HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020-08-18 CDRB Packet
Meeting is also available on Comcast Ch. 16 and streaming via maplewoodmn.gov
AGENDA
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
Tuesday, August 18, 2020
6:00 P.M.
Held Remotely Via Conference Call
Dial 1-888-788-0099
When Prompted Enter Meeting ID: 927 8266 2153#
No Participant ID, Enter # When Prompted
A.Call to Order
B.Roll Call
C.Approval of Agenda
D.Approval of Minutes:
1.May 19, 2020
E.New Business:
1.Design Review and Comprehensive Sign Plan, Woodspring Suites, 1744 County
Road D East
2.Design Review, Maple Ridge Grocery and Convenience Stores, 2501 White Bear
Avenue North
F.Unfinished Business:
G.Visitor Presentations:
H.Board Presentations:
I.Staff Presentations:
J.Adjourn
This page intentionally left blank
D1
MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA
TUESDAY, MAY 19, 2020
5:30 P.M.
(THIS MEETING WAS HELD REMOTELY VIA CONFERENCE CALL)
A.CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Kempe called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m.
B.ROLL CALL
Chairperson, Bill KempePresent
Boardmember, Jason LamersPresent
Vice Chairperson, Matt LedvinaPresent
Boardmember, Ananth ShankarPresent
Boardmember, Bruce ThompsonPresent
Staff Present: Michael Martin, Assistant Community Development Director
Jane Adade, Planner
C.APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Boardmember Lamers moved to approve the agenda as approved.
Seconded by Boardmember Thompson. Ayes - All
The motion passed.
D.APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Boardmember Ledvina moved to approve the April 21, 2020, CDRB minutes as submitted.
Seconded by Chairperson Kempe. Ayes – All
The motion passed.
E.NEW BUSINESS
a.Comprehensive Sign Plan Amendment, 3M Campus
i.Planner, Jane Adade gave the report on the Comprehensive Sign Plan Amendment, 3M
Campus and answered questions of the board.
ii.Assistant Community Development Director, Michael Martin addressed and answered
questions of the board.
iii.3M Representative, Bob Odenthal, addressed and answered questions of the board.
May 19, 2020
Community Design Review Board Meeting Minutes
1
CDRB Packet Page Number1 of 45
D1
BoardmemberLamersmoved toapprove the comprehensive sign plan for 3M Company at 2501
Conway Avenue with the following conditions: (changes to the staff conditions are in bold and
underlined):
1.3M’s July 17, 2018 request for a long term exemption to the city’s temporary window and
banner sig ordinance for B220 is approved for up to 12 months. 3M must notify city staff
when the sign is up on B220 for the purpose of time tracking. 3M’s 180’ tall x 92’ wide
building wrap over Building 220 is approved as a permanent sign. Any changes to the design
must be approved by city staff. The sign must be maintained at all times.
2.One 65’ wide x 20’ high graphic installed over the penthouse façade of the east and west
elevation of the headquarters building (Building 220)graphic must be kept in goodrepair.
Changes to the graphic design must be approved by staff.
3.One 62’ wide x 4’ high canopy sign on the east side of building 224.
4.Freestanding Signs:
a.One 12’ wide x 36’ high four-sided pylon sign south of Building 229.
b.One 6’ wide x 20’ high monument signs at the main entrance along Minnehaha Ave.
c.Two 6’5’ wide x 13’ high four-sided pylon signs at the west entrance.
d.All future freestanding signs must meet the city’s sign code.
5.Wall Signs: All future wall signs must meet the city’s sign code.
6.Directional Signs: All directional freestanding signs shall not exceed 25 square feet in area
and 5 feet in height.
7.Door and Window Signs: Door and widow wraps that are 50% perforated are allowed on
Buildings 220 and 224. All other door and window signs shall not cover more than 30 percent
of said door or window surface.
8.Sign placements shall comply with those shown on the (insert date of plant) site plan.
9.All illuminated signs shall comply with the city’s outdoor lighting ordinance.
10.Staff may approve minor changes to this sign plan. Major changes may only be approved by
the community design review board.
11.This is tied to the 3M ownership and would need to come back before the CDRB for
approval. Graphic changes to Building 220 requires a minor project review by the
CDRB for approval.
Seconded by Boardmember Ledvina. Ayes – All
The motion passed.
b.Design Review, New Maplewood Elementary School, 2410 Holloway Avenue East
i.Assistant Community Development Director, Michael Martin gave the report on the Design
Review for the New Maplewood Elementary School, 2410 Holloway Avenue East and
answered questions of the board.
May 19, 2020
Community Design Review Board Meeting Minutes
2
CDRB Packet Page Number2 of 45
D1
ii.Architect, Sean Kelly,Wold Architects, 332 Minnesota Street, Suite W2000, St Paul,
addressed and answered questions of the board.
iii.Greg Buchal, with Larson Engineering, 3524 Labore Road, White Bear Lake, addressed
and answered question of the board.
Boardmember Ledvina made friendly amendments that are reflected in the motion below in bold
and underlined.
The speakers representing the applicant said they are willing to work with city staff regarding the
friendly amendments requested.
Boardmember Thompson moved to approvetheresolution for design review for project plans
date-stamped April 22, 2020 for a new elementary school to be constructed at 2410 Holloway
Avenue East. (changes to the staff conditions are underlined and in bold).
1.Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project.
2.All requirements of the fire marshal and building official must be met.
3.Meet all requirements in the engineering report, dated May 8, 2020.
4.Meet all requirements in the environmental report, dated May 12, 2020.
5.The applicant shall obtain all required permits from the Ramsey-Washington Metro
Watershed District.
6.All rooftop equipment shall be screened. Additional screening shall be added along the
west property line to screen the loading dock and chiller areas.
7.Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit for staff approval the following
items:
a.A revised landscape plan that includes additional landscape screening to meet ordinance
requirements along the south and east property lies that are I line with the new school
building. This revised landscape plan can account for existing year-round screening
elements.
b.A tree replacement plan that meets the requirements of the city’s tree replacement code.
c.A revised photometric plan that includes property lines and meets the requirements of the
city’s lighting code.
d.The applicant shall provide the city with 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.
8.The applicant shall complete the following before occupying the building:
a.Replace any property irons removed because of this construction.
b.Provide continuous concrete curb and gutter around the parking lot and driveways.
May 19, 2020
Community Design Review Board Meeting Minutes
3
CDRB Packet Page Number3 of 45
D1
c.Install all required landscaping and an in-ground lawn irrigation system for all landscaped
areas.
d.Install all required outdoor lighting.
e.Restore all former curb cuts on Gervais Court to a continuous concrete curb per City of
Maplewood requirements.
9.If any required work is not done, the city may allow temporary occupancy if:
a.The city determines that the work is not essential to the public health, safety or welfare.
b.The above-required letter of credit or cash escrow is held by the City of Maplewood for all
required exterior improvements. The owner or contractor shall complete any unfinished
exterior improvements by June 1 of the following year if occupancy of the building is in the
fall or winter or within six weeks of occupancy of the building if occupancy is I the spring or
summer.
