3, 2005, for a comprehensive sign plan for CVS
Pharmacy located at 2180 White Bear Avenue. Approval is subject to the following conditions:
1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a sign permit for this project.
2. Sign criteria for the site include the following:
2
a. Wall signs: One wall sign per street frontage, plus one additional wall sign for
each separate occupant of the building. The wall signs must be constructed of
individual letters which are limited to 100 square feet in area. Wall signs can be
installed on the south and west elevations only.
b. Freestanding sign: One freestanding sign at the intersection of County Road B
and White Bear Avenue. The freestanding sign is limited to 15 feet in height and
140 square feet in area, with only 70 percent of the overall sign allowed as a
manual readerboard. The freestanding sign must maintain a 10-foot setback to all
property lines, must meet the visibility requirements for signage located at an
intersection, must be constructed of materials which are compatible to the building,
and must have landscaping around the base of the sign.
c. Directional signs: Directional signs not exceeding six square feet in area are
permitted.
d. Window signs: Window signs (sign painted on a window or placed inside the
building to be viewed through the glass by the public) are allowed for up to 60 total
days per year and must not cover more than 25 percent of the total area of the
window.
3. Prior to issuance of a sign permit, the applicant must submit the following to be approved
by city staff:
a. Revised wall sign elevations showing that the CVS Pharmacy wall signs are 100
square feet in area or less.
b. Revised freestanding sign elevation showing the brick extending up the entire
columns of the sign.
c. Revised site plan showing the location of the freestanding sign which maintains a
10-foot setback to all property lines and does not impede on the required 25-foot
visibility triangle.
d. Landscape plan showing landscaping around the base of the freestanding sign to .
include low-maintenance shrubs and perennials.
4. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may
approve minor changes.
3
REFERENCE INFORMATION
SITE DESCRIPTION
Site Size:
Existing Land Use:
1.71 acres
New CVS Pharmacy
SURROUNDING LAND USES
North:
South:
Napa Auto Parts (zoned Business Commercial, BC)
County Road B and Wonder Bread Outlet Store across the street (zoned
Business Commercial, BC)
Emma's Place Townhomes (zoned Business Commercial, BC and Multiple
Dwelling Residential, R-3)
White Bear Avenue and Health Partners clinic across the street (zoned
Business Commercial, BC)
East:
West:
PLANNING
Land Use Plan:
Zoning:
Business Commercial, BC
Business Commercial, BC
CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL
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.
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
The city received the complete applications and plans for this development on October 12, 2005.
State law requires that the city take action within 60 days of receiving complete applications for a
proposal. As such, city action is required on this proposal by December 11, 2005.
p:com.-dev\sec11\CVS Pharmacy\CVS Pharmacy Comprehensive Sign Plan
Attachments:
1. Location Map
2. Site Plan/Freestanding Sign Elevation
3. Wall Sign Elevations
4. November 9, 2004, CDRB Minutes
4
-
::J \' I , t L-I
D 000 0
D New CVS Pharmacy
2180 White Bear Avenue
c
II Cb 0 0 0 0
~ c 0
C:). :... I c:::::::? DUO CJ[;J
oun oa
D c::J 0 0 D o [
0 o 0 0 D
c
'; c 00 c
c
0 D
/
Maplewood
Communi
Center
g
N
W*E
s
Attachment 1
City Hall
Location Map
5
Attachment 2
{ut { ~J ;I { ~I
IY ~ g ~
<r.C . ~ .r.\:
" w.; ~ i'
0 . 0 0
o
~
u
!
~
"
. -
tl it!1
. 0
{ II C<:$'..,
{I~*I !j~
~ ~~~
~ ~ ~ ~.
~ .oJ" "
., 0 01
U;
.-.,....4~
n I' ~"~ Cl
i IdlJ'!
,.1....11.
. ,lillHl'll .
. l:Ii!llljl ~
.
, .jJ',r 0
~ m
:~ ~ " f~
!1J.\Ili,lll- ~ ~
.' I 1.,11 0 v ~ ~
~!itI!I!'Il!!l1 . 0 ~: 0
= "' v
~ ~' 0
.k! 1: ~_ - v 2>
" ~ " 0
0 , .', o 0
~
.9'.1
,I {I
i ~
u
. ~
~[i ~ ~[E!
I ~ u ~
~L O!J
8 ..0 20 l
,
-[ I ~~ '
N Wa:
0>-
wz
a:w
,..
r.. .. II II
& Ii" .. 'I II
'Ill I;
!~-
~ g
I
"
~ ~
'j'" .
~ ~ ~ " " J ~
;>: co:;;;" " ~ g
, ~~" . .
" . ;;
"1 [I ] ~ ON
. . ,II ~
9
i~ < >
(3 . 'I ! ~
, i:l ~
. 1;' v
~ u ~i ~ ~
" .9.1 g
ci o. "
----.-.- !.--1 ~ g ~
i g "
~ ~ !
0 0
--------------
.,
I)
~ ~ 0
~
~ . ~
v 0
1;' ~, ~
;,; ", .
5 I
u 0
.~ u
~ "
~
0 " -g
0 . ~
0
0 ~
0 0-
;,; ,~ :;:
~
0 til
'"
" z
~
9
II
,
..~.."i--.-
I!
r
--I,'
"
\,
';,
lJ( ri
!;:
, I
n j ~
'1-1 t=-Tfl, '"
~ ~ > ..-1-' I ~
: -+ i" ~~
~.,;.,;I !5~
.=~..."-:D !' 8
'I I .'IB ~ .1,
o-! ") -T'~r;"'~
~ j;.f- i '/1 l ':'Jii
:!.F--t,-r",'-,:~.'~ .,', n ..J ~
" . I '" I I. 'I CIo.,
. . . -Xdlt .,-
-. ~;,.f.~ M'U --- \ ~~-
"
y
~i
"
;(
P>>
10rfooo%,
.J.Oo;oogW
3nN3AV l:JV38 31fHM
--~:::-.,-~
,
o
,
~
.
-- Site Plan/Sign Elevation -
Freestanding Sign 6
Attachment 3
=
M
~
~
~ ~
0
0 ..
0 ~ ~
0 '" '"
0
0 0 0.
~ ~ I
ii: c
<D
<D ~
M ~
~ C
;:\ '"
0. ~ 0
ii ~ :;;
0 <D
t< '-'
~ .. >!
.'" .i ~
d: ~
0
0 .. 0
0 ~ "
9 0 <D -0
0 ~
'" 0 ~ 0
~ ii ~ ~
~
" '-' ....
0 ~ ~
Ii5 z '"
~
'" "
m 0
"
9
'"
~ ~ ~j
<D
Ii 0
'" j~~
'" 0 "i;!
in ~~
0
~ ,. ~ .
~ S;~~
-< '"
.~.,6 '-'
"'
a
.-
=
,
...
...
~
= rn f
. z
... c:J
CO> r;,;
rn
c:J z z
Z c:J 0
2i r;,; !c
.... z >
0 ...
- ~ .....
~ ,,9-.~~ ...
llCl > ...
... CI
C') ..... r;,;
...
..... l- I-
~ Z ::c
C') 0 c:J
a:: iiC
..... ...
Sign Elevations - Wall Signs 7
Attachment 4
MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 9,2004
V. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
a. CVS Pharmacy, 2168 and 2180 White Bear Avenue
Ms. Finwall said on October 26,2004, the community design review board (CDRB) reviewed a
proposal by Velmeir Companies to redevelop the Oasis Market and Fina Lube site located on
the northeast corner of County Road B and White Bear Avenue. The redevelopment will
include the construction of a 13,013-square-foot CVS Pharmacy. The item was ultimately
tabled by the CDRB until November 9, 2004, in order to allow Velrneir Companies time to
revise the proposed site and building plans to address concerns addressed by the CDRB. Mr.
Jim Lavelle of Velmeir Companies agreed to bring these concerns to the representatives of
CVS Pharmacy, revise the plans, and present the revisions at the November 9, 2004, CDRB
meeting. After meeting with staff on November 9, 2004, Mr. Lavelle submitted to staff a
revised site plan which shows some additional design detail however, does not include all the
concerns raised by the CDRB during the October 26, 2004, meeting. A revised landscape
plan was also submitted November 9, 2004. During Mr. Lavelle's meeting with staff he stated
CVS Pharmacy would be willing to come back to the CDRB for approval of all signage and city
staff requested the board add that as a condition for approval. Staff recommended that the
building be moved closer to County Road B and the dumpster enclosure be moved to the other
side of the building which would displace about 15 parking spaces that could be moved to the
other side of the building.
Board member Olson asked staff what their reasoning was for moving the building south to
relocate the drive-thru and dumpster enclosure. Was it to protect Emma's Place from
additional noise?
Ms. Finwall said the main concern was the nuisance factor from a drive-thru facility and
dumpster enclosure adjacent residential property. Relocating the dumpster enclosure and
drive-thru to the north would require the shifting the building to the south and relocating some
~fu~e~~~~a~s~fueoo~.
Board member Olson asked how tall the berm would be that was added to the landscape
plans?
Ms. Finwall said the berrn would be two to four feet in height.
Board member Olson said when she drove by this site the first time she didn't see the black
chain-link fence on the Emma's Place property. When she drove by the site tonight the fence
didn't seem very high. At one point it jogs inwards and connects to the buildings as opposed
to following the property line. She asked if the city could require Emma's Place to install a
taller, more substantial fence?
Ms. Finwall said no the city couldn't require Emma's Place to install a larger more substantial
fence, however, Mr. Lavelle has some options he would like to discuss with the board tonight
which are alternatives to relocating the drive-thru and dumpster enclosure to the north.
Options such as fencing not directly up to the existing fence on Emma's Place but possibly a
8
strip of fencing along the curbing at CVS Pharmacy. He would like to address some of the
noise issues that were brought up by staff with the drive-thru as well.
