Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/22/2006 AGENDA CITY OF MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD Tuesday,August22,2006 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: August 8, 2006 5. Unfinished Business: a. Lexus Maintenance Building (County Road D) - Review of Lighting Plan 6. Design Review: a. Regent of Legacy Village - Senior Apartments 7. Visitor Presentations: 8. Board Presentations: a. August 14, 2006, City Council Meeting - Member Shankar b. Compliance Enforcement Options 9. Staff Presentations: a. September CDRB Meetings - Reminder that the September 12 and the September 26 CDRB meetings have both been canceled and rescheduled into one meeting, which will be held on September 19, 2006, at 6 p.m. 10. Adjourn DRAFT MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD 1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNSSOTA TUESDAY, AUGUST 8, 2006 I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Olson 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 Absent Present Present Present at 6:30 p.m. Present until 7:05 p.m. Staff Present: Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner Lisa Kroll, Recording Secretary III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The applicant for Hill-Murray School asked if their item could be moved ahead of the proposal for MinnHealth on the agenda. That was fine with staff and the board members. Board member Ledvina moved to approve the agenda as amended. Board member Shankar seconded. Ayes - Ledvina, Olson, Shankar The motion passed. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of the CDRB minutes for July 25, 2006. Board member Ledvina moved approval of the minutes of July 25, 2006. Board member Shankar seconded. Ayes --- Ledvina, Shankar Abstention - Olson The motion passed. V. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. Community Design Review Board Minutes 8-08-2006 2 VI. DESIGN REVIEW a. Hill-Murray School (Field House Addition) - 2625 Larpentlllur Avenue East Mr. Ekstrand said Rafferty, Rafferty Tollefson, Lindeke Architects, representing Hill-Murray School, is requesting city approval of the 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. They want to put a 31 ,500-square-foot addition onto the east side of the field house for additional gym and lock room space and renovate and remodel the interior of the existing athletics building. The proposed field house addition meets the findings for CUP approval and would be compatible with the existing school and development in the area. None of the proposed changes nor the addition should cause any problems for the city or for the neighbors. The new field house will be constructed of 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. 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. Board members did not have any questions for staff. Chairperson Olson asked the applicant to address the board. Mr. Craig Rafferty of Rafferty, Rafferty, Tollefson, Lindeke Architects addressed the board. He said they are using the same tilt up prefabricated materials on the new building that match the existing building but in a different color. The materials would blend more closely with the brick on the school. They are painting the existing building in order to tie the complexes together. They are adding variations in the concrete panels which add subtle layers. He presented a sample of the building materials for the board. Chairperson Olson said the plans show the granite tile inserts in red and the color sample you presented is dark gray or black in color, which is correct? Mr. Rafferty said the granite tile insert would be a dark gray or black color as the sample I presented. Board member Ledvina said the existing building shows rain leaders and he asked if the new building would have rain leaders? Mr. Rafferty said there are internal rain leaders and the system is collected and drained into a holding pond. Chairperson Olson asked if the rain goes into the holding pond rather than into the sanitary sewer system? Mr. Rafferty said that is correct. Community Design Review Board Minutes 8-08-2006 3 Board member Ledvina asked if there would be any downspouts or scuppers? Mr. Rafferty said there are scuppers and an internal drain as well. Board member Shankar asked the applicant to address the landscaping. Mr. Rafferty said the landscaping is limited to clusters of river birch trees that wrap around the building on the south and east side. The west side of the building is covered right now by a single story metal link that connects the school and the field house.. To the north are the gym bleachers and the football field and there really isn't room for landscaping there nor would it grown in that location. They are not planning on planting any bushes because they would die here. The school has long range plans that may call for more additions in the future so they prefer to keep the landscaping simple. Chairperson Olson asked if there would be additional trash collection on the site? Mr. Rafferty said the trash is picked up at the loading dock. The school is not really increasing the number of students so there should not be a need for a larger tralsh area. Chairperson Olson asked about the roof vents because she did not see them on the plans? Mr. Rafferty said the roof vents have not been clearly identified on the plans but they plan on screening the roof vents per the requirements of the city. They will be looking at new internal mechanical systems in the future but for now the vents will be screert1ed by a wood fence. They will paint the mechanical units to match the building color as close a$ possible. Chairperson Olson asked about exterior lighting on the buildings? Mr. Rafferty said the exterior lighting would be wall pack lights over the new exit doors. There is a canopy over the doors and the lights will be part of the canopy. Chairperson Olson said with the lighting in the canopy the city requites that the bulb cannot be visible and requires a cut off so there is no glare. Mr. Rafferty said they would follow the city's lighting requirements. Board member Shankar asked if this project would require additional parking? Mr. Rafferty said the number of faculty and students isn't changing. This is just to provide better facilities for the students. Hill-Murray School has a project under construction now where they are adding an additional 44 parking spaces and a new driveway to eliminate congestion along Larpenteur Avenue to work out the best sequence of events to make things flow smoother. They are restriping the main student parking lot and rotating the parking so it is perpendicular and flows more logically throughout the site. Community Design Review Board Minutes 8-08-2006 4 Board member Ledvina moved to approve the project plans date-stamped June 28, 2006, (site