10.All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may
approve minor changes.
11.The applicant shall provide building samples submitted to staff for approval.
12.The applicant shall work the city staff regarding sign materials used on the monument
sign that are consistent with the building design which is subject to staff approval.
Seconded by Boardmember Ledvina. Ayes – All
The friendly amendments made by Boardmember Ledvina was approved by the board.
The motion passed.
c.Design Review and Comprehensive Sign Plan Amendment, Maple Ridge Convenience
Store, 2501 White Bear Avenue
i.Assistant Community Development Director, Michael Martin gave the report on the Design
Review and Comprehensive Sign Plan Amendment for Maple Ridge Convenience Store,
2501 White Bear Avenue.
ii.Dave Nash, Alliant Engineering, 733 Marquette Avenue, Suite 700, Minneapolis,
addressed and answered questions of the board.
iii.Phil Hoey, representing the applicant, addressed and answered questions of the board.
The board supported that the applicant provide changes to the plans and there be a minor project
review.
The board requested additional landscape plantings be added to the site.
Four out of the five boardmembers were in agreement that staff could review modifications to the
building elevations Boardmember Ledvina was not.
May 19, 2020
Community Design Review Board Meeting Minutes
4
CDRB Packet Page Number4 of 45
D1
Boardmember Ledvina stated because of visibility he preferred that adecorative gate be used on
the trash enclosure instead of a wood gate.
The board requested that the applicant wrap the columns with full brick for the fuel canopy as was
requested in two other projects at Holiday Station and Costco.
Boardmember Ledvina made friendly amendments – there shall be no striping or banding on the
fuel canopy other than what is shown on the plan and the light fixtures shall be recessed in the
canopy.
Boardmember Shankar moved to approve the resolution for design review and a comprehensive
sign plan amendment for project plans date-stamped April 27, 2020 for a new convenience store
to be constructed at 2501 White Bear Avenue and for the access changes from the site to White
Bear Avenue North and Gervais Avenue East. (changes to the staff conditions are underlined
and in bold):
1.Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project.
2.All requirements of the fire marshal and building official must be met.
3.Meet all requirements in the engineering report, dated May 11, 2020.
4.Meet all requirements in the environmental report, dated May 11, 2020.
5.All rooftop equipment shall be screened.
6.Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit for staff approval the
following items:
a.A signed developer’s agreement with the city before the issuance of any permits. This
agreement shall outline all roles. Responsibilities and financial arrangements for the
access improvements on White Bear Avenue and Gervais Avenue.
b.Revised building elevations that detail additional architectural elements on the east
elevation of the new building.
c.A revised site plan that includes an extension of the proposed sidewalk on the north side
of the convenience store so that it connects to the existing side walk on White Bear
Avenue.
d.A revised photometric plan that meets the requirements of the city’s lighting code.
e.The applicant shall provide the city with 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.
7.A comprehensive sign plan is approved for this site per the following conditions:
a.The conditions of this resolution replace and supersede any and all previous
comprehensive sign plan approvals for this site.
May 19, 2020
Community Design Review Board Meeting Minutes
5
CDRB Packet Page Number5 of 45
D1
b.Exterior tenant signage at the Maple Ridge Center’s multi-tenant building shall consist of
store identification only and copy shall be restricted to the Tenant’s proper name and
major product or service offered. Corporate logos, emblems, shields and similar
identifying devices shall be permitted provided they are confined within the signage panel.
c.For the multi-tenant building, the signs shall be located 18 inches inset from the sides of
its leased space. Tenants with 6,000 square feet or more of leased space shall be limited
to 36-inch tall signs. Tenants with less than 6,000 square feet of leased space shall be
limited to 25-inch-tall signs.
d.For the grocery store building, one monument sign is permitted and must meet code
requirements. Wall signs are permitted for the grocery building and must meet code
requirements.
e.Signage for the convenience store and fuel canopy is limited to wall signage and must
meet code requirements. No additional freestanding sigs are permitted for the
convenience store building.
f.All tenants are allowed use of individual illuminated letters only.
g.Electrical connection and transformers will be located in the tenant space. Access panels
will be provided on the back side of the signage panel and a 3/4” conduit will carry
electrical service along the cylindrical window mullions to the transformer.
8.The applicant shall complete the following before occupying the building:
a.Replace any property irons removed because of this construction.
b.Provide continuous concrete curb and gutter around the parking lot and driveways.
c.Install all required landscaping and an in-ground lawn irrigation system for all landscaped
areas.
d.Install all required outdoor lighting.
e.Restore all former curb cuts on Gervais Avenue and White Bear Avenue to a continuous
concrete curb per City of Maplewood and Ramsey County requirements.
9.If any required work is not done, the city may allow temporary occupancy if:
a.The city determines that the work is not essential to the public health, safety or welfare.
b.The above-required letter of credit or cash escrow is held by the City of Maplewood for all
required exterior improvements. The owner or contractor shall complete any unfinished
exterior improvements by June 1 of the following year 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.
10.All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may
approve minor changes.
May 19, 2020
Community Design Review Board Meeting Minutes
6
CDRB Packet Page Number6 of 45
D1
11.The applicant shall provide additional landscaping between the east façade of the
building and White Bear Avenue.
12.The applicant shall relocate the trash enclosure5 feet to the north but the east and
west walls shall extend 5 feet south of the gates of the trash enclosure.
13.The applicant shall submit revised building elevations to city staff and staff shall
provide to the CDRB as a minor project review.
14.The applicant shall wrap the columns for the fuel canopy with full brick.
15.There shall be no striping or banding on the canopy other than what is shown on the
plan.
16.The light fixtures in the canopy shall be recessed.
Seconded by Boardmember Lamers. Ayes – Chairperson Kempe,
Boardmember’s Lamers,
& Shankar
Nay – Boardmember Ledvina
All friendly amendments were agreed upon.
The motion passed.
Boardmember Ledvina voted nay because he felt this is a prominent location and the building
elevations are lacking in terms of detailing and he felt it was not an adequate projectfor this site.
F.UNFINISHED BUSINESS
None.
G.VISITOR PRESENTATIONS
None.
H.BOARD PRESENTATIONS
None.
I.STAFF PRESENTATIONS
None.
J.ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned by Chairperson Kempe at 6:57 p.m.
May 19, 2020
Community Design Review Board Meeting Minutes
7
CDRB Packet Page Number7 of 45
This page intentionally left blank
CDRB Packet Page Number8 of 45
E1
COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date August 18, 2020
REPORT TO: Melinda Coleman, City Manager
REPORT FROM:
Michael Martin, AICP, Assistant Community Development Director
PRESENTER:Michael Martin, AICP, Assistant Community Development Director
AGENDA ITEM:
Woodspring Suites, 1744 County Road D East
a.Planned Unit Development and Lot Division Resolution
b.Design Review and Comprehensive Sign Plan Resolution
Action Requested: MotionDiscussion Public Hearing
Form of Action: Resolution Ordinance Contract/Agreement Proclamation
Policy Issue:
SOTA Partners is proposing to develop a new four-story hotel with 126 rooms located on vacant
land located at 1744 County Road D East. The planned unit development for this property currently
allows a strip shopping center to be built – the city council will need to approve an amendment to
the planned unit development in order to allow a hotel. To move forward with this project, the
applicant needs city council approval of a planned unit development amendment, design review and
a comprehensive sign plan.
