HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/08/2006
AGENDA
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
Tuesday,August8,2006
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: July 25, 2006
5. Unfinished Business: None Scheduled
6. Design Review:
a. MinnHealth Clinic - Vacant Lot Located to the North of 2055 White Bear Avenue
(Across the Street from the Maplewood Community Center)
b. Hill-Murray School (Field House Addition) - 2625 Larpenteur Avenue East
c. Maple Ridge Retail Center (Remodel Exterior) - 2515 White Bear Avenue
7. Visitor Presentations:
8. Board Presentations:
9. Staff Presentations:
a. Representation at the August 28, 2006, City Council Meeting - Items to be
Discussed Include the MinnHealth Clinic and Hill-Murray School
b. Reschedule September 12, 2006, CDRB Meeting Due to Primary Elections
10. Adjourn
DRAFT
MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA
TUESDAY, JULY 25, 2006
I. CALL TO ORDER
Acting Chairperson Ledvina called the meeting to order at 6:05 p.m.
II. ROLL CALL
Board member John Hinzman
Vice-Chairperson Matt Ledvina
Chairperson Linda Olson
Board member Joel Schurke
Board member Ananth Shankar
Present
Present
Absent
Present at 6:13 p.m.
Present
Staff Present:
Shann Finwall, Planner
Lisa Kroll, Recording Secretary
III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Board member Hinzman moved to approve the agenda.
Board member Shankar seconded.
Ayes -Hinzman, Ledvina, Shankar
The motion passed.
IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Approval of the CDRB minutes for June 27, 2006
Board member Hinzman moved approval of the minutes of June 27, 2006.
Board member Ledvina seconded.
Ayes --- Hinzman, Ledvina
Abstention - Shankar
The motion passed.
V. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
None.
VI. DESIGN REVIEW
a. Maplewood Mall Comprehensive Sign Plan Amendment - 3001 White Bear
Avenue (6:06 - 7:40 p.m.)
Ms. Finwall said Tina Volpe, Director of Marketing for the Maplewood Mall, is proposing two
billboard-style signs on the east and west elevations of the mall.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 7-25-2006
2
Ms. Finwall said the signs are called wallscapes and are constructed of BriTex, which is a
white, flexible and durable vinyl substrate material. The signs will advertise the mall products
(Le., Simon Gift Cards, etc.), mall tenants (Le., Old Navy, etc.), and ultimately could advertise
the "products" sold by the tenants.
The owners of the Maplewood Mall, Simon Property Group, and its subsidiary partnership
owns or has an interest in 285 properties in the United States containing 200 million square
feet of gross leasable area in 39 states plus Puerto Rico. Four of the retail properties are
located in Minnesota including the Maplewood Mall and the Mall of America. Simon Property
Group is proposing to install wallscape signage at 70 of these properties, including the
Maplewood Mall. There are currently no other malls in the Twin Cities that have wallscape
signage.
Ms. Finwall said there was a correction in the staff report regarding the size of the proposed
signs. The sign marked 750 square feet should be 665 square feet which would be located
between PotBelly's and JCPenney and the sign marked 600 square feet should be 910 square
feet which would be located between Sears and the mall entrance.
Staff finds that the wallscape signs are compatible to the commercial nature of the
neighborhood and the building. However, staff has concerns that these signs will not improve
the relationship between the existing signs including:
1. The signs are large and resemble a billboard.
2. The signs will likely display products sold within the mall, rather than the stores
located in the mall or the mall itself.
3. The signs are made of a vinyl material which is susceptible to wear and tear.
4. Approval of these signs could open the door to the mall refacing the signs with
LED signage similar to the Myth's sign in the future.
5. The existing mall signs including the four monument signs, six of the seven wall
signs and six directional signs are old and outdated.
It's staff's opinion that the addition of the wallscape signs would not meet the intent of the
comprehensive sign plan. Simon Property Group and the city would benefit more from an
update of the existing signs at the mall. Therefore, staff recommends denial of the proposed
comprehensive sign plan amendment to add two wallscape signs.
Board member Schurke asked if staff could provide more of an explanation regarding number
4. in the staff report?
Ms. Finwall said regarding the sign code, the refacing of signs with the same size would
normally be called a reface and would not necessarily require approval by the CDRB, however,
city staff would probably bring a proposed reface of a large sign like these wallscapes before
the CDRB for an amendment to the comprehensive sign plan. Allowing these signs could open
the possibility of the refacing of these signs with the same size LED sign.
Board member Schurke thought that clarification should be made in the sign ordinance. He
said this should not be an exception someone could use.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 7-25-2006
3
Ms. Finwall said as an example of refacing a sign is when Dayton's changed to Marshall
Field's and then Marshall Field's changed over to Macy's, staff didn't feel the need to bring
those sign changes to the CDRB for an amendment to the comprehensive sign plan because
basically the new signs are the same size and city staff approved those signs as a refacing
with a sign permit.
Board member Schurke said that is not an LED sign though.
Ms. Finwall said correct.
Board member Schurke said if in the event people were refacing signs with the proposal to use
LED that is not refacing and would require coming before the CDRB for approval.
Ms. Finwall said the city council has not reviewed the draft sign ordinance yet so there is still
the opportunity to make amendments to the draft sign code. The CDRB recommended LED
signs with moving and flashing lights be prohibited. Once a large sign is up however, the
possibility of refacing it with the CDRB's approval is still there.
Board member Schurke said the comment made regarding LED signs such as the Myth
Nightclub sign caught his attention and that is why he brought the discussion up.
Board member Hinzman asked what these signs would be classified as in the sign code, is it
classified as a temporary sign, as a banner? If the CDRB amends the sign plan for the mall
what would it involve for raising the total signage allocation for the mall in the future for
possible sign refacements?
Ms. Finwall said signs such as this on another facility (not this large) would be called a
temporary banner sign and the city code currently allows a temporary banner up to 150 square
feet in size and the banner can only be up for 30 days.
Board member Schurke asked if there were any other examples of this type of signage in
Maplewood?
Ms. Finwall said this type of signage is nowhere else in Minnesota.
Acting chairperson Ledvina asked the applicant to address the board.
Ms. Tina Volpe, Director of Marketing for the Maplewood Mall, 3001 White Bear Avenue,
addressed the board. She said they appreciated the board's time in giving them the
opportunity to present the request. They provided an additional packet of information for each
board member for tonight's meeting that provided information on the wallscape program which
they are trying to implement at the Maplewood Mall. She said they compare this type of
signage to more of a banner type advertising. This is something new that is up and coming in
the industry. This would be the first of its kind in the state and no other shopping center in the
state is currently implementing this kind of advertising program. However, at the rate Simon
Property Group is doing this throughout the country they expect other centers will be
implementing these programs at other centers in the twin cities. These types of signs have
been installed in markets as large as New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, and Atlanta at
premier centers in the country.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 7-25-2006
4
Ms. Volpe said wallscapes will allow the mall to advertise the products and services that the
mall and Simon Property Group offers. Ms. Volpe said this would also be an opportunity for the
tenants and retailers to advertise their stores and products. This is the first step in partnering
with the city regarding increasing the market value at Maplewood Mall and being able to be
competitive within the industry. With the new shopping centers like Woodbury Lakes it's
important to continue to draw shoppers into Maplewood Mall.
Board member Hinzman thanked the representatives for their time tonight. He asked how often
they would be changing the wallscape signs out?
Ms. Volpe said when they are partnering with tenants in the mall to advertise there is a minimal
3 month requirement, possibly longer.
Acting chairperson Ledvina said the applicant has proposed two signs on the building exterior
at Maplewood Mall and he asked if they would be coming back before the board with additional
exterior signs anywhere else on the mall exterior?
Ms. Volpe said they don't have any other locations on the building exterior that would allow for
this type of banner signage. These are the two locations that were selected for this type of
wallscape program. She wanted to note the difference between a LED sign and a banner sign
like this wallscape as well as a huge price difference.
Board member Shankar asked if the city allowed you to advertise a "store" and not a "product"
would you still be interested in this wallscape sign?
Ms. Volpe said yes. She said to keep in mind that Champp's Sports may have a Nike shoe
with the Champp's Sports logo on it or the GAP might have someone in denim jeans so in a
sense the product will get advertised on the sign somehow.
Board member Schurke asked if this is the first wallscape sign proposal in Minnesota for the
Simon Property Group?
Ms. Volpe said yes.
Board member Schurke asked if this wallscape signage was proposed at the Mall of America
since Simon Property Group owns that mall?
Ms. Volpe said no not at this time.
Board member Schurke asked what governs the choice of centers in terms of where you
locate this wallscape?
Ms. Volpe said Simon Property Group is looking at markets that are in the top designated
market area or (DMA). If you are an advertiser or a marketer and you are looking at purchasing
advertising, typically the big guys are going to go to the top DMA's across the country and that
is how Maplewood Mall was selected because we are located in a top DMA.
Board member Shankar asked if Maplewood Mall is the only property managed by Simon
Property Group?
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 7-25-2006
5
Ms. Volpe said Simon Property Group owns and manages Maplewood Mall, Mall of America,
Miller Hill Mall in Duluth, and the Albertville Outlets.
Board member Shankar asked if Mall of America would be in the top 10 designated market
areas or DMA?
Ms. Volpe said yes.
Board member Shankar said but Simon Property Group has chosen not to have wallscape
signs at the Mall of America?
Ms. Volpe said at this time Simon Property Group has chosen not to advertise there. The Mall
of America is managed differently than Maplewood Mall is. The Mall of America is sort of a city
in itself and has a very different management structure compared to Maplewood Mall. The staff
at the Maplewood Mall is not in touch with the management practices at the Mall of America.
Board member Schurke asked if there had been any opposition to this type of signage at
centers in other states?
Ms. Volpe said they have not had a problem with most of the wallscapes that have been
implemented. Springfield, Missouri is changing their sign ordinance to accommodate the
program at the Battlefield Mall in Springfield, MissourL The only center that they know had an
issue in their community was Oehrlein Square in Oehrlein Park Chicago which is a very elite
and upscale area within the Chicago suburbs that recently got approval to do the wallscape
and it was installed last week.
Board member Shankar asked what type of maintenance this type of sign requires?
Ms. Volpe said the wallscape sign is very low maintenance. A sample of the product was
provided in the packet sent to the CDRB. The wallscape product is resistant to weather, wear
and tear, and is fire resistant. The framing system, which is stainless steel is used to install the
wallscape product and would be mounted to the brick wall with brackets. You don't see the
frame of the wallscape when it is up because the weather resistive material wraps around the
frame and snaps in place making the framing invisible.
Board member Shankar asked how the sign is lit?
Ms. Volpe said the sign will not be lit other than by the lights on the building exterior of the mall
and by the lights in the parking lot.
Board member Schurke asked how this wallscape product is different from a billboard sign?
Ms. Volpe said that's a good question. It's not different from a billboard but it's a way to get
their message out. She included information in the packet to the CDRB about the importance
of advertising within the shopping centers and how it benefits the companies and retailers
which helps to increase sales. She said it's getting harder and harder for marketers to get their
message across because everything is getting so fragmented and advertisers are challenged
everyday.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 7-25-2006
6
Ms. Volpe said with mass media continuing to fragment into smaller and smaller pieces in
demographics, marketers need to find new ways to get the advertising word out. People are
finding advertising on television is more difficult because people have Tivo and DVR's which
allow people to skip over commercials and the advertising. Consumers are becoming more
empowered by asking to be put on do not call lists, having spam blockers on their computers,
blocking calls and filtering information from advertisers. So marketers and advertisers are
looking at alternative ways to get their message out and the wallscape sign is just another way
of doing that. She said 62% of shoppers make purchasing decisions while they are in a mall.
That includes whether there is a vehicle in the mall advertising a car dealership or car brand or
advertising another product. That type of advertising is called experiential marketing which is
the seeing, feeling and touching of a product in a non-threatening environment.
Board member Schurke said from a market standpoint he finds the analysis interesting. The
role of the CDRB from a review standpoint is what the impact is aesthetically on the
Maplewood community. If the argument is that there is too much visual noise out there in terms
of marketing and we add more visual noise to rise above that personally it's a hard argument
for him to buy into. He said he has nothing but the highest wish for success for the Maplewood
Mall. Staff brings up a good point regarding beautifying existing signage or making
improvements to the existing signs rather than making an investment in the banner
advertisement of these wallscape signs. Personally he does not see how advertising Visa or
the Simon gift card On these wallscape signs will help the community of Maplewood.
Ms. Volpe said the product being advertised is Visa on the Simon gift card which is sold in the
Maplewood Mall by Simon Property Group. It's just one example of a product that could be
advertised on the wallscape, it could be an advertisement for Children's Place or the GAP.
Board member Schurke asked if there was an update regarding the condition of the current
signage at the mall and what the plan was to update the signage?
Ms. Volpe said as employees of the Maplewood Mall they notice the things that need to be
upgraded and updated every day. They have a five-year plan for Maplewood Mall. What Simon
Property Group looks at is what areas or markets are going to allow them to go above and
beyond. Simon Property Group looks at the wallscape program as the first step. If Simon
Property Group is able to implement something like the wallscape program they look at that as
a positive relationship between the city and the mall to upgrade the exterior. But if Simon
Property Group is not able to participate in things such as the wallscape program Simon
Property Group is going to say "isn't the Maplewood Mall located in the city that would not
allow them to get a permit to implement the wallscape program?"
Mr. Jad Murphy, General Manager, Maplewood Mall, 3001 White Bear Avenue, addressed the
board. Mr. Murphy said if Simon Property Group were to replace the monument signs along
White Bear Avenue those would be brought up to date and made into digital signs such as
what was done at the Myth Nightclub. The future for signage is in digital media. The mall would
come to the CDRB for approval for digital media signage but that is in the future and is very
expensive to do. This wallscape sign is an opportunity for the mall to have advertising at a
lower cost but still have a high impact. Woodbury Lakes is a very nice shopping facility which
has caused sales to go down at Maplewood Mall and the mall is trying to bring sales up in a
tasteful way. He said Simon Property Group would be willing to apply for a temporary sign in
order to test this type of sign at the mall.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 7-25-2006
7
Mr. Murphy said one of the biggest problems that could happen within the Twin Cities is if this
wallscape program is not approved in Maplewood other cities "will" approve it. It "will" drive
traffic in other cities and not having this wallscape sign will decline the sales in the Maplewood
Mall. Mr. Murphy said he is not saying this wallscape is going to increase the sales by a certain
percentage but it "will" drive more sales to the mall. The wallscape sign on the mall exterior
gives the consumers the opportunity to see something advertised from White Bear Avenue,
South lawn Drive or Beam Avenue because these signs are this "big". Monument signs don't
drive sales like the wallscape sign would.
Ms. Volpe said one thing Simon Property Group looks at with any renovation or improvement
to the center is the return on the investment. So if Simon Property Group were going to
upgrade the exterior signage and the monument signs at the mall Simon Property Group will
want to do something that is going to give them a return on their investment if they were going
to invest a lot of money in something. Simon Property Group does not look at everything the
same way at the mall but the mall does enhancements to help the mall look better because it's
the best thing for the center. She said they agree the exterior signage needs to be upgraded.
The new regional centers are implementing these types of things.
Board member Hinzman said he looks at the wallscape sign as a "temporary banner". The sign
will be up for a limited time, it's made of a material that is not meant for an extended time.
Under the current sign ordinance banners can be up for 30 days. When he compiles the facts it
appears this is a temporary banner sign to him. He has a concern that if the board were to
designate this as a sign and amend the comprehensive sign plan it really raises the amount of
signage on the mall that could be transformed in ways the CDRB may not see as acceptable in
the future. He wouldn't be in favor of amending the sign code for this wallscape sign. He would
be in favor of looking at this as a temporary sign banner for 30 days but he doesn't think the
applicant would be interested in that because it would be a significant investment for a limited
use.
Board member Shankar said he would have been more sympathetic to this proposal if the
wallscape signs were related to the anchor stores in the mall such as for Kohl's, JCPenney,
Sears and the new Macy's store but the fact that the wallscape signs could be for Simon gift
cards or advertising Visa the next thing could be an advertisement for a Rockport shoe at
Florsheim or a lawn mower at Sears and he is concerned how that is going to look on the
building falfade of the mall.
Acting chairperson Ledvina said he interprets these wallscape signs as a billboard in terms of
how they are designed. With the comprehensive sign plan for the Maplewood Mall the CDRB
is responsible for looking at the signs and how the signs interact with the architecture of the
building and if the signs compliment each other and he doesn't think the wallscape signs are
complimentary to the architecture of the mall building by any means. He said he sympathizes
with the business needs of the mall and the desire to maximize the marketing of the tenants in
the mall but for the larger concern of the city he feels these wallscape signs are very much out
of place here and he is not in favor of this proposal.
Board member Shankar said this signage may fit better in areas like the example in the packet
in Georgia because of the location and the fact that the mall in Georgia has a freestanding sign
but the wallscape sign on the front of the Maplewood Mall doesn't appeal here like it does at
the malls in Georgia as seen in the examples shown in the packet the CDRB received.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 7-25-2006
8
Board member Hinzman agreed with those comments.
Board member Shankar said people know what anchor stores are at the mall whether they are
coming from Hudson, Wisconsin or White Bear Lake. The applicant stated these wallscape
signs would draw people to the Maplewood Mall who would be driving in the vicinity to visit the
other tenant stores but he doesn't buy that statement. He believes the anchor stores draw
people to the mall and people will visit the other tenant stores while shopping at the mall. The
development in Woodbury pulls customers because of the specialty stores and the other strip
malls hold anchor stores such as JCPenney and Kohl's etc.
Board member Schurke said he would not presume to know the marketing and advertising
business better than the applicants do. The most important thing to relay to the applicant is
that there is a design expectation in this community which the CDRB is setting a standard for
and the CDRB is trying to not allow variances to that. One thing referenced in the staff report is
the idea to replace the monument sign with a LED sign. He said he wanted the applicants to
clearly know that currently the draft sign ordinance is disallowing the use of those types of
signs in the City of Maplewood. He has been to other communities around the country and the
issue of trying to subdue signage and keep it quieter makes it more conspicuous in his opinion
because it draws your eye to the signage in a pleasant way. Most of the advertising today is in
such a high volume it's almost difficult to get your message above the advertising volume.