Board member Olson said she noticed a gate between Emma's Place and the Amoco building.
Tonight that gate was left open and that bothers her. Should that gate even exist if it opens to
adjoining property, or is there a setback at that point.
Ms. Finwall said originally there was no gate there. Residents at Emma's Place were jumping
over the fence to gain access to the Oasis Market at the Amoco station. So they installed the
gate as a convenience to the residents. This gate isn't a concern of the city, there haven't
been any complaints, and the fence seems to serve a joint purpose for the adjoining
properties.
Board member Olson asked if the sidewalk would still be there?
Ms. Finwall said yes.
Board member Olson asked if the proposed trail would still be there along County Road Band
would the trail be made of concrete or bituminous?
Ms. Finwall said the trail would match the existing trail system along County Road B and would
be bituminous.
Board member Olson said in her opinion fencing that opens onto existing property is a problem
and it should be resolved.
Chairperson Longrie-Kline asked if the current Amoco station was open until 10:00 or 11 :00
p.m.?
Ms. Finwall said she did not know the hours of operation in the evening.
Chairperson Longrie-Kline said the Amoco station has a drive aisle that goes to the back of the
store which goes to the back of the Fina Lube station and people could be driving back there
now. She doesn't see any difference between driving back there now and how they may be
driving back there when the drug store is there. She understood the hours of operation for the
drive-thru would not be much different from what is currently operating there. She also wants
to confirm the hours the trash would be picked up.
Board member Shankar asked if there were two drive-thru aisles?
Ms. Finwall said yes there are two drive-thru aisles, however, the far lane is for prescription
drop-off and the inside lane is for prescription pick-up.
Board member Olson said while driving through the site tonight she appreciated all the curb
cuts which offered alternate ways to get through the site. She asked why there were only two
access points to this site.
Ms. Finwall said the Ramsey County Engineer, Dan Soler, reviewed the proposal and they
encourage fewer curb cuts. There are currently five curb cuts on this site and the curb cuts
have been reduced down to two curb cuts which are located as far away from the intersections
as possible.
9
Board member Olson asked if County Road B and White Bear Avenue?
Ms. Finwall said yes they are.
Chairperson Longrie-Kline asked the applicant to address the board.
Mr. Jim Lavelle, Velmeir Companies, 7900 International Drive, Bloomington, addressed the
board.
Board member Olson asked what the plan was for the berm and what type of options they had
proposed as far as the fencing or screening?
Mr. Lavelle said per the last board meeting they tried to address the concerns with the
proposed development adjacent residential property. One idea was to build a berm and
increase the landscaping to hide lights and noise. An additional idea that wasn't presented is
the possibility of putting a fence on the inside or curb line with green space to help buffer noise
and vehicles from the drive-thru and dumpster pick-up.
Chairperson Longrie-Kline asked if he knew what time the dumpsters would be emptied?
Mr. Lavelle said he estimates the dumpsters would be emptied between 6:00 and 8:00 a.m.
The drive-thru window would be open from 8:00 a.m. until 10:00 p.m.
Board member Ledvina asked how many times per week the dumpsters would be emptied?
Mr. Lavelle said the dumpsters would be emptied once per week. There are two bins, one is a
dumpster and one is a compactor. The dumpster enclosure would be made of brick and they
propose to use a slotted chain-link fence gate.
Board member Olson said at the previous meeting she mentioned the windows needed
something added to them such as a window trim. It appears to her that the windows are
simply larger now but she was looking for additional detail around the windows. She asked
why the windows were made larger because at the last meeting she understood that larger
windows made for less shelf space inside the store. She asked where the red trim would go
on the building?
Mr. Lavelle said the color is the same as the cornice but around the ribbon windows there is
expanded EIFS detail to go on the top, bottom and sides.
Board member Olson said she likes the red, she didn't understand that the trim would be red.
Board member Ledvina said he drove by the CVS Pharmacy store on Arcade Street and
Maryland Avenue and he noticed the window mullions near the entrance were red and the
other window mullions were another color like bronze or black.
Mr. Lavelle said a bronze tone has been installed on the window mullions at the Arcade and
Maryland CVS Pharmacy location.
Board member Ledvina asked if they plan on using one color for the window mullions?
10
Mr. Lavelle said the prototype at CVS pharmacy for the first round of stores is to have the
entrance windows red and the remainder of the glass and frames in those buildings are a
bronze color, but they are willing to address that issue.
Chairperson Longrie-Kline said she understood that all the window frames would be red but
when she looked at the plans it showed medium bronze on the window mullions. She wanted
to clarify what they proposed to do.
Mr. Lavelle said apparently there is an error on the legend on the plans and the window
mullions should be cardinal red.
Board member Ledvina had questions about the west elevation. He thought the board
suggested the brick go all the way up to the arch point for the two areas of the building. That
would be consistent with the east and the north elevation where the brick goes up to the
arched element and the EIFS above that.
Board member Olson said in her opinion that would make the building darker and appear
smaller. Because of the setback, the landscaping, and the building's prominence on the
corner, she believed the exterior should appear brighter.
Board member Ledvina said the reason he brings that issue up is because the building on
Arcade Street and Maryland Avenue is constructed that way.
Mr. Lavelle said correct, that building is about 90% brick with EIFS accents.
Board member Shankar said carrying the brick element up that far may be too strong facing
White Bear Avenue.
Board member Ledvina said he doesn't want to redesign the building and can appreciate the
other board member's comments but his impression of the building design at other locations
such as the midway building and the building on Arcade Street and Maryland Avenue should
be the same building design quality here.
Ms. Finwall said Mr. Lavelle said the reason CVS Pharmacy was agreeable to bringing the
window closer to ground grade is that they need 7 -foot clearance for merchandise. The lower
windows would be false windows and be tinted and should also be discussed tonight.
Mr. Lavelle said correct. Throughout the retail area, the perimeter walls of this store would
have fixtures around them which would allow CVS to stock and sell their products.
Board member Ledvina said the lower windows would appear different from the upper
windows then?
Mr. Lavelle said correct. The upper windows 7 feet and up are clear glass and the lower
windows from 7 feet and down are tinted.
Board member Olson said personally she would prefer to see the windows the way they were
in the original design and see the EIFS material substituted for the tinted glass on the lower
portion of the glass. She is concerned that the lower glass would be broken into, primarily for
security reasons.
11
Mr. Lavelle said it is tempered glass. There will be a security system and security cameras 24-
hours-a day, seven-days-a week, so he is not as concerned.
Board member Shankar said he likes the glass going down to the brick.
Board member Ledvina said security may be an issue but the pharmacy is very close to the
Maplewood police station.
Board Olson said she spoke with the owner of the Fina Lube station on White Bear Avenue
and he indicated that they have had a lot of vandalism and several security issues on a regular
basis due to their location with the neighbors. Board member Olson strongly cautioned CVS
Pharmacy to take as many security precautions as possible because the neighbors will be very
challenging.
Board member Ledvina asked if they were proposing to maintain the height of the pylon sign at
County Road B and White Bear Avenue?
Mr. Lavelle said he proposes that the vendor that will eventually manufacture and install the
signs make a full presentation to the board for approval.
Board member Olson asked what type of fence they were proposing to install at the curb line?
Mr. Lavelle said a 6-foot-high cedar fence, they could either work with staff on that or the board
could offer suggestions regarding fencing material.
Board member Olson said the lighting at the Oasis station helps with safety and security in the
area and is a real asset. She wants to ensure that there are not high, dense trees along White
Bear Avenue and County Road B.
Board member Olson said the parking lot lights are going to be important for extra security for
the people that would be walking along the sidewalk at night. She recommends the building
color stay light in color to help keep the area as bright as possible.
Chairperson Longrie-Kline said she would agree with Board member Olson's comments. She
likes the way this proposed building looks with the extra windows and the lighter building color
makes the building appear larger and brighter. She isn't concerned about the dumpster
location since it would be emptied once a week for 15 minutes or so. She does not want any
dense trees planted along White Bear Avenue and County Road B. She wants to be able to
see the retail building through the trees and for security reasons she wants as much light to
come through as possible to keep the sidewalk area lit as well. She also thinks it is necessary
to have the security camera installed in the drive-thru area.
Board member Ledvina said he agrees with some of the comments that have been shared.
The drive-thru and dumpster enclosure are non-issues to him and he is comfortable with what
the applicant has proposed. The building elevations are an improvement but it is his opinion
that the applicant did not change as many building elevation details as they should have or
could have.
Ms. Finwall said Mr. Lavelle said the photometrics plan was somewhat inaccurate. It shows
wall pack lights located on the different elevations. CVS Pharmacy includes a light band on
the west and south elevations, towards County Road B and White Bear Avenue. These lights
will be located on the top building elevation and will be shielded and will direct light downward
12
to illuminate the wall. The band of light is a design enhancement will help illuminate the
building and could help with security.
Board member Driscoll said she can appreciate the design enhancements and additional
landscaping.
Board member Shankar said he sees this plan over the original proposal as an improvement.
Chairperson Longrie-Kline moved to approve the plans date-stamped November 3, 2004, and
the buildina elevations date-stamped November 9, 2004. for the CVS Pharmacy located at
2168 and 2180 White Bear Avenue. Approval is subject to the applicant doing the following:
(changes made by the board during the November 9, 2004, CDRB meeting are
underlined if added and stricken if deleted):
1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this
project.
2. Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit, the applicant must submit to staff for
approval the following items:
a. Revised grading/drainage/utility plans which comply with all city engineering
department requirements as specified in the Chuck Vermeersch's October 18,
2004, memorandum including the implementation of high end treatment
structures to provide pretreatment of water runoff before discharging from the site
and plans for the installation of a six-foot-wide sidewalk to be installed along
County Road B.
b. Revised site plan sRowing the fello'....ing:
1) aRift the builsin!j closer to COllnty Road B (approximately 12 feet to the
County Road 8 right of way).
