The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About12/12/2006 AGENDA CITY OF MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD Tuesday, December 12, 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: November 28, 2006 5. Unfinished Business: None Scheduled 6. Design Review: a. CarMax Auto Superstore - Northeast Corner of Highway 61 and Beam Avenues 7. Visitor Presentations: 8. Board Presentations: 9. Staff Presentations: a. Resolution of Appreciation for John Hinzman b. Community Pride Awards c. Representation at the December 18, 2006, City Council Meeting - Items to be Discussed Include CarMax d. Cancel the December 26, 2006, Community Design Review Board Meeting 10. Adjourn DRAFT MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD 1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 28,2006 I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Olson called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Vice-Chairperson Matt Ledvina Chairperson Linda Olson Board member Joel Schurke Board member Ananth Shankar Absent Present Present Present Staff Present: Shann Finwall, Planner Lisa Kroll, Recording Secretary III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Chairperson Olson moved to approve the agenda. Board member Shankar seconded. Ayes - Olson, Schurke, Shankar The motion passed. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of the CDRB minutes for November 14, 2006 Board member Schurke moved approval of the minutes of November 14, 2006. Board member Shankar seconded. Ayes --- Olson, Schurke, Shankar The motion passed. V. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. VI. DESIGN REVIEW a. Hillcrest Gateway Plaza -1698 White Bear Avenue Ms. Finwall said Todd Vannispen, LLC, is proposing to construct a 1,762 square foot addition as well as fa<;:ade and lot improvements to the building located on the northeast corner or Larpenteur and White Bear Avenues. Mr. Vannispen represents several Subway Restaurants and purchased the property approximately two years ago with the intent of relocating the S1. Paul Hillcrest Subway into this building. The Subway Restaurant was relocated into the Big Apple Bagel site within the building last summer. This will be the first "redevelopment' within the Hillcrest Village Redevelopment area. Community Design Review Board Minutes 11-28-2006 2 The city's capital improvement plan (2006 to 2010) calls out public improvements (road work and streetscaping) in the Hillcrest Village Redevelopment area in the year 2010. The plan coordinates the financing and timing of major equipment purchases and construction projects and is based on goals established at the city council and management staff retreats. These goals are subject to change from year to year. Since the adoption of the Hillcrest Village Redevelopment Plan in 2004, the goals have changed and the city's proactive redevelopment efforts are now focused on the Gladstone Neighborhood. With that said, staff understands the financial constraints of redeveloping the site to reflect the "exact" goals for the Hillcrest Village Redevelopment Plan and finds the proposed improvements are a good starting point for a change in the area. Board member Schurke asked if Calthorpe had any guidelines for the Hillcrest Village Redevelopment Plan and if so, are they in place now? Ms. Finwall said the city council adopted the Hillcrest Village Redevelopment Plan and the Hillcrest Village Urban Design Standards in 2002. These were created by Calthorpe and commissioned by the Metropolitan Council's smart-grow1h development principles which were designed to help guide changes in an area to create a village center with an active street life that mixes shops, workplaces, housing, passive recreation, and civic uses. In essence the city council adopted those standards for this area by adopting the plan and urban design standards. The city created the mixed-use zoning district which implemented a lot of those design standards within the code itself. Chairperson Olson asked if the existing freestanding sign is consistent with those design standards? Ms. Finwall said the proposed refacing of the freestanding sign meets the nonconforming ordinance. The code allows the sign to be refaced at the same size which will improve the aesthetics and design elements and meets code. There are no design standards for signs in the Urban Design Standards, only in the mixed-use sign code which allows nonconforming signs to be refaced. Chairperson Olson asked if the city would allow a freestanding sign like that to be constructed now under these new design guidelines? Ms. Finwall said no. Board member Schurke asked if there had been community input regarding this proposal? Ms. Finwall said there was one comment from Mr. Frias, the owner of the Boca Chica Taco House. His comments were regarding his sign variance request and the current and proposed sign age. Mr. Frias had requested a variance in order to retain two freestanding signs on his property to the north. Mr. Frias stated one of his hardships was the fact that the existing Garrity's Lounge/Subway sign which is a 192 square foot sign is built right up to property line. Community Design Review Board Minutes 11-28-2006 3 Mr. Frias stated the freestanding sign for Garrity's Lounge/Subway blocks the view of his Boca Chica freestanding sign so he had a monument sign constructed in addition to the freestanding sign which city staff allowed based on the condition that the large freestanding sign is removed. Chairperson Olson asked if Mr. Frias, the owner of the Boca Chica Taco House and his request for a sign variance was granted or denied at the city council meeting November 27,2006? Ms. Finwall said the request for the two signs to remain on the property at Boca Chica Taco House was denied. Chairperson Olson was sorry to hear that. Ms. Finwall said Mr. Frias called city staff and indicated he didn't want to proceed with the sign variance request but then didn't follow up with a written request stating the city needed to formerly deny the sign variance request in order to meet the 60 day deadline requirement so there was no real discussion regarding the variance at the city council meeting. Board member Shankar said the building seems to be very close to Larpenteur Avenue. He asked what the setback requirement is and if the applicant meets that? Ms. Finwall said in the mixed-use zoning district commercial buildings can be constructed up to the right-of-way line and the proposed setback is five feet, which is approximately 15 feet from the actual curb of White Bear Avenue so it does meet the mixed-use zoning district setback requirements. Board member Schurke said it had been awhile since he had seen the Calthorpe Urban Design Guidelines and he didn't remember seeing anything regarding signage. Ms. Finwall said that's correct; there is nothing in the Urban Design Guidelines regarding signs. The city does have sign guidelines in the mixed-use zoning code. Chairperson Olson asked the applicant to address the board. Mr. Dick Krumm, RVK Architects, 7616 Currell Blvd., Ste. 175, Woodbury, addressed the board. He said he is here representing the applicants and they agree with most of the conditions listed in the staff report but not all of them. He presented the board with building material samples and colors they propose to use. He said the applicant doesn't have any problems with the landscaping requirements but has a problem with the rainwater garden requirement. They are confident they can work something out with city staff regarding that. He said essentially it's really a sump as opposed to a true rain garden. He said they would like to address the proof of parking and how the count was determined because those numbers were figured based on Garrity's Lounge remaining. Once this building is remodeled and redeveloped Garrity's Lounge and the Laundromat will be vacant and the space will be subdivided for new retail or office space. Community Design Review Board Minutes 11-28-2006 4 (For retail/office use city code requires 1 parking stall per 200 square feet and for a restaurant/bar use city code requires 1 parking stall per 50 square feet of space designated for patrons. The proposed retail/office space will encompass 5,020 square feet and the patron space for the existing restaurant and bar (Subway and Garrity's Lounge) encompasses 3,264 square feet. City code requires 90 parking stalls based on the existing uses in the building. The applicant is proposing 58 parking stalls which would be 32 parking spaces less than the city code requires. The applicant states that the bar and restaurant use have different peak parking hours allowing them to share parking, and the proposed 58 parking stalls will be adequate. Staff agrees that 90 parking stalls for this site are extreme, however, staff is concerned about the future tenant's parking needs in the building.) Ms. Finwall said staff had indicated in the staff report that the applicant should submit a commercial parking district document to be recorded on the property. The document will specify the following: city code parking requirements and the number of parking stalls proposed; 32 parking stalls (proof of parking) to be located on the site plan which can be constructed if and when the need arises; and the shared parking with varying peak parking hours. Staff had based that requirement on St. Paul's traditional neighborhood zoning district so this type of agreement could be something between the applicant and the city, and wouldn't necessarily have to be recorded with the county if that was a concern of the applicant. Mr. Krumm said that would be his understanding as well. He said if they are required to dedicate 32 parking stalls that would take out the entire easterly vacant portion of the property and make it unbuildable. He would suggest dedicating 6-7 parking spaces verses the 32 parking spaces. Board member Shankar asked what the plan was for developing the easterly portion of the property you are speaking of. Mr. Krumm said there are no plans for the easterly portion of property at this time, there are a few people who have approached the applicant but nothing is on the table at this time but it would be for retail. They would like to discuss the request to add the EIFS treatment to the fa<;:ade on the north side of the building where they propose to bring the building back 20 feet. The recommendation is for the entire north fa<;:ade with the same treatment but that may be cost prohibitive. The budget for these improvements started at $200,000. Agreeing to the landscaping conditions and other additional items will cost more. Just adding the EIFS treatment will cost about $10,000 additional. He doesn't think the benefit outweighs the cost so they would like to come to some agreement regarding that. He said they would like to discuss the request for the bituminous area. He said they are requesting not to be required to do that until June 2008 to give the applicant more time to put together a package and not spend an additional $20,000 unnecessarily removing the bituminous and putting dirt, sod and an irrigation system in. Even if the applicant took the bituminous out and put dirt and sod in, the potential problem is the applicant is going to have to develop that area in the future and they are concerned about how that will work if it is all changed over to green space. (Staff had recommended that the CDRB require the removal of the unused bituminous as part of this design review. Community Design Review Board Minutes 11-28-2006 5 The bituminous surface is old and deteriorating and isn't needed for parking at this time. Removal of the bituminous will improve the aesthetics of the property and will increase the amount of green space on the lot considerably.) Chairperson Olson asked if they had planned to use that area for the staging of the construction. Mr. Krumm said that is the most logical area and would cause the least disruption. Chairperson Olson said based on that fact it doesn't make any sense to require the removal of the bituminous surface now. She asked if it was correct that they want to reduce the number of proof of parking spaces from 32 to 6 or 7 spaces? Mr. Krumm said yes. That is solely based on the fact that Garrity's Lounge is not in the future plans and that space will be retail or office. Board member Schurke asked if they have tenants identified for this building space? Mr. Krumm said no. Mr. Todd Vannispen, one of the owners of the property, addressed the board. He said they have not marketed the space yet and they have been approached by other potential tenants but nothing is set in stone yet. Their goal is to have a client base that is representative of any other new development such as national retailers or Class A tenants. Board member Schurke said he would suggest the applicant consider a bike rack somewhere on this property. Regarding the entry doors under the Billy Kirk sign and the tailor shop, there is no hovering over them and he likes the canopy effect that you have elsewhere on the building. He asked if they could add a small canopy over each one of the entries because he believes it marks each doorway as the entry spot. Mr. Krumm said there is a canopy that goes across the front of the building and we are taking that off to change the fa<;:ade. Board member Schurke said he wouldn't object to the applicant's request for financial relief regarding the request to add EIFS treatment on the north side of the building. Heading south on White Bear Avenue he would be most interested in breaking the view line to the north elevation so that the majority of the concrete block is not left exposed. A compromise may be to take it to the mid point on the north elevation rather than extending it to the rear of the building. Board member Shankar said the north elevation is all concrete block anyway. Mr. Krumm said that's correct. Chairperson Olson asked if they are proposing to paint the concrete block? Community Design Review Board Minutes 11-28-2006 6 Mr. Krumm said we are going to bring the EIFS down 20 feet and paint the concrete block beyond that. That fayade is on the property line and the neighbors have parking right up against that building face and that's why we aren't carrying the EIFS down to the ground. That wall has damage from cars hitting it and there are wheel stops there but we have no idea of damage done. Chairperson Olson said that's a valid point. Board member Schurke asked if that had been addressed with the design of the building with stopping the EIFS 4 feet off the grade? Mr. Krumm said yes. Board member Shankar said the EIFS should be wrapped to the north elevation but how much EIFS should be wrapped could be discussed. Board member Schurke suggested taking the entire fayade of the north elevation to the opposite corner. Driving down White Bear Avenue where Boca Chica's building ends blocks some of this. What if we compromise and allow them to take it to the mid point of the north elevation so it would double what they currently have. Board member Shankar asked if he meant adding one more layer of EIFS? Board member Schurke said yes. Board member Shankar said he could agree with that. Board member Schurke said the city has had a couple of projects that have been gateway locations to the City of Maplewood and he thinks there is a strong value for a rainwater garden from a public education standpoint so he would strongly encourage the applicant to work with city staff to figure out a way to make this work effectively. Staff can assist you in identifying plants that will sustain the area. Maplewood has put a lot of time and effort in trying to raise awareness of storm water management issues in the community and the lack of wetlands in Maplewood so from a prevention of future pollution of surface waters this is a message that gives you a chance to further reinforce what Maplewood is trying to do as a community. Chairperson Olson said she thinks something could be worked out with staff. Board member Schurke said one thing that is upsetting to him is that people are not maintaining their properties and he commends the applicant for stepping forward and redeveloping this property. At the same time, the avoided costs of having to rip up the bituminous surface and replace it with dirt or seed begs to question what type of repairs can be done to the current parking lot? Can the lot be repaired and patched until it can be replaced in June 2008? Mr. Krumm said the parking surface is not repairable. We are just asking for additional time to develop this site before we spend the money to redevelop the property and not have to spend $20,000 to tear the bituminous out and replace it. Community Design Review Board Minutes 11-28-2006 7 Mr. Krumm said bringing landscaping out to the east side of the existing structure and getting rid of the weed trees that are there will go a long way to clean up the site. Chairperson Olson asked if this is a permeable surface right now? Mr. Krumm said some of it is permeable. Engineering wise there is a base under it. Nobody has dug it up to see what is underneath it so he wouldn't necessarily say it is permeable. Board member Schurke asked staff for input regarding their request to not have to rip up the bituminous surface to give the applicant some relief? Ms. Finwall said the problem is that it is difficult to enforce removal of the old bituminous at a future date. There is also nothing planned for the redevelopment of that site so the city could be looking at the bituminous surface for longer than June 2008. Board member Schurke said as a compromise we could request that the applicant take a 20 foot strip of property adjacent to Larpenteur Avenue from the property line and either have the applicant landscape that or put the rainwater garden there for a visual buffer from Larpenteur Avenue to this property. Maybe they could do this as the extension of the sidewalk and landscaping with small shrubs or something. He doesn't want to design it for the applicant. Mr. Krumm said regarding extending the sidewalk, there are huge gas apparatus' that stick up along the curbline that typically would be where you would have a sidewalk. There may be a compromise in terms of doing a portion of the front of that but they are still concerned about the risk of adding green space that would impede the future development if its looked at as green space. Board member Schurke asked what the gas apparatus is? Mr. Krumm said as part of the distribution system there are three eight-inch diameter pipes that come up and go back down right where the sidewalk would be. Board member Shankar asked how do you plan to access the site because of the gas apparatus? Mr. Krumm said access would be shared with the rear property plus there is a curb cut to the east side of the property. Chairperson Olson asked if they would object to Board member Schurke's recommendation to remove a 20 foot strip of the old bituminous along Larpenteur Avenue? Mr. Krumm left the microphone and discussed it with the board members to point some thoughts out on the site plan. Community Design Review Board Minutes 11-28-2006 8 Chairperson Olson asked if it would be sufficient to state that the applicant should remove the old bituminous (leftover section) on the rear of the property before June 2008 and include that statement in the minutes. Then the applicant would know the city is going to be watching them Ms. Finwall said correct. Board member Schurke moved to approve the plans (design review) date-stamped August 17, 2006, and September 26, 2006, and the Tenant Sign Criteria (comprehensive sign plan) dated August 17, 2006, for the Hillcrest Gateway Plaza located at 1698 White Bear Avenue. Approval is subject to the applicant doing the following: (additions are underlined and deletions are stricken.) 