HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/13/2002BOOk
AGENDA
MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
August 13, 2002
6:00 P.M.
Maplewood City Hall Council Chambers
1830 County Road B East
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
10.
Call to Order
Roll Call
Approval of Agenda
Approval of the July 9, 2002 Minutes
None Scheduled
Unfinished Business:
Design Review:
a.
b.
Hillcrest Village Redevelopment Plan
Keller Lake Golf Course Maintenance Building- 2166 Maplewood Drive
Visitor Presentations
Board Presentations:
Staff Presentations:
Community Design Review Board Representation at the August 26, 2002
City Council Meeting
Board ApPreciation Dinner- Battle Creek Regional Park: Thursday,
September 5, 2002 at 5:30 p.m.
Co
Arbor Lakes Field Trip - Maple Grove: Monday, September 30, 2002 at
5:15 p.m.
Adjourn
WELCOME TO THIS MEETING OF THE
COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
This outline has been prepared to explain the review process of this meeting. The
review of an item usually follows this format.
1. The chairperson of the meeting will announce the item to be reviewed.
2. The chairperson will ask the applicant or developer of the project up to the podium
to respond to the staffs recommendation regarding the proposal. The Community
Design Review Board will then discuss the proposed project with the applicant.
3. The chairperson will then ask the audience if there is anyone present who wishes
to comment on the proposal.
4. After everyone is the audience wishing to speak has given his or her comments,
the chairperson will close the public discussion portion of the meeting.
5. The Board will then discuss the proposal. No further public comments are allowed.
6. The Board will then make its recommendations or decision.
7. Most decisions by the Board are final, unless appealed to the City Council. You
must notify the City staff in writing within 15 days to register an appeal.
jw\forms\cdrb.agd
Revised: 11-09-94
II.
III,
IV,
V=
DRAFT
MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA
TUESDAY, JULY 9, 2002
CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Ledvina called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Matt Ledvina
Craig Jorgenson
Diana Longrie-Kline
Linda Olson
Ananth Shankar
Staff Present:
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Present
Present
Present
Present
Absent
Shann Finwall, Associate Planner
Lisa Kroll, Recording Secretary
Board member Jorgenson moved to approve the agenda.
Board member Olson seconded. Ayes - All
The motion passed.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Approval of the CDRB minutes for June 25, 2002.
Board member Olson moved approval of the minutes of June 25, 2002.
Board member Olson seconded. Ayes ---Longrie-Kline, Olson
Abstention--Jorgenson, Ledvina
The motion passed.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
None.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 7-9-2002
2
VI.
DESIGN REVIEW
a. Access Power - 1832 Gervais Court
Shann Finwall, Associate Planner, outlined the details of the Access Power proposal.
The development will include a 2,960 square foot office/warehouse building on a .93-acre
lot located at 1832 Gervais Court. Staff recommends approval of the design review of
Access Power with conditions as outlined in the staff report.
Board member Olson asked staff if the reason the building is not visible from Highway 36
is because of the depression of the building? Saints North roller-skating rink is quite
visible from Highway 36.
Ms. Finwall said the distance of the proposed building from the Highway 36 right of way
will be about 190 feet. This is in a depressed area and the existing mature plant material
will help screen the visibility of the building. Saints North is located further back towards
Highway 38 on the site. Their building is approximately 150 feet back from Gervais
Court. Access Power will be in line with the Qwest facility.
Chairperson Ledvina asked if there was a proposal for a dumpster location?
Ms. Finwall said the applicant stated they will utilize a residential size trash dumpster and
it will be stored indoors. There will be no outdoor storage.
Board member Longrie-Kline asked staff if there are any requirements regarding the
upkeep of canvas awnings?
Ms. Finwall said all buildings must be maintained according to the city's ordinances, but a
condition could also be added to the CDRB conditions because the building is reviewed
by the CDRB.
John Patterson with RJM Construction addressed the board. He stated that the owner
would now like to use integral color rock face block on the building rather than painted
concrete block. He said the color will be earth tones in light tan and brown block.
Board member Olson asked the applicant if they were going to locate a sign on the
building or in the lot, or on the awning?
Joseph Gilbert, the applicant and owner of Access Power, addressed the board. He said
the sign for Access Power will be located above the door and awning and there would be
no freestanding sign outside.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 7-9-2002
Board member Longrie-Kline moved to approve the plans date-stamped May 29, 2002,
for the proposed Access Power building at 1832 Gervais Court. Approval is subject to
the applicant doing the following: (changes are in bold)
Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this
project.
The applicant must submit to city staff for approval before issuance of a building
permit the following:
ao
Revised grading, drainage, utility, and erosion control plans which address
the assistant city engineer's concerns as outlined in his June 14, 2002,
memorandum.
b. Revised building and mechanical equipment elevations to include:
1) Exterior elevations to include concrete block with integral
coloring - no painted concrete block.
2)
A smooth concrete block band above the most northerly window
located on the west elevation to match the five other windows.
3)
Green canvas awnings above the entry door and the two windows
located on the north elevation.
4)
Electrical transformer elevation to include height and overall size of
the transformer.
c. A tree plan and revised landscaping plan to include:
1) The location of all large trees on the site.
2)
The preservation of all large trees and native plants and shrubs
located beyond the southern grading limits and up to the Highway 36
right-of-way. The city will only allow the removal of this landscaping
if the city staff approves an alternative landscape plan.
3)
A detailed rainwater garden plan to include plants able to withstand
wet conditions planted in and on the slopes.
4)
An increase in the sizes of the seven ash and two honey locust trees
from 2 caliper inches in diameter to 2.5 caliper inches in diameter.
These trees shall be balled and burlapped.
5)
In-ground lawn irrigation system installed for all new landscaping,
excluding the rainwater garden.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 7-9-2002
4
d. Retaining wall plans showing the style and height of the retaining walls.
A trash enclosure plan showing location and materials used. The trash
enclosure must be compatible with the building and must have a 100
percent opaque closeable gate. If the trash dumpster is kept inside the
building, an outdoor enclosure is not required.
f. A revised lighting plan showing the style of exterior lights and the
illumination from the lights not to exceed .4-foot-candles at the property line.
g. Samples of exterior building materials.
3. The applicant shall complete the following before occupying the building:
a. Replace any property irons removed because of this construction.
Install a reflectorized stop sign at the exit and a handicap-parking sign for
the handicap accessible parking stall.
Construct a trash enclosure to meet code requirements, unless trash
dumpsters are stored indoors.
Provide continuous concrete curb and gutter around the parking lot and
driveways.
Install an in-ground lawn irrigation system for all new landscaped areas,
excluding landscaping within the rainwater garden.
f. Paint all rooftop mechanical equipment to match the building that the
parapet wall does not screen.
4. If any required work is not done, the city may allow temporary occupancy if:
ao
The city determines that the work is not essential to the public health, safety
or welfare.
The city receives a cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit for the
required work. The amount shall be 150 percent of the cost of the
unfinished work. The applicant shall finish the landscaping by June 1 if the
applicant occupies the building in the fall or winter or within six weeks if the
applicant occupies the building in the spring or summer.