2) Relocate tRe dri'le throll!jR, dumpster enclosure, ans front center 15
parking spaces to tRe north side ef tRo building.
Q. &. Revised elevations as follows:
1) Window trim around all windows to be carnival red.
Revised nortR l:lllilding elevation showing the relocated drive through,
reFFloval of the brick wainscot and addition of brickfEIFa ar-Ghes to FFlatch
the oast elevation.
2) Revises west and south elevation showing tRo addition of vortical
winso'....s, similar to those proposed for the at. Paul Midway CVS
PharFFlacy. Windows shol,Jld l:lo!jin at a four foot Roight ane mElond
upward on the ontire fayado.
~ ~ Dumpster enclosure elevations showing that the enclosure is at least 6
feet in height, constructed of building materials which are compatible to
the building, and have a 100 percent opaque gate.
13
c.4 A revised lighting and photometrics plan which shows the style, height, and
number of exterior lights. The plan must ensure all freestanding lights maintain a
height of 25 feet or less, that the overall illumination from outdoor lights does not
exceed .4-foot-candles at all property lines, and that the outdoor lights do not
pose a light nuisance to the adjacent residential property. In addition. the revised
liqhtinq plan should reflect the removal of the wall pack Iiqhts on the west and
south elevation of the buildinq, and replacement with a strip of indirect and
shielded down-liqhtinq toward the top of the elevations to illuminate the walls and
to be located on the two most northerly bays of the west elevation and the most
easterly bay of the south elevation.
g. &. The submittal of a response action plan regarding underground leaking
petroleum tanks on the site, and proof of the acceptance of that plan and
proposed clean up measures by the MPCA prior to issuance of a building permit.
~. f, Obtain a permit from Ramsey County for construction on county right-of-way for
the driveway access, utility work, and sidewalk.
t. ~ Watershed district approval.
9.:.l=h Proof of recording the city's August 27, 1990, resolution vacating 30 feet of the
utility easement located on the north side of the property. (This resolution was
never adequately recorded.)
11. h Proof that all three lots are combined for tax purposes.
j. .'\ re'/ised freestanding sign plein showiR~ the following:
1) Location of the freestanEliR~ si€ln to be in complianco v.-ith the city code
sotl3ack and visibility requirements (1 9 foot setback to all pr-operly liRes
and a 25 foot 'Jisil3i1ity trianglo fr-om the intersecting rights ef way).
2) Freestanding sign ele'/atioR limiting the size of the freestanEliR~ sign to 5
feot, 10 inches in height, 5 feet, 9 inches in wiEltt-l, with exterior materials to
l3e GOR'lpatible with tho building.
L. k,. 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.
3. The applicant shall complete the following before occupying the building:
a. Replace any property irons removed because of this construction.
b. Provide continuous concrete curb and gutter around the parking lot and
driveways.
c. Install all required landscaping and an in-ground lawn irrigation system for all
landscaped areas.
d. Screen or paint the rooftop mechanical equipment to match the building color.
e. Install all required outdoor lighting.
14
f. Install the required six-foot-wide sidewalk along County Road B.
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 if
occupancy is in the spring or summer.
5. VVall s Signs are not included in tAe this design review of the CVS Pharmacy. All
proposed wall signs must be brought back before the Community Design Review Board
for approval meet city code sign requirements and will require separate si€lA l3erFAits.
6. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may
approve minor changes.
Chairperson Longrie-Kline added the new plans submitted November 9, 2004, should be
corrected to read the window frame color should be carnival red. And that all signage be
submitted to the CDRB for approval.
Board member Shankar made a friendly amendment to add that the revised lighting plan
should reflect the removal of the wall pack lights on the west and south elevation of the
building, and replacement with a strip of indirect and shielded down-lighting toward the top of
the elevations to illuminate the walls and to be located on the two most northerly bays of the
west elevation and the most easterly bay of the south elevation.
Board member Driscoll seconded.
Ayes - Driscoll, Longrie-Kline, Olson, Shankar
Nay- Ledvina
The motion passed.
Board member Ledvina said he voted nay because he felt CVS Pharmacy demonstrated a
higher quality building at the other locations, particularly at the midway location. He felt the
design elements at the entrance to the proposed building could've been greatly enhanced.
15
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
LOCATION:
DATE:
City Manager
Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner
Maple Leaf Ridge Business Park
2488 & 2497 Maplewood Drive
November 3, 2005
INTRODUCTION
Project Description
Jim Kellison, of Kelco Real Estate Development Services, is proposing to build an
officeiwarehouse condominium development on the west side of Maplewood Drive (Highway 61),
between Acom Mini Storage and the Hmong American Alliance Church. This project would
consist ofthree buildings. Building #1, closest to Highway 61, would be a 9,120-square-foot,
two-story building, Building #2, the center building, would be a 13,44Q-square-foot, one-story
building and Building #3, the westerty building, would be a 16, 320-square-foot, two-story
building. The front of each building would have an office front. The rear elevations would be the
dock door and delivery areas. Building #1, facing the highway, would have an office fa~de. The
back side of Building #3, facing the residential neighbors, would have a service fa~de with
overhead garage doors.
Refer to the applicant's letter, narrative and the attached maps.
Plan Revisions
The current plans are different from the original plans submitted by the applicant. The original
plans were presented to the neighbors at a neighborhood meeting this summer. The original
plans were for a four-building project of the same nature. The primary differences were that the
west elevation facing the neighbors had an office fa~de (now overh,ad doors) and the proposed
building setback was to have been 165 feet (now 250 feet). Some of the neighbor replies and
the applicant's narrative speak to this four-building layout.
The primary reason the applicant revised the plans was to address grading and drainage
concems by the city's engineering staff.
Requests
Mr. Kellison is requesting:
. A conditional use permit (CUP) for a reduced setback from th!9 residential lot property line
to the west. The code requires that buildings in M1 (light ma~ufacturing) districts that are
closer than 350 feet to an abutting residential property have a CUP. The proposed
westerly building would be 250 feet from the abutting residential lot line.
. Approval of design plans.
BACKGROUND
The subject properly previously had two single family dwellings. The applicant demolished these
homes to make way for the proposed project. The properly to the north was recently converted
from an industrial complex to the Hmong American Alliance Church. The properly to the south
was developed a few years ago with Acom Mini Storage.
DISCUSSION
Conditional Use Permit
The proposed use is allowed under the M1 zoning code. The reason for this CUP request is
because the westerly building would be 250 feet from the back lot line, not 350 feet or more.
Code requires a CUP for a building with less than a 350-foot setback. The reason is to allow the
city to consider impacts on the abutting residential neighborhood. Typically, with such requests,
the main concem is to protect the abutting home owners from any negative impact due to visual
impacts and potential noise problems.
Screening is an important concem. The applicant is proposing a row of 14 evergreen trees along
the westerly lot line with three river birch trees in the northwest and southwest comers of the site.
Staff feels that this is a good start, but these trees will not provide the required six-foot-tall and
80 percent opaque screen required by ordinance. The planning commission required doubling
this screen by adding a condition for a second row of evergreens.
The screen required by code may be comprised of evergreens, decorative fencing, berming or a
combination of these. Staff recommends that the applicant extend the screening material to the
back line of Building #3 along each side properly line. The screening along the side lot lines is to
provide buffering for the neighbors that are northwest and southwest of this properly who can
view this site at an angle from their homes and yards. This plan may take into account existing
vegetation and existing screening.
Noise
One concem noted by neighbors is what type of businesses might there be? Could there be
nuisance-causing or noisy operations taking place? A recent example of such a business activity
is that of the St. Paul Pioneer Press' night-time paper distribution activity at the Maplewood
Business Center on Gervais Avenue and Germain Street on the north side of Highway 36. Staff
feels that the council should require specific noise controls for this project to try to protect the
neighbors from Matter hours" disturbances.
Citv Enaineerina Department's Concems
Chuck Vermeersch, of the Maplewood engineering staff, has reviewed the applicant's revisions.
The revised plans are much better than the original design in his opinion. His previous concems
have been addressed. Please review his attached memo.
2
Neiahbor Concems
Staff surveyed the neighbors for their input. Their complete replies are listed in the Citizen
Comment section of this report and their letters are included as attachments. The following is a
summary:
. Don't remove all the trees. Keep a buffer.
. Provide a sufficient buffer.
. Concems include: Noise, lights, mosquitoes from the proposed pond and traffic increase.
. Require a greater setback.
. Don't allow the reduced setback.
. Loss of trees and wildlife.
. The existing buildings should not be construed to set a precedent due to the difference in
the types of uses.
Staff shares many of these concems. Primarily, sufficient screening should be provided. The
applicant has a right to develop this property, but in exchange for the reduced setback, there
should be better than average screening.
Architectural and Building Orientation
The proposed buildings would have attractive fronts and sides. These would consist of a
decorative mix of concrete-block materials and colored in brown tones. The back of the buildings
would be rock-face concrete block. Building #3, the rear building, would have its service and
dock side facing the residential neighbors to the west. The applicant's ear1ier four-building plan
had the more attractive office-front view of the wester1y building facing the neighbors. Refer to
the attached map of this four-building layout. This site plan also had a lesser building setback
from the west lot line-165 feet vs. the currently-proposed 250 foot setback.
Site Plan Altematives
At the planning commission meeting, staff presented two altemative site plans for consideration.
Refer to these altemative designs. The benefit of both of these scenarios moves the large
truck-dock area away from the neighbors and allows the nicer office-fronts to face the neighbors
instead. The disadvantage of this is that it moves the buildings closer to the neighbors. The
setback of the westerly building from the west lot line would be about 165 feet as was originally
proposed with the four-building design.