1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. 2. Prior to issuance of a grading, building, or sign permit, the applicant must submit to staff for approval the following items: a. Revised grading/drainage/utility plans which comply with all city engineering department requirements as specified in October 4, 2006, engineering review. b. Revised site plan showing the following: 1) Removal of a 20-foot strop of the old bituminous surface startinq from the second drive wav access on Larpenteur Avenue extendinq east to the third driveway. 2) Verification that the proposed 200 square foot dumpster enclosure is large enough to hold dumpsters and recycling bins for the entire building. 3) The site plan shall also specify that the remainder of the old bituminous will be removed by June 2008 and show the location of 7 proof of parkinq stalls. 4) Location of a bike rack near the buildinq entrance. c. Revised north elevation showing the EIFS banding (currently proposed for 20 feet on this elevation) be extended for a lenqth of 40 feet of the north elevation. tho ontiro longth of tho north olovation. d. Submittal of a commercial parking district document which specifies the following: city code parking requirements and the number of parking spaces proposed; d2 2-parking spaces (proof of parking) to be located on the site plan which can be constructed if and when the need arises; and the shared parking with varying peak parking hours. Community Design Review Board Minutes 11-28-2006 9 e. Revised landscaping plan showing the following: 1) Three maple trees (representative of Maplewood) to be located in the front of the property, one replacing the imperial honey locust tree at the White Bear Avenue entrance, and two to be located on either side of the first Larpenteur Avenue driveway. 2) Three additional ornamental trees to be located along White Bear Avenue, in between the freestanding sign and the maple tree described above. 3) The addition of 20 more shrubs to be located along White Bear Avenue, in between the freestanding sign and the maple tree described above. 4) Seeding the rear 105 feet of the lot, after removal of the old bituminous. 5) Water tolerant plants to be installed in the rainwater garden. These plant materials must be approved by the city's naturalist. 6) Additional shrubs and perennial flowers around the base of the freestanding sign. 7) Landscapinq includinq trees, shrubs and if possible a rainwater qarden to be located in the required 20-foot qreen space alonq Larpenteur Ayenue which exists due to the required removal of the old bituminous. 8) The location of underground irrigation. f. A lighting and photometric plan which shows the style and location of all proposed wall lights and the light illumination of all exterior lights, including the illuminated freestanding sign. The light illumination must not exceed .4-foot-candles at all property lines. g. Revised tenant sign plan with the following additions: 1) Wall signs are allowed on the west elevation and are to be centered over the tenant space. 2) Wall signs are allowed on the south elevation for the corner tenants and must be placed over the exterior patio for Suite 102 (Subway) and on the front parapet wall of Suite 101. 3) Wall signs are allowed on the east elevation for all tenants but must be placed within the designated sign is located on the parapet wall of Suite 101. These wall signs are limited to 18 inches in height. Community Design Review Board Minutes 11-28-2006 10 4) All tenants are allowed sign age on the freestanding sign located on the White Bear and Larpenteur Avenue intersection. Signage on the freestanding sign limited to 18 inches in height for each tenant. 5) The freestanding sign is limited to 25 feet in height and 192 square feet in area. h. Revised freestanding sign elevation and sign site plan showing the following: 1) Only one freestanding sign is permitted on the property. 2) The freestanding sign is limited to 25 feet in height and 192 square feet in area. 3) The freestanding sign is allowed to be constructed up to the property line, but no portion of the sign must encroach into the right-of-way. i. Obtain a permit from Ramsey County for construction on county right-of- way for the driveway access, utility work, and sidewalk. j. Watershed district approval. k. A cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit for all required exterior improvements. The amount shall be 150 percent of the cost of the work. 3. The applicant shall complete the following before occupying the building: a. Replace any property irons removed because of this construction. b. Provide continuous concrete curb and gutter around the parking lot and driveways. c. Install all required landscaping and an in-ground lawn irrigation system for all landscaped areas. d. Screen or paint the rooftop mechanical equipment to match the building color. e. Install all required outdoor lighting. f. Install the required eight-foot-wide sidewalk along Larpenteur Avenue, extending from the existing sidewalk on White Bear Avenue, along the entire side of the building, to the second driveway entrance. g. Remove a 20-foot strop of the old bituminous surface startinq from the second driveway access on Larpenteur Avenue extendinq to the third driveway. Community Design Review Board Minutes 11-28-2006 11 h. Remove the two freestanding signs advertising the Laundromat. i. The applicant consider adding a bike rack and entry canopies on the two entry suites shown on the White Bear Avenue elevation that currently do not have canopies over their entry doors. 4. If any required work is not done, the city may allow temporary occupancy if: a. The city determines that the work is not essential to the public health, safety or welfare. b. The above-required letter of credit or cash escrow is held by the city of Maplewood for all required exterior improvements. The owner or contractor shall complete any unfinished exterior improvements by June 1 if occupancy of the building is in the fall or winter, or within six weeks of occupancy of the building if occupancy is in the spring or summer. 5. The remainder of the old bituminous located on the east side of the building must be remoyed by June 2008. Chairperson Olson seconded. Ayes - Olson, Schurke, Shankar The motion passed. This does not need to go to the city council. If the applicant decides to appeal any of the CDRB's decisions they can submit an appeal to city staff within 15 days of this approyal. Appeals are heard by the city council for the final decision. b. Walgreens - Northeast Corner of Beam and White Bear Avenues Ms. Finwall said Semper Development, representing Mogren Landscaping and Walgreens, is proposing to construct a 14,738-square-foot Walgreens retail store with a drive-through pharmacy on a vacant lot located on the northeast corner of Beam and White Bear Avenues. The proposal includes subdividing the 2.83-acre lot into two lots. The western lot will be sold to Semper Development for the development of the proposed Walgreens and the eastern lot will be retained by the Maplewood Financial Center (Premier Bank) for future development. The property is zoned and guided in the city's comprehensive plan as Limited Business Commercial (LBC), which allows for offices, medical or health-related clinics, day care centers, or similar uses. In order to operate a retail store and pharmacy from the newly subdivided western lot, the proposal also includes a request for a comprehensive land use plan and zoning change to Business Commercial (BC). The planning commission recommended approval of the lot division, comprehensive use plan change, and zoning map change at their November 20, 2006, planning commission meeting. The CDRB should review and make a recommendation on the design issues. Final action on this proposal is scheduled for the December 11, 2006, city council meeting. Community Design Review Board Minutes 11-28-2006 12 Chairperson Olson asked about the staff recommendation to install a new sidewalk because of the reconstruction of White Bear Avenue and staff is asking for additional landscaping in the area and she sees those two in conflict and she asked staff for their thoughts on that. Ms. Finwall said the sidewalk would be located within the right-of-way and the landscaping would not be. Chairperson Olson asked if the reconstruction of White Bear Avenue wouldn't extend beyond the right-of-way? Ms. Finwall said correct, it will extend within the 10-foot-wide easement which the city is requiring from the applicant. The engineering department states the reconstruction of White Bear Avenue will include some improvements and modifications to the turn lanes along Beam Avenue which could interrupt the sidewalk proposed along Beam Avenue. They are suggesting the applicant submit escrow to be held until 2008 rather than constructing the sidewalk at this time? Chairperson Olson asked how far back on Beam Avenue that reconstruction will go to affect this site? Typically when reconstructing an intersection they don't go more than 50 feet, would they be going all the way back to the park? Personally she would like to see the sidewalk constructed up to the area of reconstruction and then they can finish the sidewalk after White Bear Avenue is complete. Ms. Finwall said she didn't have the answer to that question. Board member Schurke asked if the scale of the sign that Walgreens is proposing is comparable to what CVS Pharmacy has? Ms. Finwall said yes. Chairperson Olson asked if Walgreens is proposing directional signs for the drive through pharmacy? Ms. Finwall said she was assuming they are. Board member Schurke asked if there were any comments received by staff from the public regarding this proposal? Ms. Finwall said 39 property owners were surveyed and one property owner responded. Linda Barber, 2040 Beam Avenue, said she was in favor of the Walgreens retail store and pharmacy. Chairperson Olson asked the applicant to address the board. Mr. John Kohler, Architect with Semper Development, 821 Marquette Ave, #600, Minneapolis, addressed the board. He displayed the building materials and samples for this Walgreen's proposal. He said they are going to be doing a combined access and utility easement which will help the entire area and the future parcel for the bank. Community Design Review Board Minutes 11-28-2006 13 Mr. Kohler said because of the 10 foot easement we are going to move the trees back 10 feet. Rather than putting the landscaping in and disturbing it we are playing it safe so there is no problem. At the preYious CDRB review in 2005 the entry tower was at a 45 degree angle before and now we haye squared the tower up. PreYiously the CDRB wanted the awning removed and wanted to extend the entryway so it would be covered when you enter the store and you would be protected from the weather. Staff recommended extending the windows which can be done with spandrel glass which could go down to the top of the brick face. The signage was removed from the north and east sides of the building. (Mr. Kohler went through the building material samples with the board.) Mr. Kohler asked if they could have an electronic sign on the freestanding sign so they could have a changeable copy area instead of having to manually go and change out the letters and numbers? Ms. Finwall said the City of Maplewood does not allow flashing/blinking signs. Mr. Kohler said the sign wouldn't flash or blink but we would prefer to have an electronic sign rather than having a person go change the letters and numbers, plus it just looks nicer. Walgreens is also connected to the amber alert system and can flash emergency information and a photo on the electronic screen. Ms. Finwall said the board had this discussion a few months ago when an applicant requested an electronic sign which would remain constant and steady and the board determined that was a code enforcement issue. For instance, if there was a new manager or the business was sold, they wouldn't necessarily know the sign requirement in the city and could change the sign to flash and blink. The board determined the sign ordinance as it stands does not allow electronic signs without a variance. Mr. Kohler said we just wanted an answer to that question. Regarding the sidewalk, Walgreens was thinking the escrow money would be for the sidewalk along White Bear Avenue and now they heard staff say it was for the sidewalk along Beam Avenue? Ms. Finwall said she talked to Erin Laberee, assistant city engineer, and she said it would be an escrow for the Beam Avenue sidewalk. The sidewalk on White Bear Avenue is existing and could remain. If it needs to be reconstructed that would be accomplished as part of the White Bear Avenue road improvement itself. Chairperson Olson asked what the reasoning was for the assistant city engineer to not install the sidewalk in the area where there will not be any construction to the east? Mr. Kohler said it's escrow for 150% of the building. It would be Walgreen's preference to put the sidewalk in and be done with it. Board member Schurke said the value of the sidewalk would be put into escrow and at a future date when the road construction was complete, the sidewalk would be put in. Ms. Finwall said the engineering department was requesting escrow for the entire length of the sidewalk so there seems to be some confusion as to why that is being requested when it is White Bear Avenue that is being reconstructed. This is something to work out with the engineering department. Community Design Review Board Minutes 11-28-2006 14 Board member Schurke asked staff where the recommendation was in the staff report regarding the glazing of the spandrel glass. Ms. Finwall said that's represented on page 11 item 4 b. 4. Board member Shankar asked if the entire window would be spandrel? Mr. Kohler said the glass above would remain clear and the glass that would take up the rectangle below would be spandrel because that is the back of the cabinetry in the store. Board member Shankar asked what color the glass would be? Mr. Kohler said the clear glass would be clear with a light tint, and the lower glass would be complimenting the stone or the color of the brick with a horizontal frame. Chairperson Olson said that glass is only two feet off of grade and she is concerned about the damage that could be done to it. She asked if that could that be raised to a level of three feet? Mr. Kohler said the windows at 2 feet off grade would begin after the brick wainscot. If you started the glass 3 feet from grade then you would want to raise the base course all the way around. Board member Shankar asked if they would have a sidewalk next to the building or if there would be landscaping against the building? Mr. Kohler said no, Walgreens has found nationwide that putting landscaping close to the building causes problems with brick or stone when irrigation hits the building which stains the brick and the heat of the brick in turn burns the landscaping out. You would also be allowing moisture to go down next to the foundation which is not a good idea. Board member Schurke asked what Mr. Kohler's opinion was regarding the use of the spandrel glass? Mr. Kohler said he isn't sure it's necessary. It's to add more of a pedestrian friendly feel but we would prefer not to do it. Board member Schurke asked what Board member Shankar's opinion was regarding the spandrel glass? Board member Shankar said he would prefer the spandrel glass over the use of the brick. He asked what the height of the horizontal mullion was that divides the clear glass from the spandrel glass and he asked what the height would be from the sidewalk? Mr. Kohler said it's above a person's head at about seven or eight feet in height and it's even with the top of the entrance doors. Community Design Review Board Minutes 11-28-2006 15 Board member Shankar asked why they couldn't extend the windows under the fourth canopy that says One Hour Photo? Mr. Kohler said you could put spandrel glass there but behind there they have interior fixtures on that wall and on the front area they are trying to get natural light into the store. Chairperson Olson said she would be okay with that because you get kind of a step down effect further east on this west elevation. She also understands the need for a dark room for the one hour photo developing. Board member Schurke said the one thing aesthetically that doesn't work for him is the canopy over the drive up entry. There is a small space at the rear of the building where there is a standing seam metal roof on the north elevation. A covered entry is a smart thing to do but he thinks it warrants a horizontal line there. Mr. Kohler said we can take that roof off or make that a flat roof. That is the problem with looking at something in elevation that is going to be a long ways back. Board member Schurke said that would be his preference to have that be a flat roof. From the canopy standpoint you have a gable that doesn't seem to have any correlation to the rest of the building. Mr. Kohler said that is strictly for rain. Board member Schurke said his preference would be to playoff the canopies off the front of the building and instead of shedding water at the vehicles that are entering the drive you would shed the water away. Mr. Kohler said we could shed it out and turn it and go the other way. Chairperson Olson said she doesn't want to drive under a canopy that is going to drop down on the roof of my car. Mr. Kohler said there would be gutters so the rain wouldn't come down onto the cars. Board member Schurke said the functional aspect aside, it was more the aesthetic impact of seeing that on the building elevation. He wonders if you need some directional signage coming off of Beam Avenue if you are sharing that as a drive lane accessing MGM Liquor to avoid traffic conflicts. Mr. Kohler said they can put up small directional signage that say drive-through exit only. Board member Shankar asked if the red brick is jumbo size and the tan brick modular size? Mr. Kohler said they are both jumbo size. The tan brick band will be soldier course. Community Design Review Board Minutes 11-28-2006 16 Board member Shankar asked if there is a parapet wall and is there any rooftop equipment? Mr. Kohler said there is a three or four foot tall parapet wall and there will be rooftop equipment that is about three feet tall. You won't see any rooftop equipment. Chairperson Olson asked if they have any questions about the grading and drainage on the site? Mr. Kohler said there has been discussion regarding drainage but they will be installing storm sectors and improving water clarity runoff. Board member Schurke asked what Walgreen's opinion was regarding installing a bike rack? Mr. Kohler said they are fine with that as long as it doesn't block the sidewalk. It would have to be located in the northwest corner or the southeast corner but there is space for a bike rack. Board member Shankar moved to approve the plans date-stamped October 2, 2006, for the Walgreens retail store and drive-through pharmacy to be located on the northeast corner of Beam and White Bear Avenues. Approval is subject to the applicant doing the following: (additions or changes are underlined, deletions are stricken) a. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. b. Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit, the applicant must submit to staff for approval the following items: 1) Revised grading/drainage/utility plans which comply with all city engineering department requirements as specified in the November 20, 2006, engineering report including, but not limited to, the granting of a right-of-way easement along White Bear Avenue and the submittal of an escrow to the city to ensure construction of a six-foot-wide sidewalk along the entire length of Beam Avenue to be complete by the city in 2008. 2) Revised site plan showing a six-foot-wide, sidewalk extending the entire length of Parcel A and Parcel B along Beam Avenue and a bike rack to be located near the buildinq entrance. 3) Revised landscape plan showing the following: a) Twenty more shrubs and forty perennial plants to be planted along Beam and White Bear Avenues. b) Re-establishment of any distributed land on Parcel B with sod or native prairie grasses. Community Design Review Board Minutes 11-28-2006 17 4) Revised couth and woct elevations (Boam and 'Nhito Boar Avonuos) as follows: south and west chm...ing the windows constructed two feet from ground grade the sidewalk with the bottom half of the window (portion of the window two feet from sidewalk to top of door eleyation) shall be spandrel qlass with vision qlass above; east-drive throuqh standinq seam roof to be linear in elevation rather than oabled. In addition, show all elevations with proposed roof-top equipment to verify that the roof equipment will not extend beyond the parapet walls. 5) A reYised lighting and photometries plan which shows that the overall illumination from outdoor lights does not exceed .4-foot-candles at all property lines. 6) Obtain a permit from Ramsey County for construction on county right-of- way for the driveway access, utility work, and sidewalk. 7) Watershed district approval if revisions warrant a new review. 8) 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. c. Signage on the property is part of the design review approval and is subject to the following sign criteria: 1) One freestanding sign to be located on the corner of Beam and White Beam Avenue. Freestanding sign to be a maximum of 15 feet in height, 60 square feet in area, maintain a 10-foot setback to all property lines and comply with traffic visibility requirements. 2) Two Walgreens wall signs to be located on the south and west elevation. Signs to be constructed of individual letters with a maximum letter height of two feet and must be centered within the manufactured limestone fa<;:ade. 3) Two one hour photo signs and two pharmacy signs to be located on the south and west elevation. Signs to be constructed of individual letters with maximum letter height of 1.5 feet, and must be centered within the manufactured limestone piers, above the windows. 4) One drive-through pharmacy directional sign to be located above the standing seam metal roof on the south elevation. Sign to be constructed of individual letters with a maximum letter height of 1.5 feet. 5) One interior entrance tower neon sign, 22 square feet in area. d. The applicant shall complete the following before occupying the building: 1) Replace any property irons removed because of this construction. Community Design Review Board Minutes 11-28-2006 18 2) Provide continuous concrete curb and gutter around the parking lot and driveways. 3) Install all required landscaping and underground irrigation. 4) Screen the rooftop mechanical equipment. 5) Install all required outdoor lighting. e. If any required work is not done, the city may allow temporary occupancy if: 1) The city determines that the work is not essential to the public health, safety or welfare. 2) The above-required letter of credit or cash escrow is held by the City of Maplewood for all required exterior improvements. The owner or contractor shall complete any unfinished exterior improvements by June 1 if occupancy of the building is in the fall or winter, or within six weeks of occupancy of the building if occupancy is in the spring or summer. f. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. Chairperson Olson seconded. Ayes - Olson, Schurke, Shankar The motion passed. This item goes to the city council on December 11, 2006. c. Maplewood Market Place Comprehensive Sign Plan Amendment - 1275 County Rd D Ms. Finwall said Mike DeWeese the owner/operations manager for Subway and Oppidan, Inc., owner of the Maplewood Marketplace, are requesting a comprehensive sign plan amendment for the Maplewood Marketplace located at 1275 County Road D. The amendment is requested in order to allow tenant signage on the south elevation. On June 14, 2005, the CDRB approved the design plans for the Maplewood Marketplace development. The development consists of a 12,600 square-foot multi-tenant building with a bank and several retail/restaurant tenant spaces. The CDRB also approved a comprehensive sign plan for the development. Board member Schurke asked how many more of these sign requests would be allowed on this north elevation? Community Design Review Board Minutes 11-28-2006 19 Ms. Finwall said there has been one other request on the rear or north elevation. There are six tenants. The bank has adequate signage so staff doesn't believe there would be any other requests from the bank. Staff would anticipate there could be possibly five requests for signs. Chairperson Olson asked if there had been any citizen feedback from the people that live in this area? Ms. Finwall said no we have not. Chairperson Olson asked the applicant to address the board. Mr. Mike DeWeese, Owner/Operations Manager for Subway, 166 N. Concord Exchange, 2nd floor, South St. Paul, addressed the board. He said we are trying to improye the visibility to the north bound traffic on Highway 61. The monument sign that was put in place which is much smaller than they had originally proposed and you don't really get good visibility until you get closer to the building heading north on Highway 61 because of the building elevation. If we can get permission from the city for the wall signs on the south elevation we can get the visibility from the highway or for people exiting from the highway which would be good for all of the tenants. Right now all you see is the back of a building Board member Shankar asked if you have determined the exact location of the sign? Mr. DeWeese said it's depicted on the plans where they would like the signage to go. The lettering would be 36 inch high channel letters. Board member Schurke said relative to Highway 61 and the view line he has been curious who would be moving in to the tenant spaces. He is concerned that the entire building gets wrapped in signage. The CDRB just rejected two of the proposed signs for Walgreens. In this case he is concerned about the sign treatment. For example, he is concerned when he sees the signage for the Gladstone Window and Door down Highway 61 in their new location because he thinks that is a particularly ugly sign treatment on a building. He said he thought that was approved pre-sign ordinance. This is just a concern for him. He understands the need for the sign age but how many times is it going to be requested for double signage on a building. If you look at the wall signage as a total for this whole building, when do we hit the limit on the current sign ordinance, are we a long ways off or are we getting there? Ms. Finwall said we are a long ways off considering the sign ordinance would allow wall signage up to 20% of the gross wall area of the tenant space. Board member Shankar asked what other signage is on the building? Mr. DeWeese said besides Subway there is a nail salon that just moved in there and there is a Fantastic Sam's hair salon. Board member Shankar asked how he would feel about lowering the sign lettering to the gray band and not on the tan band? Community Design Review Board Minutes 11-28-2006 20 Mr. DeWeese said we could do that, it's better than not having a sign there at all. On the front or south elevation it is above the awnings. That would probably give more consistency with the rest of the other tenants too. The board agreed that would be a good idea. Board member Schurke said he thinks the signs should read as secondary signs and should be smaller in scale. The larger sign should represent where the entrance to the building is and it would cost less as well having smaller signage. Mr. DeWeese said we could scale the signage down. Board member Shankar said he was thinking of 24 inch high channel letters instead of 36 inch channel letters. Board member Schurke moved to approve the request for a comprehensive sign plan amendment for the Maplewood Marketplace located at 1275 County Road 0 based on the following conditions: (deletions are stricken and changes or additions are underlined.) 1. Sign criteria date-stamped May 3, 2005. 2. Sign elevations date-stamped October 24, 2006. 3. Revised sign criteria plan showing the following changes: a) Each retail tenant is allowed two signs (one to be installed on the front of the tenant space and one to be installed on the rear of the tenant space monument sign). The proposed 5,000 square foot bank is allowed three signs including two wall signs (one to be installed on the front of the bank and one to be installed on the drive-through canopy), and one on the freestanding sign. b) Maximum height of individual letters on wall signs not to exceed Je-24 inches. Installed on the north elevation of the buildinq to be clear and said siqnaqe to be located within the qray band immediately above the windows as shown on the north elevation renderinqs submitted. c) No signage allowed on awnings. d) .'\pplicant must submit revisod froestanding sign elovations showing the removal of tho proposod oloctronic read or board and tho location of five sign panel spaces. In addition, tho olovation must show tho proposod sign matorials which must bo compatiblo to tho building. d) One freestanding sign is allowed at the intersection of Highway 61 and Beam Avenue. Freestanding sign to be 9 feet high and 75 square feet in area. Community Design Review Board Minutes 11-28-2006 21 Chairperson Olson seconded. Ayes - Olson, Schurke, Shankar The motion passed. VII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS No visitors present. VIII. BOARD PRESENTATIONS The board members stated their regrets that John Hinzman, former board member, had resigned due to time commitments. He will be missed and the board and staff enjoyed working with him during his tenure. There will be a formal Resolution of Appreciation in an upcoming board meeting. The board will be advertising for openings to serve on the CDRB in early 2007. IX. STAFF PRESENTATIONS a. Board member Shankar will be the CDRB representative at the December 11, 2006, city council meeting - The only board item to discuss is Walgreens at the northeast corner of Beam and White Bear Avenues. b. Ms. Finwall stated John Hinzman was scheduled to be the CDRB representative at the November 27, 2006, city council meeting. Staff told him it was not necessary to attend the meeting because the applicant for Boca Chica Taco House withdrew the sign variance request. c. Ms. Finwall stated Board member Schurke had asked staff to check into an award program that the City of Little Canada has. Staff found out that the City of Hastings has a similar award program. The Historical Commission in Hastings nominates a certain number of buildings or additions in Hastings and nominates one person to receive an award for renovations or additions which keep with the historical character of a building. The award nominations are presented to the Hastings City Council for formal approval and recognition. The City of Little Canada has a similar program where the public can nominate a building or addition that is superior or innovative and an award is presented. If the City of Maplewood is interested in pursuing a program like this staff will bring more information back to the board to discuss it further. This could be something that is put in the CDRB Annual Report and brought to the city council for approval. X. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:08 p.m. MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: DATE: City Manager Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner CarMax/Mogren Addition Highway 61 and Beam Avenue December 7, 2006 INTRODUCTION Project Description Carmax Auto Superstore, and Bruce Mogren, the property owner, are proposing to subdivide and develop the former Country View Golf Course property at the northeast corner of Highway 61 and Beam Avenue. Carmax would occupy a site at the northeast corner of Highway 61 and Beam Avenue. There would also be three future development sites that would occur on the remainder of the golf course property. Two of these sites are identified on the site plan for office and retail development. The third site is not yet identified. According to the site plans, the proposed lots would be developed as follows: Lot 1-Carmax The proposed Carmax used-car dealership would include two buildings. The first would be an 18,7 44-square-foot building for sales, service and display. The second would be a 750-square-foot car wash. The majority of the site would be used for parking, primarily with sales inventory parking. There would also be a .55-acre work-in-progress area surrounded by a six-foot-tall concrete-block screening wall. This area would conceal cars not ready for display or that are not suitable for sale on this lot. lot 2-Warehouse/Retail/Gasoline Sales This site plan is conceptual. Complete plans would be submitted at a later time. Lot 3-Future Development There are no plans for this lot presently. Outlot A-Citv Pondino Maplewood has a drainage easement over this proposed outlot for regional ponding needs. Outlot B-Medical/Office/Retail This site plan is conceptual. Complete plans would be submitted at a later time. Requests The applicants are requesting the following approvals: 1. A conditional use permit (CUP) for a planned unit development (PUD) for the entire Carmax/Mogren development as well as for the specific CarMax plans. 2. A preliminary plat. 3. Architectural, site, landscaping and signage plans. Refer to the applicants' narrative and the attached plans. Please note that the narrative is the original one provided earlier this spring before the plans were revised and resubmitted. This narrative mentions a proposal for an easement vacation over the watershed district's drainage easement. This is no longer part of the applicants' request. BACKGROUND This site has been operated as the Country View Golf Course for many years. It ceased operation by Mr. Mogren two years ago when the County Road D Extension project began. As part of land negotiations for the acquisition of right-of-way and the relocation of Venburg Tire, the city acquired an easement over the area shown as Outlot A for ponding. On June 12, 2006, the city council ordered the preparation of the feasibility study to construct the public street in this proposed development. DISCUSSION Parking The parking field south of the proposed building would be for employees and customers. Carmax is no longer requesting approval for nine-foot-wide parking spaces in this area and would provide 9 Y:! -foot-wide spaces as city code requires. The inventory parking on the north part of the site would be nine feet wide. This complies with city ordinance since there is no specific requirement for vehicle-inventory parking. Car Storage for Older Vehicles There would be a work-in-progress (WIP) area east of the proposed building. This is a .55-acre area that would be used as storage for cars that are to be worked on or sold to other dealers. The plans show that there would be a six-foot-tall concrete block screening wall surrounding this WIP area. The applicant has since told staff that they would revise the design of this wall to have brick that would match the building rather than a fayade of smooth-face concrete block. 