This approval does not include signage. All proposed signs must comply with the
city's sign ordinance and the applicant must obtain all required sign permits before
installation.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 7-9-2002
All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development
may approve minor changes.
=
If the one or all of the three canvas awnings becomes discolored, ripped, or
in disrepair, the owner of the building has 60 days in which to replace the
canvas awning(s). ~
Board member Olson seconded.
Ayes-Jorgenson, Ledvina,
Longrie-Kline, Olson
The motion passed.
b=
Beaver Lake Townhomes - South of Maryland Avenue, between Sterling
Street and Lakewood Drive
Ms. Finwall outlined the details of the Beaver Lake Townhomes. The development will
include 40 single-family detached townhomes and 108 rental units in eleven 8-unit and
five four-unit buildings. Staff recommends approval of the design review of Beaver Lake
Townhomes with conditions as outlined in the staff report.
Larry Olson of LSJ Engineering addressed the board. He presented to the board
drawings of the renditions of the townhomes that homeowners could choose from.
Doug Moe, architect for the Beaver Lake Apartments addressed the board. He stated the
smallest building will be 4 units and will have one and two bedrooms. The larger units
will have two and three bedrooms. Mr. Moe showed board members the drawings and
color schemes of the apartment buildings.
Chairperson Ledvina asked the applicant why the brick wainscoting was not continued
along the front elevation of the apartments.
Ms. Finwall said originally the applicant did not have any brick. Staff recommended
adding brick to tie the buildings in with the townhomes. The developer submitted revised
plans showing brick wainscoting along a portion of the front elevations and on the garage
elevations.
Board member OIson asked staff if there was going to be a revised light plan revision
submitted?
Ms. Finwall said correct.
Chairperson Ledvina said he prefers the design of sample "B" compared to the design of
sample "A" regarding the floor plans for the townhomes. He thinks there should be a
two-foot return on the side elevations of the townhomes. He feels it gives a much nicer
appearance in his opinion. He likes the design of the multi tenant buildings. He would
like to incorporate the brick design on the entire elevation and have it be continuous
around the whole building.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 7-9-2002
Board member Olson said she prefers the brick to stop at the corner and not be a two-
foot wrap around on the townhomes. She has a concern about the side elevation with
only one window. Perhaps landscaping could be added to that side to dress up the
expansion.
Board member Jorgenson said he likes the brick idea on both projects. It adds a lot to
the structure and saves maintenance on the exterior of the building. He likes the various
alternatives the applicant would be offering to the potential homeowner. It will be a nice
mix he said.
Board member Olson said she thinks it should be up to the potential homeowner if they
want brick wrapped around the building or not.
Board member Longrie-Kline agreed that she liked the design of the buildings and the
alternatives in the townhome designs for the potential homeowners. She doesn't have a
preference for the brick on the buildings. In her opinion she thinks it looks fine either
way. Having more brick on the structures would make for a more consistent community
with the townhomes and apartment buildings.
Mr. Moe said adding more brick adds to the cost of the project. Mr. Moe said the one-
bedroom units are about 800 square feet, the two bedroom units are about 1,100 square
feet, and the three bedroom units are about 1,300 square feet in size.
Chairperson Ledvina said he can appreciate the concern about the additional price of
adding brick. Brick would actually save on the siding of the apartment buildings in the
long haul and aesthetically it would be more pleasing. It is a very small percentage of
cost to be added.
Board member Olson said that the apartment with two or more bedrooms will attract
people with children and this could save on the exterior of the building having brick on it
as opposed to just vinyl siding. She would agree-with chairperson Ledvina in his
statements.
Board member Jorgenson moved to approve the project design plans (architectural,
landscaping and lighting plans) for the Beaver Lake Townhouses (dated June 19, 2002).
The city bases this approval on the findings required by the code. The developer or
contractor shall do the following: (changes are in bold)
Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit
for this project.
2. Complete the following before the city issues a building permit:
Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering
plans. These plans shall include the grading, utility, drainage,
erosion control, tree, trail, sidewalk and driveway and parking lot
plans. The plans shall meet the following conditions and
requirements of the assistant city engineer and the following:
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 7-9-2002
(1)
The erosion control plans shall be consistent with the city
code.
(2) The grading plan shall show:
(a)
The proposed building pad elevation and contour
information for each building site. The lot lines on this
plan shall follow the approved preliminary plat.
(b)
Contour information for all the land that the
construction will disturb.
(c)
Building pads that reduce the grading on site where the
developer can save large trees.
(d)
The street, driveway and trail grades as allowed by the
city engineer.
(e)
All proposed slopes on the construction plans. The city
engineer shall approve the plans, specifications and
management practices for any slopes steeper than 3:1.
On slopes steeper than 3:1, the developer shall
prepare and implement a stabilization and planting
plan. These slopes shall be protected with wood fiber
blanket, be seeded with a no maintenance vegetation
and be stabilized before the city approves the final plat.
(f)
All retaining walls on the plans. Any retaining walls
taller than four feet require a building permit form the
city. The developer shall install a protective rail or
fence on top of any retaining wall that is taller than four
feet.
(g)
Sedimentation basins or ponds as required by the
watershed board or by the city engineer.
(h)
No grading beyond the plat boundary without
temporary grading easements from the affected
property owner(s).
(i)
No grading or ground disturbance (except where
utilities or trails are installed) in the:
1. Required wetland and stream buffer areas.
Park dedication area. This land will be for city
park and open space purposes.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 7-9-2002
(3)
8
The developer and contractors shall protect the
park dedication area, including the grove of
coniferous trees (pines) (an area of natural
significance) that is in and near the south side of
the stream corridor, from encroachment from
equipment, grading or filling.
City-required trails are allowed in the buffer and park
dedication areas.
(J)
Additional information for the property south of the
project south of the project site.
This shall include elevations of the existing ditch,
culverts and catch basins and enough information
about the storm water flow path from the proposed
ponds.
(k)
Emergency overflows between Lots 8 and 9, Lots 21
and 22 and south of proposed building 42 (out of
proposed ponds 1,3, and 4). The contractor shall
protect the overflow swales with permanent soil-
stabilization blankets.
Restoration in the stream corridor and park dedication
area being done with native seed mix or vegetation as
approved by the city engineer and by the watershed
district.
(m)
No grading or ground disturbance in the park
dedication area and in the wetland and stream buffer
areas except:
As allowed by the watershed district.
For the utilities, trails and footbridge.
(n) The required trails and sidewalks.
(o)
Revised storm water pond locations and designs as
suggested or required by the watershed district or city
engineer. The ponds shall meet the city's design
standards.
A detailed tree planting plan and material list, which shall:
(a)
Show where the developer or contractor will remove,
save or replace large trees.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 7-9-2002
(4)
(5)
(b)
9
Show the size, species and location of the replacement
and screening trees. The new screening trees shall be
grouped together and shall include the planting of
additional native evergreens and shrubbery on the site
to provide additional screening and privacy between
the proposed townhouses and the single dwellings to
the south as well as screening from the proposed
apartment buildings and Beaver Lake. The screening
evergreens should include Austrian Pine, Black hills
Spruce, Eastern Red Cedar and Eastern Arborvitae.