plan, landscape plan, grading and drainage plans and building ele\!ations) 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 1'4, 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 pertmit 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 dlrainage 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. (a) Submit a certificate of survey for all neVil construction. (b) 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 landsclaping 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. Community Design Review Board Minutes 8-08-2006 (3) (4) (5) 5 That shows the manicured or mowed areas from the natural areas. This shall include plantingl (instead of sodding) the disturbed areas around the pondin9 area with native grasses and native flowering plants. l1he 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. It shall be approved by the city el'1gineer before site grading and shall be consistent with the approved grading and landscape plans. Showing the birch clumps being at least 2)1, 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 cbnstruction. b. Install reflectorized stop signs at all exits, a handicl/lP-parking sign for each handicap-parking space and an address on the building. c. Post a "no left turn" sign at the easterly curb cut. d. Paint the roof-top mechanical equipment to match the bulilding color if the units are visible. The applicant shall provide screening enclosures l/Iround 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 arel/ls. g. Complete all landscaping and turf irrigation for the building addition. 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 follow$ the approved site lighting plan. All exterior lighting shall follow the approved lighting plan that shows the light spread and fixture design. Community Design Review Board Minutes 8-08-2006 6 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) Compete 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 occupancy if: a. The city determines that the work is not essential to the public health, safety or welfare. b. The above required letter of credit or cash escrow is held: by the city for all required exterior improvements. The owner or contractor shall complete any unfinished landscaping by June 10f the next year if the building is occupied in the fall or winter, or within six weeks of occupancy if the building is occupied in the spring or summer. 5. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 6. This approval does not include signs. Any signage will be reviewed by city staff through the sign permit process. Chairperson Olson seconded. Ayes - Ledvina, Olson, Shankar The motion passed. This item goes to the city council on August 28, 2006. b. MinnHealth Clinic - Vacant Lot Located to the North of 2055 White Bear Avenue (Across the Street from the Maplewood Community Centlilr) Mr. Ekstrand said DSGW Architects, representing B.I.C. 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. 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 8 to 5 or 6 p.m. Monday through Friday and possibly on Saturday mornings. Staff recommends that the landscape plan be revised to provide same 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. Community Design Review Board Minutes 8-08-2006 7 The evergreens proposed along the north side of the site should 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 isn't very many trees for 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. The applicant must install an in-ground lawn irrigation system according to the ordinance. 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 and would have a wooden gate closure. Board member Ledvina asked about the created wetland. He asked if the city is establishing the quality of the wetland and the appropriate buffer? Mr. Ekstrand said the applicant will be required to mitigate the wetlartld that is being lost on this site. The watershed district is requiring that the applicant "replace th~ lesser-quality wetland on their site with a higher quality sedge-meadow wetland on the applicant's abutting lot to the south." He believes Tina Carstens with the watershed district said it would be a 25-foot buffer. Chairperson Olson said the wetland would be replaced on "this site" and would not be mitigated "off' site? Mr. Ekstrand said the wetland would be mitigated off site but in f~ont of the property to the south, which is the same property owner and that is acceptable to the watershed district. Board member Schurke joined the CDRB meeting at 6:30 p.m. Board member Ledvina said there are 216 parking spaces proposed and city code requires 200. Did staff mention to the applicant they could have proof of parkirg? Mr. Ekstrand said the city recently approved the Kennard Professional Building in Legacy Village and the developer said the 5 per 1,000 parking spaces is mot sufficient for a medical clinic. This medical facility building is about the same size as the Kennard Professional Building. Based on that, staff estimated this medical clinic would need this many parking spaces and they would actually like more parking spaces. Staff was satisfied with the 216 proposed parking spaces. Board member Ledvina said as long as the applicant has the par~ing they need than that is what is important. Board member Shankar said the plans show both a standing se~m metal roof as well as horizontal siding, he asked if the applicant showed staff any colors? He is concerned that the standing seam and the horizontal siding is the same color. Mr. Ekstrand said the applicant brought building material samples to show the CDRB so they can address that issue. Community Design Review Board Minutes 8-08-2006 8 Chairperson Olson asked the applicant to address the board. Mr. Randy Wagner, DSGW Architects in North St. Paul, (represerting B.I.C. Development) addressed the board. He displayed the building materials board. He said they tried to use compatible colors that were used on the three influential buildings hi the area, the Maplewood Community Center, Ramsey County Courthouse and the CVS Phairmacy. They will be using brick, concrete colored block, corrugated boxed siding, and have a standing seam metal roof over the barrel vaulted canopy in front. It will be a two-story glass building with a two-story lobby with two canopies. The fascia board is brick red across the face which is also used on the sun screen on the south side of the building. The corrugated metal is dark anodized bronze and is the same color as the aluminum store front. Board member Shankar said the applicant referred to three influential buildings in the neighborhood but some of them have anodized aluminum for the horizontal siding and here you are proposing an anodized bronze color. Mr. Wagner said they want to use similar colors and building materi~ls but still have their own identity with this building to change things up a bit. They