2 Shoreland Ordinance Considerations The southwest corner of the Carmax site is within the Kohlman Lake Shoreland Boundary Area. The shoreland ordinance states that CarMax must keep 40 percent of this area "pervious" to allow rainwater to absorb rather than drain away. To meet the requirement for 40 percent pervious area, the applicant has designed the parking lot in this area to be covered with a pervious bituminous paving method that allows rainwater to penetrate and absorb into the ground. The city engineer and watershed district have reviewed this proposed paving and infiltration method and have approved the design. Both feel that this method meets the shoreland ordinance requirements. Traffic Impacts The applicant is proposing two curb cuts for Carmax. The main access point would be a driveway connection on Beam Avenue. This would allow right and left turns into the site and right-turn exits only. The city engineer is recommending that there not be left-turn exits allowed from the site onto Beam Avenue in order to avoid traffic congestion. Brandon Bourdon, the city's consultant traffic engineer, further states that Ramsey County must approve the left turn movement into the site from Beam Avenue. Mr. Bourdon's traffic study states that the left-in may eventually need to be removed if accident or operational concerns arise. Therefore, we want to make sure that Carmax understands that even thought the county may approve the left-in movement at this time, this movement could still be removed in the future if traffic concerns arise due to increased congestion or accidents. There is also a proposed driveway connection to Highway 61 from the sales lot. This driveway is intended for use by sales associates to enter and exit with customers while test driving cars. Staff needs to get input from the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) to see if they would allow this driveway, but Mr. Bourdon's opinion is that it should be moved to the north along new County Road D. It is unlikely that MnDOT will accept this highway access. Staff feels that deleting this access potential from Highway 61 would simply be safer. The applicant is agreeable to this alternative, but would like to exhaust the possibility first for the highway access. Setbacks The proposed building and parking-lot setbacks would meet code requirements. Wetlands Maplewood's Environmental Management Specialist, DuWayne Konewko, has submitted a Stormwater/Wetland Report. Mr. Konewko's report details the existing drainage systems in the area, the proposed stormwater treatment systems and the wetland impacts/mitigation/management. Refer to the attached report, but in summary, Mr. Konewko states the following: 3 1) Wetland Mitiaation Plan The primary goal of the mitigation plan is to achieve the entire mitigation requirement on- site, including new wetland, public value credits, and buffer areas. The primary mitigation area is the expansion of the current wetland system in the northern portion of the project site. Additional wetland mitigation will be created along the eastern border of the Carmax site, and mitigation credits may also be obtained in the second cell of the pond-wetland system in the south portion of the Carmax site. Final design will need to conform to the state requirements for wetland mitigation sites, include side-slope limitations and maximum bounce. Planting will be consistent with the existing wetland area to the north. 2) Wetland Buffers The wetland areas along Beam Avenue are classified Manage C which means that 25- foot buffer areas will apply. The maximum buffer area for this area is 69,853 square feet. The actual existing buffer area is somewhat less than this as portions of the 25-foot zone extend onto Beam Avenue pavement and the gravel shoulder. The required buffer area for the expanded mitigation site will include creation of up to 1.60 acres (69,853 square feet) of buffer, with an average buffer of 100 feet and a minimum of 50 feet. The Ramsey Washington Metro Watershed District (RWMWD) also had buffer requirements for the created wetland, although to a lower level than the stated city requirements. The RWMWD requires a 75-foot average and 37.5-foot minimum. The required buffer area is intended to minimize future impacts resulting from development encroaching on the wetland areas. While adequate surface area is available to meet the buffer requirements, obtaining a minimum 50-foot buffer along the east side of the proposed wetland area/ditch section may be difficult without further encroachment onto the parcel to the east and beyond the existing easement over the twin 48-inch pipes. Given that one of the overall goals of this project is to obtain all wetland (and buffer) replacement on-site, we recommend that the design use the 50-foot minimum as a goal, but that the RWMWD distance of 37.5 feet be considered acceptable if site conditions limit the full 50-foot distance in all areas. The average buffer around the entire wetland system, as proposed, is approximately 110-120 feet. The City of Maplewood will be assuming the responsibility of working with the watershed district in all wetland matters as part of the public improvements for this plat. Architectural The proposed showroom/service building would be attractively designed and would have quality materials. It would be constructed of brick, glass panels, metal coping and dryvit (exterior insulation finish system). Carmax has not submitted the elevations for the car wash building. Staff has asked that they bring the building elevations for that building to the CDRB meeting for review. Staff expects that the exterior of this small building would be brick to match the main building and would recommend that as well. 4 Landscaping The applicant has greatly increased the quantity of plantings proposed since the original submittal earlier this year. The plan looks very good. As code requires, planted areas must have an automatic sprinklering system provided. Site Lights The lighting plan indicates a heavily-lit site. There are no nearby homes to be negatively affected by light spillover, but the proposed light intensities diagrammed on the Iighting- analysis sheet proposes well over the .4 footcandle maximum of light intensity at the property lines required by city ordinance. The plan does not include some details, either, such as light fixture design/appearance and pole heights. Staff recommends that Carmax resubmit a complete lighting plan for staff approval that shows compliance with the .4 footcandle maximum at the property lines and also that includes the lighting-fixture designs so we can check it against all lighting-ordinance requirements. Sign Proposal Section 44-736 of the city code requires a comprehensive sign plan for Carmax since the site would "occupy the entire frontage of one or more block fronts." The applicant has submitted a complete signage proposal (refer to the attachment) that includes: . One 140-square-foot monument sign on Beam Avenue . One 180-square-foot pylon sign on Highway 51 . Two 150-square-foot "Carmax" wall signs . One 52-square-foot "Service" wall sign . Several directional signs at entrances and for traffic control in the parking lot Based on the size of the building, the sign ordinance allows a total of five identification signs. These area proposed with the three wall signs and the two ground signs. Staff does not see a need for the following signs: . Sign E2, "Enter with arrow" since this driveway will not be allowed and public access should not be allowed at this entrance, even if relocated to County Road D. . Sign F, "Do Not Enter" may be located to the limited-use entrance when moved to County Road D. . Sign E1, "Entrance with an arrow to the Beam Avenue driveway" seems excessive and not necessary. The intemal, on-site traffic directional signs serve a purpose for directing customers within the site. Some signs, listed on the signage site-plan legend, have not been shown as to their locations. These are the "Store Champion" signs, "Caution" flag signs and car wash signs. These may be fine, but the applicant should provide additional data showing where they would be placed. 5 Tree Removal/Replacement The Carmax site has very few trees. There are only 17 trees on the CarMax site and 51 on the remaining property. With the extensive landscaping proposed, the proposed planting plan would meet the requirements of the city's new tree-replacement ordinance. RamseylWashington Metro Watershed District The applicant must obtain all necessary permits from the watershed district before starting construction. Naturalist's Comments Ginny Gaynor, naturalist with the City of Maplewood, has reviewed the landscaping plan with specific attention given to the wetland and rainwater garden planting proposal. Refer to Ms. Gaynor's comments in the attached email correspondence. Building Official's Comments Dave Fisher, the Maplewood Building Official, had these comments: . The city will require a complete building code analysis when the construction plans are submitted to the city for building permits. . A separate building permit is required for each building. . All exiting must go to a public way. · Provide adequate fire department access to the buildings. · The buildings are required to be fire sprinklered. · I would recommend a pre-construction meeting with the contractor, the project manager and the city building inspection department. Fire Marshal's Comments Butch Gervais, the Maplewood Fire Marshal, had these comments/requirements: . Need 20-foot emergency access road at all times. . Fire protection system per codes and monitored. . Fire alarm system per code and monitored. . Fire department lock box required. Get the paperwork from the fire marshal. · There must be proper protection for any tanks stored above ground. . The applicant must get proper permits for any tanks installed above or below ground. Police Department Comments 6 Lieutenant Kevin Rabbett has reviewed the plans and sees no significant problems as long as the applicants make sure to keep all vehicle unloading activities within their site. Engineering Comments Maplewood Assistant City Engineer, Erin Laberee, and city staff engineer, Michael Thompson, reviewed the plans along with one of the city's consultant engineers from Short Elliot Hendrickson, Ron Leaf. Ms. Laberee and Mr. Thompson submitted their report along with comments from Mr. Leaf. Refer to the attached report. In summary, the developer should do the following: . Sign a maintenance agreement, prepared by the city, for the rainwater gardens, ponds and sumps. The project plans shall clearly point out the maintenance access route to each garden, pond and basin. The developer/owner of the property will be responsible for all such maintenance. . The developer shall enter into a developer agreement with the city for the construction of the public road within the development site that will connect Beam Avenue to County Road D. . The developer and project engineer shall satisfy the requirements of all permitting agencies. Citizen Comments One resident responded to our survey for comments about this proposal. That person opposed the project and felt that another car lot was an eyesore and a detriment to the area. COMMTTEE ACTIONS December 5, 2006: The planning commission reviewed the proposed preliminary plat and PUD and recommended approval of each. RECOMMENDATION Approve the plans date-stamped October 20, 2006 for the proposed Carmax Automobile Dealership. Approval is subject to the developer complying with the following conditions: 1. This approval is good for two years. After two years, the design-review process shall be repeated if the developer has not begun construction. Substantial site grading and site preparation shall be considered to be the beginning of construction. 2. Only the Carmax plans are approved. The developers for the three future lots in the planned unit development must submit complete plans for review of those properties. 7 3. The applicants' shall obtain city council approval of the planned unit development and a final plat for this project. 4. All requirements of the fire marshal and building official must be met. 5. The applicants shall obtain all required permits from the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District and Ramsey County. 6. The building elevations for the car wash building shall be submitted to the community design review board for approval unless they were submitted and approved by the board at the meeting. 7. The design of the six-foot-tall, smooth-face concrete block screening wall shall be redesigned to have a brick fayade on all out-facing elevations to match the building. 8. The site plan shall be revised for staff approval relocating the Highway 61 driveway to the north at County Road D. This driveway on County Road D must be located as far east as possible. 9. The final location and design of the Beam Avenue access shall be subject to the approval of the city engineer and by Ramsey County. 10. The applicants shall submit a revised drainage plan providing for a pervious-paver system, subject to the approval of the city engineer, prior to getting a grading permit. 11. The applicants shall submit lighting-fixture details for all ground and wall-mounted lights. These must be designed to prevent light spillover beyond the Carmax property lines. They shall be of a design so that the lenses and bulbs do not shine outward into drivers' eyes or onto surrounding properties. 12. The customer and employee parking spaces shall be signed as such. The applicants shall propose the number of parking spaces they feel are needed for both employees and customers, subject to staff approval, and show these on a revised site plan. 13. All driveways and parking lots shall have continuous concrete curbing. 14. The applicants shall comply with all requirements of the Maplewood Engineering Report from Erin Laberee and Michael Thompson dated November 21, 2006. 15. The applicants shall also comply with the requirements listed in these plan-review reports as follows: . The StormwaterlWetland Report by DuWayne Konewko dated November 22, 2006. . The wetland and rainwater garden landscaping comments by Ginny Gaynor dated November 22, 2006. . The watershed district comments by Tina Carstens dated November 21, 2006. 8 16. The applicants shall: · Install reflectorized stop signs at the proposed exits onto Beam Avenue and County Road D. · Install and maintain an in-ground lawn irrigation system for all landscaped areas. 17. The applicants shall provide the city with cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit for the exterior landscaping and site improvements prior to getting a building permit for the development. Staff shall determine the dollar amount of the escrow. 18. The signage plan is approved with the elimination of the following signs since they would not serve any purpose, would be excessive or otherwise as noted: . Sign E2, "Enter with arrow" since this driveway will not be allowed and public access should not be implied at this entrance, even if this driveway is relocated to County Road D. · Sign F, "Do Not Enter" should be eliminated but may be relocated to the limited- use entrance when moved to County Road D. · Sign E1, "Entrance with an arrow to the Beam Avenue driveway" seems excessive and not necessary. · The internal, on-site traffic directional signs serve a purpose for directing customers within the site. Some signs, listed on the signage site-plan legend, have not been shown as to their locations. These are the "Store Champion" signs, "Caution" flag signs and car wash signs. These may be fine, but the applicant should provide additional data showing where they would be placed for staff approval. These signs should be small in scale enough to serve a purpose on site but not be so large as to be very noticeable from the street. 19. All roof-top mechanical equipment shall be painted to match the building. 20. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 9 CITIZEN COMMENTS Staff surveyed the 17 property owners within 500 feet of this site for their comments. One was opposed and two offered comments. . Opposed . I can't believe that you would even consider a massive used car lot with all the car lots on Highway 61. You don't owe Carmax anything. You owe your residents protection against blight. I pay taxes to live in a nice area and used cars don't bring nice neighbors. Please no more used cars in Maplewood or Highway 61. Please notify members of city council that we don't like it. No votes for a city council if approved. (from a Maplewood resident) Other Comments . The Ramsey County Regional Railroad Authority has no comment on the Carmax site plan, but does have an interest in the development of the property to the east of Carmax. The Rail Authority owns a portion of the abandoned rail line to the east of the larger development area and may purchase from Maplewood additional abandoned rail property along the same corridor. This rail line is reserved for future rail transit, and our department has much interest in the future development, site plan and other issues that may impact our property and plans. (Ramsey County Regional Railroad Authority) . The city should be aware of traffic concerns with the proposed driveway connections to Beam Avenue and Highway 61. The proposed westerly curb cut on Beam Avenue is very dangerous being so close to the intersection. The driveway connection to Highway 61, likewise may be hazardous. (Steve McDaniels, Maplewood Toyota) 10 REFERENCE SITE DESCRIPTION Site Size: Existing Use: 50 acres The former Country View Golf Course with clubhouse and two single dwellings SURROUNDING LAND USES North: County Road D Extension and Lexus of Maplewood South: Beam Avenue and wetlands East: Abandoned railroad right-of-way (the Vento Trail) West: Highway 61, Maplewood Toyota and LaMettry Collision PLANNING Land Use Plan Designation: M1 (light manufacturing) Zoning: M1 Findings for PUD Approval City code requires that, to approve a planned unit development, the city council must base approval on the specific findings. Refer to the findings for approval in the attached resolution. APPLICATION DATE The city received the complete revised set of plans, making the application complete, on October 20, 2006. State law requires that the city take action within 60 days of receiving complete applications for a land-use proposal. City council action is required on this proposal by December 19, 2006. 