Plant the additional screening evergreens and
shrubbery as follows:
Along the south property line, adjacent the
detached townhouses, to at least the west edge
of Sterling Lane. Evergreens planted in this area
shall be at least six (6) feet high and planted in a
staggered row. Overall plantings within this area
shall produce an 80 percent opaque screening
from the townhouses and the adjacent single
family dwelling to the south.
Along the west property line, adjacent the
apartment buildings, to the south property
line. Evergreens and shrubbery in this area
shall be planted in a manner that helps
reduce the visibility of the apartments from
Beaver Lake.
(c)
All new and replacement deciduous trees shall be at
least two and one half (2Y2) inches in diameter and
shall be a mix of red and white oaks, ash, lindens,
sugar maples, or other native species. All replacement
evergreens shall be at least eight (8) feet tall and all
new evergreens shall be at least (6) feet tall, excluding
the new evergreens planted on west property line as
noted above.
(d)
Show no tree removal beyond the approved grading
and tree limits.
(e)
Show the planting of at least 270 new trees after the
site grading is done.
All the parking areas and driveways shall have continuous
concrete curb and gutter.
The site, street, driveway, sidewalk and utility plans shall
show:
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 7-9-2002
]0
(a)
A six foot-wide concrete sidewalk along the south side
of Maryland Avenue between Sterling Street and the
west property line of the site. The public works director
shall approve the location and design of the sidewalk.
(b) A water service to each detached housing unit.
(c)
The repair of Maryland Avenue and Sterling Street
(street and boulevard) after the developer connects to
the public utilities and builds the private driveways.
This shall include replacing all unused existing
driveways and curb cuts.
(d)
The coordination of the water main locations,
alignments and sizing with the standards and
requirements of the Saint Paul Regional Water
Services (SPRWS). Fire-flow requirements and
hydrant locations shall be verified with the Maplewood
Fire Department.
(e) The plan and profiles of the proposed utilities.
(f)
All private roads at least 20 feet wide. If the developer
wants to have parking on one side of a private road,
then that private road must be at least 28 feet wide.
(g)
All private roads less than 28 feet in width shall be
posted for "No Parking" on both sides. Private roads at
least 28 feet wide may have parking on one side and
shall be posted for no parking on one side.
(h)
All parking stalls with a width of at least nine feet and a
length of at least 18 feet.
Submit a certificate of survey for all new construction and have each
building staked by a registered land surveyor.
c. Revise the landscape plan for city staff approval showing:
(1)
A variety of shrubs planted within the ponding areas and
along the proposed trails between buildings 8 and 9 and
buildings 21 and 22. These should include Alpine Current,
Yew, Glossy Black Choke Berry, American Cranberry (short
cultivar), Purple Leaf Sand Cherry and Dogwood.
These plantings are to provide a variety of colors and textures
on the site and to provide separation between uses.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 7-9-2002
All lawn areas shall be sodded. The city engineer shall
approve the vegetation within the ponding areas and on the
steep slopes. On slopes steeper than 3:1, the developer shall
prepare and implement a stabilization and planting plan.
These slopes shall be protected with a wood fiber blanket, be
seeded with a no maintenance vegetation and be stabilized
before the city approves the final plat.
(3)
Having in-ground irrigation for all landscape areas (code
requirement).
(4)
The restoration of all disturbed areas within the stream
corridor and park dedication area with a native seed mix
approved by the watershed district and by the city engineer.
Show city staff that Ramsey County has recorded the deeds and all
homeowner's association documents for this development before the
city will issue a certificate of occupancy for the first town house unit.
Submit a photometric plan for staff approval as required by the city
code.
f. Submit revised building elevations as follows:
Apartment building elevations showing the brick
wainscoting extending around the entire building.
(2)
Townhouse elevations showing that the front brick
wainscoting for all proposed front elevations (A-l, A-2, A-
3, B-l, B-2, and B-3) wraps around the building by two (2)
feet on each side.
gm
Submit samples of all building materials (including siding
colors) for the buildings to the city for staff approval.
3. Complete the following before occupying the buildings:
Replace property irons that are removed because of this construction
and set new property irons for the new property corners.
Restore and sod damaged boulevards and sod all turf areas outside
of the ponding areas.
Install a reflectorized stop sign at the Lakewood Drive exit, no
parking signs along the private driveways as required by code and
addresses on each building for each unit. In addition, the applicant
shall install stop signs and traffic directional signs within the site, as
required by staff.
Community Design Review Board 12
Minutes 7-9-2002
d. Construct a six-foot-wide concrete public sidewalk between Sterling
Street and the west property line of the site. The Maplewood Public
Works Director shall approve the location and design of the sidewalk.
Complete the site grading and install all required landscaping
(including the foundation plantings), ponding areas and an in-ground
lawn irrigation system for all landscaped areas (code requirement).
f. Install continuous concrete curb and gutter along all interior
driveways and around all open parking stalls.
go
Install on-site lighting for security and visibility, subject to city staff
approval.
ho
Construct two-rail split-rail fences along the trails in the following
locations:
(1)
From Beaver Creek Parkway between Lots 8 and 9 to near
the stream in the center of the site.
(2)
From Sterling Circle between Lots 21 and 22 to near the
stream in the center of the site.
If the contractor has not completed any required work, the city may allow
temporary occupancy if:
ao
The city determines that the work is not essential to the public
health, safety or welfare.
The city receives cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit
for the required work.
The amount shall be 150 percent of the cost of the unfinished
work. Any unfinished landscaping shall be completed by June
1 if the building is occupied in the fall or winter, or within six
weeks of occupancy if the building is occupied in the spring or
summer.
Co
The city receives an agreement that will allow the city to
complete any unfinished work.
All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community
development may approve minor changes.
Board member Olson seconded.
Ayes - Jorgenson, Ledvina,
Longrie-Kline, Olson
The motion passed.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 7-9-2002
13
VII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS
VIII.
IX,
No visitors present.
BOARD PRESENTATIONS
Ms. Longrie-Kline was the representative for the CDRB at the July 8, 2002, city council
meeting. Ms. Longrie-Kline reported on the following items:
- First reading of the fireworks ordinance.
- First reading of the phosphorus ordinance.
- Chief Winger announced he is leaving the police department at the end of August 2002.
- Bruentrup Farm parking lot was passed ayes all.
- Sinclair gas station proposal was passed ayes all.
- Hmong alliance church parking lot and playground proposal was passed denying the
driveway onto DeSoto Street.
STAFF PRESENTATIONS
There was no representation needed from the CDRB at the July 22, 2002, city council
meeting.