From a design standpoint he would challenge the applicant to take the comments from the
CDRB and staff to see what can be done to address the issues at hand.
Board member Hinzman recommends denial of the proposed comprehensive sign plan
amendment to add a 665 and a 910 square foot wallscape sign on the east and west elevation
of the Maplewood Mall located at 3001 White Bear Avenue. Denial is based on the fact that the
wallscape signs will not improve the relationship between the existing signs as required by the
sign code for a comprehensive sign plan.
Board member Schurke seconded.
Ayes - Hinzman, Ledvina, Schurke,
Shankar
The motion to deny passed.
Ms. Finwall said the applicant can file an appeal with the city council within 15 days in writing
and then it would go to the city council for review. Staff thanked the applicants for their time.
(The applicant told staff they planned to appeal the board's decision to deny the proposal.)
b. Carpet Court -1685 Arcade Street (7:40 - 8:02 p.m.)
Ms. Finwall said Gary Blair is proposing to develop a 7,848-square-foot retail/warehouse
carpet store on a vacant lot located on the northwest corner of Larpenteur Avenue and
Highway 61 (1685 Arcade Street). Mr. Blair wants to relocate his existing Carpet court store in
St. Paul to this new location. The building will consist of approximately 3,966 square feet of
retail space and 3,882 square feet of warehouse/storage space. As proposed, the building
would have steel horizontal siding, stucco wall finishes, cultured stone wainscot, and a metal
roof. On July 18, 2006, the planning commission reviewed the current proposal and
recommended approval of the rezoning, public vacation, and building setback variance.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 7-25-2006
9
Ms. Finwall said the planning commission recommended two additional conditions of approval
including a hammer-head turnaround to be constructed off of the loading dock driveway and a
driveway access to be constructed On the north side of the parking lot onto the remaining
portion of the service road.
Board member Hinzman asked if this was just a concept plan the last time the CDRB reviewed
this last year or earlier this year?
Ms. Finwall said correct.
Board member Hinzman asked if staff or the applicant could point the differences out from the
concept plan and the proposal today?
Ms. Finwall said the applicant added the stucco corner treatments as suggested by Board
member Shankar and the applicant added a decorative cultured stone entry way at the
suggestion of another board member. If there were any other changes the applicant would
have to point those out.
Board member Schurke asked if there had been any other input from the community other
than what is shown in the staff report?
Ms. Finwall said the comments received by staff via e-mail, telephone, or by mail have been
included in the staff report. There was a visitor who spoke at the public hearing at the planning
commission meeting July 18, 2006. His name was A. L. Brown, (representing the District 5
planning council for St. Paul which covers the area directly south of Larpenteur Avenue). He
spoke regarding the building elevations and the safety of the vehicles entering and exiting the
site. The Palmes who live next to the property and Randy Bacchus of Bacchus Homes also
spoke at the public hearing.
Board member Shankar asked if the applicant is proposing stucco or EIFS and would there be
any joint lines in the stucco because it appears to be one continuous material.
Ms. Finwall said the applicant can address that.
Acting chairperson Ledvina asked the applicant to address the board.
Mr. Robert Blair, 1940 Grey Cloud Trail, addressed the board. He said he is the son of Gary
Blair, the owner of Carpet Court. He said he was excited to present the proposal. He said this
is very good design which is a vast improvement from the other plans they presented to the
City of Maplewood. The overall site design is also improved with many plants, shrubs and
trees. They have a video presentation to show the CDRB. The landscaping will help attract
nature such as birds and butterflies which was chosen for that reason as well as to add color to
the site. He said they feel the complete building and site design is more than just acceptable,
they feel this plan is "outstanding" and they hope the CDRB will feel the same way. He
distributed a handout to the board members and said he hoped the handout along with
watching the video presentation would answer questions the board may have. He then asked
for the video presentation to begin.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 7-25-2006
10
The board members said they were happy to see the applicant had prepared a video
presentation and stated they thought this was the first time they had seen a video presentation.
(The video presentation is shown on the video tape of the CDRB meeting but was not
transcribed for the minutes.)
First Robert Blair reviewed some of the concerns of the planning commission and pointed
them out On the model they provided of the proposed store they had for their presentation.
Regarding the building exterior finishes, on the south side of the warehouse they addressed
having different types of finishes. He said stucco is considerably more expensive compared to
metal siding and they didn't find a benefit of using that because of the cost. They found if they
used stucco it would look like too much stucco and would also look too bland and simple. The
CDRB stated during the concept plan review that they didn't like the look of a stucco box. They
found that the metal siding adds visual interest and gives more texture to the appearance and
detail to the building compared to using the same building material throughout. On the north
side of the building they have no screening requirements because of the commercial building
next door. He pointed out where the existing trees are on the adjoining property next to their
building and how the large trees would screen this property. Regarding the berming in the staff
report, the berm would be four feet tall and have shrubs on top. That isn't a great location for a
berm because it would screen and block the front of their building. This is on Highway 61 and
could obstruct the view for vehicles turning into and out of the site. The city code states: in no
case is a developer or owner required to replace more than 10 trees per acre. The land shown
is % of an acre meaning the maximum tree requirement would be 8 trees. They currently have
11 trees planted on the site which is three more than the requirement. If they added all the
trees that were shown that would be 27 trees. Which he said is a forest and is 19 more trees
than the maximum that can be requested. They are not against planting trees but have a
problem with some of the tree locations and quantity. Trees adjacent Highway 61 and
Larpenteur Avenue could cause a traffic safety concern for their customers. Any berms or
trees adjacent Highway 61 will block the view of traffic turning the corner. A car exiting would
not have a clear view of traffic and Carpet Court doesn't want any liability issues. In addition to
the two maple trees and the nine evergreen trees they would agree to put four evergreen trees
on the northwest property line. Four full grown evergreen trees is all that you would be able to
plant there without having a problem. That would be five trees 15 feet apart on the northwest
corner so he assumed that was what was considered. It was mentioned that they should move
the rainwater garden for the easement which they can do and submit that for the proposal and
permit requirements. He said Carpet Court's attorney and a representative from Wick Builders
is here to answer any questions that he cannot.
Acting chairperson Ledvina said the CDRB is interested in the building materials being used.
Gary Blair went through the building materials board as well as the small building proposal
model. The roofing material and the accent trim would be burgundy which would give more
character. They would be cream colored stucco with bump outs to add more character and
break up the upper elevations. The cultured stone is a stacking stone and would attach to the
building material and would also be used on the pillars. The cultured stone product was at 30
inches high previously but was increased to 48-inches high. He said they like the look of the
product but it's expensive. He said anything that looks as outstanding as this is expensive.
They will also have a keystone block at the top of the arches centered in the entry ways to the
doors set in the brick.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 7-25-2006
11
Robert Blair said there are comments from other manufacturers regarding how they felt about
the building and they have seen a lot of carpet stores and decorating centers and they said
they don't usually see anything this nice.
Board member Shankar asked if the stucco had controlled joints?
Robert Blair said it will be a flat surface and will have no joints other than the bumpouts.
Mr. Mark Young, Wick Builders, Amery, Wisconsin, addressed the board. He said there would
be controlled joints running horizontal for expansion but not above the windows.
Acting chairperson Ledvina asked if there would be stone ledges under the windows?
Mr. Young said yes. It would be built on a four foot concrete frost wall, with wood frame
exterior, the plywood, felt, wire mesh and the stucco, and stone wainscoting.
Board member Schurke asked how they would describe the relationship with their neighbors
and he asked if the applicant had responded to any of the concerns expressed in the staff
report.
Robert Blair said he has not spoken with the neighbors but his father Gary Blair had. From
what he understood Mrs. Palme had a problem with the building proposal but her husband did
not. From what he understood their adult son lives with them and he has issues with the
building as well. Robert asked his father Gary to speak further on this.
Mr. Gary Blair, owner of Carpet Court, addressed the board. He said he spoke to the Palmes
when they first started the idea of constructing a building on this site. The Palmes were
concerned the building would block their view. This new plan brings the building back
considerably so it won't block their view. He spoke to Mr. Palme who said he thought the
building looked good. Mrs. Palme came to the public hearing at the planning commission
meeting along with her son and they both expressed their displeasure with the building. He
hasn't had the opportunity to speak to them to find out what their issue with the building is. The
Palmes were also concerned about the upkeep of the property. He told the Palmes when the
building is approved and built the natural growth of the property would be removed. The other
neighbor is Mr. Bacchus of Bacchus Homes whom he spoke to about five years ago. One of
his concerns was the driveway and the success of putting the connection between their
driveway and the street to allow them to exit more safely onto Larpenteur Avenue. Before
Bacchus Homes had to exit 15 feet from the intersection and now they would be 60 feet from
the intersection. He said he spoke to the church and they had no problem with the building
proposal. He hasn't spoken to the people at the group home yet and isn't sure who to contact
there directly.
Robert Blair said Carpet Court sent out personalized letters to the neighbors within 500 feet
which equals 80 homes but received no responses and they were hoping to receive the
responses before attending any city meetings. But city staff received 4 responses to their
letter.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 7-25-2006
12
Mr. Randy Bacchus, Bacchus Homes, 1701 Arcade Street, addressed the board. He said he
brought up some issues at the planning commission meeting and he will bring those up at the
city council meeting. There are a few things he is not comfortable with but he wants to make
sure if this proposal is going to go through he wants to bring some of these issues up.
Regarding the stucco and siding, he would recommend that the stucco be required on all sides
of the building exterior especially if the cul-de-sac goes in some day. He said the Bacchus
Homes building has vinyl siding and has been there for 50 years. He has been thinking of
putting James Hardie siding on to make things look more vibrant. Robert Blair said the stucco
would be too much to look at On the building but he believes you can change the color or
texture to make it look nice and breaks things up. He is concerned the metal roof will look like
a pole barn and not like something at the city hall building. He agrees the berm is a safety
concern and is a bad idea. One of the issues they have had with their driveway is the access
onto Highway 61. It's a bad intersection and unless you have a stop light there it could be a
safety issue. His trees border the property and he is okay with not adding additional trees there
to screen this side of the property. He is concerned the roots of the large trees on his property
could get damaged by trucks driving on the property.
Acting chairperson Ledvina said it would have been nice to have minutes from the past
meeting to see what was discussed by the CDRB during the review of the concept plan for
Carpet Court.
Board member Shankar said he appreciated the color renderings and building model prepared
for the meeting tonight. He is concerned about the stucco going down this far. His suggestion
for these pilasters is that they continue the same banding and then there should be cultured
stone. The porticos should have the same band that they are showing behind. He thinks they
should use the same burgundy color and clad the corner with metal to separate all the beige
that is going on. He recommends the window frames be burgundy.
Board member Schurke said when the CDRB reviewed the concept plan before he had a very
strong opinion of the building then. He thinks this site is like forcing a square peg in a round
hole. He still feels the same about building anything on this site and this use is a bigger
question for him and he doesn't approve of this proposal. He appreciates the effort that the
applicant has made presenting this. He doesn't feel this building is an augmentation of this site
on Larpenteur Avenue and Arcade Street.
Acting chairperson Ledvina said the land use is business commercial and that is not something
for the CDRB to dispute. He knows last time board member Schurke thought this was a
gateway into Maplewood and he understands the concern here. He feels the applicant has
made "some" improvements and staff has made strong recommendations regarding the
building elevations and between those things this proposal is workable in his opinion.
Board member Hinzman said when he looks at the other new buildings that have been built
along Highway 61 this building doesn't measure up to those. He doesn't know what can be
done to improve this plan. If you look at the other businesses and business condos the CDRB
has approved along Highway 61 they are of better quality than this proposal regarding the
exterior. This proposal would be fine in an industrial area but along Highway 61 which is more
of a business commercial strip he doesn't feel it fits in.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 7-25-2006
13
Board member Hinzman said the applicant has done "some" improvements to the building and
he appreciates the efforts made but he still feels this building doesn't measure up. He said if
the CDRB approves this building what is the CDRB setting themselves up for in the future for
future developments and design reviews. People will look at this building and say this was an
acceptable standard for the CDRB before. He appreciates the additions that board member
Shankar brought up but he still doesn't feel this building meets the standards.
Board member Schurke said this is really Arcade Street and not Highway 61. He lives on
Arcade Street and consistently this has been referred to as Highway 61. This is a designated
highway but this is Arcade Street which is important from a residential standpoint to convey the
message that this is a residential street. This happens to be an intersection where a
commercial use evolves as you go further north on Highway 61 but Arcade Street bumps over
and becomes Arcade Street again. Think of this as a neighborhood and the relationship of the
site changes. When he looks at the Regions Hospital Sleep Health Center building on Highway
61 that is a gorgeous building compared to this proposal in his opinion. From the standpoint of
design qualities and design expectations he has a different standard and has a higher
expectation for the community and does not endorse this building as a design standard of
quality for the community. He would concur with the statements made by board member
Hinzman. He appreciates the comments made by board member Shankar as a way to steer
this building design but personally he doesn't think this building is steerable in this location.
Mr. Gary Blair said he understands personal opinions and views that some of the board may
have. If you have the opinion that this building looks like a pole barn he can understand that
because he would feel the same way but we are not talking about a pole barn here which
should be obvious from watching the video presentation. As far as the metal siding goes, he
noticed the Science Museum, the prison, and the new LDI 3M building all have the same metal
siding which is run horizontally. They are planning to use a very similar metal siding here and it
will hold up much better. If you want to make this building look like a barn you can make it look
like a barn but they are talking about making this building look very nice and they are very
proud of what has been designed. Regarding the Regions Hospital Sleep Health Center
building on Highway 61 he agrees that is a very nice building however, the landscaping is in
question and he showed a photo of the landscaping conditions on the screen. Then there is
Forest Products at the corner of Highway 61 and County Road C which was a very difficult site
for this person to build on this site just like his situation. Five years ago the CDRB wondered
how the Forest Products building would be able to be built on that site. The Forest Products
building is a box building and five years ago he came to the CDRB with a box design and the
CDRB said they didn't like the building and that they should make changes to the plan. He said
he has had the changes made to the building so it doesn't look like a box anymore in his
opinion. Carpet Court wants a building that is very attractive and they feel this proposal is very
attractive and goes beyond what personal opinions might indicate. They are putting over
$500,000 into this building and feel the building looks good. People come all the way from
South Dakota and North Dakota to buy flooring from Carpet Court. They are hoping to get this
building approved so they can build it and move from St. Paul to Maplewood and build a
building to be proud of.
Acting chairperson Ledvina thanked Gary Blair for his comments.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 7-25-2006
14
Board member Shankar said he can make a motion but the overwhelming feeling is the overall
character is not in keeping with the neighborhood and he would have to defer to the other
board members.
Acting chairperson said the applicant is requesting an action by the board and he thinks an
action can be made by the CDRB.
Board member Shankar moved to approve the plans date-stamped June 15, 2006, for the
Carpet Court development to be located on the northwest corner of Larpenteur Avenue and
Highway 61 (1685 Arcade Street). Approval is subject to the following conditions: (changes or
additions are underlined and deletions are stricken.)
a. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this
project.
b. Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit, the applicant must submit to
staff for approval the following items:
1) Revised engineering and grading plans. These plans shall comply with all
requirements as specified in the city engineering report dated July 10,
2006.
2) Revised building elevations showing the following:
a) North: This elevation should match the south showroom elevation
and be constructed of stucco and cultured stone wainscot, aR€I
functionin€l er false winsewG.
b) South: The siding and wainscot on the entire south elevation
(showroom and warehouse) should be constructed of stucco and
cultured stone wainscot.
c) East: Window frames to be burqundv to match roof color. Provide
a 4-inch protrudinq band at a 48-inch heiqht at both arched
openinqs.
d) All corners of the building to have 48-inch high cultured stone with
protruding 4 inch band to match at walls. Provide steel panels
(color to match roof) above these corner cultured stone pilasters.
3) Revised site plan showing the following:
a) A hammer-head turnaround to be located on the west side of the
loading dock driveway. This turnaround must maintain at least a
20-foot setback to the west property line and at least a 15-foot
setback to the Larpenteur Avenue right-of-way.
b) A driveway access on the north side of the parking lot onto the
remaining portion of the service road.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 7-25-2006
15
4) Revised landscape plan showing the following:
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)
10)
a) Relocation of the rainwater garden out of the required roadway
easement. All plantings proposed in the rainwater garden to be
approved by the engineering department.
b) Five more evergreen trees, in addition to the nine evergreen trees
proposed, to be planted 15 feet on center on the entire length of
the west and northwest property line.
c) Bermin9 and Landscaping along the Highway 61 property line to
include two or more four foot high berms, particularly eR tl:1e
southeast Gorner of Highway 61 and Larpenteur Avenue. These
Berms sl:1el,lls 130 hoavily landsGaped .....ith shrubs, afI€i perennials,
and In addition, and at least five deciduous trees (at least 2.5
inches in diameter ).shouls 139 !'llaAtes iA tl:1is area.
d) Landscaping along Larpenteur Avenue to include six more
deciduous trees (at least 2.5-inches in diameter), in addition to the
two maple trees proposed.
A revised lighting plan which reflects the freestanding lights do not exceed
25 feet in height as measured from the ground grade to the top of the
luminaries. In addition, the applicant should consider some sort of motion
detection light over the west loading dock.
Obtain a permit from Minnesota Department of Transportation for any use
or work within or affecting the Highway 61 right-of-way.
Watershed district approval.
Combine the two lots for tax purposes.
Submit samples all building materials to staff for approval.
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
and will be used by the city in the event the required exterior
improvements are not complete.
c. The applicant shall complete the following before occupying the building:
1) Replace any property irons removed because of this construction.
2) Provide continuous concrete curb and gutter around the parking lot and
driveways.
3) Install all required landscaping and an in-ground lawn irrigation system for
all landscaped areas.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 7-25-2006
16
4) Install all required outdoor lighting.
d. If any required work is not done, the city may allow temporary occupancy if:
1) The city determines that the work is not essential to the public health,
safety or welfare.
2) The above-required letter of credit or cash escrow is held by the City of
Maplewood for all required exterior improvements. The owner or
contractor shall complete any unfinished exterior improvements by June 1
if occupancy of the building is in the fall or winter or within six weeks of
occupancy of the building if occupancy is in the spring or summer.
e. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development
may approve minor changes.
Acting chairperson Ledvina seconded.