11 p:sec 3\CarMax CDRB 12 06 Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Zoning and Land Use Map 3. Entire-Project Site Plan 4. Site/Landscaping Plan (Carmax) 5. Preliminary Piat 6. Applicant's Narrative dated May 17, 2006 7. Engineering Report from Erin Laberee and Michael Thompson dated November 21,2006 8. StormwaterlWetland Report by DuWayne Konewko dated November 22, 2006 9. Wetiand and Rainwater Garden Comments by Ginny Gaynor dated November 22, 2006 10. Watershed District Comments by Tina Carstens dated November 21, 2006 11. Plans date-stamped October 20, 2006 (separate attachments) 12 , = " l ,----"" i ~, <:) r:"( .1 u . \ \ , \. -fl .~ ~ . ~~ i b i 'i)I.~pl ',-" J?_I l ~_CL+. ____ , ~-- i.---j '-f---"" . · -,+_- ~'o 7 I I i ~ .. I~- ! j r- (~ ) -------i I ~~ Keller CoIf Coone J -, "" .. " PROPOSED SITE .. I- I I, 1-694 ~I .~ ' BEAM AVENUE -;d1i~: 'U- Q .- / , '" I ,'--- .-' ,e~- : I ii :1 , - , . rfV ! ---r---- " I 0 i I :....c:::::::. HIGHWAY 36 -------@ ,~-~ ~ ---t .. 1-- l ' ,-,,- / I [-- . 1- ..,~ 1'1 C:.----~ , . . I tJ ,----f . 0- ~ '0 Ii ! i --. T I .' '------,-- "D D LOCATION MAP - Attachment 1 ~ ~ o ~ -. o ~~-- o y .'..... -.-]" i , i -, '" Q o Q '\l 14 Attachment 2 -'. , \ \:>....' \"-~'\ }. -----...,. ., 'oCT ,>i: "" rR-lv ZONING AND LAND USE MAP r1 I . >0 i c::., I I I I I i I 0 . 15 llll n ;K~ .Il~i . ~ ,;!I'ilii~'IiI'II!I~P. !1'~lj III N:= JlI II 'J 1::, .111'111111 "'II IllilllH1illi . ...'... J i iii, lIIellllll il I .... .... ... ... ... . i I I;I! ~ xeWIIY:) Q 3 I i~::a a a a a .m~lm,~ oil . b;I!'ii i ! M hill ii, 'II Ill! I ! ,i." I j' I ! '1' 111.l.' 'I.' ! ", I '1;' I I,' " ',' I! .:'"ilil,',' , I:' 11,1, I, ,I " .... i ' II "I llllll'lill!" 1m:! 'w' ~ I I;, I, II ;" li!III:ll ii ili n II .,!' ! '1' II "".! l'll Il i " ! ill: ,11111; I !!II!lj1i','1 ~ 111:1 II,!,. I! II ! Iii il! m H ~. III I" I' In I- ~ lillllllli i ii illl!ll!!! iil I! ; '] ~ Illll Ill! i III! Iii! Iii ! 11.1111 !I !i . 03. AI~ ..~ -------------------- II f I In ~ B . - 0 o ~. B .... ~; 0 01 0 &' 0- 0 i i i i i. 'i I, :1 I I '\J= ~cD~6~ ===@c:::::.cu ' . '*', i- ,..., '!i <b . ==~=' ~ I I ~~ : gi o ~~ ..... g~ I . i . ] i i i i i I. ./ . / -1/ i i i'l .1 III 'i. I- Ll I . i I i -- . I . ..' ! o -- -- ----., ~i . . Muff Attachment 3 t- O W "'z 0<( ~...J c..c.. ww o:::t- -- t-UJ Z W 16 ~I ,., .1 Attachment 4 !~'lll' :=. l~~i Ii i,QI ................... I ' Ill!l' vaw....... I ~ ,II' A5 ...~ " i . l I I I ! I , , Ii ; i! I ;llt ~ ~ ~ t ~ :: a a ~ ~ ~ I ! , . , I ! , i , , ;!li ! III , I I ~ ~ ~ i i Iii! I f ii i . I I I ~ ~ .t l ~ I A Ii! Ii ,i . , , , I I i i i I II i :! ~ I I I Ii I! II II II Ii l II 11111111 Iii! 1IlllllIlll S ! I I ~ I I I j . 1 '! i I' .j ! I Ii!! I, ~ : ~ ~ ! :' :' !! ~I :1 ! 1,1 :' ! ~il I ~i ~I!I ~q ! ~' I!l ~l ! !i: ! d 6YOGO& 0~I.o I@!"'.I,.J. . ... I I I I I I I' j' ,I ;, II I I I I I. I I I I ., , . I I I I ! ! , ' I i ~IC! U I I . , ! I I I i I I i mmt01~ mffil~) 01 01 01 ~ ;~ z <C ...J I : ii' il" ,i I Ii 0- j:; MMI!!!,!! . I' 'I" '''II,!; ;1 ," Ii! j' i" · \ .r "" ;,'/iI!!I!'I!il"Z ; il 1m lilll ~!' ldl_ I . i ~! ~v, "iil!'!, 11,"111 ''II 0- 1.,.11 I'" .'" <c 1.""'IIIlI"I'il d -"II' ,,' "'1 e ',I""l= I*!' I"~ (J ~ " l:HI'llli"!'! I: Jill ,ft I', 1,1"'1 . hi, I v, "'!IF,'II,.',.,Ii-l ! lill' "'1,11" 'I, '" 1 C ~ ;,.!d!,;b,illl!lI!i!il Z <c ...J ~~ ~ . ~ r,,, " 3, I ' I ..... ! II,'" ',Ii' I .1111' 11'11 ,', 'ill;W Ii' ;1; 11111 i !'jllt- ~111'! I !/I, IU I! I' '- " '! I II! I '11;1 ,I i ,ft 1'1 b. I Ill, I" Ii l' ; "" illl Iii!! 'l,ij llllnl, ! ,';'; 'I :,i, , ,II' ~ ." '1" "Ill 'I' ill mi! 1!ld, i;lll i!!1 illl!!lli!l il! 11'1. 11111'1 ~:l I ,II' '1111 I ! i'!: '. 'I · "11, III !I'! ,I ' / ", d II,.! I '!! 'l'l ' I, II!I !!l1 il !Il i! ,I! 11 ill Ii Ill! iI !ml - . 01 01 901" .. . 01 .. w .... - en >< <C ::IE a:: <C (.) 17 .A~ ~j ~ ~ H ,i ii i i JI5 I lllli' II" J II NII'lIOOMnMl III II . .. , 1..1!1,11111,! !Ili111! 111ft! .llil I ""' 'ON 3lIQLS lr /, .. . Illil Ii lIlillltEfmll .,, !lIlhfflll , .. ;i i J :,~::~'~:I~~~:::~::~ljili; ... iiiwllY:J I, 1 I I: 11/" " ft!, I ' 'I I!=: II"' lit ! ~ i hi' ~ 1IIIlllli ;! li!l! :!il! 1:'1 III 'I'! !Il I, I'il 1'1'" /,1, ;/1 ill '!-I, illi!I' ",I!: .lIl " "i 11'11 '11,:,1 i j!!q II'! ,'I b"llll 1',.llIi , Ill! j' I Ii 'Ill!! , 'II! d I, '. , i'U I,ll, !1I1!illllllli!III!!!! iil,'III!! rill Ilil 11 !lll i 1IIIIm " il!i Ii i~l! ! 1111 !!Ilil ill ,i III !lill Ii Ill; il,lll! - " 8 G 89" . . 'OJ .. ';1", ,i II' 1,= l:,i I,::., 'I ! I: 1m ibll i,," 111 I"' 1111 I!.!! " i'! j ; ',- 'il: J'jl!ll' './11 , '10.. "l,'" I "htiil !lIi! II 11:1' /1""'111111" i',! I ! I' il'I/-, I" i rPI I II II"""III'I-! ',I 1'1 ,/=11'1.,', 'i1,1 .I, ~1l1 I " 1 ,',i',' "I! /;'1"',,'1',' ",'111, ! ! I! ,Ii l!b:ll!I!1 II, Ii Ii! I ~ ~ >II'; 1Ii (g ~ ~ I I I ; , i i iff ~ I ~ ~ : ~ ~ 1;';' I , I I , I ; I I , I , , I I . , , . I ;~! ~ hi , . ~ t ~ .ii! , , I " , ! ~~ .. . .. . : ~ ~ ~ ~ . , I i I II II Iii II Ilillll'll!, III ,I,! , i"I,'Ii',I, i I I I II I. I II II jl. . _ g I i l - 'i!!l I, Ii! II ~ I! l ! ~, ~l ~! !i;1 ~ 1,' ! ~1I1 ~l!l ~i ~ !i! Pi Ii l! II~I t90GO~ @~I. i@i,'"" i' .. .......................................... ............ ................ , I I I ! , I , I I : . , , ' , i I I , I I ! I IlliJlC! G GI G ~ ~'I. iI' , I . . , I I J 1 I J 13 It I' II J I I J J I I ..i'..~ I , -, ~~l Ii , i!I l!o ~ ~I r:! u ~~ .II-M ~ 18 AI~ l'lll~ll d! .. ~ iIi,III;,1 "i Attachment 5 Il!!l~,~Ml'-ll!ii!iii !,llllllj II' := ;;:1 ~1 ~IH;III!III;IIIDf,llI11!llbll 'II lI. I' UIIIllli11l1l1l1HIIIIIlP.1I1l11 lii!l I _ .... VR';UUW4 ~ . ,II' A\&IIIIlHU." .. g I i1aHiia=~ ~ I a a .~mam.,~="! I if. .....'"""':-.- ........ -'-- '-'- -........, --.---- ....... .......... . ~........._, .'....., .'........ I --.:----_ .................. -,-, ................ ~ ......... ........ -......... b .........".,-........ .................. r .................. .............'"' ". . ........... "_ "\., l '. " " . '\ '-. \ \. \. \. . \ ) \ , \ I ' , I I , i I i i i i i I i I j. II :i i i ili! !Ili I', !a~; '1,,1111' i I! ~.! ! ! ,; !Ii!, .q "il! I I $ .~;: "Ii !llll I II . if ! . ! ! "'.,' t : ! ~ . ,10" ! " 11" ..L: ____J I,il 1- --'-----1 1m o ! "j !lil I : hil ~ ...... Eo-< ...... o ~ ~ o o u ~ Iff . L I, .~ 'I I II t ~ 'iiiU i il ;, i: ~~~~i i '_ ,j .:; ~~~~~ ~ ll~ i!i ~U n~u ; ! L iI ~n :j fl~ Iii 1,:,.=1 I. il! I_ 'Ii ~ .. ; ,----.::::::::_-- i I . I I . !!t 111, i j ! j i , , [ ! , '...... < ~ o j .- j , .....---. ~I I:! J I I I ! II ~l Ii . ii' ----- I ~ I -----~i '" S I , ! i , J 'II :!,i Ii" " , " ~ S - S i I i i i i i', h II' ill I- Ll -------0-- . 19 l- e( ..J c.. ~ e( Z - :E - ..J W 0=: c.. Attachment 6 RECEIVED MAY 3 02006 CarMtL1(/:Mogren .A.ddition 9tf.apfewooa, 9tf.innesota APPLICATION FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, VACATION OF DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT AND COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL May 17, 2006 Prepared By: aett~ m2I LANDFORM MINNEAPOLIS. PHOENIX 20 ~ LANDFORM CarMaxlMogren Addition IIIII.......~D~'... ~..OIIUll May 17, 2006 INTRODUCTION We respectfully request approval of a Preliminary Plat, Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Unit Development (PUD), Vacation of a drainage and utility easement and Community Design Review Board approval for redevelopment of the former Country View Golf Course located at the northeast corner of Highway 61 and Beam Avenue. The property is currently zoned M-1, Light Manufacturing, and is guided the same. The total site is 57.1 acres in size. Currently, the only known tenant is CarMax (proposed to occupy Lot 1). The development team is continuing to work to finalize tenants for Lot 2, Outlot B, and Outlot C. No development is planned for Outlot A as it contains existing municipal stormwater ponds. Architectural details for the buildings on Lot 2, Outlot B, and Outlot C, will not be finalized until the tenants are chosen; therefore, we are requesting approval of the PUD/CUP for the site plan and uses for the entire development, with the knowledge that building elevations and sign plans will need to be submitted for review and approval by the Community Design Review Board prior to final plat approval of Lot 2, Outlot B, and Outlot C. PRELIMINARY PLAT The proposed preliminary plat contains 2 lots and 3 outlots. Only two of the three outlots (B & C) are for future development, the third (Outlot A) contains existing municipal storm water ponds. Lot 1 is the only lot proposed for development at this time. However, the remaining lot is intended to be mass-graded and ponding constructed as needed in preparation of future development. Lot 2, Outlot B, and Outlot C will likely be developed independently of each other sometime in the future. VACATION There are three stormwater pipes that run north-south through Lot 1: two 48-inch pipes and a 3D-inch perforated pipe. The applicant is requesting to vacate the existing drainage and utility easement over the twin 48-inch stormwater pipes. (There is no easement over the 3D-inch pipe.) The applicant is proposing to re-route all three of these pipes. The overflow from the northern existing stormwater pond will be re-routed to the western portion of Lot 1, and the twin 48" pipes will be re-routed east toward the new right of way, then follow that right of way south before re-entering Lot 1 and connecting back to the existing 48" pipes. A new drainage and utility easement will be dedicated over all three of the stormwater lines in their new location. CUP FOR PUD The applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to allow a Planned Unit Development. The PUD is requested to allow the mix of commercial uses on the site, including auto sales, retail, office and gas/convenience, and to allow the comprehensive calculation of impervious surface area for the entire Page 1 21 .!eC~ ma LANDFORM CarMax/Mogren Addition .., H H U." 0 ~I.' I' MOIII I X May 17, 2006 development. The retail sites may include uses with liquor sales, but those uses would comply with all city liquor licensing requirements and would be sited to meet the required 350-foot setback from residential properties. There is a small portion of Kohlman Lake's shoreland area located in the southwest corner of Lot 1. Kohlman Lake is a Class IV water body. The site meets all of the prerequisites to reduce the standards by one classification as described in Section 44-1242(b)(1)a of the Zoning Ordinance. Therefore, the development has been designed to meet the impervious area requirements of a Class III, non-water frontage lot, with an "impervious surface area bonus." The bonus is based upon the design of the on-site stormwater management system that is identified in Section 1242(b)( 1)d of the Zoning Ordinance. Stormwater treatment for the overall development will be accomplished through the implementation of traditional wet ponds, underground storage. and rain gardens. The stormwater management techniques proposed are intended to encourage infiltration, meet the enhanced stormwater practices outlined in Appendix D of the City's Stormwater and Wetlands Plan, and meet the requirements of the impervious surface area bonus. All of the proposed uses are permitted by right in the M-1 zoning district, except for the following uses, which require a conditional use permit: . The CarMax used car sales lot and its accessory uses . The gasoline station, which is proposed as an accessory use to the warehouse retail use on Lot 2. The project meets the Conditional Use Permit standards in Section 44-1097 of the City Code as follows: 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. All of the above uses will conform to the City's Comprehensive Plan, Subdivision Regulations, Zoning Ordinance, Building Code and all other applicable regulations. The request would allow redevelopment of the site to provide needed retail and service uses to the community. 2. The use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area. The proposed uses are typical for this area and would not alter the existing or planned character of the surrounding area. The proposed uses are ali allowed in the M-1 zoning districts permitted or conditional uses. Page 2 22 JtC~ m:. LANDFORM CarMax/Mogren Addition "'NN'''~D~I'. ~MDINIX May 17, 2006 3. The use would not depreciate property values. The uses will not depreciate property values. All of the abutting parcels are also zoned and guided M-1 and the uses will provide additional services and conveniences to the surrounding neighborhoods. 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 pol/ution, drainage water runoff, vibration, general unsightliness, electrical interference or other nuisances. The proposed uses will not involve any dangerous, hazardous, detrimental or disturbing activity. 5. The use would generate only minimal vehicular traffic on local streets and would not create traffic congestion or unsafe access on existing or proposed streets. The traffic generated by this development will not be drawn from nor routed to any local streets. The site as been designed in accordance with the City's transportation plans, which include construction of a new public road to serve this development and contribute to improved overall circulation of the area, has been proposed. Therefore, this new public road will alleviate any additional traffic congestion created by this project. 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. Adequate public facilities are available to serve the proposed uses: . The redeveiopment of the site will not burden the existing police and fire protection services. . The existing schoois and parks are adequate to serve the commercial development. which will contribute to the overall tax base while having no impact on the schools and iimited impact on the park system. . There are existing water, sanitary and storm sewer systems in the area which currently serve the site and any proposed infrastructure improvements will be paid for and constructed by the developer. 7. The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services. Page 3 23 ~~ W7iiI LANDFORM CarMaxlMogren Addition ""N ".~~.L'" ."O.'''~ May 17, 2006 The proposed Infrastructure within Lot 1, Lot 2, Outlot B, and Outlot C will be paid for and constructed by the developers; therefore, the proposed uses will not create excess additional costs for public facilities. 8. The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and scenic features into the development design. Because the site is developed as a golf courseldriving range, there are very few natural features to be preserved. However, the developers will continue to analyze each site as the individual tenants for Lot 2, Outlot B, and Outlot C are finalized. 9. The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects. The uses will not cause any adverse environmental effects. The project also meets the PUD criteria in Section 44-1093 of the City Code as follows: 1. Certain regulations contained in this chapter should not apply to the proposed development because of its unique nature. The site is consists largely of hydric soils. The master planning of the entire parcel is necessary to correct the soils for development and provide the enhanced stormwater management system being proposed by the developer. 2. The PUD would be consistent with the purposes of/his chapter. The proposed development would be consistent with preserving the health, safety, and welfare of the public and all other purposes of the Zoning Ordinance, if not better. 3. The PUD would produce a development of equal or superior quality to that which would result from strict adherence to this chapter. The proposed development will be at least of equal quality to that which would result from adherence to the Zoning Ordinance. Page 4 24 '!l~~ m-a LANDFORM CarMax/Mogren Addition M'N'.....,....'.'I'MO..IIX May 17, 2006 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. The proposed development will not constitute any threat to the property values, safety, health or general welfare of the owners or occupants of nearby land. In fact, the proposed development may increase adjacent property values. 5. The deviations are required for reasonable and practicable physical development and are not required solely for financial reasons. The only deviation from the City Code being requested with this PUD is the slight decrease in the dimensions of the parking spaces within the CarMax (Lot1) portion of the project. The Applicant is requesting approval to use 9' x 17' stalls in the 'vehicle inventory/display" area west of the main CarMax building, and 9' x 20' stalls in the 'customer/employee" area south and east of the main building. The Applicant is requesting these modest deviations from City Code to accommodate an efficient site design that allows for proper placement of the wet pond and the infiltration basin. By comparison, the 9' x 20' stalls contain 9 additional square feet of stall areas versus 9.5' x 18' stalls. Additionally, these stalls will be used for low-turnover traffic (i.e. employees and customers of a car dealership), so safety should likely not be an issue. This modest PUD flexibility is requested to allow for reasonable and practicable commercial development of the master-planned site. CARMAX SITE PLAN (LOT 1) The Applicant is seeking approval to use Lot 1 of the subdivision for the construction of a used car sales facility. This facility will include a sales area, a carwash (for use by the used car facility only), and a motor vehicle maintenance area. In the M-1 district, the sale of used motor vehicies, carwashes, and motor vehicle maintenance garages each require a conditionai use permit (CUP). Thus, the Applicant has submitted a CUP application for all aspects of the facility to be constructed on Lot 1, which application will be discussed in more length below. The used motor vehicle facility to be constructed upon the Property will be owned and operated by CarMax Auto Superstores, Inc. ("CarMax"). CarMax, a publicly-traded, Fortune 500 company and one of the Fortune 2006 "100 Best Companies to Work For," is the nation's leading retailer of used cars. CarMax currently operates seventy used car superstores in thirty-three markets nationwide. CarMax has achieved great success by offering its customers no-haggie pricing on a vast inventory of late-model vehicles. CarMax seeks to now offer its services to Maplewood and the surrounding areas. Page 5 25 ~~ ma LANDFORM CarMaxlMogren Addition ..,N,....