want this building to blend in but be different, that eliminates confusion regarding who owns the building ~oo. Board member Schurke asked about the sun screen on the south $ide? He asked if it will be an architectural sun screen or is it functional? Mr. Wagner said it is a functional sun screen. He showed the CDRBi the elevation with the sun screen on the south side of the building as well as the other elevatiohs to show how everything will correspond together. He also passed the building materials board around for the CDRB to review. Chairperson Olson asked about the landscaping and staffs requestl for additional landscaping on the north side? Mr. Wagner said the additional landscaping recommended should not be an issue. Chairperson Olson said the plan shows plantings around the base of the elevations and she asked if those were called out on the landscaping plan. Mr. Wagner said for the most part those will be simple foundation pll3ntings. There isn't a lot of green space here; it's basically a buffer between the buildings and tHe lawn. Board member Schurke asked about additional strategies in terms of storm water mitigation that could be used here but are not shown? Mr. Ekstrand said engineering and the applicant will have to take a[1other review of the storm water mitigation. Today it came up that the city engineer said that ~he small ponds proposed between the parking lot and the street would not be effective and not preferred. When White Bear Avenue gets widened in about five years those ponds would hiave to be removed so that will have to be looked at again before this goes to the city council. Community Design Review Soard Minutes 8-08-2006 9 Board member Schurke asked what the intent was regarding the prpperty on the west side of this parcel? . Mr. Wagner said he wasn't sure what the developer plans to do with that parcel. Mr. Ekstrand said he had asked the same question and the develqper said he doesn't know yet. Staff would suggest not disturbing the land at this point. He v.lould hate to see the land regraded because often times there isn't the best success getting the ground restored so if they don't need to disturb the land, staff would suggest leavingl it alone until there is a proposal. Board member Schurke said he didn't see a sidewalk on the plans parallel to White Bear Avenue. However, the city extended the sidewalk underneath Itlighway 36 to reach the intersection and his strong preference is to figure out a way to accommodate pedestrian access to this clinic site because of the adjacency to the Metro TraMit system. It is difficult to walk to this site unless you walk on the street which could be dangerous. He asked if the applicant would be willing to construct a sidewalk here? Mr. Wagner said you bring up a very good point and he doesn't believe the applicant would have a problem constructing a sidewalk here along White Bear Avehue. It would only help the businesses within this building. Board member Schurke said he likes the idea of pushing the storm ..yater mitigation to the west side of the property and you can always address modifications lat~r to accommodate future development on the south side. He appreciates the effort that has b$en made on the design of this building. This is a very pleasing building and he commended ~he developer for adding a sun screen on the building. He likes the location and the adjacency ~ White Bear Avenue. The traffic comments that have been raised by the neighbors are legitimate. There are times when it's very difficult to safely enter this stretch of White Bear Avenue. Because of the difficulty getting in and out of this site he would recommend not blocking 'the view in any way with monument signage or any other obstruction that would make it even harder to get onto the roadway safely because the traffic moves very quickly on this stretch of road. Chairperson Olson said she would highly recommend the constructi@n of the sidewalk. Mr. Ekstrand said staff's only concern is that within the next five ye<ilrs White Bear Avenue will be widened and if we require the applicant to install a sidewalk, and the road is widened, it would need to be removed. Board member Schurke said there could be a conversation with the ,county to find out what the dimension should be to keep a buffer between where the road Imay be widened and the placement of the sidewalk to be constructed. The pedestrian access, is very important here and five years is a long time to wait for a sidewalk just because we are waiting to see how White Sear Avenue will be reconstructed. Chairperson Olson asked if it would be appropriate to recommend the wetlands be relocated behind the building? Community Design Review Board Minutes 8-08-2006 10 Mr. Ekstrand said that seems to be a likely option. The board ma}f want to suggest that the drainage plan be subject to the approval of the city engineer and the ponds be relocated in areas most appropriate. The bottom line is the city engineer would hcltve to approve the grading and drainage plan and the location of the ponds. Mr. Wagner said the signage for the building is not shown on thel plans but there will be a monument sign. The design and detail of the sign is not yet compl~te. The sign will be low to the ground and identify the address and the tenants within the building. Board member Schurke asked if Mr. Wagner was aware of the Mapl$wood sign code? Mr. Wagner said yes. Chairperson Olson asked if anyone in the audience wanted to speak regarding this development? Nobody came forward. Board member Schurke moved to approve the plans date-stampl'ld July 17, 2006, for the proposed White Bear Avenue Family Health Center north of 2b55 White Bear Avenue. Approval is subject to the applicant/developer complying with the following conditions: (changes to the conditions are underlined if added and strickeniif deleted.) 1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. 2. Comply with all conditions stated in Steve Kummer's engineering report dated July 28, 2006. 3. Obtain a permit from the RamseylWashington Metro Watershed District before the issuance of a building permit. If needed the applicant ,shall prepare a wetland delineation and full mitiaation plan. These activities shall be ~ompleted bv a competent wetland s ecialist. The Ian shall incor orate the corres ondi buffer zone re uired for the new wetland buffer iven the s ecific t e of wetland be c nstructed. 4. Install wetland-protection buffer signs around the mitigated wl'ltland and any contiguous wetlands if needed by the watershed district. Wetland signs ~hall be spaced every 100 feet and shall comply with the city's approved sign design requirements. 5. All wetland and drainage and rainwater ponds shall be planted with plantings as required by the watershed district and the city engineer. 