Ayes - Ledvina, Shankar
Nays- Hinzman, Schurke
The motion did not pass.
This item goes to the city council on August 14, 2006.
Board members Hinzman and Schurke expressed their disapproval of the proposal earlier in
the discussion.
Acting chairperson Ledvina commended the applicant for their nice video presentation,
handouts, and model of the building proposal. The board stated they would appreciate future
applicants providing such extensive presentations to assist the CDRB in understanding what
the building and the site would look like.
VII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS
No visitors present.
VIII. BOARD PRESENTATIONS
a. Board member Olson was the CDRB representative at the July 6, 2006, city
council Meeting. Linda Olson was absent this evening and could not give a report.
b. Board member Ledvina was the CDRB representative at the July 10, 2006, city
council meeting.
Items discussed included Legacy Village Townhomes at County Road D and Kennard
Street which was denied but is coming back for future consideration and the 5-8 Tavern
and Grill Parking Lot Expansion at 2289 Minnehaha Avenue, which was passed by the
city council ayes all.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 7-25-2006
17
c. CDRB Representation for the city council meeting on August 14, 2006
Board member Shankar will be the CDRB representative at the August 14, 2006, city
council meeting. The only CDRB item to discuss is Carpet Court, 1685 Arcade Street.
IX. STAFF PRESENTATIONS
a. Sign Code - Outdoor Television Definition
Ms. Finwall said in April 2006, city staff requested that the CDRB give an interpretation of the
city's sign code in regard to electronic message board signs. The interpretation was requested
based on two sign proposals received by staff. The first proposal was by Plaza TV at 1918
Beam Avenue. They requested the addition of a 34 square foot electronic message board sign
to be installed on their existing freestanding sign. The city's existing and proposed sign code
prohibits signs which blink or flash. Electronic message board signs have the capability of
blinking and flashing. Plaza TV requested the sign on the condition that it remains constant
and steady.
The second proposal was by the Myth Nightclub at 3090 Southlawn Drive. They requested and
installed a 230 square foot light-emitting diode (LED) sign. This type of sign is similar to an
outdoor television and has the capability of displaying millions of colors and video displays on
the screen.
During the CDRB's review, and based on the city attorney's comments, it was determined that
the new style of electronic message board signs (LED signs - outdoor televisions) was
different enough from anything that has come before that it needed its own category in the sign
code.
Board member Schurke said staff and the legal staff did a good job on this. He reminded staff
of what he brought up earlier in the meeting regarding the refacing of signs.
The board thought this was pretty straight forward and moved forward to make a
recommendation.
Board member Hinzman moved to approve an amendment to the March 1, 2006, draft sign
code pertaining to LED or outdoor television signs as follows (language added is
underlined):
Definitions:
Video Board: A video board is anv device desiQned for outdoor use which is capable of
displavinQ a video siQnal, includinQ. but not limited to. cathode-rav tubes (CRTs). liaht-emittina
diode (LED) displavs. plasma displavs. liquid-crystal displavs (LCDs). other technoloQies used
in commerciallv available televisions or computer monitors.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 7-25-2006
18
Prohibited Signs:
Signs that have blinking, flashing, fluttering lights, make noise, or change in brightness or color
includinq. but not limited to. electronic messaqe board siqns. f1ashinq siqns. and video board
siqns as defined in this chapter; except for electronic message boards that display only time
and temperature or similar public service messages according to the requirements specifically
outlined in this chapter.
Board member Shankar seconded.
Ayes - Hinzman, Ledvina, Schurke,
Shankar
The motion passed.
Ms. Finwall said she would have the city attorney look at the decency standards regarding
what is appropriate signage and what is not at the request of the board.
b. Draft Tree Ordinance Update
Ms. Finwall said the city council created the environmental committee in the summer of 2004.
The environmental committee was created to examine and deal with environmental issues
within the city. An area of particular concern with the city council was the examination of the
city's existing environmental ordinances by the environmental committee.
On July 10, 2006, the tree task force finalized a draft tree ordinance. This ordinance has been
reviewed by the city attorney's office with oversight from the environmental committee. The
planning commission discussed this at their July 18, 2006, meeting and shared their concerns
and questions with the environmental committee.
Ms. Finwall introduced Dale Trippler the chair of the Environmental Committee. A synopsis of
the board's comments is as follows:
Acting chairperson Ledvina felt regarding the tree fund - the ordinance should ensure that
developers or homeowners plant as many replacement trees on the property and to be able to
pay into the tree fund and not plant any trees, or pay in and plant minimal trees. Acting
chairperson Ledvina is glad that the environmental committee is revamping the tree ordinance
to ensure protection and replacement of trees. Acting chairperson Ledvina felt that the wetland
ordinance should state that you can't fill in a wetland. If you do fill a wetland in you need a
variance.
Board member Hinzman felt if an applicant does not save a tree which was scheduled for
preservation in the approved tree preservation/replacement plan, the replacement of that tree
should be at a higher rate than the regular tree replacement.
Board member Schurke felt as a developer he wanted to ensure that the new tree ordinance
does not make the threshold for redevelopment in Maplewood too strict. There should be an
incentive or a bonus for replaCing more trees than the tree replacement calculation requires.
He asked who determines the amount of money to be paid into the city's tree fund for
replacement trees? He said this should be clarified.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 7-25-2006
19
Board member Schurke wondered how practical it ends up being when you require a
developer to have a certain number of trees on the site if you look ahead at what the trees will
look like full grown and the drip line of the trees. It's really more than just requiring the trees be
replaced there are other factors to consider. You have to look at the width of the trees,
potential root problems and the destruction that tree roots can cause as well as overcrowding
by over planting. He likes that Carpet Court brought in a model of what their proposed building
would look like as well as a model of a full grown tree along with the tree canopy and what it
would look like on their property.
Board member Schurke said he appreciates the fact that Maplewood now has recycling every
week as opposed to the every other week.
The board members said they applaud the work and the efforts that the environmental
committee members have done.
Mr. Trippler said he would pass the comments on that were made from the CDRB to the
environmental committee.
C. Roles and Responsibilities of PC and CDRB
The planning commission and community design review board recently asked staff to review
the duties and responsibilities of the PC and the CDRB. Specifically, it was pointed out that
there should be clarification as to which group should be reviewing which parts of development
requests and providing comments on a variety of site-related development improvements.
On July 7, 2006, CDRB chairperson Linda Olson attended the planning commission meeting to
discuss the overlapping responsibilities between the PC and the CDRB.
Mr. Dale Trippler, planning commissioner, spoke regarding the roles and responsibilities of the
PC and CDRB. Mr. Trippler said he appreciates the work the CDRB does on the board. He
agreed with a comment made earlier by one of the board members regarding how it was very
nice to have a model for the commission and board to see what a proposal would look like
because it's sometimes difficult to imagine what a proposal would look like especially from
blueprints. He said it would be a nice if the city fostered the requirement for applicants to
provide a model to assist the commission and board in understanding what the proposal would
look like when the project was complete. The PC identified these items as those that are most
often looked at by both groups which include parking, screening, lighting, landscaping, rain
water gardens, site grading and drainage. It was determined that it is appropriate for both
groups to discuss these things but that both groups want to review and discuss parking issues.
It was determined that the CDRB mostly reviews screening, lighting and landscaping issues.
Mr. Trippler is very concerned about the width of the parking stalls and felt this is an issue that
needs to be discussed by both groups and consider requiring wider parking stalls on a
consistent basis and having proof of parking just so there can be wider parking stalls rather
than having narrower parking stalls and having more of them On the site that may not be used
or necessary.
Mr. Trippler said he would recommend the CDRB and PC keep doing what they have been
doing during their meetings and when the parking ordinance is worked on input should be
given from both groups.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 7-25-2006
20
Board member Schurke said the other concern is regarding land economics and the cost of
buying land to pay for parking that mayor may not be needed to make the project viable.
Board member Schurke said this was something the company he works for reviewed during
their visit to the development called Excelsior on Grand in St. Louis Park and the Kensington
Development in Richfield. A unique situation is when a business only needs additional parking
spaces during a busy time such as over the lunch or dinner hour at a restaurant. At the
Kensington Development in Richfield he noticed from 11:30 a.m. until 1:15 p.m. for the food
venues which drove the parking needs. Before and after that parking wasn't necessary. This is
a difficult situation for businesses and developments in busier areas and it would be a lot
easier for businesses to buy open land in the middle of a cornfield and have the space they
need to open a business but to have a business in a busier area makes it more viable but also
more difficult to meet the standards or requirements of the city. The city needs to take an
active/proactive role. He asked if the planning commission has oversight for the land use plan
for the City of Maplewood?
Mr. Trippler said the planning commission has the responsibility of revising the comprehensive
land use plan every ten years and will need to start working On that in the next few months.
The comprehensive land use plan needs to be revised in 2008 which is a monumental
document. When the Gladstone Task Force went out to review almost 16 developments
almost everyone on the Gladstone Task Force Committee was impressed with the Excelsior
on Grand development in St. Louis Park. After seeing that development that was something
many task force members wanted to see built in the Gladstone Redevelopment area, others
thought it was too much for the area but incorporated some of the ideas in the master plan.
Board member Shankar said the new Best Buy recently opened and the old Best Buy building
and parking lot is not being used anymore. He wondered if there was a way to stipulate the
developer dig up the old parking lot and landscape it before they are allowed to occupy the
new building?
Mr. Trippler said he thinks the city should try to reduce the amount of land that is being
required for parking. The city has been trying to encourage applicants to provide proof of
parking and have land available if a business discovers they need additional parking. The city
discusses with applicants the idea of using pervious surfaces. That has helped reduce the
amount of stormwater runoff and the need for rain water gardens. Underground parking
garages or parking garages underneath buildings is also encouraged because it minimizes the
amount of land that is needed for parking and saves on stormwater runoff problems.
Ms. Finwall said the CDRB will soon start working on the parking ordinance revisions and then
ask the PC for their recommendations.
The CDRB thanked Mr. Trippler for his time this evening.
x. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 9:08 p.m.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
LOCATION:
DATE:
City Manager
Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner
White Bear Avenue Family Health Center
White Bear Avenue South of County Road B
August2,2006
INTRODUCTION
Project Description
DSGW Architects, representing B.tC. Development Inc., is proposing to build a 40,OOO-square-
foot medical clinic on the vacant property north of 2055 White Bear Avenue. This clinic,
proposed to be the White Bear Avenue Family Health Center, will be a two-story steel-framed
structure with an exterior of brick and rock-face concrete block. Refer to the plans and
applicant's narrative.
Requests
The applicant is requesting the following:
. A conditional use permit (CUP) to build this structure within 350 feet of the residential
property line to the north. The code requires a CUP for buildings in M1 districts that are
closer than 350 feet to residentially-zoned properties. The proposed building would be 190
feet from the abutting residential properties to the north.
. Approval of design plans.
DISCUSSION
Conditional Use Pennit
The proposed use is allowed under the M1 zoning code. The reason for this CUP request is
because the westerly building would be within 350 feet of residential properties. In this situation,
the ordinance requires a CUP so the city council can consider special conditions due to possible
impacts on the abutting residential property. The usual concems with a business adjacent to
residential properties are the potential for noise and visual impacts.
Noise
Staff does not envision a problem with noise from this medical clinic. This clinic should actually
be a very quiet neighbor with regular business hours. The property owner, Mr. Gene Berwald,
said the clinic hours would be typical medical-clinic hours of eight to five or six, Monday through
Friday and perhaps Saturday momings.
VisuallmDacts
The proposed building would be attractive so appearance and quality of design is not an issue.
The only concem staff has is that there be adequate parking-lot screening next to the abutting
residential properties to the north.
The applicant is proposing a planting screen of six-foot-tall Black Hills Spruce. These will
certainly provide sufficient screening when grown. Initially, however, they should be planted in a
double row at 10 feet on center-these would be five feet on center as viewed straight on due to
the double row. The applicant is essentially proposing this, but the plan may need a slight
adjustment to make sure this is accomplished.
The most affected neighbor is the easter1y one fronting on White Bear Avenue. This property
has the least existing trees. The applicant should revise the plan to enhance the buffer adjacent
to this property to provide several over-story trees to create a higher landscaped buffer. These
deciduous trees could be incorporated into the plan with the proposed evergreens.
Traffic Impact
Dan Solar, the Ramsey County Traffic Engineer, has reviewed this proposal and commented that
White Bear Avenue has sufficient capacity to handle the additional vehicle trips generated by the
site. Mr. Solar states, however, that left tums into the site could be somewhat problematic until
the county widens White Bear Avenue to provide tum lanes. Mr. Solar said that the county is
anticipating these improvements in the future.
Part of the county's future improvements would include the widening of White Bear Avenue.
Because of this, Mr. Solar requests that the city obtain additional right-of-way to provide a
uniform 65 feet along the entire parcel. Staff recommends that the applicant dedicate this
additional right-of-way width as a roadway easement to accommodate this future widening.
Site GradinQ
The applicant is proposing to grade the remaining site that is west of the proposed development.
Staff does not feel this is a good idea. Grading this site would result in barren land that would
need restoration. This summer is evident that dry years would be very bad for reestablishing turf
growth. Staff feels that only minimal grading onto this vacant property should be allowed to
blend the site contours. Staff feels that over-disturbance of this site would only create an
eyesore and erosion and weed potential.
Neiahbor Concems
Only three of the 67 surrounding property owners within 500 feet replied to our survey about this
proposal. The following are the comments received with staffs response:
. Concem over additional traffic. The Ramsey County Traffic Engineer, Dan Solar,
acknowledges that traffic on White Bear Avenue should be improved for more efficient travel.
This means widening the road to provide a center left-tum lane. Mr. Solar, however, feels
that the capacity of White Bear Avenue is sufficient to handle the increased traffic from this
site for the proposed clinic.
2
. Impact on property values. The Ramsey County Assessors Office has said that this
proposed clinic would not have a negative impact on residential property values. The
proposed clinic would not be perceived as a detrimental use next to the homes to the north.
. The residential character of the neiahborhood is beina lost. In actuality, this neighborhood is
heavily commercial in character with the exception of the homes along Burke Avenue and the
south side of County Road B. The subject site, furthermore, has been zoned light
manufacturing by the city since 1965. The proposed use as a medical clinic will be more
compatible with the abutting residential lots than light industry which would be allowed on this
property.
. Concern over wetland loss. The applicant will be required to mitigate the wetland they are
losing on their site. The watershed district is requiring that the applicant "replace the lesser-
quality wetland on their site with a higher quality sedge-meadow wetland on the applicant's
abutting lot to the south."
Architectural and Site Considerations
Buildina Desian
The proposed building would be attractive and is designed to be compatible with the nearby
residential homes, the Maplewood Community Center and the Ramsey County Courthouse
across White Bear Avenue.
Setbacks
The proposed site plan meets all setback requirements for the building and parking lot. The front
setbacks are great enough to accommodate any future street widening.
Parkina and Access
Parking requirements would be met. There are 216 parking spaces proposed. Code requires
200. Dan Solar, the Ramsey County Traffic Engineer, recommends that the entrance drive be
widened to 32 feet with adequate tuming radii. The city engineer should approve this design.
The proposed driveway would also connect to an existing driveway at the west end of the
proposed site. This existing driveway would provide a secondary means of access/egress for the
site. This driveway wraps around the existing building on the abutting lot and exits onto
Prosperity Road near the Gateway Trail. Staff does not see a problem with this connection since
the same party owns both properties. If Mr. Berwald sells either property, he should consider the
exchange of cross easements between both properties. Likewise, if the vacant property to the
west of the proposed clinic splits off, cross easements and possibly some pavement removal
may be required.
Site Liahtina
The photometric plan meets light-intensity maximum requirements. The proposed plan limits
light spread to 0.0 foot candles of light intensity at the property lines. Even though the applicant
is meeting light-spread requirements, care should be taken so that bulbs and lenses of light
fixtures are not visible by the neighbors to the north. Staff further recommends that the site lights
be tumed off at night unless required to be on by the police chief for security reasons.
3
LandscaDina
As stated above, staff recommends that the landscaping plan be revised to provide some over-
story trees on the north side of the site to provide some taller screening for the abutting house to
the north which fronts on White Bear Avenue. Staff also recommends that the evergreens
proposed along the north side of the site be a double row planted so that there is no less than a
five-foot spacing of trees when viewed straight on (10 feet on center in each row).
There are seven trees proposed along the front of the site. This is not very many in a distance of
nearly 400 feet. Staff feels that this number should be doubled. This would provide a tree
spacing of a tree 28 to 30 feet on center.
As is always required, the applicant must install an in-ground lawn irrigation system according to
ordinance.
Trash
An outdoor trash enclosure is proposed on the north side of the building. The enclosure would
be rock-face concrete block to match the block on the building.
City Department Comments
Fire Marshal
Butch Gervais, the Maplewood Fire Marshal, made the following comments:
. Provide a 20-foot-wide emergency access road at all times.
. Provide a fire-protection system according to code and have the system monitored.
. Provide a fire-alarm system according to code and have the system monitored.
. Provide a fire-department lock box (get the paper work from the fire marshal).
. Properly mark where any bio-hazard would be located within the building.
Police
Lieutenant Michael Shortreed reviewed this proposal and made several comments as noted in
the attached memo. I have summarized these as follows:
. The site lighting and signage should be designed so not to cause any nuisances for
neighbors.
. The applicant should utilize site security during construction to guard against theft. The
applicant should work with the Maplewood Police Department to plan for an appropriate
security system.
. The use of Prosperity Road is encouraged to limit the use of White Bear Avenue for
construction-activity access whenever possible.
4
Buildina Official
Dave Fisher, Maplewood Building Official, reviewed this proposal. Mr. Fisher made the following
comments:
. The city will require a complete building code analysis when the construction plans are
submitted to the city for building permits.
. A separate building permit is required for any retaining walls that are over four feet in height.
. Provide adequate fire department access to the building.
. The building must be fire sprinklered.
. It is recommended that the contractor and project manager have a pre-construction meeting
with the building inspection department prior to construction.
Citv Enaineer
Refer to the attached report from Steve Kummer, civil engineer with the city's engineering
department. Mr. Kummer noted several concems regarding grading, drainage, erosion control,
paving and utilities. Largely, these are issues to be resolved with the applicant's civil engineer in
plan revisions. Mr. Kummer has recommended that the applicant provide a maintenance
agreement for all permanent storm water BMPs (best management practice) installed on the site.