~O~I.. ~MD.Nlll May 17, 2006 As shown on the plans submitted in connection with this application, CarMax proposes to construct two buildings upon its site. The principal building is 40,796 square feet in size and contains the dealership's sales, service, and presentation areas. The second building is 11,533 square feet in size and contains the dealership's cosmetic services area, including a carwash. Applicant has submitted building elevations for each of these buildings with its applications. The site also includes a sales inventory parking area (3.99 acres in size and containing 568 parking spaces), a customer/employee parking area (2.77 acres in size and containing 292 parking spaces), and a 2.86 acre work-In-process area that is protected and screened by a six-foot CMU wall. Lot 1 of the subdivision, in addition to being currently zoned M-1, is designated In the City's Comprehensive Land Use Plan for development under the M-1 zoning designation. Thus, a used car saies facility upon Lot 1 is consistent with the City's plans for this area. Furthermore, the use of Lot 1 as a used car dealership is consistent with the current uses in the area, as there are other car sales facilities located to the north, east, southwest, and south of the Property. As the City notes in its Comprehensive Land Use Plan, the 'area along Highway 61, north of Highway 36 to White Bear Lake, is known for its car dealerships and auto service facilities." Accordingly, CarMax's used car sales facility would fit into and enhance an already well-established pattem of land use in the area. Because CarMax's use of Lot 1 is entirely consistent with the current use of surrounding parcels, it will not have an adverse effect upon the value or uses of surrounding properties. To the contrary, the distinctively attractive visual appearance of CarMax's facilities will be a pleasant addition to the Highway 61 corridor. There are no residential properties within 350 feet from the site that would be adversely affected by CarMax's use of the site. The ievel of noise generated by CarMax's use of Lot 1 will be consistent with the other uses in the area, and perhaps less because CarMax will not use an outdoor loudspeaker system on the site. Additionally, CarMax's hours of operation will be similar to the hours of operation of the other car dealerships along the Highway 61 corridor. In short, CarMax's planned use of Lot 1 will blend nicely with the surrounding area. As required by the City's Zoning Ordinance, all service and maintenance activities performed as part of CarMax's operations will occur within the buildings located on the site. The carwash within the cosmetic building will have its own drainage system, which will not drain onto a public street or access. Further, CarMax's site will be well iandscaped, as shown on the landscape plan submitted in connection with the applications. Finally, after completing engineering analyses, the Applicant believes that the City's existing public services and facilities, such as streets, water and sewer systems, and police and fire protection, are sufficient to serve the proposed development. Page 6 26 .ltt~ ma LANDFORM CarMax/Mogren Addition MJNf.....I'''~I.. !'KO.NIX May 17, 2006 CarMax's facility will also not generate excessive vehicular traffic on local streets. To the contrary, the traffic generated by this development will not be drawn from nor routed to any local streets. Instead, traffic will only be able to enter and exit CarMax's site from Beam Avenue on the south (which is designated as a Minor Arterial roadway in the City's Comprehensive Transportation Plan) and the future collector street on the east that connects Beam Avenue and future County Road D to the north, which Is to be constructed as part of Applicant's PUD. Thus, the Applicant believes there will not be any traffic problems created by CarMax's use of Lot 1. SUMMARY We are requesting approval of the Preliminary Plat, Conditional Use Permit/Planned Unit Development, Easement Vacation and Community Design Review to all redevelopment of this site as a commercial development. We hope to be able to present our request at the following meetings: June 13, 2006 Community Design Review Board June 19, 2006 Planning Commission July 10, 2006 City Council. Any additional questions in regards to this development can be directed to Daniel Hughes with Landform at dhuohes@landformmsD.com or 612.638.0254. Page 7 27 Attachment 7 P:\WORKS\ENG\06 PROJDOCS\06-14CarMax _ MogrenAddition\ENGR COMMENTS Page 1 of 10 Emrineerim! Plan Review PROJECT: CarMax / Mogren Addition PROJECT NO: 06-14 REVIEWED BY: Erin Laberee. Assistant City Engineer, City of Maplewood Michael Thompson, Civil Engineer I. City of Maplewood SUBMITTAL NO: 2 (First Submittal Commeuts on June 8, 2006) DATE: November 21, 2006 Bruce Mogren is proposing to develop the old Country View Golf Course property at the northeast corner of Highway 61 and Beam Avenue. The development includes Carmax, a major retail center, a fitness center and office facilities. At this time the only portion of the development under consideration is the Carmax site. Mr. Mogren petitioned the city to prepare plans for a public road that would run north and south through the development and connect Beam Avenue to County Road D. Several wetlands will also be impacted by this development. The city will also lead the wetland mitigation process as part of the public improvements project. Runofffrom the Carmax site will be treated in several rainwater gardens, a stonn water detention basin and an infiltration basin The developer shall address the following questions and comments. Drainage 1. Two 48 inch pipes owned and maintained by the Ramsey Washington Metro Watershed District (RWMWD) run through the proposed development. The developer is also proposing a swale system downstream of the wetlands created as part of the County Road D project. The swale is located parallel to the twin pipes. The city in conjunction with R WMWD is considering the replacement of a segment of the twin pipes with an open channel. This would be a better design hydraulically and from a water quality standpoint. The developer shall work with the city and RWMWD and consider this option. Comments from SEH also address this issue. 2. Please address the comments from the SEH memorandum to Erin Laberee dated November 2, 2006 (updated November 9, 2006). 3. The engineer shall detail how the rainwater gardens, swale, detention basin are to be prepared and constructed. Due to the poor soils in the area, the engineer shall address how runoff is to be infiltrated in the gardens, whether it be through a rock sump or an under drain system. 4. It shall be noted in the plans that sumps are to be 3 feet deep. Most sumps catch basins have been noted with the exception of catch basin 23. 5. The curb cuts at the southwest comer of the site shall be replaced with catch basins with a 3 foot sump. 28 P:\WORKS\ENG\06 PROJDOCS\06-14CarMax _ MogrenAddition\ENGR COMMENTS Page 2 of 10 6. Catch basin #77 should have a minimum 3' depth sump in order to catch sediment and other debris prior to flowing into the rain garden. 7. The intersecting storm pipes 61-62 and 56-57 do not provide enough separation. Refer to city plate number 320 for concrete block support if at least I-ft of separation is not achieved. Wetlands 1. The applicant shall work closely with the city to accomplish the goal of wetland replacement on the develooment site to mitigate the proposed development impact of the 54,000 sq-ft wetland along the Beam Avenue ditch. The city will lead this process. Please refer to comments from the city's environmentalist, Duwayne Konewko. Grading 1. The developer's engineer shall provide a phased grading plan to include items such as stockpiling, haul routes, etc. 2. If any retaining walls end up being 4-feet or taller then a required submittal to the City of Maplewood building depar1ment is required. Please show a typical detail of the retaining wall on the plans. 3. All rainwater gardens and infiltration basin shall be excavated to final bottom elevation after major grading is complete. Care must be taken to avoid compaction of bottom area in order to avoid losing the infiltration characteristics of the soil. If rainwater gardens or infiltration basins do not perform as designed, it is the responsibility of the developer's engineer and/or contractor to correct the problem. The city will withhold all escrow monies until such time all storm water BMP's work as proposed. Erosion & Sediment Control Plan 1. Identify erosion and sediment protection on slopes and sediment controls at top and toes of slopes and base of stockpiles. Heavy duty silt fence shall be pI aced 100-ft east and west of the Beam Avenue entrance. 2. Identify locations for equipment/material storage, debris stockpiles, vehicle/equipment maintenance, fueling, and washing areas. Address measure to contain area and specify that all materials stored on site shall have proper enclosures and/or coverings. 3. Identify the quantity of materials to be imported or exported from the site (cu-yd). 4. Describe measures (e.g...sediment basin, sediment trap, etc) taken during the rough grading process to intercept and detain sediment laden run-off to allow the sediment to settle and how the settled stormwater will be de-watered and introduced to the public drainage system. 29 P:\WORKSIENG\06 PROJDOCS\06-14CarMax _ MogrenAdditionlENGR COMMENTS Page 3 of 10 5. Describe measures of onsite dust control (i.e... . water as needed) and also provide a sweeping plan for adjacent streets with the sweeping schedule also incorporated into the storm water pollution prevention pIan (SWPPP). 6. The erosion control notes reference using straw bales under note 12; however the city encourages use ofbio logs embedded in the ground to contain sediment. Wood chips scattered at the edge of disturbed areas has also has proven effective in controlling sediment. 7. In Outlot A, the wetland edge shall be shown along with the wetland delineator and date wetland was delineated. A 100-ft buffer shall clearly be shown on the plans. Silt fence and orange construction fencing shall be placed around the wetland area. 8. The following verbiage shall be added to the pIan: "Effective erosion and sediment controls shall be in place prior to any storm events. " Failure do such shall result in the deduction of escrow funds (the city requires the developer or contractor to post escrow prior to issuance of the grading permit). The funds will be deducted at the discretion of the city inspector upon notice to the developer or contractor. 9. All emergency overflow swales shall include permanent erosion control blanket such as Enkamat or NAG 350. Demolition 1. What is the developer's pIan for the existing maintenance garage near the holding ponds? This should be shown and addressed on the demolition plans. Landscape 1. The landscape plan does not include seeding or restoration details for lot 3. Orange fencing must be placed around this area to ensure no disturbance. Please shown the plans as fenced with a "no disturb area" text. 2. The landscape pIan is subject to the review and approval of the city's naturalist, Ginny Gaynor. See attached comments from Ginny. Sanitary Sewer 1. On sheet C4.1 all of the earMax sanitary sewer pipe is shown as 6" diameter, but on sheet C4.2A (close up view) it is shown as 8" from SANMH#2 to the existing sanitary manhole. Please clarify which is correct. 8" sanitary sewer pipe shall be SDR 35. Agency Submittals 30 P:\WORKS\ENG\06 PROJDOCS\06-14CarMax _MogrenAddition\ENGR COMMENTS Page 4 of 10 1. The applicant must apply for permits thraugh Tina Carstens at Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District Also, the applicant shall coordinate all necessary permits associated with the twin 48" storm water pipes running through the proposed CarMax development site. 2. Submit all potable water related design for the development site to Mike Anderson at Saint Paul Regional Water Services (SPRWS). Is there any specific reason the water service pipe proposed to service the CarMax building is connecting to the main from the south (435-ft) instead of the east (240-ft)? Insulation should be shown at all water service crossings in accordance with SPRWS standards. 3. Coordinate with Dan Soler at Ramsey County for all traffic related permits on Beam Avenue. 4. MnlDOT approval for the entrance/exit on T.H61 is required. 5. The developer or project engineer shall obtain a MPCA's construction stonnwater permit (SWPPP). 6. Agency submittals are not limited to those listed above. Traffic Traffic comments provided by Jon Horn, Brandon Bourdon, and Chadd Larson from Kimley Horn and Associates. 1. The access onto TH 61 from the proposed CarMax site (Lot 1) shall be gate controlled and shall only be used by those that have clearance to open the gates via A VI tag or other fonn of contro1. The details and requirement of the gate control and degree of access allowed will be included in the conditional use permit. The use of this access will be reviewed on a yearly basis by the City of Maplewood. The City will solicit comments from MnJDOT dwing this yearly review to determine if any modifications to this access need to be implemented. 2. The right-in/right-aut access to the proposed CarMax site (Lot 1) from Beam Avenue shall be located as far to the east as possible. The exact location will be determined based upon the wetland mitigation required, the ultimate configuration of the existing storm sewer pipes owned by the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District, and intersection spacing to the proposed public roadway. 3. The access locations for the warehouse retail site on Lot 2 shall be consolidated to two locations on the proposed public roadway. The southern access shall be located at least 300 feet north of Beam Avenue (measured centerline to centerline). Striping shall be installed on the two accesses to the proposed public road from Lot 2 so that there is one entering lane and two exiting lanes. 31 P:\ WORKS\ENG\06 PROJDOCS\06-14CarMax _ MogrenAddition\ENGR COMMENTS Page 5 of 10 4. The access from Lot 3 onto the proposed public roadway shall be aligned with one of the access points to the warehouse retail site on Lot 2. RilllIt ofWaylEasements Right of way and easement comments provided by Jon Horn, Brandon Bourdon, and Chadd Larson from Kimley Horn and Associates. 1. The preliminary plat does not show the existing Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District easement across Lot 1. 2. Proposed public improvements include the possible removal of the existing watershed pipes and the construction of an open ditch. The developer shall dedicate any additional easement required for the construction of this open ditch. 3. Wetland mitigation is currently being investigated on the project site. The developer shall dedicate any additional easement required for wetland mitigation. 4. The preliminary plat shows the dedication of an approximate 88 foot wide right of way for the new north-south roadway. This right of way width should be revised to an 80 foot width. 5. The alignment of the proposed north-south roadway right of way should be revised at the County Road D intersection. Field survey information confirmed that this intersection location is east of the intersection shown in the development plans. 6. Outlot A should be shown as a drainage and utility easement together with Lot I rather than a separate lot as the area is needed to meet the maximum impervious area percentage requirements of the shoreland zoning rules for development. Miscellaneous 1. The developer or project engineer shall submit a copy of the MPCA's construction stormwater permit (SWPPP) to the city before the city will issue a grading permit. 2. The owner and project engineer shall satisfy the requirements of all permitting agencies. 3. The developer or developer's engineer shall incorporate a preliminary lighting plan into the plans. 4. The owner shall sign a maintenance agreement, prepared by the city, for all stormwater treatment devices (list devices i.e.... sumps, basins, ponds, etc). The city shall prepare this agreement upon pIan approval. 32 P:\WORKS\ENG\06 PROJDOCS\06-14CarMax _ MogrenAddition\ENGR COMMENTS Page 6 of 10 5. The developer shall enter into a development agreement with the city. The city will prepare this agreement which will cover items such as cost sharing for public improvements (signal lights, Beam Avenue road improvement, etc.). 6. Approval of the site pIan is contingent upon the completion of the necessary public improvements to support the proposed development as identified in the Feasibility Study and Report for the CannaxlMogren Addition improvements, City Project 06-17. These public improvements include the new north-south public roadway, sanitary sewer and watermain improvements within the public right-of-way, and improvements along Beam Avenue and at the TH 61/Beam Avenue intersection. The developer shall provide the City with a letter of credit in the amount of 125% of the estimated assessments identified in the Feasibility Study and Report. 7. The developer shall complete the overall mass grading of the project site including areas within the public right-of-way. Grading within the public right-of-way shall be completed to within a 0.2' tolerance of the design grades. The developer shall perform field surveying to verify that the grading meets the specified tolerance before the City commences the construction of any public improvements within the right-of-way. The mass site grading shall be completed and verified by June 1, 2007. 8. The developer shall enter into a developer's agreement with the city for all public improvements including easements. The agreement will require the developer to post a letter of credit for 125% of the cost of the public improvements for the new public road and a portion of the costs for the Beam Avenue improvements as detailed in the feasibility study. The developer's agreement will also detail requirements for the site grading as mentioned previously. 