6. The applicant shall enter into a maintenance agreement with the city and the watershed district for the maintenance of ponds. 7. Revise the landscaping plan to provide for an evenly spacePlstaggered double row of evergreens along the north property line where the trees ar$ spaced no more than 10 feet on center in each planted row. Community Design Review Board Minutes 8-08-2006 11 The applicant shall also revise the landscaping plan to provide 14 trees spaced at 30 feet on center along the White Bear Avenue frontage betwe~n the entrance drive and the north lot line. There shall also be two trees planted south cl>f 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 ~o 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 appliqant 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. 14. The a licant shall inte rate a 6 foot wide sidewalk into the ite arallel to White Bear Avenue. The a licant shall meet with the count and cit st ff to determine it's ro er location. ~. The a licant shall consider and review with the cit 's en neerin staff storm water miti ation 0 tions other than what is shown on the lans cu rentl for the ur oses for permeable oavino or rainwater oardens to be located on the west side of the orooertv or where aoorooriate relative to the develooment. Board member Ledvina seconded. Ayes - Ledvina, Ols<pn, Schurke, Shankar The motion passed. This item goes to the city council on August 28, 2006. c. Maple Ridge Retail Center (Remodel Exterior) - 2515 Whi~e Bear Avenue Mr. Ekstrand said Doug Olson of Cy-Con, Inc. is proposing to remo~el the Mapleridge Center at 2515 White Bear Avenue. Remodeling includes upgrading the fa~ade with new brick, EIFS, and glass. City code requires major construction projects on an existing c~mmercial building to be approved by the CDRB. A major construction project is defined ~s any exterior work on a commercial or multi-family building or site which is over $200,000. T~e proposed remodeling at the Mapleridge Center is over $200,000, and therefore must be apprbved by the CDRB. Community Design Review Board Minutes 8-08-2006 12 The remodeling of the Mapleridge Center includes the removal pf the green metal seam canopy and addition of the following materials on the front sides of tHe buildings: 1 . Decorative brick piers. 2. EIFS above the windows. 3. Decorative EI FS cornices on top of the parapet walls. 4. Glass spandrel storefront band above existing windows. . 5. Two new styles of canopies above the windows to include prdfinished metal canopy and fabric awnings. 6. Decorative wall-mounted lights to be located on the brick pier$. 7. Painting the CMUs beige with brown colored accent bands. The side and rear elevations, which are currently burnished, an~ rockface CMUs, will be painted beige with brown colored accent bands. Staff finds the prpposed remodeling of the existing elevations a welcome and attractive addition. Chairperson Olson asked if these pampas wall mount lights were g~ing to be used throughout the complex? . Mr. Ekstrand said he believed so but the applicant could address that. Chairperson Olson said Caribou Coffee has a different light fixture and she was concerned how the light fixture styles would look together. Board member Schurke asked if there was a sidewalk that ran east/west and north/south? Mr. Ekstrand said yes. Chairperson Olson said she saw a woman taking photos of a concr~te section of sidewalk that was uneven in front of one of the tenant spaces. It may have been a handicapped accessibility issue and she asked if the tenant was responsible for taking care of some thing like that or does the property manager take care of something like that? Mr. Ekstrand said this may a good time to bring matters like this up with the applicant. Board member Ledvina asked if the applicant was going to remove the signs from the building exterior and replace the same signs after the building is done being remodeled? Mr. Ekstrand said correct. Shann Finwall said there were no sign c~ncerns or issues and staff assumes the approved sign criteria is still going to fit with the new Ibuilding fayade to achieve the sign uniformity. Board member Schurke asked if there were any plans to update or <l:hange the monument sign on White Bear Avenue? Mr. Ekstrand said no. Board members were disappointed in that. Community Design Review Board Minutes 8-08-2006 13 Board member Ledvina said he wants to make sure when the appli!:;ant takes the signs down to do the building exterior remodeling and then replaces the signs that they will fit properly. Mr. Ekstrand said he's sure the applicant would want the same thing,to occur. Board member Schurke said he assumes staff generates the maps in the staff reports? Mr. Ekstrand said correct. Board member Schurke said he would propose for future reference that staff indicate on the plans where pedestrian walkways are located. Mr. Ekstrand said staff will certainly do that if they are able. The GIS mapping system mayor may not have that information available to use. Board member Schurke said staff could also add dashes by hand on the plans to represent where the pedestrian walkways are located. Chairperson Olson asked the applicant to address the board. Ms. Kathy Anderson, President of Architectural Consortium, addrellsed the board. REEF, the company who manages the strip mall, has approached them to dQ an extreme makeover on this strip mall. This will help to attract new tenants. The lighting is; consistent throughout the strip mall except for Caribou Coffee. Caribou Coffee has their own' style and has a signature look to their stores which makes excitement in the shopping center for tenants to show their individuality. We are adding height to the building and changing ~ut some ornamental light fixtures to the sidewalk. They recently remodeled the Eagan Town Center strip mall and it turned out fabulous. The new tenant interest has been overwhelmilhg after the makeover and that is the intention here. REEF has corrected the sidewalk issue Chairperson Olson spoke of which was caused by the freeze, thaw process. Board member Ledvina asked what the height of the sign bands wOL!ld be? Ms. Anderson said to put it in scale the cornices are at 2'8". TheYI measured every sign and have placed it on the elevations and we guaranteed the board that ~he signs will all fit properly when replaced on the building exterior. The letters are all individually mounted which is a class C signage pattern. They will paint out the raceway the letters a rei mounted to and have an exact paint match to the EIFS background so that will class thi~gs up. They will add the landscaping as required and get the old landscaping plan from Shann Finwall so they can properly replace the landscaping that died. There are some exi$ting overhead doors with internal trash enclosures and they plan on having more frequent trash pickups so they can have smaller trash