Recommended Action:
a.Motion to approve a resolution for a conditional use permit for a planned unit development
amendment and comprehensive sign plan which approves a four-story, 126-room hotel
building to be constructed at 1744 County Road D East.
b.Motion to approve a resolution for design review and comprehensive sign plan for a four-
story, 126-room hotel building to be constructed at 1744 County Road D East.
Fiscal Impact:
Is There a Fiscal Impact? No Yes, the true or estimated cost is $0.
Financing source(s): Adopted Budget Budget Modification New Revenue Source
Use of Reserves Other: N/A
Strategic Plan Relevance:
Financial SustainabilityIntegrated CommunicationTargeted Redevelopment
Operational EffectivenessCommunity InclusivenessInfrastructure & Asset Mgmt.
The city deemed the applicant’s application complete on July 28, 2020. The initial 60-day review
deadline for a decision is September 26, 2020. As stated in Minnesota State Statute 15.99, the city
is allowed to take an additional 60 days if necessary to complete the review.
CDRB Packet Page Number9 of 45
E1
Background:
SOTA Partners is proposing to develop a new four-story hotel with 126 rooms located onvacant
land located at 1744 County Road D East. The approved planned unit development for this property
currently allows a strip shopping center to be built. The project will create two access drives to
Flandrau Street on the west side of the parcel for a new 12,654-square-foot, four-story hotel
building with a 126-space parking lot.
Planned Unit Development
Planned unit developments (PUD) allows the city council to grant flexibility from strict ordinance
compliance in the internal and external design requirements of a proposed PUD and may consider
deviations from those requirements. Deviations may be granted for planned unit developments
provided that:
1.The proposed development and the surrounding neighborhood can be better served by
relaxing the code requirements that regulate the physical development or layout of the
project because of its unique nature.
2.The PUD would be consistent with the spirit, intent and purposes of this chapter.
3.The PUD would produce a development of equal or superior quality to that which would
result from strict adherence to this chapter.
4.The deviations would not constitute a significant threat to the property values, safety, health
or general welfare of the owners or occupants of nearby land or to the environment.
5.The deviations are required for the reasonable and practical physical development of the
project.
Legacy Village Planned Unit Development
This site was part of the Legacy Village Planned Unit Development originally approved on July 14,
2003, and was designated for use as a “retail/commercial site.” On September 27, 2005, the
community design review board approved plans for a strip shopping center which was going to
have a front yard building setback of 15 feet.
On October 27, 2008, the city council approved an amendment to the approved planned unit
development to allow the proposed strip shopping center to be setback 83 feet instead of the
required 15 feet from County Road D East. This project proposes a front yard setback of 68 feet
which is closer to County Road D East than what was approved in 2008.
Parking
The city's zoning ordinance requires hotels to provide one parking space for every lodging room
within the building. In this case, the applicant is meeting this requirement. Ordinance also requires
parking spaces at a hotel to be 9’6” wide and the applicant is seeking flexibility to provide 9-foot-
wide parking spaces. The applicant states that it believes 9-foot-wide parking stalls are consistent
with other projects they have developed and allows for additional green space to be placed on site.
Staff is supportive of the request for 9-foot-wide spaces. The city’s parking ordinance is set up to
determine space width based on turnover rate. The customer turnover rate is going to be very low
at a hotel.
CDRB Packet Page Number10 of 45
E1
Design Review
Site Plan
The site will be accessed by two drives coming off Flandrau Street. The building’s main entrance is
located on the north side of the building with parking on the north, east and south sides of the site.
A trash enclosure will be located in the southeast corner of the site. The building is setback 125 feet
from the residential building to the south and 100 feet to the residential buildings to the west –
meeting all setback requirements.
Parking lots are required to be setback 15 feet from all public right-of-way lines and five feet from all
over property lines. The applicant’s site plan meets this requirement on the west, east and south
property lines but is only setback 10 feet from the County Road D East property line. The applicant
will be required to submit a revised site plan showing the 15-foot parking lot setback being met on
the north side of the site plan.
The applicant’s site plan shows a connection to the existing sidewalk along County Road D East
and a partial sidewalk on the west side of the building. In keeping with the rest of the Legacy PUD,
the applicant shall be required to install a sidewalk along the south property line and complete the
sidewalk segment along the entire west property line. A sidewalk shall also be required along the
easterly frontage (Bittersweet Lane) unless the width of the site does not allow space for a sidewalk
in this location. The Applicant shall work with the City during the permitting process to exhaust all
options for site revisions to accommodate a sidewalk along this frontage before this requirement
may be negated.
Building Elevations
The height of the four-story building is 46’ 10” – at its highest peak. The hotel building was designed
to blend in with the nearby residential architecture. This building would have a pitched roof with
asphalt shingles, the first floor would be covered with a brick facade and the remaining floors will be
covered with lap siding. The lap siding would have three different colors.
Landscaping
The July 14, 2003, Legacy Village PUD approval required that overstory trees be planted along
Village Trail at an average of 30’-40’ on center. The PUD further stated that the tree-
replacement/tree-preservation requirements of the Maplewood Code of Ordinances must be met.
There are no significant trees on the site. The applicant is proposing to plant a total of 19 trees.
Fifteen 2.5 caliper inch deciduous and four 2 caliper inch ornamental trees. There is approximately
364 feet of greenspace along Village Trail. Seven trees are proposed within this green space. To
meet the PUD overstory tree requirement the applicant must install at least 9 trees that are 40 feet
on center along the Village Trail greenspace. The rest of the site meets the City’s tree preservation
ordinance.
Lighting
The applicant’s submitted photometric plan meets all city requirements.
CDRB Packet Page Number11 of 45
E1
Comprehensive Sign Plan
The PUD for this site requires a comprehensive sign plan for this site and states pylon signs are not
allowed but does allow monument signs that are no higher than 12 feet in height. The applicant’s
plans show one monument, one pylon, and four wall signs. Staff does not feel it is warranted to
eliminate the pylon prohibition for this site. The site is a transition between commercial and
residential areas and monument signs are appropriate. In addition, staff does not feel it is
appropriate to have wall signs on the south and west sides of the building which face residential
properties. Staff would recommend allowing two monument signs – that do not exceed 12 feet in
height – and a single wall sign each of the north and east building elevations. The wall signs shall
meet ordinance requirements for wall signs within the Business Commercial zoning district.
Department Comments
Engineering
Please see Jon Jarosch’s engineering report, dated August 7, 2020, attached to this report.
Board and Commission Review
August 18, 2020: The community design review board will review this project.
August 18, 2020: The planning commission will hold a public hearing and review this project.
Citizen Comments
Staff surveyed the 80 surrounding property owners within 500 feet of the proposed site for their
opinion about this proposal. Staff received seven responses as shown below.