33 P:\WORKS\ENG\06 PROJDOCS\06-14CarMax_MogrenAddition\ENGR COMMENTS Page 7 of 10 ~ SEH MEMORANDUM TO: Erin Laberee, PE Assistant City Engineer City of Maple wood FROM: Dan Cazanacli, PE Ron Leaf, PE SER Water Resources DATE: November 2, 2006 (updated November 9, 2006) RE: CARMAX Plan Review - Storm Water / Drainage Submittal SERNo. A-MAPLE0612.00 Background We have reviewed the Storm Water Narrative and Calculation and Drainage Plans for the CARMAX - MOGREN site in Maplewood. Landform, submitted a set of plans, narratives, and HydroCAD model printouts, dated October 18,2006. The set ofplans, titled MOGREN RETAil.. AND CARMAX MAPLEWOOD, covers the area south of County Road D and north of Beam Avenue, east of Highway 61. We also participated in meetings with representatives for developer and with the Ramsey-Washington-Metro Watershed District (RWMWD) and Ramsey SWCD staff on November 8, 2006. Landform plans indicate that there two development areas: 1. LOT 1 (west): CARMAX area to be located on the western side of the site, immediately east of Highway 61. 2. LOT 2 (east). Warehouse Retail area to be located further east, east ofa proposed Public Road connecting County Road D and Beam Avenue. According to the plans, the area between these two sites will remain undeveloped. We believe the intent here is that Landform intends to refer to the land to the north, currently the pond and wetland system for the County Road D and a portion of the future Warehouse Site. The submittal indicates that the north-central area (OUTLOT A) and south-central area (LOT 3) will not be graded or modified. Although the narratives include runoff values for both sites mentioned above, the HydroCAD model for the proposed conditions appears to reflect the CARMAX area (LOT 1) only. Therefore, our review has focused on the details of the CARMAX site, but has also generally considered the overall storm system in the area. 34 P:IWORKS\ENGI06 PROJDOCSI06-14CarMax_MogrenAddition\ENGR COMMENTS Page 8 of 10 For the CARMAX site, the plans indicate a storm water detention, trea1ment, and infiltration chain consisting of four rain gardens, a wet pond and an infiltration pond. With the exception of a smaller rain garden, these drainage features are located along a north-south strip, east of the proposed CARMAX parking 101. Three rain gardens collect the runoff from approximately half of the impervious surface and overflow into the wet pond. The remaining impervious surface discharges either to a fourth rain garden and then to the wet pond or directly into the wet pond. The wet pond overflows into the infiltration basin. Based on our meeting at the RWMWD on November 8th, the second cell of this system may be eligible as wetland credits. The plans also include a channel section to serve as the outlet for the wetland mitigation site to the north and also to serve as a portion of the wetland mitigation area. Review Questions and Comments The following review comments are separated into four categories: trea1ment system, rate controls, infiltration systems and wetlands. Water Quality Treatment 1. When the CARMAX site (LOT 1) only is considered, the proposed drainage plan appears to provide adequate dead storage volume for storm water quality trea1ment in terms oftota1 phosphorus (TP) and suspended solids (TSS) to meet the City's standards. Submittalof computations for the removal efficiencies of these systems are needed prior to making a final determination. In general, the cumulative volume of the four rain gardens, wet pond, and "infiltration" basin is fairly large relative to the total impervious CARMAX area surface. Our understanding is that these computations have been completed by the developer's engineer and are available. 2. In general, we recommend that the developer remove as many pipes for the rain gardens system as possible and identify what types of pre-trea1ment will be included in the design. We anticipate the RWMWD will also have questions/comments along these lines. Flow Rate Control 3. The proposed model indicates that the design provides adequate runoff detention and reduces the peak flow rates for 2, 10, and 100-year events, below the corresponding existing levels. However, the model assumes free-discharge at the downstream end, an assumption that may not be entirely correct. The model should be updated to consider a downstream water level that corresponds to the 2, 10 and 100-year design storms. 4. The infiltration basin discharges into the ditch north of Beam Avenue through a culvert / overflow system. The ditch on the north side of Beam Avenue flows west. A 27-inch culvert is proposed along the ditch under the CARMAX driveway at Beam Avenue. A 60-inch by 136-inch elliptical culvert located on the northeastern comer of the Beam Avenue-Highway 61 intersection collects the runoff from the ditch. Neither the proposed 27-inch culvert nor the large elliptical culvert has been included in the HydroCAD model. The inverts of these culverts are also not shown on the plan. 35 P:\WORKS\ENG\06 PROJDOCS\06-14CarMax_MogrenAddition\ENGR COMMENTS Page 9 of 10 5. In talking with the developer's engineer on November 8th, we understand that the hydrologic modeling was limited to the sites and not beyond the boundaries of the site. Therefore, we recommend that a combine model of the area be updated to evaluate any potential upstream or downstream impacts. The timing of this model should coincide with the selection of the final site storm water routing - with the major unknown at this time being the determination of creating a ditch section to replace the existing twin 48-inch pipes operated by RWMWD. Infiltration Systems 6. The proposed drainage plan provides runoff volume reduction through infiltration practices. However, the infiltration volume may not be as high as estimated in the submittal due to the uncertainties associated with the soils and ground water elevation in this area. The bottom of this infiltration basin is near elevation 863.0, which is likely near the normal (ground) water level. Plan Sheet C3.2A shows a normal water level (NWL) of 864.25 for the infiltration basin while the HydroCAD model reflects no such assumption. Therefore, because the bottom of the basin is at or near water table the infiltration rates may not be as high as claimed (i.e. I-inch ofrainfall contained on site). The HydroCAD model assumes certain infiltration rates for the proposed infiltration basin which, as discussed below may not be entirely correct. Note that the RWMWD new rules will require specific soils information in the areas of each basin to demonstrate the design infiltration rates and will require some form of pre-treatment of runoff prior to discharge into the rain gardenslinfiltration areas. As stated above, this infiltration basin may be eligible to be counted towards wetland mitigation credits. 7. Clarification with respect to the function of the infiltration basin and the downstream routing are needed. The proposed design has a good chance of satisfying the flow rate and runoff volume reduction requirements when the CARMAX area only is considered. 8. A detailed review of the infiltration systems show in the Retail Warehouse areas to the east was not completed. However, these same questions will arise at the time a project is proposed on that property. Stonn Water Routing - Other Considerations 9. The proposed routing scheme indicates that the runoff from the CARMAX area would be entirely directed into the ditch north of Beam Avenue. According to the plans, the central wetland mitigation area, drains through a proposed north-south swale into the same ditch north of Beam Avenue. Both the infiltration basin and the swale are connected to the Beam Avenue ditch through culverts which would have to cross a sanitary sewer pipe. The plans do not provide the elevation (i.e., inverts) information for these culverts. 10. The proposed north-south swale runs parallel and immediately west of the existing twin 48- inch pipes connecting the wetland basin north of County Road D to the wetland basin south of Beam Avenue. The proposed swale system and wet pond could be combined to achieve a 36 P:\WORKS\ENG\06 PROJDOCS\06-14CarMax _ MogrenAddition\ENGR COMMENTS Page 10 ofl 0 larger storm water detention and overall water quality treatment volume. Furthermore, from a hydraulic standpoint and based on our preliminary analysis, it is also possible to replace a segment of the twin 48-inch pipes with an open channel which would collect of the runoff from the CARMAX area and from the central area that would remain undeveloped. In this case, the runoff from both these areas would be eventually routed across Beam Avenue through the existing 58" by 91" concrete elliptical pipe and not through the larger 60" by 136" elliptical pipe at Beam Avenue / Highway 61 intersection. The City, RWMWD and developer should consider this as an option which would achieve: 1) reduction in the 10ng-tenn maintenance issues that willlikely be need in the area of the twin 48-inch pipes; 2) an opportunity to create more wetland mitigation area on-site; 3) some addition water quality benefits; and 4) the potential for additionallive storage capacity of the regi onal routing system. Wetland Impacts and Mitigation 11. This issue was discussed with RWMWD, Ramsey SWCD, City staff and developer's representatives on November 8th. At this time, it appears that the site will impact the roughly 54,000 square feet of wetland present along Beam Avenue. The initial wetland pennit application submitted to the RWMWD will be revised to reflect comments provided including: a. The City will be identified as the owner/pennittee and willlead the wetland mitigation process. The details of financial responsibilities of the City versus developer will be discussed as the project proceeds. b. The project will have the goal ofreplacing all wetland impacts on-site instead of using the bank described in the initial application. c. The developer's engineer will prepare the accounting of wetland impacts and mitigation areas (including buffer area requirements) and work with the City to develop the pennit application materials. The City willlead the design and construction process for wetland mitigation efforts. For any questions please email me at dcazanacli@sehinc.com or call me at 651.490.2112. s;ItoIm\m8ple\06I~stouDsystcmmemo 11-2-06.doc 37 Attachment 8 StormwaterlWetland Report By DuWayne Konewko, Maplewood Environmental Management Specialist November 22, 2006 A. Stonn Water Management 1) Existing Drainage System and Features The existing drainage system consists of a regional treatment pond at the north end of the site which collects and treats runoff from portions of County Road D. The existing pond has treatment capacity for a portion of the proposed development south of County Road D, including portions of the proposed public road and the private development east of the proposed road. The treated stonn water from the regional pond discharges to a two- cell constructed wetland system immediately to the west before entering a section of what is referred to as North County Ditch 18 (or Willow Creek). The drainage system is routed to the road ditch on the north side of Beam Avenue and then crosses Beam and TH 61 before entering Kohlman Lake. The existing wetland system was designed and constructed in conjunction with the Maplewood MalI Area Transportation Improvements (MMATI) to mitigate both public and private wetland impacts throughout the MMATI project area. The created wetland credits are all accounted for and no additional credits are available for future impacts in the CarMax/Mogren Site. The wetland also has a buffer area, including minimum setback distances of 100 feet on the north, east, and south sides, and 50 feet on the west. Another feature of the existing drainage system is the existing twin 48-inch pipes that connect the wetland complex north of County Road D to the pond and wetland complex south of Beam Avenue. This is an important feature of the site from both a site design and long-term operational standpoint. This system is not hydraulically connected to the drainage system on the immediate CarMax/Mogren site, although both systems ultimately drain to Kohlman Lake. As will be discussed later in the section, there may be an advantage to replacing the existing pipes with ditch section to better meet the site design goals for treatment and wetland mitigation and to reduce long-term operational concerns with the existing pipes. 2) Proposed Stonn Water Treatment Systems The proposed treatment system consists of a combination of regional and on-site treatment areas. Both existing and proposed systems will be designed to meet City and RWMWD design standards for pollutant removal efficiencies and for volume control (i.e., infiltration requirements). The majority of the public road portion of the site will be routed to the existing stonn water pond system on the north end of the site through a conventional stonn sewer system. A small portion of the south end of the new public road will be routed to a treatment system in the northwest comer of the intersection of the Beam and the new road. A rain 38 garden or infiltration feature in this area is recommended, although coordination with the adjacent development will detennine the ultimate size and location of the treatment area. If an infiltration area is incorporated, the system would include a pre-treatment component such as a sump manhole or mechanical sediment removal device. For the purpose of this feasibility report, we have assumed that a more effective mechanical sediment removal device would be installed for pre-treatment. 3) Proposed Storm Water Routing and System Capacity The proposed storm sewer system for the public road will be routed as illustrated in Exhibit 7. The northern section will route to the existing regional pond to the north and southern section will route to the south toward the Beam Avenue ditch system after treatment. Storm sewer catch basins with concrete curb and gutter are proposed to accommodate the runoff from Beam Avenue Developers of the sites on the west side of the proposed public road will be responsible for meeting City and RWMWD rate and volume controls on their individual sites. The overall routing of these systems will be coordinated by City staff throughout the design and development review stages. 4) Proposed Open Ditch/Wetland Section The proposed north-south swale traversing the CarMax site runs parallel and immediately west of the existing twin 48-inch pipes connecting the wetland basin north of County Road D to the wetland basin south of Beam Avenue. Based on preliminary analyses, the proposed swale system and wet pond could be combined to achieve a larger storm water detention and overall water quality treatment volume. Furthennore, from a hydraulic standpoint, it is also possible to replace a segment of the twin 48-inch pipes with an open channel which would collect a portion of the runoff from the CarMax area and from the parcel immediately to the east of CarMax. In this case, the runoff from both of these areas would eventually be routed across Beam Avenue. The CarMax site would route through the larger 60" by 136" elliptical pipe at the Beam Avenue / Trunk Highway 61 intersection the southwest. The remainder of the site, including the wetland mitigation system, would route through the existing 58" by 91" concrete elliptical pipe. The City, RWMWD, and the Developer have evaluated this as an option. This option would achieve: 1) reduction in the long-tenn maintenance issues that will likely be needed in the area of the twin 48-inch pipes; 2) an opportunity to create more wetland mitigation area on-site; 3) additional water quality benefits; and 4) the potential for additional live storage capacity of the regional routing system. Prior to implementation of this approach, the RWMWD will need to review the detailed design and approve the modifications. The critical issue for this ditch creation is the need to maintain the current response of the wetland areas north of County D and south of Beam. 39 D. Wetlands Management Wetland areas currently exist on the site, primarily along the north Beam Avenue ditch which will be impacted by the overall site development. A small area of wetland impact will also occur along a section of the North County Ditch 18 system. However, this area has already been mitigated for as part of the MMATI project. As discussed previously, the main wetland feature in the immediate area is the created wetland system just south of County Road D. This section discusses the anticipated impacts and mitigation pIan for the impacted wetlands in the CarMax/Mogren site. Because the most feasible location for mitigation is adjacent to the existing created wetland area, the City intends to lead the overall coordination, design and operation efforts for the proposed mitigation site, while the developers will remain financially responsible for their portion of the impacts and mitigation. Having the City lead the process will allow for consistency in the overall design and 10ng-term monitoring and operation of the mitigation area. The following table summarizes the anticipated wetland impacts and mitigation needs. These existing and proposed wetland and buffer areas are illustrated in Exhibits 8 and 9. Table 1. Summ of Wetland Im acts and Miti Area 1.90 3.60 1.25 *1.60 3.15 5.20 1.90 3.60 1.60 4.30 0 0 0 1.10 3.50 6.80 1.30 D D oss As shown in Table 1, the existing wetland and buffer areas include the mitigation area to the north and the areas along Beam delineated in 2006. Based on the preliminary review of the proposed project, the improvement can result in a net increase of up to about 0.35 acres of new wetland and 1.30 acres of new buffer. As part of the wetland permitting process, this estimated 1.30 acres of new buffer would be proposed as the public value credit portion of the wetland impacts. The numbers presented in Table 1 assume that the second cell of the treatment system in the CarMax site will not be considered new wetland. If designed to meet the wetland requirements, this area may result in a further increase the extent of new wetlands throughout the site. 40 1) Wetland Impacts A combination of the private development, the new public road from Beam to County Road D, and improvements to Beam Avenue, will result in impacts to the entire 1.25 acres (54,424 square-feet) of wetlands located adjacent to Beam Avenue. The areas were delineated and boundaries approved by the RWMWD as described in the July 18, 2006 Wetland Delineation Report (SEH). The existing buffer area estimate of 1.60 acres around the wetland system adjacent to Beam is conservative, as the number represents a 25-foot buffer around the entire wetland. In reality, the buffer extends into portions of the Beam Avenue right-of-way. The total proposed wetland and buffer areas presented in Table 1, are illustrated in Exhibit 9. Only buffer areas outside of the existing mitigation site easement were included in the new buffer calculations. In addition, existing buffer area used to expand new wetland areas inside the easement, were subtracted from the total buffer area calculations. Additional 2) Wetland Mitigation Plan The primary goal of the mitigation pIan is to achieve the entire mitigation requirement on-site, including new wetland, public value credits, and buffer areas. The primary mitigation area is the expansion of the current wetland system in the northern portion of the project site. Additional wetland mitigation will be created along the eastern border of the CarMax site, and mitigation credits may also be obtained in the second cell of the pond-wetland system in the south portion of the CarMax site. Final design will need to conform to the state requirements for wetland mitigation sites, include side-slope limitations and maximum bounce. Planting will be consistent with the existing wetland area to the north. 