At the planning commission meeting, neither the planning commission nor the neighbors felt
strongly about it. Their primary concem was that there be adequate screening and that there not
be a loss of privacy as there might be if the office windows faced the homes.
Staff feels that it is a good idea to reorient the buildings to have the office front face the west lot
line. Since neither the planning commission nor the neighbors preferred those scenarios, staff
simply wants to make sure that the CDRB and city council take this into consideration.
Sign Plan Considerations
The applicant has not proposed any signage criteria. Ordinance requires that they provide a
signage plan for this development for approval by the community design review board.
Developments with five or more tenants must have such a plan for sign uniformity.
3
Site Considerations
Parkina
The use of the proposed complex is anticipated to be 30 percent office and 70 percent
warehouse. To determine parking needs, staff took the total square footage and applied these
percentages. By these ratios, the applicant would need 141 parking spaces. The applicant is
proposing 156. There would be a sufficient number of parking spaces provided by this count.
The applicant must, however, revise the plan to meet the 9 *-foot-wide parking stall requirement
for customer parking. Employee parking may be 9 feet wide if it is posted as such.
Site Liahtina
The lighting plan is incomplete. The plan does not extend to the westerly lot line which is critical
due to the residential neighbors.
Landscapina
The landscaping plan is a good start, but staff has the following recommendations as noted
above:
. Increase the screening along the rear property line to meet code requirements of a six-
foot-tall and 80 percent opaque screen. The planning commission recommended a
double row of evergreens along the west lot line to address this matter. The screening
proposal is still "thin" based on the code requirements. Staff, furthermore, is
recommending that this visual screen be extended along the side lot lines to the back line
of the westerly building to provide screening for close neighbors that are not directly
behind this lot.
. The plantings in front near the street should be increased. This area is rather sparse.
Trash
Outdoor trash storage is not proposed on the plans. If the applicant later wishes to provide
outdoor trash storage, they should provide a plan for the design and location of the dumpster
enclosures. Dumpsters kept between buildings may not need to be screened if they are not
visible to neighbors or streets. The community design review board should review this matter.
City Department Comments
Fire Marshal
Butch Gervais, the Maplewood Fire Marshal, has the following comments:
. There must be a 2Q-foot-wide emergency-access road provided around all buildings.
. There must be a fire protection system, per-codes and monitored.
. There must be proper marking of doors where fire protection systems are located.
. There must be a fire department lock box installed. See the fire marshal for an order
form.
4
Police
Lieutenant Kevin Rabbett reviewed this proposal and has no public safety concems. He
recommends the standard business security lighting and video surveillance systems.
Buildina Official
Dave Fisher, Maplewood Building Official, reviewed this proposal. Refer to his report.
SUMMARY
From the standpoint of potential noise problems, staff does not feel that it is in the best interest
of the neighbors to have a truck dock facing their properties. Also, from an aesthetic viewpoint,
the dock area of the westerly building would be substantially less attractive than the office fronts
on the proposed buildings. Staff is not in favor of the proposed site plan for those reasons.
Neither the neighbors nor the planning commission, however, felt that strongly. The neighbors,
in fact, preferred as much building setback as they can get regardless of the type of activity on
their side of the project.
Staff is not recommending a change to the site plan because of this preference by the neighbors.
We do, however, feel that approval of this design is not in the residents' best interest.
COMMITTEE ACTIONS
October 17, 2005: The planning commission recommended approval of the CUP. They did,
however, recommend that the applicant plant a double row of evergreens along the westerly lot
line to enhance the screening. The planning commission also required that the parking stall
widths meet code requirements. Code requires that stalls are 9 Y.z feet wide. Employee parking
stalls may be 9 feet wide if posted as such.
RECOMMENDATIONS
A. Adopt the resolution approving a conditional use permit for a proposed building setback of
250 feet from the rear lot line for an office/industrial condominium development at 2488
and 2497 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 that the city has date-stamped October 11,
2005. 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 pennit shall become null and void. The
council may extend this deadline for one year.
3. The city council shall review this permit in one year.
5
4. The hours of operation shall be limited to the city's hours for noise control for the
westerly building as stated in Section 18-111 of the city code. This means that there
shall be no noise generated between the hours of 7 p.m. and 7 a.m. Monday through
Saturday and all day Sunday. This condition applies to a.,y and all business activities
occurring on the west side of Building #3. The applicant's sale or lease agreements
should specify this.
5. The site lights, west of Building #3, the westerly building, shall be tumed off after 10
p.m. unless required to be on by the police department for security reasons. The
lights on the west side of Building #3 shall also be of a design that conceals the lens
and bulbs of these light fixtures. Light-intensity maximums must meet code
requirements.
6. Combine the two legal descriptions into one legally-described lot prior to obtaining a
building permit for this development.
7. Provide a landscaping/screening plan, including a double row of trees along the west
boundary, prior to the issuance of a building permit, which provides a visual screen
that is at least 80 percent opaque and six feet tall upon installation. If the double row
of trees does not accomplish this, additional screening must be provided. This
screen shall be an all-seasons buffer of items like decorative fencing, berming or
evergreen trees. This visual screen shall be provided along the rear of the property
and extend from there along both side lot lines to the rear setback line of Building #3.
This plan may take into account existing vegetation and existing screening.
8. Meet all requirements of the community design review board and city code for
architectural design, landscaping, site lighting and parking.
9. Meet all requirements of the city engineer for site grading, drainage, erosion control,
dust control, utilities and removal of roadway dirt build-up.
10. Outdoor storage of any materials shall not be allowed unless a conditional use permit
for outdoor storage is obtained from the city council.
B. Approve the site plan date-stamped October 11, 2005, the landscaping plan date-
stamped October 17,2005 and the lighting plan date-stamped October 28,2005.
Approval is subject to the applicant/developer complying with the following conditions:
1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this
project.
2. Comply with all conditions of Chuck Vermeersch's engineering report dated October
17,2005.
3. Obtain necessary permits from the Minnesota Department of Transportation before
the issuance of a building permit.
4. Obtain a permit from the RamseylWashington Metro Watershed District before the
issuance of a building permit.
6
5. Provide fencing on the top of all retaining walls that exceed four feet in height. The
fencing shall be a black chain link fence at least 3.5 feet tall. Retaining walls that
exceed four feet in height must be designed by a structural engineer, and the
applicant must obtain a building permit.
6. The applicant must provide a revised landscaping plan for staff approval that provides
a landscaping/screening plan, including a double row of trees along the west
boundary, prior to the issuance of a building permit, which provides a visual screen
that is at least 80 percent opaque and six feet tall upon installation. If the double row
of trees does not accomplish this, additional screening must be provided. This
screen shall be an all-season screen that may include decorative fencing, berming
and evergreen trees. This visual screen shall be provided along the rear of the
property and shall extend from there along both side lot lines to the rear setback line
of Building #3. This plan may take into account existing vegetation and existing
screening.
7. Obtain approval of a comprehensive sign plan from the community design review
board before any sign pennits may be issued.
8. Submit a complete lighting plan to staff for approval. The site lights, west of Building
#3, the westerly building, shall be tumed off after 10 p.m. unless required to be on by
the police department for security reasons. The lights on the west side of Building #3
shall also be of a design that conceals the lens and bulbs of these light fixtures.
Light-intensity maximums must meet code requirements.
9. Provide a revised landscaping plan to staff for approval for the area along the street
frontage, increasing the amount of plantings in this area. This shall be provided
before the issuance of a building pennit.
10. The applicant must provide an in-ground irrigation system as required by code. The
area around the pond does not need to be sprinklered.
11. The rear elevations of all buildings, and any parts of the side elevations that are rock-
face block, must be painted to match the front building colors.
12. Provide cash escrow, in the amount of 150 percent of the cost of completing the
landscaping and exterior site improvements, before the applicant shall obtain a
building pennit.
13. All customer parking spaces must be at least 9 % feet wide. Employee parking
spaces may be nine feet wide if signs are posted identifying them as employee
parl<ing only.
14. The community design review board shall approve major changes to these plans.
Minor changes may be approved by staff.
7
CITIZEN COMMENTS
Staff surveyed the 38 surrounding property owners within 500 feet of the proposed site for their
opinions of this proposal. Of the nine replies, many were clearly opposed. Some were accepting
of the proposed type of development, but noted concems about the plans.
1. No objection.
2. Refer to the letter from Gwen Kingsbeck, 2498 Adele Street. Ms. Kingsbeck stated that,
though they understand the land will be developed and accepts the proposed usage, they
have concems about there being a sufficient buffer. They also feel that there is too much
development proposed for this site.
3. My main concem is the "noise" level. What kind of businesses exactly will be in this site?
Many of us do not work 8-4, Monday through Friday. Hours of work fluctuate with the
neighbors who will be affected by this. (Cathy Brown, 2496 Cypress Street)
4. My concems are: any water/drainage from the development that would affect the water
table for my property, light leakage to the residential area, noise during non-normal
business hours. Also, how far away from the north property line will any of the
development be? (Margaret Peterson, 2522 Adele Street)
5. Refer to the letter from Daniel Ward, 2514 Adele Street. Mr. Ward stated concems about
clearing this site to the property line and constructing a mosqlilito-infested slough. The
applicant should consider altemative designs that impact the site less.
6. I "do not" support a conditional use permit for this development. I also do not support
removing any existing trees on the current property. (Kristen Scholl, 1017 Demont
Avenue)
7. The applicant's letter states that the mini storage already infringes on the 350 foot
setback, thereby setting the standard. This is not true. Codes and ordinances are written
for a reason and should not be routinely dismissed. This building will lower my property
value. (As stated by a realtor.) Please do not allow this. (Mike Trenda, 2474 Adele
Street)
8. Refer to the letter from Deanne Lynn Dick and Jeffrey Scott Dick, 2505 Adele Street. Ms.
Dick stated that this development would be a hindrance to the neighborhood. The tree
loss is a detriment and there would be too much traffic. Mr. Dick stated that he too is
adamantly opposed to the tree removal. The office condos, themselves, are not a
problem, but the tree removal proposed would ruin a wonderful barrier between them and
Highway 61.