1. I approve of the suites. It will look better than the empty lot where people dump their garbage.
(Kristine Heckler, 1671 Village Trail East, Unit 211)
2. As a resident of the Heritage Square townhome development (immediately west of the
planned development site) I am writing to voice my opposition to this project. As you know, the
area west of White Bear Avenue is a high density residential area, townhomes, condo’s or
apartments. Placing a hotel at this location brings many concerns, i.e. security, increased
traffic at all hours, noise, etc. The following are just a few of my concerns.
Density
A quick hotel search already shows 25 hotels within 7 miles of Maplewood Mall. 5 of which are
within 4 miles, please see attached. I do not see the need or understand the marketing
strategy for placing yet another one at this location. In the past, there was indeed a hotel
located in the immediate vicinity of the mall. This was renovated into a senior living space
quite some time ago based on the hotels failure to prosper in that location.
Parking
The location itself is small and I am concerned about parking. While they’ve allotted 1 parking
space per room, we already have parking issues within the apartment and townhome units,
with street parking being a commodity and constant issue.
CDRB Packet Page Number12 of 45
E1
Height of Building
The proposed building is also set at 4 stories. That’s higher than the other buildings
surrounding it and I do not believe it meets the aesthetics of this location.
Proximity to the Myth
I’m sure you’re well aware of the security issues at this location. Placing a hotel here will only
increase the problems with the crowds that the Myth attracts. The following is from an April
2019 new article:
On Mar. 29, police were called to the club five times, with officers dealing with disorderly
people, a drug overdose, and a large fight that ultimately ended with the shooting.
"The Myth Live has been associated with numerous public safety issues in the past two years
which have resulted in unsafe conditions and a threat to public safety," the council report says.
This is just one of many incidents and speaks to the level and type of crowds that I am
concerned about. I do not believe Maplewood needs to open our city to this type of
development. I do appreciate the opportunity to voice my concerns and will be monitoring the
progress of this development project. (Christine Peterson, 1686 Village Trail East, Unit 1)
3. My name is Yasir Aljaleeli, I am a resident in 1691 Village Trail East unit 7, next to land
planned to be Woodspring Suites Hotel. Thank you for having and sharing us by mail for this
new development amendment and design review. Unfortunately our opinion to use this land
as a shopping plaza and restaurants is much better than Suites Hotel, and half miles from this
land on County Rd D East, there are already hotel rooms! But, the last decision is for
Maplewood city, we agreed to all the city council approval for this application. (Yasir Aljaleeli,
1691 Village Trail East, Unit 7)
4. Our townhome is a few feet away from the proposed hotel. I strongly oppose the building of
this hotel. I believe it will be a terrible nuisance during building, increase traffic, litter, and
crime, and devalue our residences. Please reconsider this poor use of the land. If for some
reason you do choose to do what I oppose, I BEG you to at LEAST have their in/out
driveways on the east side (from Bittersweet Lane) rather than from Flandrau, as the traffic on
Flandrau is already too high and congested. (Richard Engel, 1691 Village Trail East, Unit 5)
5. I do not agree that the proposed hotel would improve the look of the area. I live very close to
the property and enjoy having the open space with its wild flowers and grasses without
crowding another building into already busy crowded street. I am very concerned about a
hotel bringing an increase in traffic, crime and litter and devaluation of our property. I am also
very unhappy about the idea of construction going on so near to my home. I work at home and
the noise pollution will make that very difficult If the proposal goes forward despite the
reservations and opposition to it from our neighborhood, I would ask that you please do not
make the entrances to the hotel on the West side (Flaundrau Street). It would be better to
have the entrances on the East side (Bittersweet Lane) where there is less traffic flow.
(Heather Engel, 1691 Village Trail East, Unit 5)
6. This would be terrible for the neighborhood! A hotel would generate too much activity during
the late hours of the evenings. I think this will be a disturbance to the nearby neighbors! Not to
mention all the extra traffic and hotel guests parking where they shouldn't (e.g. side streets).
CDRB Packet Page Number13 of 45
E1
At least a shopping mall would close for the evenings... Please do what you can to save the
neighborhood. (Matthew Lombardo, 1678 Village Trail East, Unit 1)
7. This would be terrible for the neighborhood! A hotel would generate too much activity during
the late hours of the evenings. I think this will be a disturbance to the nearby neighbors! Not to
mention all the extra traffic and hotel guests parking where they shouldn't (e.g. side streets).
At least a shopping mall would close for the evenings... Please do what you can to save the
neighborhood. (Mindy Trettin, 1678 Village Trail East, Unit 1)
Reference Information
Site Description
Site Size: 2.04 acres
Existing Land Use: Undeveloped
Surrounding Land Uses
North: County Road D East and Slumberland
East: Wyngate Townhomes
South: Ashley Furniture
West: Heritage Square Second Addition Townhomes
Planning
Existing Land Use: Commercial
Existing Zoning: Planned Unit Development
Attachments:
1. Conditional Use Permit For A Planned Unit Development Amendment
2. Design Review and Comprehensive Sign Plan Resolution
3. Overview Map
4. 2040 Future Land Use Map
5. Zoning Map
6. Applicant’s Narrative
7. Site Plan
8. Landscape Plan
9. Building Elevations
10. Jon Jarosch’s Engineering Report, dated August 7, 2020
11. Applicant’s Plans (separate attachment)
CDRB Packet Page Number14 of 45
E1, Attachment 1
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
AMENDMENT RESOLUTION
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Maplewood, Minnesota, as follows:
Section 1. Background.
1.01 SOTA Partners has requested approval of a conditional use permit for a planned unit
development amendment.
1.02 The property is located at 1744 County Road East and is legally described as:
PIN: 032922110005 – Lot 3, Block 2, Legacy Village of Maplewood
Section 2. Standards.
2.01 City Ordinance Section 44-1092(6) requires a Conditional Use Permit for Planned
Unit Developments.
2.02 General Conditional Use Permit Standards. City Ordinance Section 44-1097(a)
states that the City Council must base approval of a Conditional Use Permit on the
following nine standards for approval.
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 not exceed the design standards of any affected street.
6. The use would be served by adequate public facilities and services, including
streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, water and sewer systems,
schools and parks.
7. The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or
services.
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.
CDRB Packet Page Number15 of 45
E1, Attachment 1
Section 3. Findings.
3.01 The proposal meets the specific conditional use permit standards.
Section 4. City Review Process
4.01 The City conducted the following review when considering the conditional use permit
for a planned unit development amendment request.
1. On August 18, 2020, the planning commission held a public hearing. City staff
published a hearing notice in the Pioneer Press and sent notices to the surrounding
property owners. The planning commission gave everyone at the hearing a chance
to speak and present written statements. The planning commission recommended
that the city council ______ this resolution.
2. On September 14, 2020, the city council discussed this resolution. They considered
reports and recommendations from the planning commission and city staff.
Section 5. City Council
5.01 The city council hereby _______ the resolution. Approval is based on the findings
outlined in section 3 of this resolution. Approval is subject to the following conditions:
(additions are underlined and deletions are crossed out):
1. The retail/commercial site is planned in concept only within the PUD and will
come in for design review and approval at a later date, but the use is allowed as
long as the provisions of the BC zoning district and conditions outlined here are
met.