The city will write this agreement for the applicant's signature. The applicant should adhere to all
requirements in this engineering report.
SUMMARY
Staff supports this proposal. This clinic would be a compatible neighbor for the abutting
homeowners to the north as opposed to the site's potential for heavier-commercial or light-
industrial uses that would be permitted under the M1 zoning provisions.
RECOMMENDATIONS
A. Adopt the resolution approving a conditional use permit for the vacant property north of 2055
White Bear Avenue. This approval is for a medical clinic in an M1 (light manufacturing)
district that would be within 350 feet of residential property. 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 July 17, 2006.
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.
5
3. The city council shall review this permit in one year.
4. All parking-lot lights must have concealed bulbs and lenses so as not to shine into
neighbors' windows. This lighting must not give off more light than a typical residential
wall or yard light. Light-intensity maximums must meet code requirements.
5. Provide a revised landscaping plan that has an evenly spaced/staggered double row of
evergreens along the north property line where the trees are spaced no more than 10 feet
on center in each planted raw. The applicant shall also revise the landscaping plan to
provide 14 trees spaced at 30 feet on center along the White Bear Avenue frontage
between the entrance drive and the north lot line. There shall also be two trees planted
south of the entrance drive.
6. The grading of the site to the west is not allowed in order to prevent problems resulting
from difficulty with turf restoration. Grading shall be limited to that necessary to blend
grades between the proposed site and the remaining undeveloped land to the west.
7. The applicant shall comply with all requirements stated in Steve Kummer's engineering
report dated July 28, 2006.
8. Prior to getting a building permit, the applicant shall dedicate a uniform 65 feet of roadway
easement along the entire property frontage for future street widening. This shall be
subject to the approval of the city engineer.
B. Approve the plans date-stamped July 17, 2006, for the proposed White Bear Avenue Family
Health Center north of 2055 White Bear Avenue. 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 stated in Steve Kummer's engineering report dated July 28,
2006.
3. Obtain a permit from the RamseylWashington Metro Watershed District before the
issuance of a building permit.
4. Install wetland-protection buffer signs around the mitigated wetland and any contiguous
wetlands if needed by the watershed district. Wetland signs shall be spaced every 100
feet and shall comply with the city's approved sign design requirements.
5. All wetland and drainage and rainwater ponds shall be shall be planted with plantings as
required by the watershed district and the city engineer.
6. The applicant shall enter into a maintenance agreement with the city and the watershed
district for the maintenance of ponds.
6
7. Revise the landscaping plan to provide for an evenly spaced/staggered double row of
evergreens along the north property line where the trees are spaced no more than 10 feet
on center in each planted row. The applicant shall also revise the landscaping plan to
provide 14 trees spaced at 30 feet on center along the White Bear Avenue frontage
between the entrance drive and the north lot line. There shall also be two trees planted
south of the entrance drive.
8. The grading of the site to the west is not allowed in order to prevent problems resulting
from difficulty with turf restoration. Grading shall be limited to that necessary to blend
grades between the proposed site and the remaining undeveloped land to the west.
9. The applicant must provide an in-ground irrigation system as required by code. The area
around the pond does not need to be sprinklered.
10. The roof-top mechanical equipment shall be screened from the view of all residential
properties.
11. All site lights must be properly screened or shielded so the lenses and bulbs are not
visible off site from any home.
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
permit.
13. 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 67 surrounding property owners within 500 feet of the proposed site for their
opinions of this proposal. Three neighbors replied and provided comments. The comments
were primarily about whether White Bear Avenue can handle the additional traffic.
Refer to the attached replies from Health Partners, Carole Lynne of 1723 Burke Avenue and
John and Mildred Grealish of 2111 Prosperity Road.
8
REFERENCE INFORMATION
SITE DESCRIPTION
Site size: 4.5 acres
Existing Use: Undeveloped
SURROUNblNG LAND USES
North:
South:
East:
West:
Single dwellings
A multi-tenant commercial building
White Bear Avenue and the Maplewood Community Center
The undeveloped remainder of the proposed site, Prosperity Road and single dwellings
PLANNING
Land Use Plan: M1
Zoning: M1
Code Reauirements
Section 44-637(b) requires a CUP for buildings in M1 districts that would be within 350 feet of a
residential district.
Findinas 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 listing of these findings.
APPLICATION DATE
We received the applications and plans for this proposal on July 17, 2006. State law requires
that the city take action within 60 days of receiving complete applications. A decision on this
request is required by September 22, 2006.
9
p:sec4\WMe Bear Avenue Family Health Clinic 7 06
Attachments
1. Location and Zoning Map
2. Land Use Plan
3. Neighborhood Map
4. Address Map
5. S~e Plan
6. Landscaping Plan
7. Applicanfs Executive Summary dated July 10, 2006
8. Survey Response from Hea~h Partners
9. Survey Response from John and Mildred Grealish
10. Survey Response from Carole Lynne
11. Ramsey County Traffic Engineer's Report dated July 25,2006
12. Police Departmenfs Project Review Comments dated July 19, 2006
13. Engineering Departmenfs Project Review Comments Dated July 28, 2006
14. Conditional Use Perm~ Resolution
15. Plans date-stamped July 17, 2006 (separate attachments)
10
Sherwood Park
J:
3:
VAN DYHE ST
LoeA TION/ZONING MAP
J Attachme~t 1
I I~
u
~
4
~
I
I
-
ROAD B
f
11
\Attachmerk 2
I I~
~
~
~
I
Sherwood Park
ROAD B
0-
~
o
~
z
z
w
"
I
LAND USE MAP
12
~ uu",,u.,uu
Sherwood Park I
>-
~
PROPOSED
WHITE BEAR AVENUE C?
FAMAIL Y HEALTH CENTER
>-
~
Cl
"
'"
z
z
w
"
w
:>
<l
0:
<l
w
lEI
w
...
v
:E:
3:
~~<i~~
CO~~<i-
c~
w
:>
<l
0:
<l
w
III
w
...
:E:
3:
NEIGHBORHOOD MAP
I
I
~[
0-
Cl
Z
'"
0-
Atltachment 3
I
1
f--
r--
COUNTY ROAD B
#~.v-
~
g'v~
~tl
VAN DY~E ST
13
- L 4
CD N II>> Cb [
I'- m
][J .- 1&1
t-
O 265 -
::I: Woo
0 c::J i ~ [
<Xl m 0
CD CD I'-
~ ~ ~ "
<Xl
I'-
'"'f CD .q ~
tJ ~ l~NJ
o DO 0
~ ~ ~
~ ~
'"
iJ
CD ~ ~ ~ N a a
en DEJ~ ~ []W ~ &5
PROPOSED~..
CLINIC ~
SITE
2055
<XlCiJCWC!1
..- ...... ..- ..-
)OD AVF
~<)
ADDRESS MAP
2140
2134
100
1&1
= 2050
Gl:
C
1&1
a:a
1&1
...
14
Q:
W
I-
wZ
~w
zO
W%:
>1-
c(...I
Q:c(
QC(W
ww%:
lI)m>
ow::!
1l..1-c(
o-~
Di:%:c(
ll..~u..
z
:5
a.
w
I-
-
tJ)
Attachment 5
I
--h-l-------~---=
II 3.UHM ~
1
7'-" 11.!1
Jill
hljl
11"1
I"
"
Ill,
(
f .I, .1
------.J 'I.
II i
Iii
~.
i:! I ~
Ii II
" \.
i:!
,I
.
I
I
I
I
I
~
I
I
I i 11i,l I. i
: 1'," i. ! i II
I '1111, ~l I, j
J I l~i:'~~ il'I'
~: IIlillililj'i'!
~ i li~lllllmi 111~r~i
~: !!D:Il,~I! P!lle!
..... '" ',,' ~ i
~ ;~!I' 11'1' II illl
~ mill !~ !III~ i I ! I~
g: ~~li l~ i~iilli !l! l~
~ ~ l.l~'~ ~l.
< ~z I
~ u~ ~ ,IJ J 1 _ II i (
~ ~~l HdllHHllH
~~IJ ~:~~!~!ll,~:~~;~fl
~ -iiJ'1; ~III"I I
~~1 a NIIHJIlHJSJ 'Wd Zg 1'7 Z 900UO~/9 'llln 'llMCI.S3SV8\OVJ ~90I90\~31N3J HllV3H 3^'f/ C1'tf38 31lHM ~c.;;OI90\rO~"90\a'tJ\ilMOld\ S
j
~~n
III I
1111
:. a
~. -'
i~
~ !1
iI'
o
15
W
N
j
z
o
'"
'"
o
.'
..
i'
z
15
~
o
ur:, Ut:'d
b' (.
" ".,
Attachment 6
~ ~
". i
Wi
I
.::
ctl
-
~
Q.)
0..
ctl/,
() .'
",lil
roo ~II
Q":":
ctl .
...:l]
liE9
M,,~'I ,(Ie
..cl
~
>..
.......
.....
m
~
(])
;:l
l::: .g
(])
~ c
.,
~
;:
t;j ;:
~
(])
~ '"tj^
c
l~ c
s
~
~ R.
~
,j
16
Attachment 7
\"ItYi!'lJt.lI;:;:
{'"Ill'''j,,,.,!it-.
,itt,tJlI!.'1
(IN''Jllrrtlrri'
July 10, 2006
Executive SUIlIlIllIIY
On behalf ofB.I.C. Development Inc. we are pleased to introduce the City of Maple wood
to the proposed White Bear Avenue Family Health Center. The site is zoned as M-l,
light industrial. The owner of the property is planning to construct a 40,000 square foot
commercial office building. The structure will be a two story, steel framed, masonry
veneered building. All zoning requirements for the site will be met, including set-backs,
height restrictions, parking and landscape plantings. There will be some areas within the
property, designated as wetlands that will be filled and replaced on site. The developer
plans on beginning construction late this sununer with site preparation and foundations.
Final completion is scheduled for the first half of 2007.
Included in the submittal are all the requirements listed in the Conditional Use
Application including: The wetlands delineation, survey, photometric study, exterior
elevations, landscape plan, grading and drainage plan, utility plan, erosion control plan,
storm water nm-off calculations, the list of surrounding property owners as well as the
application fee. The developer intends on conducting an informal neighborhood meeting
in advance of 1he public hearing.
As architect for the project, I am available for questions.
Sincerely,
Randy Wagner, AlA
DSGW Architects
17
Message
Page 1 ofl
Attachment 8
Tom Ekstrand
From: Flaaten, Joan K [Joan.K.Flaaten@HealthPartners.Com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2006 3:49 PM
To: Tom Ekstrand
Subject: Development Proposal re: White Bear Avenue Health Center
Thank you for your letter requesting feedback on the development proposal for the White bear Avenue
Health Center. Our main concern that we would like the city to consider is traffic and congestion along
White Bear Avenue. WBL Avenue already has a great deal of traffic at peak times which currently make it
very difficult for people to enter and exit off of. The health center will undoubtedly bring more traffic
volume to this immediate area. The proposal calls for only one entrance/exit which will be along WBL
Avenue at a place where there is no traffic light. During peak times, people exiting out of the parking lot
wanting to go north will need to cross two lanes of south bound traffic and merge which will be very
difficult at times. There looks to be only one lane from which to do this so if you have a driver needing to
go north, you could trap people in the parking lot for quite some time. This is especially true of medical
facilities where they attract more than the average number of frail and elderly who may have an even
more difficult time navigating traffic challenges. If you require everyone to only turn south when exiting,
you will cause some difficulties "down stream" from people doing U turns at some point to get back north
bound.
Summary: With the proximity of a large pharmacy (CVS) and two medical facilities (ours as well as this
development), our main concern is one of safety - especially for challenged populations that will increase
along the White Bear Avenue corridor.
Thank you for your consideration.
Joan Flaaten
HealthPartners Regional Clinic Director
North East Region
pager/cell: 612-708-8509
This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential and are
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whon\ they are
addressed. If you are not the intended recipient or the individual
responsible for delivering the e-ntail to the intended recipient, please be
advised that you have received this e-mail in error and that any use,
dissemination, forwarding, printing, or copying of this e-mail is strictly
prohibited.
If you have received this e-rnail in error, please immediately notify the
HealthPartners Support Center by telephone at (952) 967-6600. You will be
reimbursed for reasonable costs incurred in notifying us.
7/2012006
18
;;"~ '
MAPLEWOOD
Attachment 9
Together We Can
July 12, 2006
JOHN W GREALlSH
MILDRED A GREALlSH
2111 PROSPERITY RD N
MAPLEWOOD, MN 55109
DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL - WHITE BEAR AVENUE FAMILY HEALTH CENTER
This letter is to get your opinion on a proposal to develop property in your neighborhood.
B.I.C Development is requesting approval to construct a 40,000-square-foot medical office
building on the vacant property on west side of White Bear Avenue across from the Maplewood
Community Center. The proposed clinic would be a two-story brick building. The applicant is
proposing to develop the easterly half of the property. Refer to the attachments.
I would like your opinion to help me prepare a recommendation to the planning commission and
city council. Please write your opinion and comments below and retum this letter, and any
attachments on which you have written comments, by July 21, 2006.
If you would like further information, please call me at 651-249-2302 between 8 a.m. and
4:30 p.m. You can also email meattom.ekstrand@ci.maDlewood.mn.us. I will send you notices
of the public hearing on this request when it is scheduled. Thank you for your comments. I will
give them careful consideration.
O})~ ~
RECEIVED
JUL 1 7 2006
TOM EKSTRAND - SENIOR PLANNER
I have no comments:
Comments:
~ ~.;Ji~ n _ tf,
~VL a:tr;;A~ '-'~ ~... ~ J :2tJ9'>(fUWl
rJJ ~~ ~~~ D--1J Fe( (J~~'-,;1
~~ ~ 10- _ V \ r I j (
~~~~C{~~~. ~ '
OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 651-249-2300 7);';';: ~51-249-2319
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD 1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST MAPLEWOOD, MN 55109
19
Attachment 10
July 19,2006
Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner
City of Maple wood
Office of Community Development
1830 County Road BEast
Maplewood, MN 55109
Dear Mr. Ekstrand:
As a residential homeowner in Maplewood, I am very concerned about the safety and the
value of my residence. The proposed White Bear Avenue Family Health Center on
White Bear Avenue threatens my property in the following manner:
A. The safety of all residences on Burke Avenue between White Bear Avenue and
Prosperity Avenue will be compromised by additional traffic. As clients of the
Center drive up Phalen Parkway to Prosperity they most probably will detour east
on Burke Avenue rather than use the stop sign on Prosperity and light semi fore on
White Bear Avenue.
B. I pay residential homeowner taxes to live in a residential area. With the recent
addition of the CVS Drug Store, the proposed health center, along with the existing
Maplewood Community Center, the Health Partners Clinic, and the Day Old Bread
Store, my residential neighborhood is taking on the look ofa commercial area.
C. The executive summary received stated that "some areas within the property,
designated as wetlands that will be filled and replaced on site." What do they
mean? Our neighborhood has a ground water problem today. I request an
Environmental Impact Study (EIS) before this proposal moves forward.
My neighborhood is being separated from the rest of the residential community. For
Burke Avenue to retain its appearance and residential presence, I strongly recommend
that Burke Avenue be closed at White Bear Avenue and that a cull de sac similar to
Flandrau Street at White Bear A venue be constructed at Burke A venue and White Bear
Avenue.
Sincerely yours,
Carole Lynne
1723 E Burke Ave
Maplewood MN 55109
20
-
~
RAMSEY COUNlY
TO:
FROM:
Attachment 11
Department of Public Works
Kenneth G. Haider, P.E., Director and County Engineer
1425 Paul Kirkwold Drive
Arden Hills, MN 55112-3933. (651) 266-7100. Fax (651) 266-7110
E-mail: Public.Works@co.ramsey.mn.us
MEMORANDUM
Tom Ekstrand
City of Maplewood
Dan SolQ "^---
Ramsey C~lty'PuWic Works
SUBJECT: White Bear Avenue Family Health Center
DATE:
July 25, 2006
The Ramsey County Public Works Department has reviewed the site plan for the proposed White
Bear A venue Family Health Center on White Bear A venue south of County Road B in the City
of Maplewood. Ramsey County has the following comments regarding this proposal.
1. The property owner is proposing the construction of a 40,000 square foot medical office
building on the site. The property is currently undeveloped. The proposed use will generate
new trips to White Bear Avenue. The existing traffic volume on White Bear Avenue between
Frost Avenue and County Road B is 22,700 vehicles per day. The existing roadway has
adequate capacity to handle additional trips generated by the site; however, this section of
White Bear Avenue does not have left turn lanes and turning into the existing access points
along this section has been problematic. The City and County have discussed a future project
to widen White Bear A venue between Frost A venue and County Road B to provide left turn
lanes for the Community Center and other access points.
2. The site plan identifies one new access point on White Bear Avenue across from the entrance
to the community center. The County concurs with the proposed location of this new
driveway. The access width should be 32 feet wide with adequate radii to allow easy turning
movements into and out of the driveway.
3. The existing right of way along the front of this property varies. The north end of this
property has only 33 feet of right of way. The City should consider the acquisition of
additional right of way to provide a uniform 65 feet along the entire parcel. Future widening
of White Bear A venue as discussed above will make this right of way necessary.
4. The developer will also need permits from the County for access construction and for any
utility work within County right-of-way.
Thanks for the opportunity to make comments regarding this issue. If you have any questions or
need any additional information please give me a call.
Minnesota's First Home Rule County
prinl.pdon reryeled paper\\'ithamjniIllumorlO%p()st.con~;umereorl!,ellt
21
""""
Attachment 12
Maplewood Police Department
Memo
From:
Tom Ekstrand
Lt. Michael Shortreed 1}1J~.4 :lip. 77
July 19, 2006
PROJECT REVIEW - White Bear Avenue Health Clinic
To:
Date:
Reo
After reviewing the attached proposal for the White Bear Avenue Health Clinic project,
I have the following comments and suggestions:
1) Appropriate lighting and signs should be incorporated into the project to assure that the
concerns of residents in the development area are met up front, instead of require them
to seek them at a later date.