9. Refer to the letter from Thomas and Melissa O'Connor of 2506 Adele Street. Their
comments and concems are, in summary, loss of trees and the minimal screening
proposed. Loss of privacy with the small trees planted as a buffer to attempt to screen a
two story building. There is no comparison with Acom Mini Storage's reduced setback.
This should not set a precedent. The two uses are distinctly different.
8
REFERENCE INFORMATION
SITE DESCRIPTION
Site size: 4.6 acres
Existing Use: Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USES
North:
South:
East:
West:
Hmong American Alliance Church
Acorn Mini Storage
Maplewood Drive
Single dwellings
PLANNING
Land Use Plan: M1
Zoning: M1
Code ReQuirements
Section 44-637(b) requires a CUP for buildings in M1 districts that would be within 350 feet of a
residential district.
FindinQs for CUP Approval
City code requires that to approve a CUP, the city council must base approval on the nine
required findings for approval. Refer to the attached resolution for a fisting of these findings.
APPLICATION DATE
We received the revised and resubmitted plans for this proposal on October 17, 2005 (the date
the applicant provided the remaining plans needed for this review). State law requires that the
city take action within 60 days of receiving complete applications. A decision on this request is
required by December 16, 2005.
9
p:sec9\Maple Leaf Ridge Design2 10'05
Attachments
1. Location Map
2. Site Plan
3. Landscaping Plan
4. Original 4-Building Sfte Plan
5. Sfte Plan Alternative #1
6. Site Plan Alternative #2
7. Building Elevations
8. Applicanfs Letter dated June 23, 2005
9. Amenities Statement
10. Building Official's Report dated July 5, 2005
11. Letter from Gwen Kingsbeck
12. Letter from Daniel Ward
13. Letter from Jeffrey and Deanne Dick
14. Letter from Thomas and Melissa O'Connor
15. Enginee(s Report from Chuck Vermeersch dated October 17, 2005
16. Conditional Use Permft Resolution
17. Plans date-stamped October 11,17 and 28, 2005 (separate attachments)
10
IfSsl- ~.~~!~Li 1041 11049! lOSS '1 10""! -i~l!'i6II! Ird/~:~Cerner
---~-. -..- ~, COUNTY ROAD C . '
~.i i: - 1\.. ,.' '1Ilo11!~,!liflaJl!!il~liJ( .
I I I I' "'_.~. I ) I~ :0
i'. ' ..1: 'Iii'HIIll:
~., .;" :. 'J-r.'. .....!!!'~--_.....l-c-l ~
- ,-
,~' .>
12611 . ...,----L..."-,.._ -_.~--.----i a:::
I ? iW
f~o-{_~.j ! ' ,/ : CD
------:2S. i ~. i
: 2600 fd-: i., ~. // \ \
- (" lJm--': ):! \, 'I
.--."-J----: ~ ~. 11 li--. , \.
),.~ I 9! ! "r:: _.=:: I \
<~.--I ! f~~:pP,! .. --- \
,;:.-t~J r~r~~e ~It & 1J.~--~1
. _;~!'---' f 61J0 t ulT. J, ~LLEctE 1 1 n- ~ Ii
,~\~~ i ~, ~ ~\\-___~~~~r
~'.-\~71 : II I 1.~t.L~r . ' /
.~~i 1 I ~,--!; 2515. ,I
:,.._-.1-"--.', ! I . '" 11025 i 1033 ..1 ,/
. :---j 11=1~'q".. ,.' ; . I
i~i~~j~L- ,~~~'-~'22i II /
, " \ I"&:CD I :l!>Io ! 2!l!I.) "ii... PROPOSEir
~,_,-:,.L-~~~~ .. i 111 I 'V'
{Jf ... i ~ ig: I '1i12 i ~! L~ SITE
,._<.3 i ~ Ie; i ~'I25iJllii 1118
,ji~ [:If '. ~ 12" luJ I .. :
~8- I 2;! I !Is i 2~~ I ifJ2 i
L' ,.r.r i Bon i 2Ifl i i -4 !
~-=---J 1.JlL~--=-1 I \iF "
L~.~7.J !.~ 12IW,1 j ~! II, ' ,
. :;i!IiI" . .,-, ..~.
1-,2,~ $EXTA;' ~VE....../" -- /
-fJ/#I-.J r . A./I!F2458 '2441~-
.'/"l,........ l JW I \P"" f ---/
.,':,,:./ !....t...~\.1032~'~. ,I '\\2l~'I/
~/~ri j. I ;.!i
'---- ( f' .. 1041 1055! 12411 ./
2", -- - :!ii Itl I"
~ I L.___ I- IliI ____-L/
.- '.l-'--.-'.i' _~ERVAI~~Yi .. 7
,.1 I~.'
-----l 1 )/..
Spoon I-ak i 1 : <(\)~
___L______.__L.__.j._.__~~ ~
y.\G
I
!
i
L_
Attachment 1 /.:-1
,
rr--
--,
.-:&'1.'
, ' t
l:J I-_~l h
;... -l !
_: I r-
L__. ----: II
, ,
. "
i :1
"
_ ._.___~-1_1
.1...
r-<'
-
CD
>-
~
:z:
Cl
:r
i ~ /
i ~ ,," '1]
L___I'" LJ
. ~
f !lrn
i i r- 1 'j
I I CD I II
. I '
t I:Z: 1 I;
L__________J 1-' J
~~NOR AV~ 3 I I
i l:::l i
'"1 . 10, i...
, I . I
I I L..._'1
' .,
, , ,
.~ /
f !
/ /-- .' ///'/~
I ~.' ..,~ ..~
t~_/ .~."' -~.
-~..
../
/;f
, ,
,'-'2491ii11
,., J
;' I
I
I
I
.'
,
,I
!
/
L
I
,.
I
i../
!
..
Ill.
2464
-
Il1i!
.T
11IM!
__ I
.
I
)
--r--,
i
j
I
i
,
\-
.,
a
I II
! 1211
I I
...
'..
LOCATION MAP
11
. ~
- .
~
$
-
.D
r~
. .
.......
r-.--.-.--n-..----n-..-n-.--n-.-""]
till' ~~ I
$
,..... '...14..... .... .... '" 4...."::\ ., !/-#'
~ ~ ~~~ ~
~ .
.
\
. i
~ ~ ~~ ~
~-
ss g;
:: m
0$\ 11
\ r
., l>
;: z
"
~
~ w i ~ .':
" ~~
~
\
.
MAPlE lEAF~ ~
a~ 1"LAPL.EIOClCO,l"N
~~ ~IAI.. EGlJITT PARTNER5
. OAKDALE, I'tol
SITE PLAN
DlU&Ml!T,""
SITE PLAN
Attachment 2
~
H~
~~ ~
.. -{
~4 (j'I
:i -i
~~ 0
()
r
..~
. CJ
m
. ...
~
r U I~
. ...
-{ ~~ d
:u
ss~ "
~~ ~
.~ :I
:; 11
;. tJ
. m .
,~ '
RECEIVED
OCT 1 1 2005
DM~~="
7JIIl1lUlSlll1.\().SUJ[2JII
G/IIlllllL.5!ll211
PII./851) 1l4-8115FM..(I51) 1lS-122ll
12
'" :0
~ "'
n
'"
I'fWJECT
...,
'" ""
co '"
~ C
l.lAI'LE LEAF BUSINESS CENTER
1111-'
TREE PLANTING
"~IS PLAN IS THE PROPeR TY Of WINeD LANDSCAPE AND 0[5'ON NO "ART OF THIS PLAN
t,lAY BE REPRODUCEO IN ANY FORM 00 r.lEANS VolIHOUTWRlmN f'ERMISSIDN
,~i
! !
I I
Attachment 3
LANDSCAPING PLAN
I ,
1'1
" ,
~
LANDSCAPE AND DESIGN
~"'" """l ""'"'''"N "." ("') ........,"
, .
KEN OWL
"R''''' .
JRICHARDSON
I" ~ JO'-O"
c-'
.
7/20/05
NO_n'
13
n~
?? m
~~ 1)
.. r
:. 1>
'. Z
'.
,
.
~
rr-------------.---------------------:
i[rC~ ~:
li~-
" '
,. ,
II ~
u~
,~ :ill
H!I
" :. 1)
"
~ 1" ~
i . :{
i :1l
!
!
i
-.. i
ORIGINAL 4-BUILDING SITE PLAN
i
,
!
.c'-to~'.r ...
i
i
i
!
!
i
i
!
I
!
I
,
Attachment 4
. . I
0 .;1
i · f
! !.~
ii
;; iU
~ ~I~
! .
il
"
::= ~
~
a-
~ .
U'I .to. i UJ ....:.
':>> 3~ MAPLE LEAr BUSINESS CENTER s,'TE PLAN zl~Art~
;........ MA1"'I..--cwooo, t"'N . -_.,.., -~
t. I~ ~IA.L EaulTT' PA~=R& 7:11l1Hl11S111....SIlt2Jll
. -.r.1It!l5IB
,........ "~ OAlCt:lALE,l"'N . ~trr.J:Ql~1 l'tl.(I$I)lI~IHIX.fI5'l7J5....'m
;.
.
~.
a-
@
\J' .....l!J. u.o
,
.
!
i
!
I
I A.~ ~
i
a- U' ~ ~
I
I
I
!"
i
!
~ ~ i ~
~
~
a-
:.
..-
I
-- c-J
-------:-----_._-_._.._~
14
::t>
r
~
m
::0
Z
:!:i
-
<
m
=I:l:
~
::0
o
~
:!:i
m
OJ
c
-
r
o
-
z
G)
=I:l:
w
,---------------------.--------.----..,
!