dumpsters so many of those will be changed out and the external units will be screened with concrete block and metal opaque gates. Board member Schurke asked if the applicant plans on doing anything with the monument sign? Ms. Anderson said not at this point. Community Design Review Board Minutes 8-08-2006 14 Board member Schurke asked if there were plans in the near future to change the monument sign? Ms. Anderson said not to her knowledge. Board member Ledvina said there are awnings shown on the eleVl/ltions and he asked if the colors would be the same as what is shown on the plan? Ms. Anderson said yes. They have sent the color selections to the tenants so that is what you will see. Board member Schurke asked if there were any other improvements intended for the parking lot? Ms. Anderson said no. Chairperson Olson asked if they had building samples to show the qDRB? Ms. Anderson said yes. She reviewed the building materials with the'CDRB. Board member Ledvina commended the applicant for the work the~ have done planning this renovation. This will be a very nice project and a great addition to the community and we thank you for that. Board member Schurke said he was still curious why the applicant would not make changes to the monument sign? He said in this particular case he doesn't b~lieve a monument sign is needed. Ms. Carolyn Inglis, representing REEF, the management company of the strip mall, Atlanta, Georgia. She said the tenants in the strip mall want the monume~t sign. Rainbow Foods is remodeling the interior of their store. The landlord is also contri~uting to the cost of their remodel. This, combined with the building exteriors, will be a tremendous improvement but is marginal in terms of return on their money for the owner. The monl.&ment sign will be painted on the aluminum frame in a compatible color but at this time the sign will remain. It is also a funding problem after spending the money on the building exterior renovation and contributing to the interior remodel of Rainbow Foods. They ran into the same situation remodeling the Eagan Town Center and plan on remodeling their monument sign next year due to lack of funding this year. They plan on doing the same thing in Maplewood for this freestanding sign. Board member Ledvina moved to 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: Community Design Review Board Minutes 8-08-2006 15 a. Landscape plan which shows the following: The I location of the existing landscaping and the addition of at least 33 new trees <1n the site. In particular the landscape plan should show several 6-foot-high, Ejlack 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 Iin$. 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, inches in diameter and all ornamental trees should be at least 1 Y, inches in diameter. b. Site plan and elevations which show the following. Th, expansion of the existing dumpster enclosure or the addition of new dumpster ~nclosures along the back side of the building. The dumpster enclosure or the laddition of new dumpster enclosures along the back side of the building. The d~mpster 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 c1qsable gate, and should be constructed of materials which are compatible to the bLlilding. c. A cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit for alii required landscaping and dumpster enclosure improvements. The amount shall pe 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 inswection and approval of the major construction project if: . a. The city determines that the work is not essential to ~he public health, safety or welfare. b. The above-required letter of credit or cash escro\fol is held by the City of Maplewood for all required exterior improvements. Th~ owner or contractor shall complete any unfinished exterior improvements by J~ne 1 if occupancy of the building is in the fall or winter, or within six weeks of dccupancy of the building if occupancy is in the spring or summer. 5. Any new signs installed on the site must obtain <II separate sign permit. Any major changes to signage on the site may require ap~roval of a comprehensive sign plan amendment by the community design review board. 6. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of corjnmunity development may approve minor changes. Community Design Review Board Minutes 8-08-2006 16 Chairperson Olson seconded. Ayes - Ledvina, Olstj>n, Schurke The motion passed. This item does not need to go to the city council. VII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS No visitors present. VIII. BOARD PRESENTATIONS a. Board member Shankar will be the CDRB representativ~ at the August 14, 2006, City Council Meeting The only CDRB item to discuss is Carpet Court at 1685 Arcad~ Street. Board members felt the annual tour was phenomenal, they enjoyed seeing the south end of Maplewood. They also appreciated the ~oach bus and the box dinner. They would have liked to have more city council rj:!presentation. IX. STAFF PRESENTATIONS a. Board member Schurke will be the CDRB representativ~. at the August 28, 2006, city council meeting. Items to discuss include White Be r Avenue Family Health Care CenterNacant Lot Located to the North of 2055 Wh te Bear Avenue (Across the street from the Maplewood Community Center) and Ijfill-Murray School (Field House Addition) - 2625 Larpenteur Avenue East. b. Reschedule the CDRB meeting of Tuesday, SeptembElr 12, 2006, due to the primary elections. Because John Hinzman was absent and Ananth Shankar ha~ to leave early, the board decided to wait to select a date to reschedule the CDR~ meeting. Matt Ledvina recommended holding one CDRB meeting in September c~mbining the two meeting dates together if possible. X. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 7:36 p.m. MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: PROJECT: LOCATION: DATE: City Manager Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner Lighting Plan Review Lexus Auto Service Center 1245 County Road D August 17, 2006 INTRODUCTION On June 13, 2005, the city council approved the conditional use permit an~ design plans for the Lexus Service Building at 1245 County Road D. The council adopted the dpmmunity design review board's (CORB) recommendation which reads as follows: The lighting plan is not included in this proposal. A new lighting planl must be submitted for review by the community design review board. The plan must en1ure no negative lighting impacts to the residential properties located to the west by s ch means as reducing the light pole heights, reducing the number of lights, using . downcast lighting fixture, etc. In their conditional use permit (CUP) approval, the council also gave the following direction relative to site lighting: All building-mounted and ground-mounted 1i11l'ts must be down-lit to prevent light spread beyond the site boundaries. Lighting fixtures must be designed so tll,e lens and bulbs are not visible from any surrounding homes. The building is now under construction. Staff stipulated in the permit reviey.. that the lighting plan is not yet approved and shall be subject to the approval of the CDRB. Reflilr to the attached lighting plan. DISCUSSION The applicant's lighting plan complies with the city code and the city council's requirements. does not feel that the number of lights proposed on site are excessive. Thll majority of the lighting fixtures are positioned away from the town house site to the west. Staff RECOMMENDATION Approve the site-lighting plan date-stamped July 11, 2006 for the Lexus Aljto Service Building located at 1245 County Road D. p:sec4\Lexus Lighting Plan 8 06 Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. S~e Plan 3. Lighting Plan (separate attachment) Attachment 1 ",."r," ....::.