Ms. Finwall said there would not be a CDRB meeting on July 23, 2002. The next
scheduled meeting will be on Tuesday, August 13, 2002. An upcoming item for the
CDRB will be the Hillcrest Village Redevelopment Area and the neighborhood meetings.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 7:40 p.m.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
LOCATION:
DATE:
City Manager
Thomas Ekstrand, Assistant Community Development Director
Hillcrest Village Redevelopment Plan
White Bear Avenue between Ripley Avenue and Larpenteur Avenue
August 6, 2002
INTRODUCTION
Hillcrest Village Smart GroWth Study
The Metropolitan Council and their design consultants, together with the cities of St. Paul and
Maplewood, have developed a neighborhood redevelopment land use plan for the Hillcrest
Shopping Center and the contiguous part of Maplewood north of Larpenteur Avenue. This plan,
called the Hillcrest Village smart growth site, was developed over the past 1% years. Also
involved with the development of this plan were concerned property and business owners.
The Met Council presented this plan to the public on April 25, 2002. Refer to the Hillcrest Village
plan on page 4. Since then, St. Paul and Maplewood have each held an informational meeting
with their respective neighborhoods that would be affected by this plan.
Request
Staff is requesting that the planning commission, community design review board (CDRB) and
housing and redevelopment authority (HRA) forward a recommendation on the Hillcrest Village
plan to the city council. The council needs to decide whether the city should adopt the
redevelopment plan for Hillcrest Village, some variation of it or not adopt it at all.
BACKGROUND
On April 26, 2001, the Metropolitan Council, Calthorpe and Associates (an urban planning group)
and HGA (a local architectural firm) held a workshop at Woodland Hills Church in Maplewood.
This workshop allowed area residents, business owners and St. Paul and Maplewood staff and
government personnel to participate by offedng their desires and preferences on how they would
like this area to redevelop.
On May 24, 2001, the Met Council held a follow up meeting at Woodland Hills Church to present
the consultants two development alternatives they created from input received at the Apdl 26
workshop.
On July 2, 2001, the planning commission reviewed the two development alternatives and had
the following comments:
Features the PC liked
1. Realignment of North St. Paul Road to meet White Bear Avenue at a right angle.
2. Grocery store.
3. The walkable/bikeable aspects of the plans.
4. The large neighborhood square ("village green" concept).
5. The townhouses provided they are affordable to the average person and not overpriced.
6. Attempts at traffic calming and slowing on White Bear Avenue.
Features the PC did not like
1. The potential nuisance of parking spaces behind buildings visible to residential units.
2. Possible difficulty for the elderly or disabled in having parking in back, unless there are
back doors.
On July 9, 2001, the city council reviewed the two concept designs and concurred with the
planning commission's comments.
On November 13, 2001, the Maplewood City Council passed a development moratorium for that
portion of the Hillcrest neighborhood in Maplewood. This moratorium will allow staff to
coordinate the development of design criteria for this area with all interested parties and smart-
growth participants. This moratorium expires on November 13, 2002 or at such time as the city
council adopts amendments to the city's zoning ordinance, zoning map or comprehensive plan.
On April 1, 2002, staff presented the final Hillcrest Village plan to the planning commission for
their information. Since this presentation was informational only, no action was taken.
On April 22, 2002, the staff presented the final Hillcrest Village plan to the city council at the
council/manager workshop to update them on the plan. No action was taken.
On April 25, 2002, the Met Council gave a presentation of their final draft of the Hillcrest Village
plan to the public at Woodland Hills Church.
On June 18, 2002, Maplewood planning staff held a neighborhood informational meeting to get
comments about the Hillcrest Village plan.
On June 19, 2002, the City of St. Paul Planning and Economic Development (PED) staff held
their neighborhood informational meeting.
DISCUSSION
Neighborhood Meetings
Maplewood's Nei.qhborhood Meetin,q
On June 18,. 2002, the Maplewood planning staff hosted a neighborhood meeting at city hall to
present the Hillcrest Village plan to the residents along White Bear Avenue between Frost
Avenue and Larpenteur Avenue as well as the owners of the involved business properties on
White Bear Avenue and Van Dyke Street. The majority of those attending this meeting were not
in favor of any redevelopment. ManY wanted to know when redevelopment would happen and
how much they would be paid for their properties. Business owners wanted to know what would
happen to their businesses dudng redevelopment. Refer to the comments on pages 5-9 which
are responses to a questionnaire we mailed to property owners and comments received at the
meeting.
2
St. Paul's Nei,qhborhood MeetinR
On June 19, 2002, the St. Paul PED staff held a neighborhood informational meeting. Virginia
Burke, of St. Paul's staff, told me that the residents and business owners in St. Paul had a more
favorable response than Maplewood received. The Met Council's redevelopment plan remains
the preferred plan. Ms. Burke explained that there was support of this plan by residents,
business owners and groups like the White Bear Avenue Business Association and
neighborhood planning councils.
It should be noted that St. Paul is working with Centex Corporation for the redevelopment of the
Hillcrest Entertainment Center (formerly Hafner's Bowl) property into multiple-family housing.
Final Development Plan
In total, the final Hillcrest Village redevelopment plan consists of 98 townhouse units, 291
apartment units, 10 single dwellings, 36,400 square feet of office space and 151,300 square feet
of commercial space. In Maplewood alone, there would be 16 townhouse units, 129 apartment
units, 36,400 square feet of office space and 76,000 square feet of commercial space.
Conclusion
This plan is to be used as a guide for Maplewood and St. Paul redevelopment activities. The
design criteria the Maplewood planning staff is drafting will also become part of the development
guidelines for Hillcrest Village. The Maplewood City Council needs to review the plan, decide if
they agree with this plan or would like to change it in some way. The council may also choose
not to pursue the adoption of the plan at this time.
The Met Council has said that Maplewood would be considered more favorably for grant funds if
we adopt this plan or a close variation of it. They realize, of course, that each city's council may
not find all aspects of their redevelopment plan totally to their liking. The Met Council would
hope, though, that the smart growth concepts and design elements depicted in their plan would
be promoted by each city. (There are six smart growth redevelopment sites throughout the
metro.)
RECOMMENDATION
Forward a recommendation to the city council on the Metropolitan Council's Hillcrest Village
Redevelopment plan.