2. The building(s) on the retail/commercial site shall be set back as shown on the
site plan approved by the city council, approximately 83 68 feet, from the north lot
line.
3. The applicant shall submit a comprehensive sign plan. One criterion to be
established, however, is that pylon signs shall not be allowed. Monument signs
may be allowed, but shall not exceed 12 feet in height.
4. The architectural character and exterior building materials must be in keeping
with the adjacent townhomes and other buildings if present.
5. Access to the site shall be from the side streets.
6. All ground-mounted and roof-mounted mechanical equipment shall be screened
according to the ordinance;
7. Overstory trees must be planted along the south side of the extension of Street B
(Village Trail) at an average of 30 feet - 40 feet on center.
8. Adequate separation, buffering and screening must be provided for the multi-
family residential units from the front doors, parking areas, loading areas, and
mechanical equipment of this commercial building.
CDRB Packet Page Number16 of 45
E1, Attachment 1
9. Parking stalls with a width of 9 feet are permitted on this site.
10. Noise levels shall be kept to that required by the city's noise ordinance. The
drive-up service window, if used, shall not have a menu board with p.a. system
on the south or west sides of the building.
11. The hours of operation and delivery times shall be worked out with staff.
__________ by the City Council of the City of Maplewood, Minnesota, on September 14, 2020.
CDRB Packet Page Number17 of 45
E1, Attachment 2
DESIGN REVIEW AND COMPREHENSIVE SIGN PLAN RESOLUTION
Be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Maplewood, Minnesota, as follows:
Section 1. Background.
1.01 SOTA Partners has requested approval of design review and comprehensive sign
plan.
1.02 The property is located at 1744 County Road East and is legally described as:
PIN: 032922110005 – Lot 3, Block 2, Legacy Village of Maplewood
1.03 On April 21, 2020, the community design review board reviewed this request. The
applicant was provided the opportunity to present information to the community
design review board. The community design review board considered all of the
comments received and the staff report, which are incorporated by reference into this
resolution.
Section 2. Site and Building Plan Standards and Findings.
2.01 City ordinance Section 2-290(b) requires that the community design review board
make the following findings to approve plans:
1. That the design and location of the proposed development and its relationship to
neighboring, existing or proposed developments and traffic is such that it will not
impair the desirability of investment or occupation in the neighborhood; that it will
not unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring, existing or
proposed developments; and that it will not create traffic hazards or congestion.
2. That the design and location of the proposed development are in keeping with the
character of the surrounding neighborhood and are not detrimental to the
harmonious, orderly and attractive development contemplated by this article and
the city's comprehensive municipal plan.
3. That the design and location of the proposed development would provide a
desirable environment for its occupants, as well as for its neighbors, and that it is
aesthetically of good composition, materials, textures and colors.
2.02 City ordinance Section 44-738 requires a comprehensive sign plan shall be provided
for planned unit developments.
Such a plan, which shall include the location, size, height, color, lighting and
orientation of all signs and/or murals, shall be submitted for preliminary plan approval
by the city. Exceptions to the sign ordinance of this article may be permitted for sign
areas, densities, and dynamic display changeover rates for the plan as a whole if the
signs are in conformity with the intent of this article, results in an improved
relationship between the various parts of the plan, encourages and promotes the
removal of nonconforming signs through the use of shared signs, and in the case of
long-term exemptions to temporary window and banner signs show that there are
unusual circumstances with the request. In addition, murals must be tasteful, in
CDRB Packet Page Number18 of 45
E1, Attachment 2
keeping with the business premises and surrounding properties, and not contain any
defamatory, obscene, treasonous expressions or opinions, including graffiti.
Section 3. City Council Action.
3.01.1 The above-described site and design plansare hereby approved based on the
findings outlined in Section 3 of this resolution. Subject to staff approval, the site
must be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the site and
design plans date-stamped July 28, 2020. 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. All requirements of the fire marshal and building official must be met.
3. Meet all requirements in the engineering report, dated August 7, 2020.
4. The applicant shall obtain all required permits from the Ramsey-Washington
Metro Watershed District.
5. Rooftop vents and equipment shall be located out of view from residential
properties to the south and west.
6. A comprehensive sign plan is approved for this site per the following conditions.
a. A maximum of two monument signs are approved for this site. A monument
sign on the Bittersweet Lane side of the site may be up 140-square-feet in
size. A monument sign on the Flandrau Street side of the site may be up to
80-square-feet in size. Monument signs shall not exceed 12 feet in height.
b. Two wall signs are permitted. One wall sign on the north elevation and one
wall sign on the east elevation. Wall signs shall not exceed 100 square feet or
20 percent of wall face to which it is attached, whichever is less.
c. All signs require permits.
7. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit for staff
approval the following items:
a. Revised site plan showing the parking lot front yard setback of 15 feet being
met.
b. Revised landscaping plan showing at least nine trees being planted along
Village Trail as required per this site’s planned unit development.
c. The applicant shall provide the city with 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.
8. The applicant shall complete the following before occupying the building:
CDRB Packet Page Number19 of 45
E1, Attachment 2
a. Replace any property irons removed because of this construction.
b. Provide continuous concrete curb and gutter around the parking lot and
driveways.
c. Install all required landscaping and an in-ground lawn irrigation system for all
landscaped areas.
d. Install all required outdoor lighting.
9. 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 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 of the
following year 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.
10. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development
may approve minor changes.
__________ by the City Council of the City of Maplewood, Minnesota, on September 14, 2020.
CDRB Packet Page Number20 of 45
E1, Attachment 3
Woodspring Suites Hotel 1744 County Road D East
July 28, 2020
City of Maplewood
Legend
Parcel
0490
Feet
Source: City of Maplewood, Ramsey County
CDRB Packet Page Number21 of 45
E1, Attachment 4
Woodspring Suites Hotel 1744 County Road D East
July 28, 2020
City of Maplewood
Legend
Future Land Use - 2040
High Density Residential
Mixed-Use - Community
Commercial
Public/Institutional
Employment
Park
Parcel
0490
Feet
Source: City of Maplewood, Ramsey County
CDRB Packet Page Number22 of 45
E1, Attachment 5
Woodspring Suites Hotel - 1744 County Road D East
July 28, 2020
City of Maplewood
Zoning Map
Legend
Zoning
Open Space/Park
Multiple Dwelling (r3)
Planned Unit Development (pud)
Business Commercial (bc)
Subject Parcel
0490
Feet
Source: City of Maplewood, Ramsey County
CDRB Packet Page Number23 of 45
E1, Attachment 6
Project Narrative
Woodspring Suites Hotel Maplewood
Location: 1744 County Road D East
Maplewood, MN 55109
Applicant: SOTA Partners
Proposal: Attached to this letter please find the application of the Woodspring Suites Hotel for the
property located at 1744 County Road D East in Maplewood, MN. Through the attached
application, SOTA Partners is requesting approval for construction of a new 4-story hotel and
related parking lot and site utilities within the Legacy Parkway PUD.