2) Construction site thefts and burglaries are a large business affecting many large
construction projects throughout the Twin Cities metro area. The contractor should be
encouraged to plan and provide for site security during the construction process. On-site
security, alarm systems, and any other appropriate security measures would be highly
encouraged to deter and report theft and suspicious activity incidents in a timely manner.
3) The project should include adequate entry and exit routes to the facility. It would be
preferred to have an entry/exit access off of Prosperity Avenue. Clients accessing the
facility off of southbound White Bear Avenue will not have much of a problem. However,
clients accessing the facility off of northbound White Bear Avenue will be more likely to
be involved in a traffic crash due to the high volume of vehicular traffic on the road. Also,
the speed limit increases from 35 miles per to 40 miles per hour just prior to the proposed
facility, which may also cause further traffic crashes as a result of northbound vehicles
stopping to wait to turn left into the facility. Clients exiting the facility should be directed to
turn southbound on White Bear Avenue in order to avoid any crossover traffic into the
northbound lanes.
If there are any questions or concerns regarding these comments or suggestions, please
contact me at your soonest convenience. I can be reached via phone at (651)249-2605 or
via email atmichael.shortreedralcLmaolewood.mn.us.
22
Attachment 13
Page 1 of6
Enl!ineerinl! Plan Review
PROJECT:
PROJECT NO:
REVIEWED BY:
White Bear Avenue Medical Building
06-18
Steven L. Kummer, P.E., Civil Engineer II
City of Maple wood Engineering Department
DATE:
July 28, 2006
Summary
Gunderson construction in conjunction with B.I.C. Development (Ken and Gene Berwald) and
DSGW Architects are proposing to build a 2-story, 40,000 square-foot commercial/medical
office building on an approximately 4-acre vacant parcel of land along the west side of White
Bear Avenue across from the Maplewood Community Center.
Vehicle ingress/egress for the facility will be from White Bear Avenue and will be aligned with
the existing north Community Center ingress/egress from White Bear Avenue. Parking for the
facility will consist of 216 stalls including 9 stalls dedicated for the handicapped. The parking
lot will be edged with typical concrete barrier curb.
The existing vacant parcel of land consists mostly of mown grass with two delineated wetland
basins and a drainage ditch along the west side of White Bear Avenue. By the City of
Maplewood wetland classification system, they are Class 5 wetlands. By Ramsey Washington
Metro Watershed District classification standards, they are considered "Manage C" wetlands.
The developer proposes to fill in a portion of the northeastern wetland on the property and build
a mitigation area to the south of the proposed development.
Storm water runoff from the proposed development will be accommodated by a series of
filtration basins along the periphery of the parking lot. The designer has chosen to use draintile
under each of the basins due to soils unsuitable to infiltration. Storm water computations
indicate that the developer intends to treat a minimum of 1.0 inches of runoff from the proposed
development. Storm water will be conveyed to each basin from the parking lot by curb cuts and
concrete swales. It appears that the building roofwill be internally drained and routed by pipe to
a basin.
Water service to the building for both fire protection and domestic usage will be supplied by a
single 6-inch dip service. Water service is already supplied to the property from a 16-inch water
main on Prosperity Avenue. A tap to an existing water main on the property will be made to
accommodate the new 6-inch water service. A fire hydrant will be installed on the property in a
parking lot island located near the southwest comer of the building.
Sanitary sewer service will be provided by an exterior lift station and forcemain system. The
sewage will be pumped to a nearby 8-inch sanitary sewer main in Prosperity Avenue. The lift
station will be sized to accommodate the proposed development along with future development
to the west.
23
Page 2 of6
Following are comments on the plans and storm water computations submitted for review that
are to be addressed:
Grading & Drainage Comments
1. It appears that the developer intends on grading the area to the west of the new
building and parking lot as preparation for future development. Pulling the 910
contour back from the existing 908 contour results in a very flat slope (less than 1 %
in areas). Given the wet soils characteristics of the area, this may be a problem for
mowing and interim maintenance until the area is developed. The project engineer
shall grade a swale back from the 908 contour down to the 902 contoured "low" area
to promote better positive drainage from the west side of the site. A minimum slope
of 1.5% is suggested.
2. The project engineer shall show a more defined swale along the west side of the
parking lot down to the proposed flared-end inlet. A minimum slope of 1.5% is
suggested.
3. It appears that the grading plan assumes that all proposed spot elevations along the
curb line are gutter line elevations. However, the project engineer shall clarify either
in plan notes or in plan view if spot elevations are top of curb or gutter line
elevations.
4. The project engineer needs to include more spot elevation data on the plans showing
that the proposed walkways do not exceed a maximum 2% cross slope. Longitudinal
slopes to door entries shall not exceed a 5% maximum slope.
5. The project engineer/architect shall indicate pedestrian ramps or drop-curb areas on
the plan, especially in front of the proposed entries and other areas where sidewalks
will ramp down to the parking lot. A detectable surface shall be provided. A plan
detail showing ramp construction shall also be provided.
6. The project engineer shall verify that all gutters carrying longitudinal drainage toward
drainage curb cuts have a minimum slope of 0.50%.
7. Use of concrete spillways at the edge of the parking lot provides a clean drainage way
from a curbed parking area and is desirable over using a grass swale at the edge of the
curb. The section view on the standard detail for the spillways seems to indicate a
"lip" at the gutter line. This "lip" shall be eliminated so a bird bath does not form at
each low point. Indicate an isolation joint detail between the curb and the spillway
slab.
8. The project engineer shall indicate spot elevations at the driveway entry such that
gutter drainage from White Bear Avenue does not enter the site.
24
Page 3 of6
9. The project engineer shall indicate emergency overflow (EOF) elevations and
locations for each ponding basin.
10. The north parking lot for the existing building appears to have an existing low point
with a catch basin with a pipe lead to the existing south wetland. The project
engineer shall show the existing pipe and catch basin on the plan and also indicate
that the modifications to the existing parking lot will provide positive drainage toward
the proposed low point.
11. The project engineer shall modify General Note #5 on sheet C 1 to have the City
Public Works department notified at (651) 249-2400 twenty-four (24) hours prior to
intenuption of water service to existing homes and businesses. A note should also be
added indicating that Public Works should be notified 48 hours prior to start of any
earthmoving operations for inspection and approval of installation of temporary
erosion control measures. Grading of the site will not be allowed to commence until
the City approves the measures installed in the field.
Storm Water Management
1. Two separate computations were done to determine the volume of runoff from the
l.O-inch rainfall event: One assuming a total site acreage of 1l.0 acres and one
assuming 4.0 acres. The developer and project engineer should be advised that if the
western parcel is developed (resulting in additional impervious surface), then a
computation for the new site will need to be done to determine treatment volume for
the new impervious surface created.
2. According to the computations, it appears that the filtration area for Drainage Basin
#7 may be short of treatment storage for the 1.0-inch event. It is suggested that the
project engineer shift the northern grade break between Basin #7 and Basin #5 to
direct more of the flow toward Basin #5 or increase the volume of Basin #7.
3. The project engineer shall include the flow from the draintile under each basin in the
total outflow and rate control computations. It appears that the computations are
assuming that the filtration flow from the bottom of the basin is to be discarded,
which is not the case.
4. Provide flow computations for the dual 30" culverts and 24" culvert under the
proposed drive entry.
5. Based on the areas shown on the plan, it appears that the proposed wetland mitigation
at a 2: 1 ratio has been met with the mitigation area to the south of the site. It is
recommended that the developer abide by the plan for establishment and mitigation of
the new wetland area.
25
Page 4 of6
6. The City will require a maintenance agreement for all permanent storm water BMP's
installed on site. The City will write up an agreement for signature by the property
owner and the City.
7. A planting/landscaping plan is required for the ponding area and must be reviewed by
Virginia Gaynor with the Nature Center staff Her phone number is (651) 249-2180.
If pond grading will occur in one year and planting will occur the next year, then
seeding types and temporary establishment requirements will need to be specified for
the interim period (refer to Mn/DOT 2575 and 3876).
8. The project engineer shall verify that all HWL's on the plan are consistent with the
HydroCAD computations. For example the HWL for the wetland mitigation appears
to be a 901.86 while the HydroCAD computations show a 902.42.
9. The developer shall submit geotechnical report and soil boring logs.
Erosion Control
1. It is assumed that rough grading and building construction will begin prior to
preparation of subgrade soils for the parking lot. The project engineer shall submit an
interim erosion control staging plan showing the protection of remaining wetland
areas that will not be filled in as part ofthis proposed development.
2. The Rock Construction Entrance detail should conform to City of Maplewood Std.
Plate 350. For example, the minimum length of a rock entrance pad should be 75
feet, overlaid on geotextile fabric, and indicated as such in plan view.
3. The critical curb inlets along White Bear Avenue are actually "LP4" structures. The
project engineer shall detail an erosion control measure that will protect the curb inlet
structures along White Bear Avenue and not interfere with traffic flow.
4. An erosion control measure such as staked heavy-duty silt fence around all existing
and proposed flared-end sections shall be indicated in plan view.
5. The project engineer shall specify a rock log or mulch log for protecting all installed
curb cuts to surrounding ponding basins until the pavement base course is established.
6. The project engineer shall specify the use of a pick-up broom or vacuum sweeper for
street cleaning.
7. The project engineer shall specify erosion control blankets compliant with Mn/DOT
3885 on all proposed slopes that are 3:1 or greater. This includes the 3:1 slopes along
proposed filtration basins that will be used on the ponding area. Show anchoring
details for the blanket.
26
Page 5 of6
8. The project engineer shall specify updated native seed mixtures per the 2005
Mn/DOT Standard Specifications for Construction.
Utilities
1. The project engineer shall submit plans to Mike Anderson at Saint Paul Regional
Water Services (SPRWS) located at 1900 Rice St, Maplewood (2nd Floor) for their
review and approval.
2. Water flow and pressure computations will need to be provided for minimum fire
protection flow pressures at the building. The project engineer shall contact SPRWS
and the City Building Department for design assumptions and requirements.
3. All pertinent water installation details shall conform to SPRWS standards and
specifications.
4. The project engineer shall specify materials and slope of the roof drain leads from the
building. Provide end-section treatments and c1eanouts for each of the leads. Follow
all Minnesota Department of Health rules for pipe slope, size and materials.
5. The plans call for a proposed lift station to service the property for sanitary sewerage.
The City will not allow another force main connection into the manhole in Prosperity
Avenue. The following is recommended to the project engineer: Build a manhole on
private property that gravity drains to the existing manhole on prosperity; re-route the
existing force main and the proposed force main to the new private manhole. Provide
the necessary details for the proposed manhole and sewer construction.
6. The project engineer is to specify the materials and size for the proposed force main.
Also, provide computations and details pertaining to the proposed lift station
construction and capacity.
7. It appears from the survey that no easement has been placed over the existing sanitary
sewer force main from the existing building to the south. The developer shall obtain
two 20-foot easements for both the existing and proposed sanitary sewer force mains.
Should the developer place the force mains in the same trench, then one 30-foot
easement over both force mains shall be obtained.
Geometrics and Paving
1. The project engineer shall submit a separate geometrics and paving plan. The plan
shall include typical parking stall dimensions, curve radii, light-duty and heavy-duty
pavement areas, stall counts, curb type, sidewalk widths, sidewalk pavement section,
handicapped ramp design and other details pertinent to the site layout and geometries.
27
Page 6 of6
2. The driveway width shall be 32 feet with adequate radii to accommodate easy
movement of traffic in and out of the site.
Preliminary Nature Center Comments (Ginny Gaynor - (651) 249-2180)
1. Seed mixes for ponds, infiltration areas, and wetland buffers should be native MN
seed mixes. The mixes indicated in the Wetland Permit Application (W4, U5, WI)
are appropriate. 30B (330), 28B (250) indicated on the design are not appropriate for
these areas. Other MNDOT mixes that are appropriate if matched to moisture and
soil conditions are:
MN DOT Mix 310 - Native Wet Tall
MN DOT Mix 325 - Prairie Sedge Meadow
MN DOT Mix 330 - Native, Sandy Short
MN DOT Mix 340 - Native, Sandy Mid-Height
MN DOT Mix 350 - Native General Roadside
In all MNDOT mixes, forbs should be 2Ibs/acre, not .6Ibs/acre.
2. Filtration basins/rain gardens. Due to the difficulty of establishing rain gardens by
seed and the proximity of the gardens to the street and building, three of the basins (2
on White Bear, Ion south side of building) should be planted with plugs and/or 4"
pots at a minimum of 18" on center. The fourth basin may be seeded, however,
using plants is preferable since it will ensure success and establishment will be
quicker.
3. The existing wetland/stormponds are classified by RWMWD as Class C wetlands.
RWMWD is looking at a 25' buffer but City of Maplewood's wetland ordinance
committee is looking at proposing a 50' buffer for Class C wetlands, with no
averaging. A 50' buffer for the newly created wetland is recommended.
Miscellaneous
1. The project engineer shall note any utility discrepancies with the topographic survey on
the plan sheets.
2. The developer shall submit a copy of the MPCA's construction stormwater permit
(SWPPP and NPDES) to the city. No grading permit will be issued without the permit.
3. The owner and project engineer shall satisfy the requirements of all permitting agencies
including Watershed district requirements. The project engineer shall provide a copy of
the approved Watershed permit to the City.
4. The project engineers shall note in the detail descriptions any City of Maple wood or
SPRWS details that the project engineer copies or uses in these plans.
28
Attachment 14
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, B.I.C. Development Inc. applied for a conditional use permit to construct a
medical office building within 350 feet of residentially-zoned property. The proposed building
would be set back a distance of 190 feet from the abutting residential district.
WHEREAS, this permit applies to the vacant property north of 2055 White Bear Avenue.
The legal description is:
WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows:
1. On August 7, 2006, the planning commission recommended 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.
2. The city council reviewed this request on , 2006. The council
considered reports and recommendations of the city staff and planning
commission.
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, including streets,
police and fire protection, drainage structures, water and sewer systems, schools and
parks.
7. The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services.
29
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 July 17, 2006.
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. All parking lot lights must have concealed bulbs and lenses so as not to shine into
neighbors' windows. This lighting must not give off more light than a typical residential
wall or yard light. Light-intensity maximums must meet code requirements.
5. Provide a revised landscaping plan that has an evenly spaced/staggered double row of
evergreens along the north property line where the trees are spaced no more than 10 feet
on center in each planted row. The applicant shall also revise the landscaping plan to
provide 14 trees spaced at 30 feet on center along the White Bear Avenue frontage
between the entrance drive and the north lot line. There shall also be two trees planted
south of the entrance drive.
6. The grading of the site to the west is not allowed to prevent problems resulting from
difficulty with turf restoration. Grading shall be limited to that necessary to blend grades
between the proposed site and the remaining undeveloped land to the west.
7. The applicant shall comply with all requirements stated in Steve Kummer's engineering
report dated July 28, 2006.
8. Prior to getting a building permit, the applicant shall dedicate a uniform 65 feet of roadway
easement along the entire property frontage for future street widening. This shall be
subject to the approval of the city engineer.
The Maplewood City Council
this resolution on
30
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
PROJECT:
LOCATION:
DATE:
City Manager
Ken Roberts, Planner
Conditional Use Permit Revision and Design Approval
Hill-Murray High School
2625 Larpenteur Avenue East
July 26, 2006
INTRODUCTION
Project Description
Rafferty, Rafferty, Tollefson, Lindeke Architects, representing Hill-Murray School, is requesting city
approval of the following:
1. Revisions to the conditional use permit (CUP). They are proposing changes to the
approved plans for the school. The city code requires a CUP for schools.
2. Design approval for an addition to the east side of the field house on the school. This
includes the architectural, site and landscape plans for the project.
Refer to the project narrative on pages 10 and 11, the maps on pages 12 - 20 and the plans
(separate attachment). Specifically, they want to:
1. Put a 31,50O-square-foot addition onto the east side of the field house for additional gym
and locker room space.
2. Renovate and remodel the interior of the existing athletics building.
BACKGROUND
On November 13, 2001, the city council approved a CUP revision and the design plans for an
addition for the school. This revision was for plans for an addition on the west side of the school
that included a chapel and a student entrance.
DISCUSSION
Conditional Use Permit Revisions
The proposed field house addition meets the findings for CUP approval and would be compatible
with the existing school and the development in the area. None of the proposed changes nor the
addition should cause any problems for the city or for the neighbors.
1
Design Considerations
Build/no Aesthetics
The proposed field house addition should be compatible with the existing field house. As
proposed, the contractor would construct the new field house from precast concrete wall panels.
These panels would have a raked and banded finish and would have several six-foot-by-six-foot
windows near the top. The plans note that these panels will be of a color to match the color of the
brick in the school. In addition, the project plans show the contractor painting the existing field
house a color similar to the campus brick color to match the exterior of the new addition. (See the
proposed building elevations in the enclosed project plans.) It should be noted that the existing
field house was constructed with precast concrete wall panels and that the proposed addition
would not be visible from any public street as it will be north of the existing school building.
Parkino Considerations
The school is not proposing an increase in their student population with this project. As such, this
project will not create a need for additional parking for the school.
On May 26, 2006, staff approved the plans for Hill-Murray to make improvements and changes to
their existing parking lots and driveways. These changes will improve traffic flow and will add more
off street parking for Hill-Murray. The approved changes indude restriping the existing west parking
lot and adding a new driveway and 44 more off-street parking spaces on the east side of the
existing school. (See the project plans for this part of the site on pages 21 and 22.) The contractor
has started installing these improvements with the hope of having the new driveway and parking
spaces ready for the upcoming school year.
Landscapina
This project will be removing an existing tennis court and should not ~uire the removal of any
trees from the site. The proposed plans show the applicant planting nine dumps of river birch on
the south and east sides of the new addition. The applicant, however, did not provide the sizes of
the proposed trees nor any landscaping plans or details for the new storm water pond. Steve
Kummer of the Maplewood engineering department is requiring the applicant to submit to the city a
detailed landscaping plan for the area in and near the new storm water pond on the west side of
the field house acldition. The other existing trees in and around the school and around the existing
and proposed parking lots would provide sufficient landscaping.
Roof-Eauipment Screenino
Roof-top mechanical equipment that is visible from residential properties must be screened from
view. New equipment that is visible, but not visible from residential properties, must be painted to
match the building color.