p:com_dvpt~.miscell\hillcrst.7'02.mem
Attachments:
1. Metropolitan Council's Hillcrest Village Final Concept Plan
2. Questionnaire Replies
3. Comments from Property Owners
3
CONCEPT
REDEVELOPMENT
PLAN
o lOO' 2oo' 300'
Match 15, 2002
Commerdal/Office Building
Mixed-Use Building
Residential Building
Fatare Commercial Building
--Indicates Nmber of Stories
BLOCK W1
12,900 SF Commercial
16 Town.home Units [ .....
42 Off-Street Surface Spaces
BLOCK W2
16,800 SF Commercial
71 Off-Street Sm:face Spaces
BLOCKS W3a & W3b
17,400 SF Commercial
4 Single-Family Units
50 Off-Street Surface Spaces
BLOCK W4
38 Apartment Units
16 Off-Street Sux£ace Spaces
BLOCKS WSa & WSb
16 Townhome Units
2 Single-Family Units
BLOCK W6
12 Towdaome Units
L
LARPEN TE UR
CALIFORNIA AY
I
IDAHO AYE
HOYT AVE
,[]
'
Attachment
I BLOC~
', 49,400 S
...... ~ 36,400 S
I 28 _&par
I 351 Off
iS Ela &Elb
F Commercial
F Office
anent Units
Street Surface S
~ ] BLOCKS E2a & E2b
,l~]__q 13,700 SF Commercial
I ~(<?~ J 101 Apattment Units
I 57 Off-Street Surface Spaces
~ , BLOCK E3a
t : 21,700 SF Commercial
[~ ..... ~ ~42 Apaxmaent Units
81 Off-Street Stmface Spaces
J BLOCK E3b
[--] J J 19,400 SF Commercial
~ 44 Apartment Units
71 Off-Street Surface Spaces
10 Townhome Units
2 Single-Family Units
38 Apartment Units
BLOCKS ESa & ESb
22 Townhome Units
2 Single-Family Units
BLOCKS E6a & E6b
22 Townhome Units
Calthorpe Associates
HILLCREST VILLAGE
Smart Growth Twin Cities
4
Metropolitan Courtcil
City of Maplewood
City of St. Paul
Attachment 2
HILLCREST VILLAGE QUESTIONNAIRE
Of 116 questionnaires sent out, 10 people responded as follows:
07/10~02
1. I like the concept of redevelopment for this area: 4 Yes 4 No 1 Unsure
Mary Sturm, 1759 White Bear Ave, Maplewood, 651-777-6009 (home) 651-296-5485 (work):
"Unsure, not afraid of added housing, but not sure of design mix."
1789 T. Bottad, 6-7-02: UNo."
Tschida, 1721 White Bear Ave, Maplewood: "Yes."
Kent Wilcox, 1779 White Bear Ave, Maplewood: "No."
Anonymous: "Yes."
Anonymous: "Yes."
A concerned Maplewood Resident: "Yes''*
Ken Schwaltz, Performance Transmission & Machine, 1735 Van Dyke St., Maplewood: "No."
Rose Ulrich, Meister Investments, 651-777-7184: "No."
I agree with the proposed locations for business and i'esidential uses.
2 Yes 2 No 5 Comments
If not, what would you like to see changed?
Mary Sturm, 1759 White Bear Ave, Maplewood, 651-777-6009 (home) 651-296-5485 (work):
"Keep North St. Paul Road in place. Leave existing housing in place."
1789 T. Bottari: "Keep business separate from housing. This plan reminds me of old (turn-of-
the-century) neighborhoods in Chicago, II1., built before cars, when people walked to stores,
work, etc., lived over their bakery, behind their Mom & Pop grocery store, rarely left the
neighborhood, except to go downtown on the trolley or 'el'. Also they didn't have checking accts
- check cards or credit cards or pc's."
Tschida, 1721 White Bear Ave, Maplewood: "Encourage commercial use."
Kent Wilcox, 1779 White Bear Ave, Maplewood: "Too much traffic as is! This plan would re-
route traffic making White Bear Ave. more congested!"
Anonymous: "Yes."
A concerned Mapiewood Resident: "Yes"
Ken Schwaltz, Performance Transmission & Machine, 1735 Van Dyke St., Maplewood: "No.
Face lift on White Bear Ave and leave Van Dyke alone."
Rose Ulrich, Meister Investments, 651-777-7184: "No."
5
3. I like this plan because:
Mary Sturm, 1759 White Bear Ave, Maplewood, 651-777-6009 (home) 651-296,5485 (work):
"Some green space - that's good."
1789 T. Bottari: "We could use a little spit and polish."
Anonymous: "Area needs a face lift."
Rose Ulrich, Meister Investments, 651-777-7184:"1 don't like anything about it."
4. I don't like the plan because:
Mary Sturm, 1759 White Bear Ave, Maplewood, 651-777-6009 (home) 651-296-5485 (work):
"Seems so abstract this is causing clear anxiety tends to cause folks to let property run down
due to uncertainty of future. Neighbor already muttered that he wouldn't put another dime into
his house if the intention was to take our homes gradually or right now for other uses."
1789 T. Bottari: "Where's White Castle, Jerry's Chicken, Steve's Market (he's getting better),
the Dollar Store, Snyder's etc? When people are force to move out they don't come back. Is
the plan child friendly?
Tschida, 1721 White Bear Ave, Maplewood: "Don't want too much Iow income housing:"
Kent Wilcox, 1779 White Bear Ave, Maplewood: "Traffic noises, traffic congestion and Iow
income housing attracts problem families."
Ken Schwaltz, Performance Transmission & Machine, 1735 Van Dyke St., Maplewood: "If the
people in the Hillcrest and Maplewood community want to redevelop this community let them do
it the way they want to not thru the Metropolitan Council."
Other Comments:
Mary Sturm, 1759 White Bear Ave, Maplewood, 651-777-6009 (home) 651-296-5485 (work): "It
doesn't look much like what the neighbors planned at early meetings and the business owners
sure seem upset. Change is difficult but it's the unclarity of this plan that is exacerbating that.
Also don't replace $100,000 homes with $170,000 townhomes and call it affordable housing.
Also the uncertancy about piecemeal dev do it all or nothing."
1789 T. Bottad: "1 live on White BearAve., have since 1976. I don't know what plan you have
for my part - more mix??? More traffic? County 5 coming through from Century Ave (120)?
Kent Wilcox, 1779 White Bear Ave, Maplewood: "Area businesses concerned that they will be
'forced out'."
6
A concerned Maplewood Resident: "No more tattoo shops. No 'Mr. Nice Guy drug
paraphernalia type shops. No adult book/video stores. A Rood grocery store like Kendell's or
Knowlan's. NOT Steve's warehouse. No more Chinese restaurants - we have enough now.
Nor more bars or liquor stores. 'No "hang-out" shops. Well lit - well patrolled area. No sex
offenders. No traffic detoured to residential streets. I look forward to seeing the area beautiful-
but not a lot of businesses that we don't need or want in the area. Office space yes - good
reputation businesses."
Rose Ulrich, Meister Investments, 651-777-7184: "If the east side of Larp & White Bear in
Maplewood is such an eye sore - start with Xcel and the phone co. putting the utilities
underground. That would be an improvement alone. It probably would be best if you find the
money first and start buying us out."
P:/com_dvpt/Hillcrest Village Questionnaire
7
Attachment
HILLCREST VILLAGE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS 6/18/02
1) Larpenteur resident: "No way."
2)
Brad & Marian Whitney, 1763 East Larpenteur: "1. Concern about property
value. 2. Concern with inability to say no. 3. Concern on time frame of
development. 4. Roundabout."