A PUD revision for the property was approved for a commercial/retail building (Legacy Shops)
back in 2008 but that development never came to fruition and the lot is still vacant currently.
The use requested is for a Woodspring Suites Hotel, which is a quality extended stay hotel.
The project will consist of creating two access openings to Flandrau Street on the west of the
parcel and constructing a new 12,600 square foot 4-story hotel building with 126-stall parking
lot (1 space per guest room). Bicycle parking is included, and extensive landscaping restoration
to improve site aesthetics considerably from the vacant condition. The development would be
an enhancement to the neighboring area.
Company: The Woodspring Suites brand is committed to providing incredibly clean, affordable rooms and
a welcoming, friendly guest experience to all guests for a night, a week, a month, or longer.
Their extended stay hotels offer the perfect mixture of home-like comforts and more and hotel-
like convenience to a variety of guests who need a great room at a great price for several
nights or longer. All rooms include a well-designed kitchen with full-size refrigerator with
freezer, two-burner stove top and microwave, comfortable seating, flat panel TVs, desk and
workspace, and space for belongings. The hotel also features 24/7 access to guest laundry
room, vending machines, and staff support.
Landscaping & Screening:
Landscape screening between the proposed parking lot and adjacent businesses will exceed
City minimum requirements. A variety of coniferous, deciduous, and ornamental trees will be
provided throughout the site. Trees will be a hardy mix of native of non-native species and will
be provided within interior parking islands to minimize the heat island effect. Shrubs and trees
will wrap the sides of the parking lot and create an aesthetically pleasing presentation.
CDRB Packet Page Number24 of 45
E1, Attachment 6
Signage: One pylon sign in the northeast corner and one monument sign at the main entrance in the
northwest corner are proposed.
Lighting: Lighting will be LED on poles with concrete bases. Lighting will be in conformance with City
Code. All lighting will be shielded as necessary to avoid any overlap to adjacent properties.
Parking: 126 parking spaces are proposed to meet city & corporate standards of 1 space per guest room.
10 bicycle spaces are also proposed per city requirements.
We respectfully request City support for the enclosed application by SOTA Partners for PUD Revision & CDRB for
the 1744 County Road D East parcel depicted on the attached site plan. Please see responses to the code
deviation requests on the following page. We look forward to reviewing this application with the City in the
weeks ahead.
Sincerely,
Pete Moreau
Sambatek, Inc.
CDRB Packet Page Number25 of 45
E1, Attachment 6
PUD Revision Code Requests
1.We are requesting a deviation from 9.5 wide to 9.0 wide parking spaces.
Justification:
9.0 wide parking spaces are a widely accepted minimum parking space width for low turnover uses such
as hotels and consistent with similar developments. The deviation would not constitute a threat to
property value, safety, health, or general welfare of owners or occupants of nearby land. The deviation
is required to fit the code required 1:1 parking ratio (for guest rooms) and is reasonable for the physical
development by providing additional green space & landscaping with the reduced parking space width
that is still an acceptable parking standard.
Setback Summary
The site layout proposes a compliant 68 front building setback which exceeds the original Legacy
Parkway front setback of 15 and is less than the approved 83 setback allowed in the 2008 PUD
amendment.
A minimum of 5 landscape side yard setback is maintained from the right-of-way on all four sides of the
proposed parking area.
Pedestrian sidewalk connections are proposed to the north sidewalk along County Road D and to the
southwest corner at Flandrau Street & Village Street to meet the goals for the area of promoting
pedestrian circulation.
CDRB Packet Page Number26 of 45
E1, Attachment 7
CDRB Packet Page Number27 of 45
E1, Attachment 8
CDRB Packet Page Number28 of 45
E1, Attachment 9
01
7/24/2020
intent only. The building images may not reflect variations in color, tone, hue, tint, shading, ambient light intensity, materials, texture, contrast, font style, construction variations
required by building codes or inspectors, material availability or final design detailing.
The building images shown are a representation of the current design
WoodSpring Suites MAPLEWOOD, MN
CDRB Packet Page Number29 of 45
E1, Attachment 9
7/24/2020
02
intent only. The building images may not reflect variations in color, tone, hue, tint, shading, ambient light intensity, materials, texture,
contrast, font style, construction variations required by building codes or inspectors, material availability or final design detailing.
The building images shown are a representation of the current design
Overall Perspective
WoodSpring Suites MAPLEWOOD, MN
CDRB Packet Page Number30 of 45
E1, Attachment 9
7/24/2020
03
intent only. The building images may not reflect variations in color, tone, hue, tint, shading, ambient light intensity, materials, texture,
contrast, font style, construction variations required by building codes or inspectors, material availability or final design detailing.
The building images shown are a representation of the current design
Overall Perspective
WoodSpring Suites MAPLEWOOD, MN
CDRB Packet Page Number31 of 45
E1, Attachment 9
7/24/2020
04
Tjejoh!TX!7312!Uivoefspvt
intent only. The building images may not reflect variations in color, tone, hue, tint, shading, ambient light intensity, materials, texture,
contrast, font style, construction variations required by building codes or inspectors, material availability or final design detailing.
The building images shown are a representation of the current design
Tjejoh!TX!8755!Hbufxbz!Hsfz
Sfe!Csjdl
TjejohTX!:21:!Obuvsbm!Mjofo
Elevations
IbsejqbofmTX!:21:!Obuvsbm!Mjofo
WoodSpring Suites MAPLEWOOD, MN
Gspou!FmfwbujpoSjhiu!Fmfwbujpo
CDRB Packet Page Number32 of 45
E1, Attachment 9
7/24/2020
05
Tjejoh!TX!7312!Uivoefspvt
intent only. The building images may not reflect variations in color, tone, hue, tint, shading, ambient light intensity, materials, texture,
contrast, font style, construction variations required by building codes or inspectors, material availability or final design detailing.
The building images shown are a representation of the current design
Tjejoh!TX!8755!Hbufxbz!Hsfz
TjejohTX!:21:!Obuvsbm!Mjofo
Sfe!Csjdl
Elevations
IbsejqbofmTX!:21:!Obuvsbm!Mjofo
WoodSpring Suites MAPLEWOOD, MN
Mfgu!Fmfwbujpo
Sfbs!Fmfwbujpo
CDRB Packet Page Number33 of 45
E1, Attachment 10
Engineering Plan Review
PROJECT: Woodspring Suites Hotel – 1744 County Road D
PROJECT NO: 20-20
COMMENTS BY: Jon Jarosch, Assistant City Engineer
DATE: 8-7-2020
PLAN SET: Engineering plans dated 7-24-2020
Stormwater Management Plan dated 7-27-2020
The applicant is proposing a new four-story hotel and associated site improvements on the
vacant lot at 1744 County Road D. The applicant is requesting design approval.
As this project disturbs more than 1/2 acre, it is required to meet the City’s water quality and
rate control requirements. Stormwater management for the site is proposed to be
accommodated via the use of an underground infiltration system located beneath the parking
lot. It appears from the stormwater management plan that the proposed development meets the
City’s stormwater management standards.