!
I ////
I ;
i
I
i
!
i
I
i
I ,.'
-
- ~
~ ~~
.... '"
..
..... ,N: 1.;.,.,1>
~ .
.r ~i~.... ...."
~
.. ",...00 w . ~ -
I!
F
- ..., U>.~ ~
I
I
!
" !
~ I@
-l.
.-- ----:---..-.._ I n
-.-..-..~
-'-"
'I
..SSC2NlEl<
SI1'ER..AN
PRHI'l/n.""
TTPARTh!E1'$
(,
I
i
j
I
!
I
!
I ~
1:
I U ~ ..
! ~q
~~ :!
! :. 11
I ~. tJ
i ]~ ~
. ~ r
I .....
-{ .
I II
I
j
!
~
~~:11'
7SI_....!III[DI
~.!lIl1#
I'll.fII51)~II!ilM.(1l51)l1S-lm
ALTERNATIVE #1
Attachment 5
15
)>
.
-i
m
::u
z
~
-
<
m
~
'"
en
OJ~
c-i
-(")
5:1:
-'"'0
Z.
G>)>
en(")
",m
)>3:
zm
OZ
w-i
o
"TI
,-----------------------------------,
i
~~:j
i
i
I
!
! -.
(UL'
.JEl ",.~~
W .
,~
as ~
~~ ;lJ
-- ""'
~5 CP
.. -i
~, 0
o
J~
""'
r :11
I
!
i
i
!
!
I
!
j
i
I
!
i
i
ss~
~~ ~
,. :J
:;; 1)
;~ tJ
m <
H,
Attachment 6
u
U l~
~~ II
...~
RECEIVED
OCT 1 1 2005
;: lEAF al5HESS ~ SnE PLAN z)~u<~
3UXO,!fl DIU&N~,," ~~
ERCIAI.. EGlIIIT FARTNERS 1JIII1IUD!DI&\fl.!UlEDI
'All'.'" ~J=5fllL(I5T)ns-U3
'" '"
.... ., .....';\ I
'" '" ~~ '" ~ -
,k
I!
- 0-..) .... ~ .&>. .": IS'
.:: ...it \1
@
l..
--- -.--.--.. IW
--'_ !i!:
~--._-.._-._~.
ALTERNATIVE #2
16
Attachment 7
VUl-stl (I!lllJ'll'Il~IIt-tILh!lllJ1Id. .~- N.J 'a1'v'Q)fotO ~ ......
lItl!lllNll'1WOlMl ~~\l'dJJ.ll"03"'1'tl~ i: . ,
lUlmS"G\'II_lKl (')2
. ":':H~Cl ~~- 1.Ill'.u_ NIol'OOCf1l;;~1J
9N:)f.l.'\l"~3 ~ , \ . ~1C]1lns ~3.1.Na:'9a'lIsngJlt31i11J1tW ~
I i
h
~
~b .
. gl
l! i
h
~
!! ~~ . ..1 .
III
,
Ii - i z '.
I!i 0 "
.=
[J Ci i= H
..1 <(
11 III > ~!!
ill
'. ..1 U
~ ~; ill
Ii i= ~~
::jj ~ ~~
ill aa
I ..1
ill
; B
u
~ II
.
~~ II
~
. .
ii
ii
J
f1
R
ii
Ii
li
-i-i
-11
ii
II
Ii
ii
--tj
~ I!!~
I
I
i
i
i
~I~
~
Ii
i\
-~i
---jl ~ J
Ii 91~
Ii (Q '"
:i
J
:n ~i
ill .-
3 .'
I ~~
I- .;
Il>:H
~n
BUILDING #1
~
i
~ II
q~
Hl
I i
d ~
a ~ i
i
i
I
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
I~~itm~ I
cmn ... 0, !ON
81
-il iif(
,
z '.
O "
.=
t= ;;
<( "
> i~
~n
-~
. ~
Ii ~
" ~
Ii ~
li
Ii
!I
II
!I
!i
-{.
17
WZI""'4l(I!ill)"WJ'ilIIH<.L(lS9l'Hd NWmCJ::fltO il C\l
Klli'OlIII'nIGlllO ~'9'd.LJ.lrw:T.l1V~ i
(U1IJ\S1IO.'1I_<IltI.
~t""~(l ~- 1.llI'..u_ l'Ll'OO<:::\'lI:I1c::h'1ol (')
5NOI.1"1A:I13t:.o::lNlQ'llna al3J.N3:)~gna:/'t3'3"W"1\.l ~
I i ~
~ Ii ~a
! ! . I
s5 ~~ , ~~ Ii ~
.
!
~~ .
-.0 .
"
"
"
" _.0 --11
" " "
"
" "
" "
" , " .
" '" " '" II:
" "
" I!i " I!i
" "
u "
-" Ci " Ci
" ..1 " ..1
u "
a -" III a : " III
" "
" "
" '" "
-" i ~ '. " z '.
n I!i "
"" " Q ""
" Ci .- " .-
-" t- o' " t- o'
n ~~ ~~
" ..1 <( " ~
" III " -;":
" _.0 > >" " >"
" ill " ill
" aa " u
" z '. ..1 " ..1
" "" ill " ill
" 0 .- "
" ~~ " -~
" i= "
"
" <( "
"
" > !~ "
"
" ill "
. " aa
" ..1 "
j~ " ill "
" "
~5 " "
" "
" "
" ~ ~ "
" I "
"
~ ~ "
"
i "
I I "
"
ni "
II
l! ~ I~
Ii I . , f l
~~ :
_-11 ~
"
" ~
"
"
" , , I
" , ,
"
"
"
" ~
" '"
"
" I!i
"
"
" Ci
" ..1
"
" III
"
"
"
" Z '<
_.0
" 0 ..
--
-~ i= .'
" ~~
" ~
"
" " >"
-" " ill
n " aa
" " ..1
" " ill
" "
" " ~
" "
" "
" "
" "
" "
" "
" ::
"
" "
--u "
"
"
"
--u --u
BUILDING #2
18
IJUl""W. hSiF~J ~llHll (lSll) 'lid NkI';f1\l'Cl':lrtO ~ C'J,
ill!Ol;lllI~ Qj~d .lL1",= ,....I~ I:
QilJLfl!i "00\'11 fIlSI""llOCf
C~~""~9 ~- ....'J.&Ii'm'V:! tII.I'oocm3:1c.l\l'l.l (')2
9N::'11V'A313 €. 9N1011fl9 ~3!N3:l 9S3'oIJSflQ :i't:rl nI9'>.l ~
I
Ii I
:6 ~
n
ii
Ii
:: (f\
II I!i i"---
:~ ~
1.1. z '.
o ~=
Ji ..
--i~ ~ ~~
> n
~ aa
~
.
~~
~.
~ ~
~ i
IU
it
l!
J1
11
Ii
Ji
11
Ii
ii
ii
Iii
~s ~
~ Iii ~'
I~ ~~ ~ ~~
~ ~~
-n
ii
li
!!
::
ii
ii
ii
Ii
g ~:
..1 '_
III .
, .
Zo ~;
.-
--
~ !!
> i~
~ as
I
.
I
~ II
q~
Hl
I~~itm~ I
cmn ... 0, !ON
I
hi
~~ :
I
i
imm
imm
I
i
i
Imm
I
i
I
i
i ',/
i
i
,mm
!mm
I
i
!
Ii
!I
!!
-----1.1
ii
-iJ BUILDING #3
--~
ii i
II ~
ii i
!! il
i' ;
.
- -u
~
~I
l"
~~
----fi
Ii
Ii
II
Ii
II
!i
ii
H
11
~.
~ .
Ci -
iif a
~ ~~
ill .-
3.-
I ~~
l-- .;
oc ~!
~ sa
Ii
Ii
!]
Ii
i!
____oj ~r
!!Ill ~[
:: I
iiz .It:
iig ~:
!!<t ~~
ii > ~!
i!~ ;;
::w ~h1
-~
n---L
Ii
Ii i
Ii ~
ii--e I
;
.
rr-u
ii
II
U---f1
ii
!i
!i
ii
19
Attachment 8
&
KELCO
Real Estate Development Services
7300 Hudson Blvd.
Suite 245
Oakdale, MN 55128
Office: [651] 730-2020
Fax: [651J 730-2055
June 23, 2005
Mr. Tom Ekstrand
City of Maple wood
1830 East County Road B
Maplewood, MN 55109
RECEIVED
JUL 2 7 2005
RE: Maple Leaf Ridge Business Center
Maplewood Drive
Maplewood, ~
Dear Tom:
I am representing Mr. Mark Gossman, principal of Commercial Equity Partners in the
development of the Maple Leaf Ridge Business Park to be located at 2483 Maplewood Drive,
Maplewood, MN. The project is intended to consist of four building totaling approximately
45,000 sf of footprint and, with second floors, a total of approximately 55,000 sf which will be
divided into bays of approximately 2,400 sf each and sold as condominiums for use as
office/showroom, officermdustrial! and office/warehouse uses, all of which are approved uses in
the M1 zoning that covers this property.
Enclosed please find the applications for design review and condition use permit as well as the
requisite drawings for submittal and review and approval. Since the property abuts a residential
neighborhood, the 350' setback requirement" is applicable to the property.
The conditional use application is to allow for the westerly most building to be constructed at a
distance of 157' from the west property line to the front door of the vestibule of the building. As
can been seen from the rendering, these buildings will be of an office nature in appearance from
the exposure to the residence and, by allowing for this building to be constructed facing west, the
overhead doors will all be inboard and not visible from the residential neighborhood. The types
of uses anticipated in this project will not generate high volumes of visitor traffic and are
typically open weekdays during normal business hours. Also, since the units will be individually
owned, there is a sense of ownership, pride, and neighborliness will be more prevalent than if the
spaces were leased. The mini storage project to the south of this property is encroaching in the
350' setback and therefore has established a precedent to allow for relief from the maximum
setback.