3)
Jean Nelson, 2201 Birmingham, Maplewood, MN, 55109: "The northeast
corner of White Bear & Larpenteur needs a face lift more so than any
businesses on Van Dyke but it appears the owners of the property do not
understand that these meetings are for input. And they also said we have no
intention of fixing up the property. They could at least be a little more open to
the concept - of appearances and be willing to work with the community and
not against it. I live in Maplewood but work on the St. Paul side of the
proposed project at H&R Block. There needs to be a balance of commercial
and residential. We were originally in Hillcrest which leaked and the new
front may look ok to the public but if you go-in the back rooms - the walls are
falling apart - hundreds of electrical and phone wires everywhere - inside is
a dump. We are now in Hafner Center and the structure of the building is a
little better but also needs improvements."
4)
Nathan Block, Plaza Theatre, (651-503-0434): "1 agree that something needs
to be done to White Bear Avenue. I would prefer that it not displace the
Plaza Theatre. I would love the city to intervene so that I could purchase the
small parcel of land on which the Plaza resides from Woodland Hills Church.
So far, the church is unwilling to sell. I want to keep giving the community of
Maplewood/St. Paul an affordable alternative to seeing movies."
5)
Gary and Claudia Lonetti, 1956 Price Ave, Maplewood, MN, 55109, 651-777-
8220:"6-18-02. We do not want subsidized and (Iow income) housing.
Keep the businesess but fix them up, including, do some landscaping. Take
a close look at sinnage and class it up. There is nothing wrong with No. St.
Paul Rd. except it needs to be re-surfaced."
6)
R. Meissner: "1 agree that the Ave needs to be redone'so keep up the good
work. Most of the Ave is rented with absent landowners. All the tenants can
be replaced in new units (business units)."
7)
David L Johnson, 1743 White Bear Avenue, Maplewood, MN, 55109: "Plan
for more commercial/office b!dg on White Bear Ave and less resident housing
on' White Bear Ave."
8)
Ken & Jackie Schwartz, Performance Transmission & Machine, 1735 Van
Dyke St.: "Against the proposal completely. Area needs facelift. Why don't
we see what St. Paul agrees to? That's the area that really needs work."
9) Len & Irene Klein, 1741 E. Larpenteur: "Plan not acceptable."
10)
Gene Tschida, 1721 W.B.A.: "Start with redevelopment going further up
W.B.A. on residential side."
8
11)
12)
13)
North Suburban Tile & Carpet, 1715 Van Dyke St.: 'He don't want to move.
Redevelopment of our street will close our business. We need help keeping
the neighborhood clean and safe. The buildings don't cause this problem."
Minn. Health Family Physicians, 1814 No. St. Paul Rd.: "No. St. Paul Rd. is a
dangerous intersection. It is hazardous for our employees to cross the street
to SA. Over the last 5 years we have had homeless people sleep in the
wooded area behind the old Berger King building and trash is dumped off
monthly. Traffic crosses through Blockbuster parking lot all day long. Junior
Achievement parking would be an option for us if plowing a walk way for
people and a safer North St. Paul Rd or another option would be to close the
road allow us to Purchase more land for parking."
Rose Ulrich, Meister Investments: "Show us the money and we'll be out."
p:/com_dvpt/Hillcrest Development comments
9
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
LOCATION:
DATE:
MEMORANDUM
City Manager
Ken Roberts, Associate Planner
Conditional Use Permit and Design Review - Keller Golf Course
Maintenance Building
2166 Maplewood Ddve
August 5, 2002
INTRODUCTION
Project Description
Joe Carded of PCL Construction and Kevin Finley, of Ramsey County Parks and Recreation
Department, are proposing to build a 10,560 square-foot maintenance building at Keller Golf
Course. Refer to the maps on pages 6 - 12 and the applicant's statement on page 15. The
proposed building would replace the older of the two existing maintenance buildings on the site.
The county would keep the brown-colored structure. The extedor of the proposed maintenance
building would have metal panel siding and a standing seam metal roof. Refer to the project plans.
The proposed maintenance building would have bathrooms with changing areas, a cold storage
area, offices, a shop area and covered wash bay.
Requests
Mr. Finley is requesting that the city approve:
1. A conditional use permit (CUP) to expand a public building. Section 36-437 of the city code
requires a CUP for a public service or public building uses in any zoning district.
2. The building design, site and landscape plans.
BACKGROUND
In 1981, the city approved plans for a 30-foot by 64-foot pole barn for Keller Golf Course. This is
the southern maintenance building on the site (the building that will remain on the site).
In 1989, the city approved plans for a 944 square-foot addition and remodeling for the Keller Golf
Course clubhouse.
DISCUSSION
Conditional Use Permit
The city council should approve this permit. The proposed building would be attractive and would
be an improvement over the existing building. This would benefit the county by improving their golf
facility and the view of the site from Highway 61.
Design Considerations
Building Elevations
Staff finds no problem with the placement and choice of materials for the proposed maintenance
building. The city code allows corrugated metal buildings in farm districts. As proposed, the
building would have a metal panel extedor with dormers facing Highway 61. The plans also show a
wainscot base panel for a contrasting color or for rock-faced block.
The proposed site plans shows this building set back 30 feet from the Highway 61 right-of-way. Mr.
Finley told me that the roof would be green, that the sides would be white and the trim and doors
would be beige.
Sprinkling
Code requires that the developer or owner install an in-ground sprinkler system for any new
landscaped areas. The city can waive the spdnkledng requirement if there is an altemative
method for watedng plantings. The golf course is essentially a lawn and landscaping maintenance
operation. There is no need for an in-ground lawn irrigation system around the new building since
the county staff would maintain the grounds as they always have.
Tree Replacement, Landscaping and Screening
Mr. Finley had a landscape plan prepared for the site. (See the attached colored plan date-
stamped August 1, 2002). This plan shows the county planting a vadety of materials on the west
side of the new maintenance building, including 12 white fir trees, dogwoods, honeysuckle, 3 elm
trees and a variety of annuals and perennials.
When the county completes this plan, it will clean up much of the overgrown shrub trees and
replace them with a neat planting arrangement. The county should keep the existing trees around
the brown metal building as they provide screening for that building.
Parking
The proposed site plan shows 15 parking spaces to the south of the new maintenance building.
The city code does not have a specific parking standard for this type of facility. The county should
provide enough paved parking for the employees that would park in the area. As an example, I
counted 14 vehicles parked around the maintenance buildings on July 22, 2002. In addition, there
should not be any parking on the landscape areas or along the driveway to the buildings.
Dump~em
The county now has garbage dumpsters sitting outside to the north of the existing buildings. The
city should require Ramsey County to install a dumpster enclosure as a part of this project to meet
current code standards.
Other Comments
Building Official
A building permit is required. We have had a meeting with the architect and the owner and we are
working with them.
Fire Marshal
1. Provide proper fire department access to the site.
2. Sprinkler system shall be installed and monitored.
Police Department
Lieutenant Kevin Rabbett of the Maplewood Police Department stated that he "found no public
safety related concerns' with this proposal.
Engineering Department
Chds Cavett has reviewed the proposal. His comments are on pages 16 and 17.
RECOMMENDATIONS
A. Approve the resolution on pages 18 and 19. This resolution approves a conditional use
permit for Keller Golf Course, including a new maintenance building, at 2166 Maplewood
Ddve. The council bases the permit on the findings required by code and it is subject to the
following conditions:
1. All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city. The director of community
development may approve minor changes.