-.,.... '.:" -..:'. ,.....c." , ">f::;~?'f , I II R1j!, , ;"f'I'. ./ T 'I~ r.'m_. ' "'''' ~"" · /ii;;\ lJ'O.r... "51~. '," .,' ' "~--I -.,.+-. + "jel' ',' " ,', 4~~~) ili'l ' ' , AR1ti.. ,,"." M1 " , ~. ai '6o' '~, rII. ("t 't' ~J'-::l-'.'-:-"'--'-"~'~"~"'.'-'-"---.,./ ,.1---.-----------..--.-->;:"--'-' ;~__..,.. r.... :",::",),-:,;,", ......, V :.t(I[ ~~~~"" !i-~~:-'-'- ,_,c' ,::? :,,;~r} ~r~:~l/ . -1.: _,~,,' " : s I ' " . I LOCATION/ZONING MAP 2. . II =1 II' ill ~ III I 0- I'" ~ !i Ii Ii i ~~ In h~ 11 {It' .,1 (I-jl 11.1 11, JlMl ~ II ~ IJ I Attllcbment 2- . ! I!I! billl 1'111 H,111 1 I . I < II I II II: I I : I I !I" : illi!hin II i! j!e!ll. Ill, 1!!lull.;i ill lili,','!l llil !I,ll Il'llll' I' ~111~11l!1I!~' 111,.1811111 111h llll'l' I "!iilli ilhdl ill,'! 1111;~lili!! ill. !'I!'A'1I11 ,i '! "., l~l~~~I!!I!I~; 11!;!W!!:~~j:. '~i .~i. o i -------- ----------- --- :=:::::::::-- ----- -------- -- , . , -------- ,----. ,~-- -__ - --':-:::::::-?:2:-- -- - -- -- ~~ ------ ~- ~._- --JJ:Jlt ---- __ ' ------__ ' " ' -__.o:\~~" -: --.:...___ ----____. . __________ --_ ~"n". --- . ' ____ --~-__.i!-L"J.8 ------__ -- ---- -- ------.., " , , , , t-'Li: ! MEMORANDUM LOCATION: DATE: City Manager Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner Design Review - Regent at Legacy Village, a Senior-s' Apartment Complex SE Comer Legacy Parkway and Kennard Street August 15,2006 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: INTRODUCTION Frank Janes, of the Hartford Group, is requesting approval of design plans tpr the Regent at Legacy Village, their seniors'-apartment project. The Regent will be a 116-~nit, four-story building located at the southeast comer of the Kennard Street/Legacy Park>jtay roundabout intersection. The proposed building would have an exterior of brick, rock-face concrete block foundation with precast stone sills, horizontal-lap cementious siding and architectural-texture asphalt shingles on a gable roof. There would be 142 underground parking spaces and 38 on-grade parking spaces. Refer to the plans and attachments. BACKGROUND July 14, 2003: The city council approved the Legacy Village PUD, compreh~nsive plan amendment, tax-abatement plan and preliminary plat. Refer to the approvel:! PUD concept plan on page 9. ' Since the council approved the Legacy Village PUD, the following projectsi have been reviewed, approved or built: . Heritage Square Townhomes (under construction-220 units) . Heritage Square 2nd Addition (under construction-81 units) . Wyngate Rental Townhomes (completed-50 units) . Ashley Fumiture (completed) . Kennard Professional Building (completed) . Maplewood Sculpture Park (completed) . Legacy Shoppes Retail (construction pending) . Ramsey County Ubrary (under construction) DISCUSSION Building and Site Considerations Buildinc Desicn The proposed building is attractive. The materials proposed are no-mainte~ance and are compatible with the design and exterior materials of existing Legacy Village ~tructures. Parking The original parking plan submitted three years ago with the Legacy Village !PUD proposed 127 parking spaces-71 underground parking spaces and 56 surface-parking sices. At that time, the city council required that the applicant reduce the amount of surface pa ing and provide proof-of-parking on the south side of the site. The applicant now has 142 u derground spaces proposed and 38 surface-parking spaces. This meets the requirements of t~e PUD by reducing surface spaces and yet provides 71 more spaces than were originally propo~ed. Shared Park Access and Parkino Access to the site from Legacy Parkway is proposed on the adjacent sculptlilre park property. The applicant and the city had a mutual agreement that the city would allow! access on park property to the seniors' site. In exchange, the applicant would provide five o~ six parking spaces on the sculpture-park site for park parking. The applicant would also const~ct the access and parking spaces as part of their construction project. Since the access will b on city land, the applicant should enter into a cross-easement agreement with the city which would guarantee their access rights and establish maintenance responsibility. ' Landscapino The proposed landscaping would be attractive and in compliance with the r~quirements of the PUD conditions. Trash Storaae The applicant has not shown any outdoor storage area for trash or recyclin~ containers. If trash is not to be stored indoors, and there will be outdoor storage of refuse, the $pplicant must provide a screened enclosure for trash and recycling containers. If outdoor ~rash storage is later proposed, the applicant should provide a plan for this screening endosure t/l staff for approval. The city, furthennore, is now requiring recyding containers for multi-family I1roperties. Retainina Walls There are retaining walls shown on the site plan. Retaining walls that exce,d a height of four feet must have a fence or guard rail on top for safety. SidewalkslTrails The site is surrounded by sidewalks along the two streets to the north and west and by the park trails to the south and east. Sidewalk connections are proposed to connect! to these pedestrian ways. Site Liahtina The photometric plan has been prepared and meets city requirements. 2 Utility Meter ScreeninQ The placement of utility meters has not been shown on the buildings. The ~pplicant should show where these will be mounted and how they plan on screening these for the .pproval of the CDRB if the meters would be on the outside of the building. Engineering Comments Refer to Jon Jarosch's comments in the attached engineering report. I incl~ded Mr. Jarosch's comments as conditions in the recommendation below. Building Official's Comments Refer to the report from Dave Fisher, the Maplewood Building Official. Police Lieutenant Kevin Rabbett reviewed the proposal and stated that there were !no public safety concems. Fire Marshal Butch Gervais, the Maplewood Fire Marshal, reviewed the proposal and stated that all fire code requirements must be met. RECOMMENDATION Approve the plans date-stamped July 21, 2006 for the proposed Regent at ~egacy Village, a seniors' apartment building at Legacy Village. 