20
Mr. Tom Ekstrand
June 23,2005
Page 2
A neighborhood meeting will be held on Tuesday, June 28, 2005 at the fire station in the local
neighborhood. All landowners within 500' of the property have been notified to attend this
meeting for information regarding the project. A separate report will be sent to the City of
impressions we have from the neighbors at that meeting.
When the City approves this project, it is our intent to start construction late this summer for
occupancy in mid-winter. The project will probably be phased with two buildings constructed
initially and the other two buildings to be completed in 2006.
I have enclosed for your review an amenities list that has been developed for promotional
purposes for these buildings. As you can see, these will be very high-quality and aesthetically
pleasing buildings that will lend themselves well to this neighborhood. The additional tax base
and the new jobs created will benefit the City and the neighborhood in general.
I look forward to the opportunity to present this project in the approval process for the City of
Maplewood. Please call me with any questions are any requests if additional information is
required.
ames E. Kellison
President
JEK/jjc
Enclosures
21
Attachment 9
Maple Leaf Ridge Business Center
Amenities
1. Integral colored concrete block units for much grater aesthetic appl:aJ. and for minimum
maintenance. Resealing is only necessary every 5-7 years at approximately 1/3 the cost
of painting.
2. The metal coping material for the parapet and canopies is factory painted finish over
aluminum so that it does not rust.
3. All exterior windows are 1 n insulated glass set in thermally broken aluminum mullions
which are factory anodized for extended life on this finish. The glass is a light tint with
low E for superior solar reflectance and minimum transmission.
4. The rear man doors have glass above them for natural light into the warehouse areas.
The man doors have drip caps to minimhe water getting in through the door or into the
door system causing rust. The doors have anti-pick plates. The thresholds are bronze
anodized material which wears much better than aluminum.
5. The overhead doors have high lift tracking and 30,000 cycle commercial grade spring and
track systems.
6. The roof is a 45-mil EPDM rubber roof system with rock ballast. It is installed with a 10-
year guarantee for labor l!Jld materials from the manufacturer and a prorated warranty on
the material for an additional 1 O-years.
7. The concrete block is insulated using a 2-part foam which produces a R-ll insulation
factor for the concrete block.
8. The concrete slab is 5" thick of 4,000 psi concrete with a fiber mesh system which
reduces hairline cracking and crazing.'
9. The roof system has a polyisosanuraied and expanded polystyrene foam insulation
system providing an R-22.2 insulation factor.
10. Each vestibule will have a 12" x 12" porcelain tile floor with 4" bull-nose base. The
walls of the vestibule will be taped, sanded and painted as will the drywall ceiling. The
vestibule will have a sprinkler head, 2 kW electric fan driven wall heater and light
fixture.
11. TIle demising walls will be constructed of full height 2 x 6 steel studs at 24" on center
with the bottom track being caulked to the concrete and the. top being stuffed with
insulation and filled with Struct-O-Lite. The studs will be insulated with R-19 insulation
and 5/8" drywall will be installed on each side of the wal~ full height with taping and two
coats of drywall joint compound.
22
12. Each unit will be provided with a floor drain connected to a flammable waste system as
required by code for vehicle entry into the building.
13. There will be a continuous 3' wide concrete apron along the overhead door side of each
of the buildings constructed of 6" of concrete with fiberglass reinforcing mesh.
.
14. Six-inch diameter steel pipe bollards are installed at each side of each overhead door for
protection from vehicles.
15. The air conditioning units are a 10 SEER rated unit providing a very economical
operation. Thermostats for the air conditioning units are night setback programmable
thermostats.
16. Each bay will be served with 200-amps of 110/208 volt, 3-phase, 4-wire electrical
service. Each bay will have a 1" empty conduit back to the. equipment room for
telephone home runs.
17. The paved areas will receive two 1-1/2" lifts of asphalt over minimum of 6" of Class 5
recycled base material.
18. The site will have 20' tall pole lighting with two heads on each pole in locations that
provide for security lighting. There will be wall packs for lighting of the truck areas
between the buildings to provide for security and loading illumination. Each canopy will
have a metal halide down light for illumination of the entry. All exterior lighting will be
controlled with a photocell to turn on and a time clock to turn off.
19. All landscaped areas will be irrigated by an automatic irrigation system with a rain sensor
system.
23
Attachment 10
Memo
From: David Fisher, Building Official
July 5, 2005
To: Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner
Re: Maple Leaf Ridge Business Center -
New Multi-tenant Condo Style Office/Industrial Buildings.
A complete building code analysis will be required when plans are
submitted for permit.
All new office buildings over 2000 square feet are required to be
fire sprinklered and to meet NFPA 13.
The new building must be built to meet Minnesota State Building
Code and 2000 IBC.
Provide accessible parking to comply with Minnesota State
Building Code 1341 for accessibility. The accessible parking
needs to spread out for the tenants and one van accessible space
will be required for each building.
Must meet the Minnesota State Energy Code.
Any occupancy with the occupant load of 30 or more requires an
elevator for accessibility.
I would recommend a pre-construction meeting with the building
department.
24
Attachment 11
Tom Ekstrand
From: Gwen Kingsbeck [gwen@resolutiongraphics.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 10:29 AM
To: Tom Ekstrand
Subject: Maple Leaf Ridge Business Center
Tom,
My husband Jeff and I live at 2498 Adele Street, directly behind the proposed development. We received a
request, for our opinions regarding the development, dated August 8th. I didn't immediately respond to your
request because an additional informational meeting had been scheduled between Kelco and the affected
neighbors.
While we do understand that this land will be commercially developed and we are accepting of the proposed
usage, we do have have deep concerns regarding the CUP, layout and landscape. At the informational meeting
held June 28th the neighbors let Mr. Kellison know that we were extremely unhappy about the proposed removal
of all of the natural buffer between the neighbors property and the proposed development. The existing
commercial developments in the area have kept a much wider buffer zone between themselves and the
neighbors.
At the additional informational meeting on August 9th Mr. Kellison proposed a more acceptable landscape plan
which includes a row of evergreen trees as a buffer between the development and the neighbors. Mr. Kellison is
also looking into saving the existing 20 foot evergreens near the property line.
The big issue for us is the requested 150 foot setback as well as paved parking with in 50 feet of the property
line. Mr. Kellison has informed us that ifthe 150 foot setback is granted we will look at the nicely finished front
side of a building, however, if the CUP is not granted we will look at the back side of building with large dock
doors and paving will be 50 feet from the property line regardless of the CUP issue.
While Jeff believes the best choice is to have the buildings as far away as possible and look at dock doors, I feel
there is no good choice is this situation - I don't want to look at dock doors but I also don't want a 2 story building
150 feet away looking directly into my family room and bedroom windows with nothing to block the view.
In conclusion we would be happy to have Maple Leaf Ridge Business Center as a neighbor but we feel their
proposed development, as planned, is to large for the site and would not leave a reasonable buffer between them
and the neighborhood.
Si ncerely,
Gwen Kingsbeck
2498 Adele Street
Maplewood, MN 55109
651-481-0785 Home
65H197-1100 Office
8/17/2005
25
August 21, 2005
Mr. Tom Ekstrand
City of Maplewood
1830-East County Road B
Maplewood, MN 55109
RE: Maple Leaf Ridge Business Center
Maplewood Drive
Maplewood. MN
Dear Tom,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed Kelco development.
My concem is not with where Kelco wants to constuct their building, but rather with
what they intend to do right up to the propertyline: cut down all existing trees
and constuct a mosquito infested slough. I notice they made reference to
to the adjoining mini storage for a precedent in not conforming to the 350' setback
requirement, even though their proposal is in no way remotely similar to what
the min storage contructed.
I'm certain there are altemate plans that could be enacted that would be both profitable
and satisfactory to their prospective neighbors. If Kelco believes they need to construct
such a large comples to make the project a worthwhile venture, then maybe the property
is'nt as valuable as the they and the seller think it is.
I apologize for not getting back to you sooner as I have been out of town. I've offered
very brief comments on the subject, but I think you probably have a feel for what I'm
thinking, (the same thing any resident would be thinking in this position).
Thank you for your involvement with this, and if I can be of any further help please let me
know.
Sincerely,
Daniel Ward
2514 Adele Street
Maolewood, MN55109
651-486-7824
Attachment 12
26
Attachment 13
Tom Ekstrand
From: Dick, Jeff S. [JDick@northstar.org]
Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2005 3:31 PM
To: Tom Ekstrand
Cc: DeanneDick@comcast.net; Jeff.Dick@comcast.net
Subject: Comments regarding Maple Leaf Ridge Business Center
Dear Mr. Ekstrand,
Here are comments from my wife and me regarding the Development Proposal for the Maple Leaf Ridge
Business Center:
Comments from Deanne Lynn Dick:
My family and I thoroughly enjoy the trees on the site of the proposed development. They not only offer
beauty, they also provide a sound and visual barrier from Highway 61. I've sat on our porch many evenings
and relaxed to the swaying sound of the leaves and the great view of the sunset reflecting off the trees. I'm
fmding it very hard to believe that cutting the trees would benefit the neighborhood. From talking to the
neighbon;, it would be doing quite the opposite. One resident is already selling their house due to the
condominiums and another resident, who is directly affected, will sell if the plan passes. From where I
stand, the business condos are already causing problems without even being built, not to mention the
increase in traffic to the area if the plan goes through. I see them and everything that comes along with
them as a hindrance to our neighborhood rather than an attraction.
Comments from Jeffrey Scott Dick:
I am adamantly opposed to the removal of the trees on the proposed site. While I don't have a problem
with the office condos themselves, I think removing the trees would be a major detriment to our
neighborhood. The trees offer a wonderful barrier from highway 61 that gives our neighborhood the
feeling of being "tucked away" from the neighboring areas. These trees are also the home of plenty of
wildlife, including many deer that feed behind 2506 Adele St. I urge you to reject any proposals that involve
removal of the trees from the proposed site.