2. The applicant must begin construction within one year after the council approves this
permit or the permit shall end. The city council may extend this deadline for one year.
3. The city council shall review this permit in one year.
B. Approve the architectural and site plans date-stamped July 12, 2002, and the landscape plan
date-stamped August 1, 2002, for the Keller Golf Course maintenance building, subject to the
findings required by the city code. The county or the developer shall do the following:
1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project.
2. Provide the following for approval before the city issues grading or building permits:
a. A detailed grading, drainage and erosion control plan, subject to the city engineer's
approval. This plan shall include the reconstruction of the entrance drive into the site.
b. A detailed photometric plan for all proposed outdoor lighting, subject to staff approval.
c. Plans for a trash dumpster enclosure. These shall include a revised site plan to show
the location and elevations of all four sides of the enclosure. The gates shall be 100
percent opaque and the materials and colors of the enclosure shall be compatible with
those of the new maintenance building. This plan shall be subject to staff approval.
3. Complete the following before occupying the new maintenance building:
The construction of the required trash dumpster enclosure for any outside trash
containers for this facility. (code requirement) The enclosure must be 100 percent
opaque, match the color of the building and have a closeable gate that extends to the
ground.
b. Install all required landscaping around the driveway, parking lot and the site.
4. If any required work is not done, the city may allow temporary occupancy if:
o
a. The city determines that the work is not essential to the public health, safety or welfare.
The city receives cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit for the required work.
The amount shall be 150 percent of the cost of the unfinished work. The owner or
contractor shall complete any unfinished landscaping by June 1 if the county occupies
the building in the fall or winter or within six weeks if the county occupies the building in
the spdng or summer.
c. The city receives an agreement that will allow the city to complete any unfinished work.
All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may
approve minor changes.
The city is not requiring in-ground lawn irrigation since the applicant has the means and the
workforce to maintain the landscaping.
4
REFERENCE INFORMATION
SITE DESCRIPTION
Site size: About 45,000 square feet, whole golf course - 148 acres
Existing land use: Existing Keller Golf Course maintenance buildings
SURROUNDING LAND USES
North:
East:
South:
West:
Keller Golf Course
Keller Golf Course
Keller Golf Course
Keller Park and Keller Lake across Highway 61
PLANNING
Land Use Plan designation: OS (open space)
Zoning: F (farm residence)
CUP Findings
Section 36-442(a) states that the city council shall base approval of a CUP on the findings listed in
the resolution on pages 18 and 19.
Application Date
We received the applications for this request on July 12, 2002. State law requires that the city
take action within 60 days of receiving complete applications for any land use proposal. The 60-
day requirement on this proposal ends September 11, 2002. Therefore, city council action is
required on this proposal by September 9, 2002.
p:sec16~keller maintenance cup.doc
Attachments:
1. Location Map
2. Property Line/Zoning Map
3. Site Arial Photo
4. Site Plan (Existing Conditions)
5. Site Plan (Proposed)
6. Site Plan (Demolition Detail Plan)
7. Site Plan (Proposed Detail)
8. Proposed Building Elevations
9. Proposed Floor Plan
10. Applicant's statement of intended use of property
11. Chris Cavett's comments dated July 29, 2002
12. Conditional Use Permit Resolution
13. Architectural plans date-stamped July 12, 2002 (separate attachment)
14. Landscape plan date-stamped August 1,2002 (separate attachment)
5
.400N
PLAZA CIR
ALVARADO DR
E£LLECREST DR
DEAUVtLLE DR
tX,T.R/D/,~ DR
Gervais
Lake
CO. RD. B2
Attachment 1
DR.
COUNTY
AVE.
SEXTANT
AVE.
AVE.
Pm-k ~,
BELMONT
ir BELLWOOD
~1/ . ~
LOCATION
N!ON AVE.
FRISBIE AVE.
MAP
Attachment
15
F
F
COUNTY ROAD
SITE
F
SITE
·
KELLER GO
,'2 )
COUNTY
F
COURSE
RAMSI='y
Attachment
Partial Topograghic and Location Survey for:
PCL CONSTRUCTION SERVICES
of a portion of Keller Golf Course A4aintenance Facility
Attachment 5
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
1
K=hder & Associate~. Inc.
~"£_LE~: ,SC,L? .;9UFS£
:vI .; i I .I T',-Z I'.I A i..i ,2 E
C/TY C,T
SITE PLAN
(PROPOSED)
10
Attachment 6
DEMOLITION NOTES:
KELLER GOLF
COURSE
MAINTENANCE
SHOP
11
/,/
Attachment 7
./
,,/
SITE PLAN
(PROPOSED DETAIL)
12
KELLER GOLF
COURSE
MAINTENANCE
SHOP
Attachment 8
13
Attachment 9
Attachment 10
KELLER GOLF COURSE
NEW MAINTENANCE FACILITY
INTENDED USE OF PROPERTY
Ramsey County needs to replace an aging, undersized maintenance structure on the
Keller Golf Course with a new structure that not only meets today's needs, but is also
flexible and adaptable to meet the needs of the golf course maintenance operations for
many years to come.
The maintenance facility will provide increased space for proper operation of the
maintenance program. The project scope includes design and construction of a
10,560SF maintenance facility, including mechanics shop, cold storage for vehicles and
equipment, offices and employee areas, as well as access road upgrades and
improvements, new parking area, utilities, site grading and landscaping.
The facility will be architecturally compatible and complement the other buildings on the
golf course and will meet the needs of the Keller Golf Course maintenance operations
for many years to come.
Page 15 07/11/02
Attachment ll
Engineering Plan Review
Project:
Reviewed by:
Date:
Keller Golf Course - Maintenance Shop
Chris Cavett, Maplewood Engineering Department
July 29, 2002
Storm Water Management/Storm Water Treatment & Misc~ draina2e issues:
Basically, all the existing runoff drains toward the T.H. 61 right-of-way and
eventually into the Keller Lake. This area is in the shore land district. The
applicant has stated that the impervious surface on the site will increase from
31,600 to 43,600 S.F. or 38%. In addition there will be additional steep slopes
added on the site.
Submit revised plans addressing_ the followine:
1. The applicant shall incorporate Best Management Practices, (BMP's) into the design
where practical. See the Metro Council website for additional information on best
management practices.
http ://www.metrocouncil.org/enviroment/Watershed/bmpmanual.htm
Contact Maplewood Assistant City Engineer, Chris Cavett at 651-770-4554, with
questions.
2. One form of BMP, that is strongly recommended are bio-infiltration basins, (Rainwater
Gardens). It is strongly recommended that a large rainwater garden (Wet Prairie
meadow) be constructed in the area around the "Area Drain". The "Area Drain" may
still be usable, but the outlet pipe appears to be in state of disrepair and inspected and
considered for replacement. The "Area Drain" should be altered to create an overflow
drain rather than a low point drain. (NOTE: location of current under ground utilities).