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. Before getting a building pennit, the applicant shall revise the plans or do the following for staff approval: . Enter into a cross-easement agreement with the city for the sha~ed access driveway and shared parking spaces on the city's park property. This agr~ement shall be prepared by the city aUomey and shall require that the develope~ of the seniors complex be responsible for driveway maintenance and snow plo1Ning. This agreement shall be subject to the requirements of the parks dire~or. . Provide the city with cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit for the exterior landscaping and site improvements. . Meet all requirements of the engineering report by Jon Jarosch ~ated August 7, 2006. . Meet all requirements of the fire marshal and building official. 3 . Provide engineered plans to the building official for all retaining .."alls that exceed four feet in height as measured from the bottom of the footing. All relaining walls that are four feet tall or taller shall have a protective fence or guard rail 01(1 top. . Provide a site and design plan for the screening of any trash an~ recycling containers to be kept outside. . Provide a screening plan for any exterior utility meters, subject tq the requirements of the community design review board. 3. Before getting a certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall: . Comply with or complete all aspects of these plans or any requirlld revisions. . Provide in-ground lawn irrigation as shown on the plans. . Install traffic and address signs, subject to staff approval. 4. The community design review board shall review major changes to thes~ plans. Minor changes may be approved by staff. 4 REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Site size: 3 acres Existing Use: Undeveloped SURROUNDING LAND USES North: Legacy Parkway and the Kennard Professional Building South: Birch Run Station Shopping Center East: Maplewood Sculpture Park West: Kennard Street and the Heritage Square Townhomes PLANNING Land Use Plan: R3H (high density residential) Zoning: PUD APPLICATION DATE We received the complete application and plans for this proposal on July 21i, 2006. State law requires that the city take action within 60 days of receiving complete applic~tions. A decision on this request is required by September 19, 2006, unless the applicant agree~ to a time extension. p: see 3\Regent Seniors Apt 8 06 Attachments 1. Location Map 2. Legacy Village PUD Concept Plan 3. SttelLandscape Plan 4. Building Elevations 5. Engineering report dated August 7, 2006 6. Building Official's report dated August 1, 2006 7. Plans date-stamped July 21, 2006 (separate attachment) 5 Attachment 1 - ~ -1 ~-----~--------~=--~-----~~-------- ~ - - --- "'EE"' II II p '1 r! rl .... II II I I 'i;";I'I"I'! llEE" , 1 II I II II II 11 11 II II I II II ll~_}I~_J~_J~_Jlll83J} ... I . , - _ _... ~J -'..... - " ,/ __ --------------------------------___________'C'OJ..1J\lJ.YBJlD-_-I-_____ ________ ____ - \ U "'" ~ Ii! :, )1 ~ Q I I I Z I \1 ~ 0( I : l ~ I l g , ~ , , , , , , " " " " " " " \ , " " " " II II , , , \ , , , , , , , , , , I I' , , , , , , I , , EGACY P!i:v.Jr' f I I , , , , , , , , I , I, LEGACY P!-<v.Jr' IJ[1 0 [l1J CJc::I 0 CJ::= c::J,: c::J c::l' = Cl.'= CJ=O CJD DDDDD PROPOSED REGENT SENIORS' APARTMENT SITE - --- -- ---- ---~-- -- -....._- ~;:-::...=-=-=-=.... c..=-=--=--' ~~N ------~-l 1 ~----------- " " " " ! , . , l , ...." I I~ [,,) .i' '-' \ ! ~"'=I , , , , , , I I' " " " , ' , ' , ' , \ r ' , ' , ' ! 1,\ ..... 1\ ~-~-_.... .:J ,I .:s- _-_-=--=--=_-..=;0 , , \r I , , , , , J , /.1 ~ \ ~~~J u ~~_ , , , r ...../ I ..__..--_.........-, , ;/.. : ! / ~ I II cf.. r II ~ 11'I'i Illl ,'It \ 1\1') I )1, I 1 ~ i \11 \ : It I"~ " ~ l \ ~ I\~ .) ~== .( ~ , \ , I' ~ , , ~( I I : >C-=-'::::::..,::::-=:::-=-=--=-=-=c=-=-=-=-':BE.1l.~.::-.:-.::-.:-.::-.::-.:-.=~ Jill .....//1 ~ \. ~ -~ ~-:::"'J L.....--:.--- c::.. --=--=--=-"::..:::.:::...-=.-=--::..:::.-:..::..-:::...-::=-=-==-r-=--.=-.=-_-==- -=--=-:~-~- -=-...=--=-..=---=- --=---=--=-:.'" <=--=--=..-=- .p ~ ~~-:.------------- ------- -- --- ~- -'-- -- --- -+-- -- --,- ~-- ~-- --- --- ~~---------~-------- LOCATION MAP 6 -"'~--- \ Attachment 2 LEGACY VILLAGE AT MAPLEWQOD ...J,....,..~~.. , .....""',.'" ~ ..,.,.... ... ,r-'-~-'-' / "\ ........__..._m.~: IL, _...._ '"' ~~.c:,:.:~::::.-:.:::::::::.i .______~_____;.i___________ ~ '- >{: OUTLOT H ~ i-. I ~jJc~"9c~~ ~. !I I: ir=D~ it----u ,. 1\ ioo OAU! -... GItOU ".11 M. ,-'---- \: !'-.. 1__; -c---'-~u'" ,:.' , ____.;" III -....- . -. t:.- f'r-" oS. d APPROVED PUD . S..+. DEVELOPMENT-CONCEPT PIAN JULY 14, 2003 7 ii' 1:1 \ I I I Ii.';.. I ~ ill: ! 1 "i l {: ,) 11:.111 I ZS' Ii' :,i I., '- :j:l; II Iii! i \ I::' I I! ~ II U ,: . ): II '--L ~~~""'~~~~~~~~- ({ .... ..... . .....\).I. ..~..:.::.;.i..::.:=:=:.:=::.~..:::;:=::.::=::==::=::.:~:::::=::~::":=:====:==~=:=== \\ j/ L- ... .....L338L':L.........il'"Y.tif:! 1.11 .\--;;........::f........_.P .~.~~::cC<::;/;::-:..~.=~';...,:c=.c::,..,-.c::C"'::'::::::.:='-';:".~,i;F{\"?i't)(:iJ .... b.......:c::c..,... 'I -\ \7 t/ . D L ":]~ II HI ~ ) .. ~ tI! t( ~ I _ ~ - l!t,Ir.41 ill 1 ) I Iii ml i.. li~~ I~z~ t J~ ':1' '~I Pld' 1111 1'!li'l ~I!I'!III Ill: hi' ,.111 1* illi! jiljid Iii! lilill i if~ lili: 'il! 11'li'llijl:I 1;1I1.1Ib" ,\I'II'il !dll! II!I! .11 .11.1 :Ij !IIi I.. 101 t~ 1111 Ii! Ii ;1111"" '1'llIII II' ~III ".1,,;1101 II!II'ill ~Illlld, ..1..1t.. , III ',I I ".', j 1:11.1"1' Ii 'I'll. I . 'I II i 'I. II : lill, M: ,il'illlllll 1.;11 Ill!. I ,: I" IINII ill'III'llll!I' 'ib/. ,'II ii, 'hi j I 'II I I" 1!1,II!!ll:!:l !llii!ii!111 I'i ,',II I~II:;I Iii ,\1',1 . J 11I.,1 .. .1 . ,I, li!ll ,,' ;'111 . , lillil II !Iili Illillil ..il!M , II' 'I 'I I II II ., 'l. ., :, !Il !II 1111 1I1:!1 Ijj ~! !" i!' .', ~'I' h'" i'i ~j, I' I~ jil;l, 'II~ ..l,~,lll I;! ,!. ,Il! I'ili lil'~ ,'1'1 "", III ..I ~1lI..r .. ~~ d I ,I \' \~ " ,~ ~~ ~" ~ ~ ,~ , 8 illlllil ~~ ~. ~ i ... , i5~ Ii ~~ 2 t I I , ',I \ \.1. iI <i I "~ Ii ~.) o. z :5 a.. (!) z - a.. <( () en 0 z :5 - w ..... - en [ I~ 'II H!/JD' ~~ II! 1!