Fire Marshal Comments
1. It will have to have a fire protection (sprinkler) system per code and be monitored.
2. A fire alarm system will be ~uired in the field house - per code and be monitored.
3. An audible alarm notification system will be required.
4. A fire department lockbox is required.
5. Provide adequate emergency vehicle access at all times.
2
Exterior Liohtino
The project architect told me that the only additional exterior lighting they would be adding with this
project is wall pack lights over the new exit doors.
RECOMMENDATIONS
A. Adopt the resolution on pages 30 - 32. This resolution approves revisions for the
conditional use permit for Hill-Murray school and athletic facilities at 2625 Larpenteur
Avenue East. The city bases this approval on the findings required by ordinance. This
approval is subject to conditions of approval adopted by the city council on November 13,
2001, subject to the following revisions (I have crossed out the deletions and underlined the
additions):
1. All construction shall follow the plans as noted below:
a. For the athletic fields, follow the plans date-stamped March 6, 1998.
b. For the school and parking lot addition, follow the plans date-stamped May
19,1999.
C. For the chapel addition, follow the plans date-stamped October 1, 2001.
d. For the field house. follow the plans dated June 28. 2006. These plans shall
meet all the conditions and chanQes required bv the city enoineerino
deoartment.
The interim director of community development may approve minor changes.
2. The proposed construction for the mapel field house addition must be substantially
started within one year of council approval or the permit revision shall end. The
council may extend this deadline for one year.
3. The city council shall review this permit annually to monitor the traffic and parking
situations related to the use of the athletic fields.
4. Any new lights shall be installed to meet the city code. This requires that they be
screened or aimed so they do not cause any light-glare problems on streets or
residential properties.
5. Post and maintain signs on the edge of the wetland-protection buffer prohibiting any
building, mowing, cutting, filling or dumping within the buffer. Wetland buffer signs
in the mowed area shall be placed at the edge of the lawn.
6. That portion of the proposed walking/running path that is within 50 feet of the
wetland shall be built with a pervious material.
7. Ensure that all bleachers and dugouts are at least 30 feet from the Sterling Street
and Larpenteur Avenue right-of-ways.
3
8. The city may require the applicant to plant 30 native species of trees for screening
between the playing fields and the homes on Knoll Circle, as may be determined at
a future hearing on the conditional use permit.
9. The school shall prepare for city approval a turf management plan for the athletic
fields. This plan shall include the mowing, watering and fertilizing practices that the
school will follow in the care of their athletic fields and grounds. The school shall
prepare and follow the plan so the practices will minimize the impact of the storm
water run off on the nearby wetlands.
10. Submit a grading and drainage plan for watershed district approval to provide
sedimentation control at the storm water discharge point before it dumps into the
south wetland area.
11. The sGheel sl1all sweep aRll mstFipe the west pafkiAglet I:lefer-e Allgllst 15, 2002.
B. Approve the project plans date-stamped June 28, 2006, (site plan, landscape plan, grading
and drainage plans and building elevations) for the field house addition at Hill-Murray School
at 2625 Larpenteur Avenue. The city bases this approval on the findings required by the
code. The developer or contractor shall do the following:
1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this
project
2. Complete the following before the city issues a building permit:
a. Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans
shall include: grading, utility, drainage, erosion control, tree and sidewalk plans. The
plans shall meet the following conditions and shall meet all the conditions and changes
noted in Steve Kummer's memo dated July 14, 2006.
(1) The erosion control plan shall be consistent with city code.
(2) The grading plan shall:
(a) Include building, floor elevation and contour information for the site and for
the building addition.
(b) Include contour information for the land that the construction will disturb.
(c) Show all retaining walls on the plans. Any retaining walls more than four feet
tall require a building permit from the city and shall have a fence along the
top.
(d) Show the drainage areas, and the developer's engineer shall provide the city
engineer with the drainage calculations. The drainage design shall
accommodate the run off from the surrounding areas.
(3) The design of the ponding area and any rainwater garden(s) shall be subject to the
approval of the city engineer.
4
b. Submit a certificate of survey for all new construction.
c. Submit a revised landscape plan to staff for approval that incorporates the following
details:
(1) All lawn areas shall be sodded. The city engineer shall determine the vegetation
within the ponding area.
(2) The contractor shall install landscaping in the ponding area to promote infiltration.
Such landscaping shall be approved by the city engineer and shall be shown on the
project landscape plans.
(3) That shows the manicured or mowed areas from the natural areas. This shall
include planting (instead of sodding) the disturbed areas around the ponding area
with native grasses and native flowering plants. The native grasses and flowering
plants shall be those needing little or no maintenance and shall extend at least four
feet from the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) of the pond. This is to reduce
maintenance costs and to reduce the temptation of mowers to encroach into the
garden.
(4) It shall be approved by the city engineer before site grading and shall be consistent
with the approved grading and landscape plans.
(5) Showing the birch clumps being at least 2 % inches in diameter.
d. Have the Saint Paul Regional Water Services (SPRWS) approve the proposed utility
plans.
e. Provide the city with a letter of credit or cash escrow for all required exterior
improvements. The amount shall be 150 percent of the cost of the work.
3. Complete the following before occupying the building addition:
a. Replace property irons that are removed because of this construction.
b. Install reflectorized stop signs at all exits, a handicap-parking sign for each handicap-
parking space and an address on the building.
c. Post a "no left tum" sign at the easterly curb cut.
d. Paint the roof-top mechanical equipment to match the building color if the units are
visible. The applicant shall provide screening enclosures around the units if they are
visible from residential properties.
e. Meet all the requirements of the fire marshal.
f. Restore and sod damaged boulevards and sod all turf areas.
g. Complete all landscaping and turf irrigation for the building addition.
5
h. Install and maintain all required trees and landscaping (including the plantings around
the pond) and an in-ground sprinkler system for all landscaped areas (code
requirement).
i. Install on-site lighting for security and visibility that follows the approved site lighting
plan. All exterior lighting shall follow the approved lighting plan that shows the light
spread and fixture design. The light fixtures must have concealed lenses and bulbs to
properly shield glare from the adjacent street right-of-ways and residential properties.
j. Install all the required exterior improvements, including all exterior lighting.
k. The developer or contractor shall:
(1) Complete all grading for the site drainage and meet all city requirements.
(2) Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits.
4. If any required work is not done, the city may allow temporary occupancy1f:
a. The city determines that the work is not essential to the public health, safety or
welfare.
b. The above-required letter of credit or cash escrow is held by the city for all required
exterior improvements. The owner or contractpr shall complete any unfinished
landscaping by June 1 of the next year if the building is occupied in the fall or
winter, or within six weeks of occupancy if the buildi~ is occupied in the spring or
summer.
5. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may
approve minor changes.
6. This approval does not include signs. Any signage will be reviewed by city staff
through the sign permit process.
6
CITIZENS' COMMENTS
I surveyed the owners of the 50 properties within 500 feet of this site. Of the three replies, tvvo
were in support of the project and one had comments.
For
1. Sounds like a good idea. I have lived across from Hill-Murray for 15 years and do not mind it at
all. Great school. (Voigt - 2520 Larpenteur Avenue)
2. I am completely in favor of the proposed athletic facilities improvement requested by Hill-Murray.
(Schultz - 2470 Ripley Avenue, North Saint Paul)
Comments/Questions
1. Thanks for all the information. Our main concem is that we maintain the wetland spaces as
much as possille and continue to preserve our open spaces. It is encouraging to see the use
of natural storm water filtering. We had heard of proposals earlier that would have impacted the
environment more with new roads. It looks as if that is not a part of this proposal. (Blake - 2462
Ripley Avenue)
REFERENCEINFORMAl1ON
SITE DESCRIPTION
Site size: 47 acres
Existing land use: Hill-Murray High School and athletic fields
SURROUNDING LAND USES
North: Single dwellings and undeveklped property zoned F (farm residential)
South: Larpenteur Avenue and single dwellings
West: Sterling Street, ponds and The MapIewoods Apartments
East: St. Paul Priory
PAST ACTIONS
August 24, 1992: Council approved a sign size variance for a ~square-foot wan sign for Hill-
Murray. At the time the code allowed 24 square feet.
On April 8, 1996, the city council approved a conditional use permit (CUP) for Hill-Murray to make
changes and improvements to their athletic fields. This approval was subject to ten conditions.
On July 14, 1997, the city cooociI reviewed the CUP for HilHAurray. At this meeting, the council
changed Condition 8 of the 1996 approval to read as follows: "Applicant may be required to plant
30 native species of trees for saeening between the playing fields and the homes on Knoll Circle,
as may be detennined at a future hearing on the conditional use penni!. .
7
On May 11, 1998, the city council approved a wetland buffer setback variance and a conditional
use permit revision for the Hill-Murray athletic facilities. These requests were to update and revise
the plans that the city had approved for the school's athletic facilities in 1996 and in 1997 and were
subject to several conditions.
On June 28, 1999, !he city council approved !he following for H~urray High School:
1. Revisions to the conditional use permit (CUP). They proposed several changes to the
approved plans for the school. The city code requires a CUP for schools. This approval was
for the school to replace and expand the school's main entry, which they have now completed.
The school also proposed an expanded parking lot on the east side of the school building.
2. The designs for an addition to !he main entry of the school. This included the architectural, site
and landscape plans for the project.
PLANNING:
Land Use Plan designation: S (school)
Zoning: R-3 (multiple dwelling residential)
Ordinance Requirements
Section 44-1092(3) requires a CUP for schools.
Section 44-1103(b) requires a CUP to enlarge a use for which a CUP is required.
Criteria for Conditional Use Pennit Approval
Section 44-1097(a) states that the city council may approve a CUP, based on nine standards. (See
findings 1-9 in the resolution on pages 30 through 32.)
Ordinance Requirements
Section 2-29O(b) of the city code requires that !he 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
sulTOU1ding neighborhood and is not detrimenlal to !he 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.
8
Application Date
The city received the complete applications and plans for this development on June 28, 2006.
State law requires that the city take action within 60 days of receiving complete applications for a
proposal. As such, city action would normally be required on this proposal by August 28, 2006,
unJess the applicant agrees to a time extension.
p: See 13-29/hill-murray cup revision - 2006
Attachments:
1 . Project Narrative
2. Location Map
3. Area Map
4. Site Survey
5. Proposed Site Plan
6. Proposed Floor Plan
7. Proposed Grading Plan
8. Proposed Utility Plan
9. Proposed Building Elevations
10. Proposed Building Elevations
11 . Parking Lot and Driveway Site Plan Details
12. Parking Lot and Driveway Grading Plan
13. Comments dated July 14, 2006 from Steve Kummer
14. Comments dated July 6,2006 from David Fisher
15. Convnents dated July 12, 2006 from Michael ShoI:Ireed
16. Conditional Use PemJiI Revision Resokltion
17. Project Plans (Separate Attachment)
9
Attachment 1
Hill-Murray School Athletics Facility Improvements
Project Narrative
Prepared by Rafferty Rafferty Tollefson Lindeke Architects
06/23/2006
Proiect Scope
This is a two-part project designed to improve the Hill-Murray School's Athletics
Facility. The project includes renovation of the 25,900 GSF single-level existing
Athletics building. A 31,500 GSF single-story addition will contain the new Fieldhouse
and Locker Room facilities. Total construction cost is estimated to be approximately
$ 4.6 Million.
In addition to the utility work, there will only be minimal site work on this project-
including tree-planting and minor sidewalks.
Backl!.round
Hill-Murray School is currently experiencing a space shortage for its Athletics program
and Physical Education curriculum. The existing facility does not provide enough room
for the amount of students and programs it serves.
The proposed improvements in the project would benefit the school in the following
areas:
1. Adequate practice and competition facilities to promote Gender Equity in the
Athletics program.
2. Improve safety and special needs access for students, staff, and visitors.
3. The consolidation of sports-related functions to the renovated/addition area
would create available space for academic program in existing school campus.
4. The improved Athletics facility would provide more opportunity for shared
activity by the surrounding community.
Campus Architecture Intel!.ration
Through the judicious use of material and color pallet, the design will enhance the
architectural integration of the Athletics Complex into the school campus. The new
raked finish pre-cast concrete exterior and the new paint over the existing Athletic
building exterior will be color keyed to match each other as well as the brick hue of
typical campus fayade.
PROJECT NARRATIVE
10
This project follows the Hill-Murray Facilities Master Plan completed in year 2000. A
potential second-story addition over the both the existing and expanded Athletics
building is anticipated in the future.
Community and Environmental Impact
As always, the school is conscientious in making only positive impact on the neighboring
community. This project should not affect the current level of vehicular traffic, aural, or
visual impact in the school vicinity.
The proposed project will not increase the current occupancy of the school. These
improvements are not expected to raise the traffic level of students, staff, and visitors.
The overall nominal school activities will remain the same, as the functional outcome
will only result in the redistribution of existing sports-related programs.
Since the location of the new addition is secluded from neighboring residents, the visual
impact of the project will virtually non-existent. No freestanding site lighting is planned
for this project. Security lighting will be attached to the buiding.
The environmental impact ofthe project will be minimal. The school has taken care to
comply with the all city regulations related to environmental issues. In addition, the
school is seeking opportunities to use natural storm water filtering devices for
environmental and educational benefits.
Summary
This project will provide the Hill-Murray School with needed facilities to properly serve
its AtWetics and Physical Education programs - while improving Gender Equity and
Accessibility issues. The project will have minimal impact to the surrounding site, the
neighbor, and the natural environment. Furthermore, the improved facility may provide
the community additional opportunity for sports and social activities.
11
"
"
It
,~
!~
=::=====::::::::::::::: ::::::::::-=-==::::::::::-=-=-=-= LARPENTEUR AVENUE
1 r #
" ~
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
" ,
"
-'-R=i-J.t!M1l.~<rr:::; ,::::::::::::::::::~I
II II
II II
II II
" "
,^, .1
5
~
/0.
I
iE
I
,~-_. -~ ----._-
"
f~
~
"
,
,
,
~j
"
Attachment 2
HOLLOWAY AVENUE
,
,
,
,
,
,
\
,
I
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
q
[)
a
MNDOT ROW
,
I
'..
:=>
,e
,;)-
!",
1:::1
'--
:z
,"
'v
,
,
,
,
,
I
,
,
,
,
a
HILL-MURRAY
CITY OPEN SPACE
I
LOCATION MAP
11
N
12
Attachment 3
'"
MNDOT ROW
.c:;
-
\l
\
,;J
d
c:==-J
o
~
,
i
I
I
<
I
,
I
"
II
II
II
:If ,
I~
i~
I",
- '~_____-~-------------------------~---------------------------~-----------------
PRIORY
-- --~~~----------~-------~--------------~------------ ------~- --- - -----------------------
I'
I I $j<:t
I I .
" D
I I
I I
I'
I I
, I
I'
I I
1\
I I .
I ' b
"
I I
, !! .
:::!l I I, I
I! i
~ilj (G~-~--~~--~~--lliHb-~~
w
CJ
"
AREA MAP
13
'fr
N
Attachment 4
---
......
I
I
I
I
.....
\
\
--
!:>Sl:-
_:.~
-
--
~
-
~--"~-'
--
.....~'-
--,
.---
-+-
.,.
/-
SITE SURVEY
14
'fr
N
Attachment 5
HILL-MURRAY SCHOOL ATHLETICS FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS
, \\~ ut: ,(;::'1
\, l \\\ ~I
'<. \' '" 1
' ~ ~.
o 0CJ' II
. \~ ~~_::.-- 'I
"
"
" 1
,.,'
~'. 1
'C
~
~
~
1 I'
-II~-r
+
~
l
-j--
--r-
~
-I
--+---
::::E
~ r:'~:c.,;,,-,-,-'
~
I
r--l
L-J
"I
~
FERTY RAFFERTY TOLLEFSON L1NDEKE ARCHITECTS
I
1
I
-I
",'
el
~
-,
~
,
o
EXISTING SCHOOL CAMPUS
N
EB-" -
i
,
1
i-.::o
o
""'I
i
,
..=
/"
y",
PROPOSED SITE PLAN
15
1)
N
Attachment 6
HILL-MURRAY SCHOOL ATHLETICS FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS
I I I 'I
-
,
,
[
....
PROPSEO FLOOR PLAN
,
~ ~~- - ~ --~--
q - :-----~-:-:-:--~:---:---:-:-:-:-:-:-:---:-:---:-~--- -:-
I I I , I
I I I I
: t- -, "", ; --::
~--~- ., l-- I _, ,_-:: , _:-_ ~
01 L_ ...l~_/ ~ 'L _-' II
II I II t I " I II
tI I II " " I H
II I , IL
:: ~__' ~_n_=@..,. ___u~ 'n~ ::
1i--~:: ~::::- ~ :::::~ ::~- it
II I II II , II
II I L II
II I ,II ,It
II I II I" I 11
" r- ""I"""" --, II
~--~- .J f-' )- L -i- f
: f-- - ..~/ - --: i
I I , I
I I , I
I I , I
L ~ -- ---_-_--_-__---------~ J
c:J NEW CONSTRUCTION
c:J RENOVATION OF EXISTING
CJ 1022'-0. (100'-0") EXISTING FLOOR ELEVA.TION
CJ 1023'-0' (101'-0") flOOR ELEVA.TION
~ " Ill' ,.
-
, 110 11
H ,
..EB
r ;t"*"~~~~ I
STEELE CONSTRUCTION + RAFFERTY RAFFERTY TOLLEFSON L1NDEKE ARCHITECTS
)
.,
EXISTING SCHOOL
PROPOSED FLOOR PLAN
16
\r
N
Attachment 7
I",,,,
EXISTING SCHOOL
"~-'-'-'----""~:'~
~"l
~._-----=~--
i
I
I
~ ~~~!NG. DRAINAGE, AND EROSION CONTROL PLAN
APPROXIMATE
DISTURBED AREA IS
1.60 ACRES
PROPOSED GRADING PLAN
17
\f
N
Attachment 8
-,...."..
-'
\,
-----I
i
i
i
" ,
',\
\\
......
r::::'.:s:~~~'~~"''''''''''')
\\
-1
!
I
\~
\ .-1
1-" <
':iC.",
\.
\
\
/ /
"LJ / /
/
\'
",\
...-..,
7-)
...."'"
",''-''
i
I
I .~.' .......