3) Wetland Buffers The wetland areas along Beam Avenue are classified Manage C which means that 25 foot buffer areas will apply. The maximum buffer area for this area is 69,853 square-feet. The actual existing buffer area is somewhat less than this as portions of the 25-foot zone extend onto Beam Avenue pavement and the gravel shoulder. The required buffer area for the expanded mitigation site will include creation of up to 1.60 acres (69,853 square-feet) of buffer, with an average buffer of 100 feet and a minimum of 50 feet. The RWMWD also had buffer requirements for the created wetland, although to a 10wer level than the stated City requirements. The RWMWD requires a 75-foot average and 37.5-foot minimum. The required buffer area is intended to minimize future impacts resulting from development encroaching on the wetland areas. While adequate surface area is available to meet the buffer requirements, obtaining a minimum 50 foot buffer along the east side of the proposed wetland area/ditch section 41 may be difficult without further encroachment onto the parcel to the east and beyond the existing easement over the twin 48-inch pipes. Given that one of the overaIl goals of this project is to obtain all wetland (and buffer) replacement on-site, we recommend that the design use the 50-foot minimum as a goal, but that the RWMWD distance of37.5 feet be considered acceptable if site conditions limit the full 50-foot distance in all areas. The average buffer around the entire wetland system, as proposed, is approximately 110- 120 feet. 42 Attachment 9 Tom Ekstrand From: Virginia Gaynor Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2006 1 :07 PM To: Erin Laberee; DuWayne Konewko; Jon Jarosch; Tom Ekstrand Subject: Carmax Attachments: InvasivePlants.doc Here are comments regarding the landscape plan for Carmax. 1. Plant selection. Two of the plants in the plan, Barberry and Miscanthus, are potentially invasive and may spread to natural areas. Both of these are on the city's list of plants to avoid (see attached). Because this site is adjacent to wetland complexes, different plant species should be selected. 2. Native seed mix. MnlDOT mix 328 is the economy native ditch mix. It is 1/3 bluegrass for quick establishment, and 2/3 prairie grasses. Because of the wetlands adjacent it would be preferable to use a mix that is more similar to a native prairie. Better choices for the slopes and upland would be Mn/DOT mixes 340 or 350. 3. Rain gardens along Beam and along Highway 61. These are in very visible gardens that need to be successful. Because 1) these are relatively narrow gardens, and 2) they are surrounded by sod, and 3) it takes so long to establish native seedings, and 4) success is not assured with seeding, these gardens should be planted with plants rather than seed. Plants can be perennials and/or trees and shrubs. If native perennials are selected, plugs can be used to keep cost of materials down. Most planted rain gardens are mulched with shredded hardwood mulch. If mulch is not used, blanket and frequent weeding will be needed. 4. Pond, infiltration basin, and 3 rain gardens east of building and parking lot. a. It is diflicu~ to establish the bottom of a rain garden or infiltration basin with seed since the seed is washed away as water flows into the garden. Thus, the bottom of the rain gardens and infi~ration basin should be planted with plugs rather than seed. b. Seeding the slopes and upland areas is fine. c. It can be diflicu~ to establish native vegetation from seed when turf is seeded adjacent. Site managers often end up mowing as if it is turf and the natives don't establish. On the east side of the rain gardens, pond and infiltration basin, there is a strip of seeded turf between two strips of native vegetation. I recommend that the native vegetation extend from the gardens, pond and basin all the way eastward. If the goal is to have a more manicured look around the pond, this might be achieved by featuring a couple of focal areas of turf and planting beds on the west side of the pond. d. Maintaining areas of native seed. On sheet L2.2A, Raingarden note #22 indicates garden areas should be free from weeds and other invasive plant material. This language is fine for areas planted with plugs or containers. It would be helpful to include a note on the landscape plan regarding management of areas seeded with natives to ensure these areas are properly managed the first few years. Areas seeded with native prairie mixes are typically maintained by mowing and spot herbicide treatments. The first growing season (and sometimes the second season), these areas should be mowed 4"-6" high when plants reach 15" high. 5. Parking lot medians. It's great to see some planted medians. But, it would be nice to have even more to provide shade and cooling. If this is not possible, it would be help to have more trees along the parking lot edges. In addition, many of the trees along Beam and Hwy 61 are shown centered between the road and parking lot. It might make sense to put those closer to the parking lot to take advantage ofthe shade they will provide. Please let me know if you have questions. Ginny 11/22/2006 43 Maplewood Naturally Invasive Plants - A Serious Problem for Maplewood What are invasive plants? Invasive plants are plants that escape from gardens, woods, pastures, or roadsides into the wild and proliferate. They may be native or non-native plants. Nanve plants are plants that existed in this area prior to European settlement. Non-nanve plants are those introduced after European settlement by intention or accident. These include: · horticultural plants that have naturalized (ex: buckthorn, purple loosestrife) · species planted as pasture grass, cover crops, or for erosion control (ex: brome, reed canary, crown vetch) · species that entered country as weed seeds in hay or other ways (ex: burdock, spotted knapweed) Why should we be concerned about invasive plants? When invasive plants spread into natural areas they can displace native plants. This can lead to loss of plant diversity, which can negatively impact nesting, food, and shelter for wildlife. One very dramatic example in Maplewood is the degradation buckthorn has caused in our oak woodlands. Buckthorn has invaded woodlands, creating dense shade that has lead to a decline in woodland wildflowers, ferns, and shrubs. Oak seedlings have a hard time surviving under buckthorn and die out. The woodland shrub layer in many of our woodlands now consists primarily of buckthorn. As mature trees die, there will be few young native trees to replace them and the oak woodland as we know it will disappear. What can homeowners do? 1. The first step is to avoid planting invasive species. This is especially important if you live near a natural area or a wetland. The list on the next page indicates some of the most troublesome plants in our region. 2. If you have invasive plants in your yard, we encourage you to remove them. See general guidelines below. If removal seems overwhelming, you may want to begin by removing fruiting trees and cutting flowers before seeds form. 3. After an area is cleared of invasive species, something else generally needs to be planted. RernoYi Invasive S ies Invasive species can be removed by several methods: · mechanical - pulling, cutting, mowing . chemical - herbicide · biological - insects, animals, or pathogens It is important to note that many species sprout when cut, exacerbating the problem, so cutting is not always the answer. Use a control method that is known to work with the particular species you are removing. Several internet sites have good information on control methods including those maintained by The Nature Conservancy, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, and Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 44 The Most Troublesome Invasive Species In Maplewood Natural Areas Flowers that escape from gardens Grass-like species Bird's foot trefoil (Lotus comiculatus) Creeping charlie (Glechoma hederacea) Crown vetch (Coronilla varia) Dame's rocket (H esperis matronalis) Grecian foxglove (Digitalis lanata) Purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria) Queen Anne's Lace (Daueus carota) Tansy (l'anacetum vulgare) T easel (Dipsaeus laciniatus, D. sylvestris) Flowers that came to U.S. as weeds Burdock (Arctium minor) Field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis) Garlic mustard (Alliaria petiolata) Hawkweeds (Hieracium aurantiacum, H canadense) Japanese knotweed (Polygonum euspidatum) Leafy spurge, cypress spurge (Euphorbia esula, E. cyparissias) Thistles (Cirsium arvense. Carduus nutans, and others) Spotted knapweed (Centaurea maculosa) White sweet clover (Melitotus alba) Wild parsnip (Pastinaca sativa) Yellow sweet clover (Melitotus officinalis) Cattails (Typha glauca, T angustifolia) Giant reed grass (Phragmites australis) Japanese knotweed (Polygonum cuspidatum) *Miscanthus, sometimes called Pampas (Miscanthus spp.) Reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea) Smooth brome (Bromus inermis) Aquatics Erasian water milfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum) Curly-leafpondweed (Potamogeton crispus) Non-native water lilies Trees, shrubs, and vines Amurmaple (Acer ginnala) Autumn olive (Eleagnus umbellate) Barberry (Berberis spp.) Common buckthorn (Rhamnus cathartica) Glossy buckthorn (Rhamnus frangula) Black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia) Russian olive (Eleagnus angustifolia) Siberian elm (Ulmus pumila) Siberian peashrub (Caragana arborescens) Tatarian honeysuckle (Lonicera tatarica) There are many other plants that may be aggressive in gardens or new plantings but are not as problematic in natural areas. * A note on Miscanthus grass - There are several cultivars of Mis canthus. Some spread by seed, some spread by rhizome. On the east coast, some cultivars have become invasive. Researchers at the University of Minnesota are trying to detennine which cultivars may be harmful in our region. Until this plant's invasiveness is better understood, please don't plant it if you live near a wetland! There are many wonderful native grasses and non-invasive ornamental grasses you can substitute. Maplewood Nature Center and Preserves 8/04 45 Page 1 of2 Attachment 10 Tom Ekstrand From: lina Carstens [tina.carstens@rwmwd.orgl Sent: Tuesday, November 21,2006 11 :29 AM To: dhughes@landformmsp.com Cc: rleaf@sehinc,com;Tom Ekstrand; Chuck Ahl; DuWayne Konewko Subject: Review of Carmax Permit Application District staff reviewed the Carmax permit application for the following items: mass grading of the entire site for the first phase of construction, the final grading of the Carmax site, stormwater management of the Carmax site only, and erosion and sediment control for the entire site. The plan I reviewed for erosion and sediment control omitted any grading in the area of the wetlands until the wetland permit application gets approved. The plan also leaves the District's twin pipes in place so there are a few comments relating to that. 1. Grading adjacent to the twin pipes · Plans shall show no grade changes over the 50 foot easement the District has for those pipes. · Plans shall also show construction fencing marking the 10cation of that easement to ensure no construction activity over those pipes. 2. Haul road over the twin pipes · A haul road shall be shown on revised plans as close to Beam Ave as possible. · Limit the haul roads to one crossing with good foundation and fence off the rest of the pipe easement as mentioned above to prevent other roads from being used. · The road over the pipe shall maintain at least 2 feet of cover. · Top of pipe monitoring shall be done during the hauling. 3. Erosion and Sediment Control · All stormwater management BMPs shall be protected from sedimentation once they have been final graded and until the surrounding area has vegetation establishment. Revised plans shall show silt fence around the perimeter of the rain gardens/ponds. · All outlets of temp sed basins to the wetland ditch system along Beam shall have a BMP to filter the runoff before entering the system. 4. Stormwater Management · The pond labeled infiltration basin on the plans really does not function like an infiltration basin. I understand that the infiltration basin was not counted in the District worksheet for volume reduction but in the HydroCAD analysis exfiltration is noted as being accomplished. It is my understanding from the soil boring report that the ground water is quite high in this location and therefore wouldn't meet the 3 foot separation to groundwater requirement for infiltration basins. · The District would like to request the applicant to install a piezometer/observation well in each of the rain gardens in order to monitor the rain gardens and their functionality. The maintenance agreement the District requires will require the applicant to monitor the effectiveness of the BMPs and submit an annual report to the District. The monitoring report is mostly to check for the need for maintenance that would then prompt the land owner to maintain the BMP. The monitoring piezometer would give additional information to the District on how well the BMPs are working. This is important to monitor for this site that has 11/2 112006 46 Page 2 of2 poor soils underneath the engineered soil that will be placed below the rain garden. . PI ease supply the spec for the engineered soil that will be used for the rain gardens. · Also supply details of the all the stormwater management BMPs and also the erosion and sediment control BMPs. 5. Maintenance Agreement · The District requires a maintenance agreement with the District. We are working with our attorney to come up with a template for that and I can get that to you in the near future. Just as a heads up, that agreement will require annual monitoring of the BMPs and maintenance as needed to maintain the function of the BMP. We would also like to have something in the maintenance agreement regarding the pervious bituminous that would state no salt/sand usage and also a vacuum sweep at least annually. This probably should be spelled out in your developer's agreement and/or in any site maintenance document that you develop. 6. Agreement with District · The District has identified this drainage area as a need for additional treatment before the water gets to Kohlman Lake. Specifically we are 100king at ways of reducing dissolved phosphorus. The volume reduction practices that are being proposed by the applicant will go a 10ng way to providing that treatment but the District may want to do additional treatment for enhanced water quality treatment options. One of the options that have been explored is an enhanced sand filtration system that can be easily fit within an existing stormwater pond. We would like to discuss the possibility of having an agreement between the District and land owner that would allow the District access to the pond and the possibility of retrofitting the pond and doing maintenance on our enhancements on a regular basis. Of course this would all be at the District's expense. If you have any questions about the comments please let me know. If these items are not able to be addressed before next week Thursday, I will submit to the Board a report that would list these items as special provisions (wont' be as wordy though!). The permit will then be issued once those items are addressed. Thanks, Tina ******************************************** Tina Carstens Permit Program Coordinator Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District 2665 Noel Drive Little Canada, MN 55II7 Phone: 651-792-7960 Fax: 651-792-7951 11/2112006 47 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: Community Design Review Board Members Shann Finwall, Planner, AICP Resolution of Appreciation for John Hinzman December 6, 2006 for the December 12 CDRB Meeting Attached is a resolution of appreciation for John Hinzman. John served as a member of the community design review board for one year and eight months, from March 28, 2005 to November 22, 2006. Staff requests that the community design review board members recommend that the city council adopt this resolution of appreciation at their December 18, 2006, city council meeting. Attachment RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION WHEREAS, John Hinzman has been a member of the Maplewood Community Design Review Board for one year and eight months, since March 28, 2005, and has served faithfully in that capacity; and WHEREAS, the Community Design Review Board has appreciated his experience, insights and good judgment; and WHEREAS, Mr. Hinzman has freely given of his time and energy, without compensation, for the betterment of the City of Maplewood; and WHEREAS, Mr. Hinzman has shown dedication to his duties and has consistently contributed his leadership and effort for the benefit of the City. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOL VED for and on behalf of the City of Maplewood, Minnesota, and its citizens that John Hinzman is hereby extended our gratitude and appreciation for his dedicated service. Passed by the Maplewood City Council on December 18,2006. Diana Longrie, Mayor Passed by the Maplewood Community Design Review Board on December 12, 2006 Linda Olson, Chairperson Attest: Karen Guilfoile, City Clerk