~.,lllm ii11:1 ; Iii" I~g i ~ ~i ;m~~ f I, 9 ~ ~~ " a ~ , " i" ~ ~ ml! I I l '. I Illj' ",.. " " " . , . ~ ; i i ~ 3 a Ii Ii Ill! Ii 1111 DB I II WM Irl1111!] i5~ Ii ~~ b z Attachment 4 1 I 0' 1f11 J D @~ II. D~!Ji5~ Ih illlll II! 1 J I I ~i iii" ~ I_~b iifiifiifitrm~1 '/'I[i 'Ii Iii 'III,' i ~Q~.l ~ i~_. IiJJil ~;i J i!] i5~ Ii . :~ II I I I I , I I I I 10 Attlachment 5 Page 1 00 Enl!ineerinl! Plan Review PROJECT: Regent at Maplewood Development PROJECT NO: 06-19 REVIEWED BY: Jon Jarosch (Maplewood Engineering Department) DATE: August 7, 2006 The Hartford Group is requesting City approval of a proposed senior-apartnjent building at the southeast comer of Legacy Parkway and Kennard Street. This is a 2.95 acr4 site within the Legacy Village of Maple wood Development. The plans submitted are at an ~O%-completion. The developer and project engineer shall address the concerns stated below py making the corresponding changes to the plans, as well as to the site. Drainage & Treatment 1. Soil borings must be taken in all rainwater gardens and infiltration areas to ensure that infiltration rates assumed in hydraulic calculations are correct. 2. Rock-sumps must be placed within the rainwater gardens to promot4 infiltration of the storm-water runoff. If the soil borings prove that the soils are not co*ducive to infiltration, a drain-tile system shall be designed and installed, with ~ngineered soils, beneath the rainwater garden to promote water treatment. ! 3. Details of the green roof system shall be included in the plans. If thi* system is to be used as a means of water treatment and conveyance, hydraulic calculatio~s must be provided that clearly state the capacity and removal rates of the system. 4. Rainwater garden, rock-sump, and rip-rap construction details shall be included within the plan set. 5. The project plans shall call out normal water level (NWL) and high ~ater level (HWL) at all basins. The city will require a IO-foot safety shelf at the NWL fqr all basins with normal water depths of2 feet or more. . 6. The catch-basins on the north-east comer of the property (101, 102,~d 202) shall all be routed through the Storm-Ceptor water treatment manhole to treat t stormwater prior to it entering the wetlands. The Storm-Ceptor structure shall be placed 0 facilitate the ease of maintenance required with such a structure. Placing the structure ~thin the paved- parking area would allow a maintenance truck easy access for main~ining the structure. 7. A HydroCad or TR-55 storm-water routing model shall be submitte~. Sediment and Phosphorus removal calculations are also required. 8. There are existing drainage structures along the western edge of the property within the boulevard; one of which appears to be within the limits of constructibn. If the structure is to remain in place, a note stating that the structure must be protected! is required. 11 Page 2 00 Grading & Erosion Control 1. Permanent stabilization blankets shall be placed at all emergency ov~rflow swales to protect from erosion. ' 2. A street-sweeping and watering plan must be clearly detailed on the ~rosion and sediment control plan sheet. 3. The sediment and erosion control plan shall provide information thr$ugh building construction. ' 4. Please include City of Maple wood Plate No. 350 for details on sediIjJ.ent and erosion control measures. ' 5. Call out inlet protection devices to be used as specified by Maplewopd plate No. 350. Please note that a simple piece of geotextile fabric placed beneath Cl\tch-basin grates is not an acceptable inlet protection device. ' 6. Rainwater gardens and rock-sumps must be protected during constnlction to prevent sedimentation. Sedimentation of these areas will hinder infiltration, tendering these gardens ineffective. 7. The existing catch-basins (4 of them) to the east of the proposed ent~ance on Legacy Parkway must have inlet protection devices installed prior to any co\J.struction activities, including site grading. Refer to comment #5 for approved inlet prot~ction devices. 8. All new catch-basins must have inlet protection devices installed imjnediately after being constructed. Refer to comment #5 for approved inlet protection devij:es. 9. The silt-fencing along the wetland edge must be a heavy-duty design with a wire mesh backing. ' 10. Slopes will be designed and constructed to a maximum of3:1. Utilities I. A plan or note shall be provided detailing the connection of the sani~ary sewer main-stub to the building. ' 2. Sanitary sewer mains shall be constructed ofSeR 35 piping. 3. The water-main and connection must be approved by Saint Paul Re&ionai Water SelVice. 12 Page 3 of3 Landscaping 1. Utilities shall be displayed beneath the landscaping plan to avoid damage to the utilities during landscaping construction. ' 2. Seed mixes must be verified by City of Maple wood Engineering DeJllartment prior to placement. 3. Storm water from the roof-drain on the south-side of the building mt/st be re-routed until plants within the rainwater garden are fully established as determine1f by the City's naturalist, Virginia Gaynor. An alternative to this requirement is to J.\se plant plugs within the rainwater garden. If this method is used, the roof-drain does not iequire relocation. Miscellaneous 1. Wetlands must be clearly delineated within the plan set. The wetlan4 edge and buffers must be clearly shown so that they can be easily verified. Since thes~ wetlands are considered "Manage A," by the Ramsey-Washington Metro Waters!jed District, a minimum buffer distance of37.5-feet and an average buffer distanc<i of 75-feet is required. These wetlands also require 90% sediment removal and 60170 Phosphorus removal of all entering storm-water. 2. All retaining walls greater than 4 feet in height require a building petmit and shall include a fence at the top of wall. The contractor or the project engineer shall provide more detailed information about the walls and their construction at the ti,* of requesting a building permit. 3. The developer or project engineer shall submit a copy of the MPCA 1s construction stormwater permit (SWPPP) to the city before the city will issue a gtading permit for this project. 4. The developer shall enter into a maintenance agreement, prepared b)( the city, for the rainwater gardens, basins, sumps, and stormwater treatment structur,s (StormCeptor). 5. The developer and project engineer shall satisfy the requirements of all other permitting agencies. 6. The developer or project engineer shall submit plans to the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District, Saint Paul Regional Water Service, and Ramsey I County for their reviewals. 13 Attachment 6 Memo Ta: ~m Ekstrand, Senior Planner From~avid Fisher, Interim Community Developm~nt Director- Building Official Re: Regent at Maplewood, a 116 unit senior al>artment building Date: August 1, 2006 - The city will require a complete building code analysis whefl the construction plans are submitted to the city for building permits. - A separate building permit is required for retaining walls over four feet in height. Provide adequate Fire Department access to the buildings., - The building is required to be fire sprinklered to NFPA 13. Provide accessible parking. I would recommend a pre-construction meeting with the cOfltractor, the project manager and the city building inspection departmel'llt. 14