This review does not constitute a final review of the plans, as the applicant will need to submit
construction documents for final review, along with ratified agreements, prior to issuing building
and grading permits.
The following are engineering review comments on the design and act as conditions prior to
issuing permits:
Drainage and Stormwater Management
1) The project shall be submitted to the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District
(RWMWD) for review. All conditions of RWMWD shall be met.
2) A joint stormwater maintenance agreement with the City and RWMWD shall be signed
by the owner for the proposed underground filtration system, sump structures, and
associated storm sewer system.
3) Soil boring information or infiltration test data shall be submitted to support the infiltration
rates utilized in the Stormwater Management Plan. The more general Web Soil Survey
Results are not adequate for this purpose.
4) Emergency overflow routes shall be identified on the plans for low-points throughout the
site.
CDRB Packet Page Number34 of 45
E1, Attachment 10
5) Cleanouts are recommended along the roof drain piping system at all bend locations and
tees to ensure the system can be properly maintained in the future.
Grading and Erosion Control
6) The underground filtration system shall be protected from sedimentation throughout
construction.
7) Inlet protection devices shall be installed on all existing and proposed onsite storm
sewer until all exposed soils are stabilized.
8) Public and private drives shall be swept as needed to keep the pavement clear of
sediment and construction debris.
9) All pedestrian facilities shall be ADA compliant.
10) A copy of the project SWPPP and NDPES Permit shall be submitted prior to the
issuance of a grading permit.
11) All slopes shall be 3H:1V or less steep in slope.
12) The total cut/fill volume shall be noted on the grading plan.
13) Stabilized rock construction entrances shall be installed at all entry/exit points into the
site. If the southern site entrance is not to be used during the Phase II portion of the
project, fencing shall be placed to ensure all entry and exit occurs through the stabilized
northerly entrance.
Sanitary Sewer and Water Service
14) Sanitary sewer service piping shall be schedule 40 PVC or SDR 35.
15) The proposed water service modifications are subject to the review and conditions of
Saint Paul Regional Water Services (SPRWS). The applicant shall submit plans and
specifications to SPRWS for review and meet all requirements they may have prior to
the issuance of a grading permit by the City.
16) The applicant shall be responsible for paying any SAC, WAC, or PAC charges related to
the improvements proposed with this phase of the project. Appropriate fees shall be
charged during the permitting process.
17) All points where the storm sewer and sanitary sewer cross the watermain shall be
reviewed for appropriate clearance. These areas shall be reviewed with SPRWS to
determine whether or not insulation is needed for freeze protection.
CDRB Packet Page Number35 of 45
E1, Attachment 10
Other
18)All work within the right-of-way along County Road D shall be reviewed and approved by
Ramsey County. Work in this area will require a right-of-way permit from the County.
19)Keeping in spirit with the remainder of the Legacy PUD, sidewalks shall be added along
all street frontages. The existing site plan shows the existing sidewalk along the north
frontage (County Road D) and a proposed sidewalk along a portion of the west frontage
(Flandrau Street). The sidewalk shall be extended the complete length of the westerly
frontage. A sidewalk shall also be added along the southerly frontage (Village Trail).
20)A sidewalk shall also be required along the easterly frontage (Bittersweet Lane), unless
the width of the site does not allow space for a sidewalk in this location. The Applicant
shall work with the City during the permitting process to exhaust all options for site
revisions to accommodate a sidewalk along this frontage before this requirement may be
negated.
Public Works Permits
The following permits are required by the Public Works Department for this project. The
applicant should verify the need for other City permits with the Building Department.
21)Grading and erosion control permit
22)Sanitary Sewer Permit
23)Storm Sewer Permit
24)Maplewood Right-of-way Permit (ROW Permit also needed from County)
-END COMMENTS -
CDRB Packet Page Number36 of 45
E2
COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date August 18, 2020
REPORT TO: Melinda Coleman, City Manager
REPORT FROM:
Michael Martin, AICP, Assistant Community Development Director
PRESENTER:Michael Martin, AICP, Assistant Community Development Director
AGENDA ITEM:
Design Review, Maple Ridge Grocery and Convenience Stores, 2501
White Bear Avenue North
Action Requested: MotionDiscussion Public Hearing
Form of Action: Resolution Ordinance Contract/Agreement Proclamation
Policy Issue:
HyVee is remodeling the former Rainbow Foods building located at 2501 White Bear Avenue.
HyVee is seeking design approval for the façade improvements to the grocery store building and for
the revised east elevation of its proposed new convenience store building.
Recommended Action:
Motion to approve a resolution for design review for the grocery building elevations and revised
building elevations for a new convenience store to be constructed at 2501 White Bear Avenue.
Fiscal Impact:
Is There a Fiscal Impact? No Yes, the true or estimated cost is $0.
Financing source(s):Adopted BudgetBudget ModificationNew Revenue Source
Use of Reserves Other: N/A
Strategic Plan Relevance:
Financial SustainabilityIntegrated CommunicationTargeted Redevelopment
Operational EffectivenessCommunity InclusivenessInfrastructure & Asset Mgmt.
The city deemed the applicant’s most recent application complete on August 4, 2020. The initial 60-
day review deadline for a decision is October 3, 2020. As stated in Minnesota State Statute 15.99,
the city is allowed to take an additional 60 days if necessary to complete the review.
Background:
Grocery Building
HyVee will be occupying the former Rainbow Foods building within the Maple Ridge Shopping
Center located at 2501 White Bear Avenue North. The Community Design Review Board reviewed
the proposed site plan revisions for the center at its meeting in May and the City Council approved
this plan on August 10, 2020.
CDRB Packet Page Number37 of 45
E2
As part of its planned building upgrades, HyVee is proposing to add a 135’ x 24’ canopy over 10
parking spaces on the north side of the grocery building. This area will service the store’s online
order pickup service. A pharmacy drive-through will be added to the southeast corner of the building
which will also be covered with a canopy.
The main entrance of the building will be remodeled and will include new wood composite and glass
fiber reinforced concrete rainscreen paneling. Vision glass and spandrel glass will also be part of
the main entrance. New dark charcoal metal flashing and vision and spandrel glass will be used as
accents throughout the building. The existing masonry units and all sides of the building will be
freshly painted with a gray finish.
Convenience Store Building
During the community design review board’s May review, the group recommended the applicant be
required to submit revised building elevations to city staff and staff would provide them to the
community design review board. These building elevations need to incorporate staff’s
recommendation of adding additional architectural elements to the east elevation. The applicant has
submitted revised building elevations showing additional windows being added to the east elevation
–see elevations attached to this report. Staff is recommending approval of the revised building
elevations. Prior to any permits being issued, the community design review board recommendation
of requiring additional landscaping between the east façade of the building and White Bear Avenue
will continue to be required.