... -..~"- .....-..... ",'f,< _....... ~.' ;;;;"",.:
l--"-",,, ~ ~ :L
I --., ~}r _.- ~ "..~'" *''''''''~~" ~__'
,- \..-, <--- - - --- ~%i:~~~"'
~--'c.--.,-- ~,'"
I =::a, \ :r:!t<:tl~~'"
I' \
I""" \
, ,
" "
;.... "~:..:O'-'-""
',\ \
'.\ "
i \~\\\\
f~>\ ..'. \~\V~:
~<~" \,~. \ ~_."".,.~_\ Jr'
r. p-\ ,
1\ . /..
i. \. \ \ ;' \ ~.:~~:;::=:
b~ \
I
i
.........
.....
...........--..
"''':;,;;~(;;;;;;'~~;~'
;;;;;;;;,.",.., ;~."'-.."-
/"'\:, \
~_.,.
.."... \' .,
':~'",,, ".
~.., ,......^ ,., .,:~;:::~9;i;rf1"';"'\
...._;~_......
'''''':-:::;~:;:;
.....{:~;;;;;;;""",1
~{~~ ,"
\ \. \\ \, t \\ '; 'f;'l,
, , \\ \)1\".''',
,~".-,...
\
\
\-
\
C"
~~-
""""....
SED ADDITION
PROP<> .
-~.~~_.
~-~-
--".
_.-'~-"
.......-.
"-'-~.,;.,...
.'...I.~
.~.3Ef., , -
~...,. "'-..
"'-"'-..
',....
.. w
1\ JC~ :... \~,.'~
'\ /_12 _ -".
\ .j,' \ ;/,; - \
! '.J' ~J
i ,}1f '" ._'- , \
\~nw.f~t\./ ..-".~
'''-......, J..... ,.....;;"'"~:t!t~. .......~.".r-:::::---
".... t..-~-, ''''''':~'''';:~fI\.<Ji1!i' -0--
"~"'-.."-""",~\\{"~F~~.-:J "
=-,"~'\-:H--{:'f.
~j:gt"~.\\ \
1\\ \
~,\,~
\\\}
i\\"
...1t............_.~
/,/
.. \/::.'~.._. po -,^-". \
.- .~~ -ij:.' - ".".,..".." ~
~ \
r=~"'\
,,""
:"
:I"
EXISTING SCHOOL
~
c:::......\:::J.
,
I
i
i
.....................1
~
UTILITY PLAN
,'_lio"
18
\r
N
PROPOSED UTILITY PLAN
Attachment 9
HILL-MURRAY SCHOOL ATHLETICS FACILITY
NEW ADDITION
NEW ADDITION
SON L1NDEKE ARCHITECTS
I!)
FEET I
I!)
II!) 21!)
I I
I I
8 16
31!)
,
ol!)
,
32
,
64
19
11
N
PROPOSED BUILDING ELEVATIONS
Attachment 10
HILL-MURRAY SCHOOL ATHLETICS FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS
_..,.....~.T'I'I'
NEW ADDITION
RAFFERTY RAFFERTY TOLLEFSON LINOEKE ARCHITECTS
.
FEET I
.
~ 10 30
. ,
,
8 ~ 32
'"
,
..
20
'fr
N
PROPOSED BUILDING ELEVATIONS
" ""NOUS
, :'f S,rU
jI.~~\tolG \.0,
E~\S1\toIG P ,
Attachment 11
,
,
,
\
\
I
\ I 11r.~ I
\ I tJ'i"'"
\ \ ,>J"I <^'
\ \ I 1/ """.""
~~~
\ 11\
111\
\\~\
\\\ \
\\~TEctR:I
....."'.
~\ \ ^
'\"\j.:.F>lN;'-_
\ ' ----
~,,'-~ "
VF>lN,\ "
\ ',,- '""
~ \ ~ ""
..:. \ V\lIlU
ti. C-4 \ \
. \ '
-\"< ~ \
\. "..l.A I
~ \ I
%
C... \
G.""\(i;:_ \
\ I
\ \
=~~\ \
\ \
N.173m.1ll\
E-eo2115.50..\
\
100.1' \
SEE ~~r" WALL \
\
\
\
\
\
\
~51.15G
1ll(lDS "1" lllEE
\
."',....",
"'" E-e02121.58
"\ \
\j \
~",ok
wl'3M \..
'" \\ "\
" '"
" \ \
2'_ ,,\ '\. \,
.,... '\ " ""
-..,..%>,. ',',
"\~~ACE\ ' .
SEE2 ....~ """"
\?'-, ,
--.,",,-~
::~====:---~=:=
-- -"",,-L
'~---f~~~~
~'. ~7!it1;15-- ::-
........~tIII:1t---" --'
,
/' TFIXl1Jl'O!E "
EXleTINC!oUTILIT'r78'~ \!
'OGEIY~~INATE.-I .:
~C!'--:::....L '.....
EXISTING SCHOOL
GO'
r
I
/
/
/
'"
\
\
\
\
---J027_2
~027.0
\G
'--...' W't.
-,
'" --
--.. -___-+(JJr-
------------
,
G~-'---
"ASH ____
,
--
';..-/ /
-_C"":G:'~'I
-- /
---------- II
/ I
.--/^ \
------- / \ "
------------ ---/x1 \ "', ~
BEARING _______________ ./ \" __
N1.0'E (;"AS'S' _./"....,
-------~~~~~~~~-~_/ " ---~--
>6-- - - - - -.-- -L-- ":: ----i
N1J.O'W _______---- " ___
--------- -- ,
---------------- - '""------
r ~ ~ A> .c~c~~~c~~;;t~:'--~:~~_
.-..-- T ;;;-=--=-------=-=(::;:~~---~~~c::= ..-
l' ~:,~.UT FLAN DETAILS / -1;, -
V .. I'_""I~
END POIHT
P2 - N '73821.3 - E 802069.3
P3 - N 173671.7 - E 602077.8
P4 - N 173753.9 _ E 602082.4
PS - N 174000.0 - E 602027.0
P7 - N 17:3674.7 - E 602060.7
P8 - N 17:369:3.2 _ E 602071.1
\CE OF CURB.
LARPENTEUR AVENUE
21
1[
N
PARKING LOT AND DRIVEWAY SITE PLAN DETAILS
~
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
EXISTING SCHOOL
,O~&.4
, 1~_8
.028.7
,,,.,
,0'l8.~
GIfASS
,028.~
Ga..,
V8\ll
,Q2e.~
Attachment 12
,cz&,e
~rX~, /,;;.4- d~~
\~-'"'1"
I, / h
G~~SI ~~~:
_"II~
'- \ \\
10291
~ \
"
"'-~:--- __~C2U
~ --
~ ~
___ 102~.1 "'-
'. ~
~ ~
~ ~
- ~
Gzs,s '027,""
U\TRfX. "-
\ ~
~ I
\O2ll,~ \
I \
1'027.0 \
\ \
\
\
\
\
I
\ '~U
CI RIM hEv 102o.~
NV. [LEY. 1017.40 \
lCIIU \ \
\ \
\ I
\ 1026\5
\ \
\ \
\ \
\ I
\ I
\ loa_~
'\2!l.S \
\ \
\
\
\
'Il{'
102",'
1<>.:lO.1
10:lO.1
1030.0
030.0
1<n~.1
102"-,
('
/
/
/
./
./
,/ ~027.2
au ' ~OZ7,O
1IlE( '026.5 \
~02$.15""'-4~rll,.u. \.. GZ711
I .........VIlPL
~". 102tl.4.......
2M ~~-- -"""'___ -HJ;8-_,c;;srOZO,e
~____--'0~---
.'0)0.2
'ffi'<,
\ ~
\
\
\
\
<:;a",
~~'\
\
r:;,~.,
~'P1N"
~
\
'021-'\
\
\-I.!!2~
GRASS
_----'013........
, u
10253
,
.
a \
-\
1027,9
.=.
~
~
a-- 1024..
.'02J.e~_
"ASH -...
102:U --........--.
cu'
--... G2.1.,
--V~
---
~'"
;..
''''''
=~
1010.
~
INV, ELEV. 1005.00 .
~,
)1- lWe.'
10011-9
1001I.5
0111.5
~
;/
./ ~
I~~ ~r:1:::l..:r~....-p1p~
,m\:1I -
-...
~,?rfII
---'
"""TllCl5':ll"""/IJ'IC ~~NV. ~:LE:Yaos_. - ..- _I
100&4 'ace,? -..r-- l00!.!
lDQ8.' _/11.0"' I
LARPENTEURAVENUE
'~,7
'007.' 1007,g
,""
~
lDO,a
~,
__ 1012
'[ll}lI.7
~
.#
22
11
N
PARKING LOT AND DRIVEWAY GRADING PLAN
Attachment 13
Page 1 of5
EnPineerin2 Plan Review
PROJECT:
PROJECT NO:
REVIEWED BY:
Hill Murray Building Expansion
06-13
Steven L. Kummer, P.E., Civil Engineer n
City or Maplewood Engineering Department
DATE:
July 14, 2006
Hill Murray School proposes to build a 31,500 sq. ft. addition onto its existing 25,900 sq. ft
facility (which is proposed to be renovated). Other site improvements include a storm water
infiltration/rate control basin, rerouted storm and sanitary sewer utilities and new domestic and
fire protection water supplies to the new addition.
Grading & Drainage
1. The existing grades north of the existing building and east of the existing linkway
appear to be very flat. The proposed 1019 contour may need to be pulled to the south
and proposed spot elevations shown at the linkway edge to indicate positive drainage
toward proposed CB #3.
2. An emergency overflow route elevation (EOF) of 1022.40 is shown on the plans.
However, the existing grade to the east of the proposed ponding area appears to be
higher than the elevation of the emergency overflow grade indicated on the drawings.
3. Color photographs in the plan review package indicate standing water near the
northeast side of the proposed addition south of the track and field. The plans
indicate a 6-inch CMP draining a relatively large drainage area. It may be in the best
interest of the project to address this drainage issue with the new building
construction. The City would likely require some type of storm water BMP for
treatment of any flow into this low area from impervious surfaces.
4. Even though the parking area to the west of the existing linkway is to be demolished
due to utility work and may be intended to be replaced in-kind and to existing grade,
proposed grades and spot elevations should be indicated for parking area replacement.
5. Revised Grading Note #5 (C2.0) to have the City Public Works department notified in
lieu of the building department. Also include that Public Works is to be notified 48
hours in advance for inspection of installed erosion control measures. Grading of the
site will not be allowed to commence until the City approves the measures installed in
the field.
6. Revise Grading Note #9 (C2.0) as such: Delete the portion of the note that continues
with "If the public utilities have not been installed..."
23
Page 2 of 5
Storm Water Management
1. It appears that the Kerby Method is being used for time of concentration.
Computations and assumptions used in computing the Tc's should be submitted.
2. Drainage Area #3 needs to be revised to include a drainage area slightly to the
southeast of the proposed pond.
3. The discharge from the drainfield under the pond needs to be included as an outlet
into the primary discharge culvert (12" pipe) from CB #6.
4. Provide an elevation view and installation details of the weir wall to be installed in
CB#6.
5. Details on the primary outfall from CB #6 should be consistent on all plan sheets and
computations. For example, the HydroCAD computations show a 10" RCP @
0.52%, the upper detail 14/C4.0 shows a 12" RCP @ 0.52%, and the storm sewer
table shows a 12" RCP @ 0.50"10.
6. The computations and detail 14/C4.0 reflect a negative slope on the pipe run between
FES #7 and CB #6. The storm sewer table should be revised to reflect this.
7. The City requires a minimum of two (2) feet of freeboard between the pond l00-year
HWL elevation and the building FFE. Also required is a minimum one (1) foot of
freeboard between the pond EOF and the building FFE.
8. It is suggested that an outlet structure with a slanted top overflow inlet that conforms
to the pond slope be used in lieu of a regular manhole with a ditch grate.
9. Provide a sump manhole downstream of the proposed pond. The sump manhole
should be readily accessible to a Vactor truck or similar piece of equipment used for
cleaning sediment out of manhole structures.
10. The City will require a maintenance agreement for all permanent storm water BMP's
installed on site.
11. A planting/landscaping plan is required for the ponding area and must be reviewed by
Virginia Gaynor with the Nature Center staff. Her phone number is (651) 249-2180.
If pond grading will occur in one year and planting will occur the next year, then
seeding types and temporary establishment requirements will need to be specified for
the interim period (refer to Mn/DOT 2575 and 3876).
12. The plans show an elevation of 1019.16 for the 1-inch/24-hr storm event. The
computations show a 1018.80. Please revise.
24
Page 3 of5
13. Please submit soil boring(s) for the proposed ponding area.
Erosion Control
I. Detail 4/C4.0 should conform to City of Maple wood Std. Plate 350. For example, the
minimum length of a rock entrance pad should be 75 feet.
2. No flared-end section detail is shown. Please revise accordingly.
3. Catch Basin temporary sedimentation prevention devices are not required for storm
manholes with solid lids. Manhole structures may be plated until castings can be
installed. Catch basins at critical low points should have a device installed to allow
water to flow into the structure while preventing sedimentation.
4. Specity the type or product designation for the type of erosion control blanket that
will be used on the ponding area. Show anchoring details for the blanket. If the area
will be planted, it is suggested that a blanket without netting be specified. Refer to
MnlDOT 3885 in the 2005 Construction Specs.
5. The formal entrance (rock entrance) to the construction site should be placed in an
area where construction vehicles will not regularly run over the proposed ponding
area. North of the ponding area may be an option.
6. Specity erosion control inlet protection on FES #7 such as staked heavy-duty silt
fence.
7. Specify the use of a pick-up broom or a vacuum sweeper in the Erosion Control
Notes (specifically #7).
8. Seed mixture 110B no longer exists. Revise to include a temporary seed mix
included in the MnIDOT 3876 spec. Verity that all seed mix application rates
conform to MnlDOT 3876.
Utilities
1. Submit plans to Mike Anderson at Saint Paul Regional Water Services (SPRWS)
located at 1900 Rice St, Maplewood (2nd Floor) for their review and approval.
2. The water services do not appear to be stubbed 5 feet from the building. Is the intent
to come up with a riser through the building floor?
3. Water flow and pressure computations will need to be provided for minimum fire
protection flow pressures at the building. Contact SPRWS and the City Building
Department for design assumptions and requirements.
25
Page 4 of5
4. All pertinent water installation details shall conform to SPRWS standards and
specifications. Adjust all plan notes, keyed notes and details related to water main
and service installation accordingly.
5. The original Sunde Survey shows an existing 8-inch line under the tennis courts
versus the 15-inch VCP line that is currently shown on the plans. Also, an 8-inch
sanitary sewer service from the south side of the existing building is shown in a
different location than the survey. If the survey information was corrected due to new
information in the field, then the discrepancy should be noted on the plans.
6. The existing 15-inch VCP storm line and 4-inch sanitary line are shown to be
removed. What are the plans for the portions of pipe that supposedly run under the
existing building to the west?
7. Indicate flow directions on existing storm and sanitary sewers.
8. Submit storm sewer sizing computations for the proposed storm sewer runs.
9. It appears that a possible jack-and-bore operation will occur for the new sanitary and
storm sewer under the existing Iinkway. Casing pipe size and type should be
indicated along with a detail showing how the proposed lines will be bedded within
the casing pipes.
10. Some revision needs to be made to the 8-inch line between SSMH #2 and SSMH #3.
A Sch. 40 PVC pipe is shown within the casing pipe, but SDR 26 PVC (as utility note
#7 indicates) is shown upstream of the wye into the building. Either show a manhole
at the wye, or one pipe type all the way through either Schedule 40 or SDR 26.
11. Refer to the bottom half of City of Maple wood Std. Plate 410 which indicates a
service connection for a sanitary main greater than 13 feet deep. Revise the lower
detail 14/C4.0 to conform to this detail plate, as a direct 45-degree riser into the main
at the wye is not allowed.
12. The new sanitary sewer at Ex. SSMH #1 shall enter the manhole at the bottom and
not two feet above the lowest invert.
13. Storm sewer table invert directions for CB # 1 and CB #2 should be revised.
Geometries and Paving
1. Show proposed parking stall layout and dimensions in reconstructed parking lot area.
2. Show width dimension of proposed wheelchair ramp up to stairway.
26
Page 5 of5
Miscellaneous
1. Include a large sheet showing a topographic survey view of the site area. Show a larger-
scale view of the area surrounding the site as well.
2. Submit a copy of the MPCA's construction stormwater pennit (SWPPP) to the city
before the city will issue a grading permit for this project.
3. The owner and project engineer shall satisfy the requirements of all permitting agencies
including Watershed district requirements.
4. The project engineer shall revise the construction limits shown on the plans to match the
limits of grading and utility improvements.
5. Any City of Maple wood or SPRWS details that the project engineer copies or uses in
these plans are to be noted in the detail description.
27
Attachment 14
Memo
To: Ken Roberts, PI~-
From: David Fisher, Interim Community Development Director I Building Official
Re: Hill-Murray renovation & 31,500 square foot addition to their existing
fieldhouse building
Date: July 6, 2006
Provide complete building code analysis.
- Obtain a certificate of occupancy.
- The building setbacks must comply with the 2000 IBC Table 602 for
exterior wall protection. A complete building code analysis will be required
when plans are submitted for permit.
Minnesota State Building Code 1306 Fire Sprinklers requires the existing
facility to be sprinklered when the square footage is increased.
- The whole building is required to be fire sprinklered to NFPA 13.
- Verify code compliance for Minnesota State Building Code 1341 for
accessibility.
Provide Fire Department access.
Provide accessible parking to comply with Minnesota State Building Code
1341 for accessibility.
I would recommend commissioning the new and the existing building.
I would recommend a pre-construction meeting with the building
department.
28
Attachment 15
Maplewood Police Department
Memo
From:
Ken Roberts
Lt. Mike Shortreed dnfJJ 1I~77
July 12, 2006
PROJECT REVIEW - Hill Murray Athletic Facility Improvements
To:
Date:
Reo
After reviewing the attached proposal for the Hill Murray High School Athletic Facility
improvement project, I have the following comments and suggestions:
1) Adequate outdoor lighting should be incorporated into the project in order to assure that
visibility at all entrances/exits as well as around the proposed addition is appropriate and
does not provide for darkened areas for people to loiter without detection.
2) A road, driving path, or sidewalk around the facility addition should be provided that is
wide enough to allow police squad cars, ambulances, and fire trucks to readily access
the area in an emergency or medical situaton.