Thank you in advance for considering our comments.
Sincerely,
Jeffrey S. Dick & Deanne L. Dick
2505 Adele St. N.
651.482.1905
8/17/2005
27
Attachment 14
Thomas F O'Connor
Melissa L O'Connor
2506 Adele 8t N
Maplewood MN 55109
We are the O'Connor family and live at 2506 Adele 8t directly behind the proposed development. When we
bought our home in June of2001 we were told that the property's behind us were zoned commercial but that
the burm and several feet on the other side of the burm including the main tree line were owned by the
developer of the residential neighborhood as a buffer between the new residential development and the two at
the time residential properties. This was something we considered when buying our home but thought as long as
the burm and the main tree line would not be affected by a commercial property we would welcome a
commercial project because we wouldn't see it and would be able to maintain our wooded view and buffer from
Hwy 61. 80 you can imagine how disappointed we are to see the Maple Leaf Ridge proposal removing all
mature trees and coming right up to our property line. A lesson learned I guess.
Just a comment on how much we have enjoyed our wooded view and the wildlife that comes with it. We have
watched for the last four years a doe have two fawns every mating season and have greatly enjoyed watching
them grow. We also have for the past year watched the Bald Eagle collect from our woods materials for the new
nest on hwy 36 and 61 which has been wonderful to be a part of.
Dear Mr. Ekstrand,
Our main concerns are the proposed buffer between the proposed commercial development and our residence
and the conditional use permit that has been requested. The proposed plan includes removing all mature trees
along the entire back and both sides of the properties opening us up to not only this new development but to the
American Hmong Church, Acorn Mini Storage and to all ofHwy 61 traffic noise, car dealership speaker noise
-and lighting from all. The proposal replaces them with small 8 to 10 foot trees along the back that won't even
attempt to cover the 24 foot tall two story building looking us straight in the eye 157 feet away.
We have attended two meetings with Jim Kellison and representatives from Commercial Equity Partners. In the
fust meeting we expressed our biggest concern being the buffer between the two properties that we didn't have
a problem with what types of business that were going in as long as we didn't have to be exposed so openly to
them. They stated they would go back and redo some landscaping and show us views of what we would see
from our properties and have a second meeting. When we attended the second meeting we were very
disappointed. They had one sketch only showing our homes from behind only two levels high and they are three
levels high. Our lower levels are below the burm and with the proposed two story building facing our direction
being built up to the height of the top of the burm the first level of the building will be level with our main floor
and the buildings second story would be level with our upstairs. The houses this is affecting are all designed
with the main living spaces facing the back family rooms, kitchens, kitchen eating areas, dining room, master
bedrooms and baths all with large windows. The new proposal had such minor changes moving the holding
pond back a little allowing room for 10 foot trees on top of the burm for our buffer and that's it. The building is
24 feet tall with 8 to 10 feet buffer trees. The top floor businesses will be looking directly into our upstairs level
and our main living level. With that building being requested to be 157 feet from our property we feel this is
way to close, we will have to have every window covered at all times and any outside activities will be easily
viewed by several business units which is not very comfortable.
When we mention this being to close the response we received was that the 350 ft was an archaic rule and we
should worry more about what types of business's were coming in and not the buffer between us so if they got
moved back that we would not be seeing the astatically pleasing front of one of the buildings but they would
have to put in shipping and receiving dock type building facing us. Which they stated didn't matter to them
either way. Being they want to open everything up and only buffer with small trees and if this building is 350 ft
away we would prefer this also at 350 ft we shouldn't be able to see much and wouldn't have office window
units looking directly at us.
28
As far as Acorn Mini Storage setting precedent encroaching in the 350 ft which I believe it is sti1l220ft back,
These are two totally different types of business ' s you barely have any workers or customers at Acorn Mini
Storage and they also hide the holding pond from our sights keeping it forward on the property and they left all
trees and foliage on the remainder of there property as a good buffer between us all you can't even see them.
The American Hmong Church also left the tree line alone. It is our request that since there is going to be a
removal of all mature trees and a parking lot within several feet of our property regardless of how close the
building is that you enforce the 350 ft which we believe is there to protect us as home owners living in the City
of Maplewood.
29
Attachment 15
Enaineerina Plan Review
PROJECT: Maple Leaf Ridge
PROJECT NO:
REVIEWED BY: Chuck Vermeersch
DATE: October 17, 2005
Background:
Commercial Equity Partners is proposing the construction of a multi-tenant,
condominium-style officelwarehouse complex. Revised plans and drainage calculations
dated October 10, 2005 were reviewed.
The development is to be constructed on 4.5 acres fronting on Maplewood Drive west
between the Hmong American Alliance Church and Acom Mini-Storage. The property
consists of two parcels, both of which were previously single family homes. The south
parcel also had a bam and two outbuildings which were demolished about a year ago.
Runoff from all three of these sites worKs its way through a system of wetlands, ditches
and storm sewer, north to Kohlman Lake.
The revised development consists of three buildings, rather than four as originally
proposed, and associated parking areas. The revised plan addresses most issues raised
in the review of the previous submittal.
The applicant or their engineer shall address the following comments.
1. The revised pond configuration, together with the reduction in impervious surface,
meets the city's water quality standards. Peak flows from the site are reduced
compared to existing conditions. Although there is a Significant increase in runoff
volume, soil borings indicate the pond may be able to infiltrate a significant amount if
excavated to the layer of poorly graded sand.
2. The proposed sanitary sewer design has been reviewed by engineering and the
city's utility superintendent, and the design is approved. The applicant's contractor
shall coordinate all connections to the city's system with the oity's utility
superintendent All new piping and structures shall be inspected and must be
accepted prior to occupancy.
3. A maintenance agreement will be required for the pond and storm sewer system.
The pond shall be seeded with a native seed mix approved by engineering.
4. Flow from the Mini-Storage pond to the south has been separated from the proposed
system as recommended in the review of the previous submittal. The pond outlet
orifice size has also been revised as recommended.
5. Retaining walls have been labeled with top of wall and bottom of wall elevations and
the use of retaining walls for live storage containment in the storm water pond has
been eliminated. However, retaining walls are still proposed along the west half of
both the north and south property lines. It may be possible to reduce the length and
30
height of the walls further. However. if the walls are to remain. the followina
conditions shall aDDlv:
a. The retaining walls will require a separate building permit from community
development.
b. The walls will require a certified, engineered design.
c. A special inspections schedule is required and must be completed and certified
by the design engineer.
d. The wall must be designed to withstand patentialloadings. The potential loading
shall include the largest vehicle combination that can be accommodated at the
loading dock of the west building.
e. Guard rails shall be installed along the length of the retaining walls, including
along the existing retaining wall of the Mini-storage facility near the south east
comer of the property.
6. No aradina Dermit will be issued for the site until:
a. Plans have been submitted to Saint Paul Regional Water Service, and have been
approved.
b. Plans have been re-submitted to Ramsey Washington Metro Watershed District,
and have been approved and a grading permit secured.
c. An NPDES permit has been obtained from the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency.
31
Attachment 16
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, Kelco Real Estate Development Services has applied for a conditional use
permit to be allowed to build an office/industrial complex 250 feet from the abutting residential
district. The code requires 350 feet.
WHEREAS, this permit applies to the property at 2488 and 2497 Maplewood Drive.
The legal description is:
W. H. HOWARD'S GARDEN LOTS EX STH 61-1 N 85 FT OF LOT 3.
W. H. HOWARD'S GARDEN LOTS EX STH 61-1 AND EX N 85 FT LOT 3.
WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows:
1. On October 17, 2005, the planning commission recommellded that the city council
this permit. The planning commission held ,a public hearing. 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 considered the
recommendations of city staff and the public.
2. The city council reviewed this request on , 2005 and considered the
recommendations of the planning commission and city staff.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve 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, induding streets,
police and fire protection, drainage structures, water and sewer systems, schools and
parts.
7. The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services.
32
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 site plan that the city has date-stamped October 11,
2005. 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. The city council shall review this permit in one year.
4. The hours of operation shall be limited to the city's hours for noise control for the
westerly building as stated in Section 18-111 of the city code. This means that there
shall be no noise generated between the hours of 7 p.m. and 7 a.m. Monday through
Saturday and all day Sunday. This condition applies to any and all business activities
occurring on the west side of Building #3. The applicant's sale or lease agreements
should specify this.
5. The site lights, west of Building #3, the westerly building, shall be tumed off after 10
p.m. unless required to be on by the police department for security reasons. The
lights on the west side of Building #3 shall also be of a design that conceals the lens
and bulbs of these light fixtures. Light-intensity maximums must meet code
requirements.
6. Combine the two legal descriptions into one legally-described lot prior to obtaining a
building permit for this development.
7. Provide a landscaping/screening plan, including a double row of trees along the west
boundary, prior to the issuance of a building permit, which provides a visual screen
that is at least 80 percent opaque and six feet tall upon installation. If the double row
of trees does not accomplish this, additional screening must be provided. This
screen shall be an all-seasons buffer of items like decorative fencing, berming or
evergreen trees. This visual screen shall be provided along the rear of the properly
and extend from there along both side lot lines to the rear setback line of Building #3.
This plan may take into account existing vegetation and existing screening.
8. Meet all requirements of the community design review board and city code for
architectural design, landscaping, site lighting and parking.
9. Meet all requirements of the city engineer for site grading, drainage, erosion control,
dust control, utilities and removal of roadway dirt build-up.
10. Outdoor storage of any materials shall not be allowed unless a conditional use permit
for outdoor storage is obtained from the city council.
The Maplewood City Council approved this resolution on
,2005.
33