As this site is part of a large regional drainage system, basically treatment needs to be
addressed. With that criteria, the bio-infiltration basin shall be designed to hold a raw
volume (infiltration volume) of the greater of either:
· Runoff from a lA" rain event for the entire post-development drainage area, or
· Runoff from a 1.25" rain event contributed by all the impervious surfaces.
(Note: the alternative to the rainwater garden is to design a NURP Pond to current
NURP design criteria)
The rainwater garden may be designed to hold as little as 3" - 6" of water over a large
area before flowing into the area drain. The remaining water will then be allowed to
infiltrate in the basin area. Depth of the basin may vary depending on soil type.
NOTE: the most critical issue is the preparation of the basin area:
The garden area should be sub-cut to provide 12-inches of bedding material. The
bedding material should consist of a mixture of 50% salvaged on-site topsoil and clean
50% organic compost. Most importantly, the sub-soils in the rainwater garden should
be scarified to a minimum depth of 12-inches before the bedding material is placed.
16
Rock Infiltration Sumps may be installed in heavier softs below the rainwater gardens
to facilitate infiltration. Provide a detail m the plan. Rock infiltration sumps that have
been done by the city are typically 4' Diameter X 3' deep with 1 ½" clean clear rock
wrapped in type 5 geotextile filter fabric, (felt). The top of the rock infi trafion sump is
placed approx. 12-roches below finished bottom of the rainwater garden. The rainwater
garden should be protected with silt fence at~er grading to prevent silting into the area,
as well as compaction of the soil by construction equipment. The rainwater garden area
should be topped before or after planting with "shredded" wood mulch. "Woodchips"
are NOT acceptable mulching material.
A landscape plan for the bioretention basins/rainwater gardens shall be required as
part of final plan approval. Consider modeling the large basin after the other native
planting areas on the golf course, such as the slope to the east of the site or the island at
the entrance road. The infiltration basin could be designed as a wet native prairie
meadow. This site is very visible from the road.
The applicant may consider doing the final preparation of the rainwater gardens near
the end of construction, as the site will be more stable and less susceptible to erosion.
Continue to protect with silt fence as necessary.
A second rainwater garden or similar BMP shall be constructed at CB 1, to prevent
direct runoff into that catch basin. The catch basin shall also act as an overflow.
A swale or similar BMP shall be graded to direct drainage from the south parking lot
towards the north and into the large infiltration area.
5. Additional BMP's may be considered in other areas.
Miscdlaneous:
What is proposed for the existing drive? Nothing is noted in 'the plans, however it seems
dear that something is planned. What is the proposed Section? How is the drainage to
be managed?
Will there be any parking along this drive? If parking will be permitted, then a
concrete treatment is required by code. Consider a concrete curb and gutter along the
east side, (hill) and a concrete ribbon along the west side to allow water to sheet drain
off the drive into the green area.
Slopes shall not exceed 3:1 unless a no-maintenance landscape and permanent erosion
protection plan is prepared. It appeared that all slopes were greater than 3: l, though it
was difficult to determine.
The grading plan submitted was very difficult to review. The grading plan was smaller
than an 80 scale on 11X17 plans. The plans had been reduced again to fit on the 11X17
paper and were no longer to any scale. Final submittal shall be scaled, legible plans.
Fax to:
John Krausert, Rehder and Assoc. 651-452-9797
17
Attachment 12
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, Ramsey County applied for a conditional use permit for the Keller Golf Course and
to replace an existing maintenance building at the golf course.
WHEREAS, this permit applies to the Keller Golf Course property located at 2166 Maplewood
Drive. The legal description is:
SUBJ TO HWY 61 & FROST AVE & EX STATE OF MINNESOTA R/W; W % OF NW % OF NE %
& TRIANGULAR PART IN SW COR OF E % OF NW % OF NE % MEAS 208.71 FT ON WL & 297.26
FT ON SL THEREOF ALSO PART OF SW % OF NE % LYING NLY OF STATE OF MINNESOTA
PJW ALSO PART OF NE % OF NW ¼ LYING ELY OF HWY 61 & ELY OF AL DESC AS COM AT
PT ON NL OF & 1830.5 FT E OF NW COR OF NW % TH S 40 DEG 15 MIN W FOR,790 FT TO WL
OF NE % OF NW % TH S ON SD WL FOR 310 FT TH S 43 DEG 15 MINE FOR 160 FT TO PT OF
BEG TH S 10 DEG E FOR 300 FT TO SL OF NE % OF NW % & THERE TERM ALSO PART OF
SE % OF NW % LYING NLY OF STATE OF MINNESOTA R/W
ALSO PART OF SW % OF NW % LYING ELY & SLY OF AL BEG ON EL OF & 366 FT S FROM NE
COR OF SW % OF NW % TH N 72 DEG 18 MIN W FOR 119 FT TH WLY ALONG CURVE TO LEFT
RAD 215 FT FOR 185 FT TH S 66 DEG 34 MIN W FOR 195 FT TH S 48 DEG 40 MIN W FOR 320
FT TH S 440 FT TH S 46 DEG 45 MINE FOR 400 FT TO SL OF SW % OF NW % & THERE TERM
ALSO PART OF NW % OF SW % LYING ELY & NLY OF PART OWNED BY CITY OF ST PAUL
ALSO W 330 FT OF GOVT. LOT 2 IN NE % OF SW % LYING ELY & NLY OF PART OWNED BY
CITY OF ST PAUL ALSO PART OF E 10 ACRES OF W 20 ACRES OF SD GOVT. LOT 2 LYING
NLY OF STATE OF MINNESOTA R/W; ALL IN SECTION 16, TOWNSHIP 29, RANGE 22.
WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows:
1. On August 5, 2002, the planning commission recommended that the city council approve
this permit.
On August 26, 2002, the city council held a public hearing. City staff published a notice in
the paper and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The council gave
everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The council
also considered reports and recommendations from the city staff and planning
commission.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above-described
conditional use permit, because:
1. The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be in
conformity with the City's Comprehensive Plan and Code of Ordinances.
2. The use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area.
3. The use would not depreciate property values.
18
The use would not involve any activity, process, materials, equipment or methods of
operation that would be dangerous, hazardous, detrimental, disturbing or cause a
nuisance to any person or property, because of excessive noise, glare, smoke, dust, odor,
fumes, water or air pollution, drainage, water runoff, vibration, general unsightliness,
electrical interference or other nuisances.
5. The use would generate only minimal vehicular traffic on local streets and would not
create traffic congestion or unsafe access on existing or proposed streets.
o
The use would be served by adequate public facilities and services, including streets,
police and fire protection, drainage structures, water and sewer systems, schools and
parks.
7. The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services.
The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and scenic
features into the development design.
9. The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects.
Approval is subject to the following conditions:
1. All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city. The director of community
development may approve minor changes.
2. The applicant must begin construction within one year after the council approves this
permit or the permit shall end. The city council may extend this deadline for one year.
3. The city council shall review this permit in one year.
The Maplewood City Council approved this resolution on
,2002.
19