3) Adequate signs should be provided in order to readily mark the main entrances/exits at
the facility addition.
4) Construction site thefts and burglaries are a large business affecting many large
construction projects throughout the Twin Cites metro area. The contractor should be
encouraged to plan and provide for site security during the construction process. On-site
security, alarm systems, and any other appropriate security measures wouid be highly
encouraged to deter and report theft and suspicious activity incidents in a timely manner.
If there are any questons or concerns regarding these comments or suggestions, please
contact me at your soonest convenience. I can be reached via phone at (651)249-2605 or
via email atmichael.shortreed&i.maolewood.mn.us.
1
29
Attachment 16
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REVISION RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, Hill-Murray High School requested that the city revise their existing conditional
use permit for a school and athletic facilities.
WHEREAS, this permit applies to the property at 2625 Larpenteur Avenue East The legal
description is:
Part of the S Y. of the SE 14 of S 13, T 29N, R2'ZW, Ramsey County, MN (PIN 13-29-22-43-
0002)
WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit revision is as follows:
1. On August 7,2006, the planning commission held a public hearing. The city staff
published a notice in the paper and sent notices to the surrounding property
owners. The planning commission gave persons at the hearing a chance to speak
and present written statements. The commission also considered reports and
recommendations of the city staff. The planning commission recommended that
the city comcil approve the conditional use permit.
2. On , 2006, the city council discussed the proposed conditional use permit
revision. They considered reports and recommendations from the plaming
commission and city staff.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above-described
conditional use permit revision. 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 p1amed character of the sul1'OlBling
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 poUution, drainage, water runoff, vibration, general
unsightliness, electrical interference or other nuisances.
5. The use would generate only minimal vehicular traffic on local streets and would
not create traffic congestion or unsafe access on existing or proposed streets.
6. The use would be served by adequate public facilities and services, including
streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, water and sewer systems,
schools and parks.
7. The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or
services.
30
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.
10. The city council may waive any of the above requirements for a public building or
utility structure, provided the council shall first make a determination that the
balancing of public interest between govemmental units of the state would be best
served by such waiver.
Approval is subject to the following conditions:
1. All construction shall follow the plans as noted below:
a. For the athletic fields, follow the plans date-stamped March 6, 1998.
b. For the school and par1<ing lot addition, follow the plans date-stamped May 19,
1999.
c. For the chapel addition, follow the plans date-stamped October 1, 2001.
d. For the field house. follow the DIans dated June 28. 2006. These Dlans shall
meet all the conditions and chanaes reauired bv the city enaineerina
deDartment.
The interim director of community development may approve minor dlanges.
2. The proposed construction for the mapel field house addition must be substantially
started within one year of council approval or the pennit revision shall end. The
council may extend this deadline for one year.
3. The city council shall review this pennit annually to monitor the traffic and parking
situations related to the use of the athletic fields.
4. Any new lights shall be installed to meet the city code. This requires that they be
saeened or aimed so they do not cause any light-glare problems on streets or
residential properties.
5. Post and maintain signs on the edge of the wetland-protection buffer prohibiting any
building, mowing, cutting, filling or dumping within the buffer. Wetland buffer signs
in the mowed area shall be placed at the edge of the lawn.
6. That portion of the proposed walkinglrmning path that is within 50 feet of the
wetland shaD be built with a pervious material.
7. Ensure that all bleachers and dugouts are at least 30 feet from the Sterting Street
and larpenteur Avenue right-of-ways.
8. The city may require the applicant to plant 30 native species of trees for screening
between the playing fields and the homes on Knoll Circle, as may be determined at
a future hearing on the conditional use permit.
31
9. The school shall prepare for city approval a turf management plan for the athletic
fields. This plan shall include the mowing, watering and fertilizing practices that the
school will follow in the care of their athletic fields and grounds. The school shall
prepare and follow the plan so the practices will minimize the impact of the storm
water run off on the nearby wetlands.
10. Submit a grading and drainage plan for watershed district approval to provide
sedimentation control at the stann water discharge point before it dumps into the
south wetland area.
11. The smeol shall s'Neep and restfipe the west paFkinglot llefore 1'.llgll5t 15, 2002.
The Map/e>Nood City Council approved this resolution on
,2006.
32
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
APPLICANT:
LOCATION:
DATE:
Greg Copeland, Interim City Manager
Shann Finwall, AICP, Planner
Mapleridge Center
Doug Olson of Cy-Con, Inc.
2501 and 2515 White Bear Avenue
August 2, 2006
INTRODUCTION
Doug Olson of Cy-Con, Inc. is proposing to remodel the Mapleridge Center at 2515 White Bear
Avenue. Remodeling includes upgrading the fac;:ade with new brick, EIFS, and glass.
REQUEST
City code requires major construction projects on an existing commercial building to be approved
by the Community Design Review Board (CDRB). A major construction project is defined as any
exterior work on a commercial or multi-family building or site which is over $200,000. The
proposed remodeling at the Mapleridge Center is over $200,000, and therefore must be approved
by the CDRB.
BACKGROUND
July 9, 1985: The CDRB approved the design plan review for the Mapleridge Center at 2515
White Bear Avenue. The design plans included a 108,706 square foot retail shopping center and
Rainbow Foods grocery store. The two buildings were approved with exteriors of eight-inch
square-pattern burnished and rock face concrete masonry units (CMU) with a prefinished metal
seam canopy.
March 25, 1986: The CDRB approved the comprehensive sign plan for the Mapleridge Center.
DISCUSSION
Buildino Elevations
The remodeling of the Mapleridge Center includes the removal of the green metal seam canopy
and addition of the following materials on the front sides of the buildings:
1. Decorative brick piers.
2. EIFS above the windows.
3. Decorative EIFS cornices on top of the parapet walls.
4. Glass spandrel storefront band above existing windows.
5. Two new styles of canopies above the windows to include prefinished metal canopy and
fabric awnings.
6. Decorative wall-mounted lights to be located on the brick piers.
7. Painting the CMUs beige with brown colored accent bands.
The side and rear elevations, which are currently burnished and rockface CMUs, will be painted
beige with brown colored accent bands. Staff finds the proposed remodeling of the existing
elevations a welcome and attractive addition.
Sianaae
No changes are proposed to the existing signage. The contractor will remove the existing signs
during remodeling and reinstall the signs on a sign band above the windows and canopies. Any
future major changes to the wall or freestanding signs on the site may require a comprehensive
sign plan amendment approval by the CDRB.
Other Improvements
The property owner proposes to patch and restripe the existing parking lot. No other exterior
improvements besides the building reface and the parking lot repair is proposed by the property
owners at this time. The design review of this remodeling project, however, is a good opportunity
for the city to ensure all originally required exterior improvements are in place. City code requires
the maintenance or replacement of dead or missing landscaping and any other required exterior
improvements. City staff inspected the site and found the following exterior improvements in
need of addressing:
Landscaping: City staff compared the existing landscaping on the site with the approved
landscape plan from 1986 and found the following landscaping has died and/or has been
removed:
1. Required landscaping along White Bear Avenue: 2 Black Hills spruce; 1 pin oak; 2 sugar
maple.
2. Required Landscaping along the back of the buildings: 3 ornamental trees: 17 Black Hills
spruce; 1 pin oak.
3. Required landscaping on south side of Rainbow: 1 American linden; 1 ornamental tree; 1
Black Hills spruce.
4. Required landscaping along Gervais Avenue: 1 sugar maple; 3 Black Hills spruce.
Prior to issuance of a building permit for the proposed remodeling, the CDRB should require that
the applicant submit a revised landscape plan which specifies the location of the existing
landscaping and the addition of at least 33 new trees on the site. In particular the landscape plan
should show several 6-foot-high, Black Hills spruce (or an alternative species of evergreen tree)
to be planted on the west side of Rainbow Foods, in between the parking lot and the property
line. The evergreen trees will help create additional screening of the back side of the building
from the residential properties to the west. Also, all proposed deciduous trees should be at least
2-1/2 inches in diameter and all ornamental trees should be at least 1-1/2 inches in diameter.
Dumpster Enclosure: The original plans called for one large dumpster enclosure to be located on
the back side of the building. The dumpster enclosure is constructed of painted CMUs. On
inspection of the site, city staff found that in addition to dumpsters located within the existing
dumpster enclosure, there are several dumpsters which are unscreened and sitting out along the
rear of the building. City code requires that all dumpsters be screened with a 100 percent opaque
screen and gate.
Prior to issuance of a building permit for the proposed remodeling, the CDRB should require the
applicant to submit a revised site plan and elevations which shows the expansion of the existing
dumpster enclosure or the addition of new dumpster enclosures along the back side of the
building. The dumpster enclosures should be designed to screen all trash and recycling
dumpsters on the site, should be 100 percent opaque, at least 6 feet in height with a closeable
gate, and should be constructed of materials which are compatible to the building.
2
RECOMMENDATION
Approve the plans date-stamped July 10, 2006, for the Mapleridge Center located at 2515 White
Bear Avenue. Approval is subject to the applicant doing the following:
1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this
project.
2. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant must submit to staff for approval the
following items:
a. Landscape plan which shows the following: The location of the existing
landscaping and the addition of at least 33 new trees on the site. In particular the
landscape plan should show several 6-foot-high, Slack Hills spruce (or an
alternative species of evergreen tree) to be planted on the west side of Rainbow
Foods, in between the parking lot and the property line. The evergreen trees will
help create additional screening of the back side of the building from the
residential properties to the west. Also, all proposed deciduous trees should be at
least 2-1/2 inches in diameter and all ornamental trees should be at least 1-1/2
inches in diameter.
b. Site plan and elevations which shows the following: The expansion of the existing
dumpster enclosure or the addition of new dumpster enclosures along the back
side of the building. The dumpster enclosures should be designed to screen all
trash and recycling dumpsters on the site, should be 100 percent opaque, at least
6 feet in height with a closeable gate, and should be constructed of materials
which are compatible to the building.
c. A cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit for all required landscaping and
dumpster enclosure improvements. The amount shall be 150 percent of the cost
of the work.
3. The applicant shall complete the following before final inspection and approval of the
major construction project:
a. Install all required landscaping.
b. Construct the required dumpster enclosures.
4. If any required work is not done, the city may allow a final inspection and approval of the
major construction project 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.
3
5. Any new signs installed on the site must obtain a separate sign permit. Any major
changes to signage on the site may require approval of a comprehensive sign plan
amendment by the community design review board.
6. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may
approve minor changes.
P:com-dev\sec11\mapleridge center\8-8-06 CDRB
Attachments:
1 . Location Map
2. Address Map
3. Proposed Building Elevations
4
'.
il I.t
I : i~
II 1:{
II !=r
" ,
II It
II I)
II II
_______~,ll ___________~~.____~~______________'::}II._____~______________
~'I I-------~ I~--------------------- ------
II II
II II
;1 II
(I II
II II
II l"-l
" "
\1 f:1
': ~
~ r:
~ "
~~~,!
"
"
"
,
,
,
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
II
,l
.,
--:.",'<:
~~-- -- --~ _....nli::i....o'.E.._, f"-- -- -~- -- ---~""
, 'I
, "
r j i~1
I.",)
!~I
il,.,I
j~)
J I
ii:/
'.'
I,. (_ ___~-~
/'-
!~,
3/
, I
,
i
SITE
,
"
"
"
"
"
"
,~
,,'
:~
::il
I~
"
"
"
I,
"
"
"
,'.
<>
t'~:;"
\'.011
/
)'
"
"
....1 r-=--=--=--=-~ r=='=-lr~" ..--;.--.....:.-
I! II II ,;/ ..-"
" ',l___J,I/ ",'/;
I ___~,_,' ,J
II It .--i(,
" " ..!>...:s
" " NY'
II "..'.'~"
I ;, r
: '#~
~
CHURCH
"
.~,{~ .....,.
<\-" )1
II II
II II
II II
II II
II II
~) ~====::~)
,'--.....
.....,,'>....
"
---
,-,
\~ ~~7~~~ .
---------------------~_J_
---------------~---------------
_ ___ ___-~_-_-_~~~_-_-:___-___ ____ ___ ~~_ _~~AY 38 .~
Attachment 1
.IIi
iU,1
.'11
IJI)
/ l{:'
"
.: /
"
,
,
i
-"
"
"
,
,
!
,
,
i
,
,
i
,
,
,
I
I
,
"
,
,
,
I
,
,
,
,
,
'"-----------
,
,
I
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
'.
I"'
:~
,~
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
~.------- J
(( --- ----
,"
\1.____
~-.... _:-------
b
--.....-
-~-
,
,
,
,
,
'"
I.'.
'"
Ii:
,.,
,
;
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
CUB FOODS
"
j
.
I
HOME DEPOT
- =,,==
.--;-----~
-- ,r-- ---:._ -::::.:::~.:::::=_:_~:::::::~::_~:::~~~~~~~::::::~~~ _:-:::~:__-
,-
~--------~-
I I I I
..........1- :..--;
LOCATION MAP
11
N
I I
",,;,;'L;j
'.-1 I....I~
'--
D
L-.----.-J
dO
~ >
SITE
o
CHURCH
"-v
_lilH_AVE...
\ ,
I
I
I
- I
I I
! ,
'III'
'...'
,1..-1
'O(!
10:/
'0('
/...1
,I~!
10),-
/1.l.J t...
'....
"- ,~
!:r: /
i~/
/ i 1
,
.,.....-'-\ .....~,~
'\,
U'R17I<T'5I'.1Jr ...
CI
---I -111 --'---~I
/
'='
ADDRESS MAP
~~
Attachment 2
J.'
..J
--- Ii'
~-----~ :'-c,.":'",;',:::'-.
( i:L::i}:~~L.
,I ".",:,<g,-""
/~ P""o);1.'f.-,
!
I
!
I
I
I
I2J
,
Q;
I
Q]/ I
,
,
i
i
I
J
,
-'E:] ,
,
i I
I !
, i
I ,
I ,
, "
, ,
I I!
, ,
I ,
, ,
, ,
I ,
I I
, I
, I
I :
I ,
, ,
, ,
I ,
I ,
I ,
:
,
,
J
,
./
u
D
'Q
DO
'8
~
~---------~--- _u_,_
o
.0
r-
CUB FOOL
-,
~
HOME DEPOT
11
N
Attachment 3
""-----------------------------------------------------------------. .~-------------~:------------------------------SiIiii I:;==-~ II
1.0", ~":: "'--""'i"-
i : : -,,, : 5l:":"':::
I
'-----------------------------------------------------------------"'----------------------------------------------.;,---------------------~
f7\, EfdITEXTERlORaJ;\IAlltIN f'2\~.unlAL!AS'TDTERIOREl.EVAT1OI<,,~. ,~
\..V ."...l.... \.V _ _
-'-.--.-:::::-.~
, -'.-
I ".:,-.,,",;:,,_,
,
,----------,
"'r--------------------., ~---------------------------------------------, ,------------------------------------~
, , ,
, , ,
, , ,
, , ,
, , ,
: I I
G)lIOUTHEX'1VllOIIELEVATD!I
vw.'_
01WlTW.~Ell1VIIORELEVA'"':'},..,....
0PNlTlA1.SOl!THEXTEIlIORELEYA~".,_
8P_~EXTERIORB.fVATD!I
1/11"-'....
I
:::
...........-
.......
(2)P.UlTl.ll!AS'TD'TERIORELEVATION,.....,....
G)PNmALS(llJIHEXTEl\IOIlELEVAT1ON,.....,..".
PROPOSED BUILDING ELEVATIONS
11
N
!JIIii [~~=:~] l
! . - , -: : '..,'-" -- : ~~=-
I i I I .........__
,-----------------------------------------------------------------~ ,----------------------------------------------, ,---------------------,
8WESTElCTEJIIIOREl.EII.o.l1OH 'I'....... 0PNlTW.WEllTEXTaIIOREl.EVAl1OH"w.,_
-,-.---:::::-~
, ~;,.. ,;,.,,-;.
,
,----------,
""---------------------.~----------------------------------------------,,------------------------------------~
I I I I
, , ,
, , ,
, , ,
, , ,
, , ,
, , ,
,
,---------------------,
01'N1T1A1.lIO\!THEXTERIORElEVATICN
3 1I1r.'.....
0P.t.RTIALIiIOI.ITllEllTE~ElEV...~/,,.,.....
0SCUTHEXTERIOREIZVATlON
'flr_'.....
:t~
...."...
..-.
0)PARlW.ElEVATlCINACORNERRETURN
',.-.1....
GpAATW.IiIOI.ITllOOERlORElEVAl1OH
,/0".,....
G1P.tJ'ITIOoI.EL&"'l1OHAralANER~
'fr-,....
@PI\InW.SCUTHEXlERIreElEV.o.TlON
'.....,-
@,PAATIAl.WTEXTERIOREl.EVAl1OH
.,.-.,.....
@)PNITW._1I1EXTERIOllELEvAro:,...,-r
PROPOSED BUILDING ELEV A liONS
'fr
N
l
-.....,
rr-...::i="'dI
.---
.""_...
-.......
-----
u:""J':."
---
~-::.K':"
."".--
E!:....lf'.::.....
.---
...-.""
--
.--..
....--.""
--
--...",-
~...._-
....... -
........-
......:::
-.,'-
-..--
--
- "".'=o:'::'&"'-
_'rAr"'f:'"
.ifll.WIIP'"
----,-"
--...-.....
::."-"-
-
-
-
-.:>..-.i;
IFilllllkJ'IL""
::.=-,..
--~"'''-
---
-.-
--.--
-.-
--
--
--.
~WI=
--~"'''-
---
--,
--
---
--,
-=.. -""
0PNlT1ALEASTElE'JATIOH
"....,.....
IF RM WILe..
=.,=--
__10"'''_
-...-..--
--
---
o
............. .
==---=3-
=.:t:".":i:=;,.g,
..---
-.......-
~a.:--11lI
r.-..,ENI.NlGEDCOI."",,,,~"'TIOH
\:...J ,/..,......
0.
_1..l...--L-1--~_
=I:t:i=: t i=t:=:1=
I..l...--L-.!..~I_
.......-..-..
=r"'-
Q
0PAIlTlALHORTHISOUTHElEV...T1ON"r.'.....
(~::YEYPlNl
1f
N
PROPOSED BUILDING ELEV A liONS