Reference Information
Site Description
Site Size: 12.83 acres
Existing Land Use: Shopping Center
Surrounding Land Uses
North: Auto Mall
East: White Bear Avenue and commercial uses
South: Church
West: Senior housing and Ramsey County Open Space
Planning
Existing Land Use: Commercial
Existing Zoning: Business Commercial
Attachments:
1.Design Review Resolution
2.Overview Map
3.Applicant’s Narrative
4.Site Plan
5.Grocery Store Building Elevations
6.Convenience Store Building Elevations
7.Applicant’s Plans (separate attachment)
CDRB Packet Page Number38 of 45
E2, Attachment 1
DESIGN REVIEWRESOLUTION
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Maplewood, Minnesota, as follows:
Background.
1.01 Slate Asset Management has requested approval of design review of grocery and
convenience store buildings
1.02 The property is located at 2501 White Bear Avenue North and is legally described
as:
That part of Lot 2, Block 1, Maple Ridge Mall, lying East of the West line of the
Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 11, Township 29, Range 22,
and lying South of the North line of the South 4 acres of the West Half of the North
Half of the East Half of the Northwest Quarter of Section 11, Township 29, Range 22,
Ramsey County MN
AND
That part of Lots 3 and 4, Block 1, Map Ridge Mall, lying west of the west line of the
Northwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 11, Township 29, Range 22,
Ramsey County, MN
AND
That part of Lot 2, Block 1, Maple Ridge Mall according to the recorded plat thereof,
lying South of Lot 1 of said Block 1 and the westerly extension thereof except that
part of said Lot 2 lying East of the West line of the Northeast Quarter of the
Northwest Quarter of Section 11, Township 29, Range 22, and lying South of the
North line of the South 4 acres of the West Half of the North Half of the Northwest
Quarter of Section 11, Township 29, Range 22, Ramsey County, MN
AND
That part of Lots 3 and 4, Block 1, Maple Ridge Mall, according to the recorded plat
thereof lying East of the West line of the Northwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter
of the Northwest Quarter of Section 11, Township 29, Range 22, Ramsey County,
MN
Section 2. Site, Building and Sign Plan Standards and Findings.
2.01 City ordinance Section 2-290(b) requires that the community design review board
make the following findings to approve plans:
1.That the design and location of the proposed development and its relationship to
neighboring, existing or proposed developments and traffic is such that it will not
impair the desirability of investment or occupation in the neighborhood; that it will
not unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring, existing or
proposed developments; and that it will not create traffic hazards or congestion.
CDRB Packet Page Number39 of 45
E2, Attachment 1
2. That the design and location of the proposed development is in keeping with the
character of the surrounding neighborhood and is not detrimental to the
harmonious, orderly and attractive development contemplated by this article and
the city's comprehensive municipal plan.
3. That the design and location of the proposed development would provide a
desirable environment for its occupants, as well as for its neighbors, and that it is
aesthetically of good composition, materials, textures and colors.
Section 3. Community Design Review Board Action.
3.01 The above-described site, design and sign plans are hereby approved based on the
findings outlined in Section 3 of this resolution. Subject to staff approval, the site
must be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the site plan and
building elevations date-stamped June 1, 2020, and the remaining design plans
date-stamped August 4, 2020. 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. All requirements of the fire marshal and building official must be met.
3. Meet all requirements in the design review resolution adopted by the city council
on August 10, 2020.
__________ by the Community Design Review Board of the City of Maplewood, Minnesota, on
August 18, 2020.
CDRB Packet Page Number40 of 45
E2, Attachment 2
2501 White Bear Avenue
April 28, 2020
City of Maplewood
Legend
!
I
P
0350
Feet
Source: City of Maplewood, Ramsey County
CDRB Packet Page Number41 of 45
E2, Attachment 3
Mapleridge Project Summary
Development Review Application
th
August 4, 2020
Slate is proposing improvements to the existing Mapleridge Center at the northwest corner of White Bear Avenue
and Gervais Ave. A 4,200 Hy-Vee Fast and Fresh convenience store is proposed on the east side of the site along
White Bear Avenue. Also, Slate is proposing changes to the access points along White Bear Avenue and Gervais
Avenue. The former Rainbow building will be remodeled and converted to a Hy-Vee grocery store, and one of the
tenant spaces in the existing strip center will be renovated for a Hy-Vee Wine and Spirits. The exterior of the food
store will be completely updated and will include the addition of a pharmacy pickup on the south side of the
building, and an Aisles Online canopy and pickup area on the north side of the building.
The zoning on the property is currently (BC) Business Commercial District. Slate has already applied for a PUD and
CUP in conjunction with the site plan approval to allow the convenience store use and for deviations in the front
yard building setback and reduction in the parking requirement. The building setback along White Bear Avenue is
30 feet. Slate is requesting a reduction to 20 feet. The parking required by current city ordinance is 1 per 200
square feet of retail space. By current requirements, 599 parking stalls would be required. Slate is requesting a
reduction to 1 per 250 square feet of retail space, or 479 parking spaces. The proposed plan has 506 stalls.
Parking requirements have been trending down nationally as for a variety of reasons. It is not uncommon to see a
parking requirement of 1 per 250 square feet in retail centers in other communities. Additionally, it is common to
see reduction in parking requirements in a large center with multiple users. The diverse array of users have
differing peak needs for parking. Therefore, the center can operate more efficiently with fewer parking stalls.
Lifestyles are changing and delivery and pickup options are much more common. These services are another
reason parking is in lower demand in these centers.
There are two reasons the 20-foot setback from White Bear Avenue is requested. There is a water main easement
between the fuel canopy and the proposed c-store building. The proposed building placement allows for some
additional space between the building and the easement to minimize the impact of the proposed improvements
and utilities on the water main easement. Additionally, the 20-foot setback is requested not only to maintain
adequate parking for the center, but to maintain convenient parking for the tenants at the south end of the retail
strip center.
Slate is proposing access changes along White Bear Avenue and Gervais Avenue. The existing access to White Bear
Avenue is proposed to move approximately 80 feet south to align with a drive on the east side of White Bear
Avenue. The access is proposed to be signalized. A traffic study has been completed and Slate is working with the
County on approval. Modifications to the access alone Gervais are also proposed. The eastern most access point
is proposed to move 90 feet west and the median in Gervais is proposed to be opened to allow for full access. The
western most existing access point to the center is proposed to be removed. Gervais Avenue is proposed to be
restriped west of White Bear Avenue to a single lane with painted shoulder and turn lanes.
CDRB Packet Page Number42 of 45
E2, Attachment 4
SITE PLAN
MAPLE RIDGE SHOPPING CENTER
PUD SUBMITTAL
SITE NOTES:SITE DATA:
Received
on June 1, 2020
by City of Maplewood
E
UNE
VA R
AEB
ETI
HW
4,100 SF
GAS STATION/CONVENIENCE STORE
GERVAIS AVENUE
58,600 SF58,600 SF
IN-LINE RETAILIN-LINE RETAIL
57,000 SF57,000 SF
EXISTING GROCERYEXISTING GROCERY
SITE LEGEND:
CDRB Packet Page Number43 of 45
E2, Attachment 5
CDRB Packet Page Number44 of 45
E2, Attachment 6
Received
on June 1, 2020
by City of Maplewood
CDRB Packet Page Number45 of 45