HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/13/2009
AGENDA
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
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:
a. November 25, 2008
5. Design Review:
a. Feed Products North Office Building, 1300 McKnight Road
6. Unfinished Business:
a. 2030 Comprehensive Plan Review
7. Visitor Presentations:
8. Board Presentations:
9. Staff Presentations:
a. Sustainable Maplewood
10. Adjourn
DRAFT
MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 25, 2008
I. CALL TO ORDER
Vice-Chairperson Ledvina called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m.
II. ROLL CALL
Boardmember John Demko
Vice-Chairperson Matt Ledvina
Chairperson Linda Olson
Boardmember Ananth Shankar
Boardmember Matt Wise
Present
Present
Absent
Present
Present
Staff Present:
Michael Martin. Planner
III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Boardmember Wise moved to approve the amended agenda adding item 9.a.-Capstone Project
Update.
Boardmember Shankar seconded
The motion passed.
Ayes - all
IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
a. October 28, 2008
Boardmember Shankar moved approval of the minutes of October 28, 2008, as presented.
Boardmember Demko seconded
Ayes - Demko, Ledvina, Shankar
Abstention - Wise
The motion passed.
V. DESIGN REVIEW
a. Warehouse and Screening Fence Proposal, Menards, 2280 Maplewood Drive
Planner Michael Martin presented the staff report explaining the request by Menards, Inc., to build
a 16,750-square-foot unheated warehouse on the south side of the Menards store. Menards is also
proposing to replace an existing chain link fence between the store and Countryside VW/Saab on
the east side of the property to screen a pallet racking area.
Boardmember Ledvina asked staff if there was any discussion by the planning commission
regarding the design of the proposed building. Mr. Martin responded that the planning commission
did not have comments regarding the design of the building. Mr. Martin also said that the Memards
representative was asked if he was in agreement with the required conditions of the staff report
and he responded affirmatively.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 11-25-2008
2
Boardmember Demko asked staff the height of the garden center. Mr. Martin responded that the
building has two main heights and they are the entrance height and the Highway 36 side of the
building height. Mr. Martin said the height of the garden center is more consistent with the Highway
36 side of the building and is within code and allowable.
Boardmember Shankar asked if the applicant is planning to modify or install lighting. Mr. Martin
responded that additional lighting within the warehouse building would be needed.
Thomas O'Neil of Menard, Inc., 4777 Menard Drive, Eau Claire, Wisconsin, reviewed the site
design for the board. Mr. O'Neil said the primary expansion is to incorporate the additional
warehousing area that is currently impervious surface and enclosed with a 14-foot-high screening
structure that would surround the lumber area. Mr. O'Neil said the warehouse would house the
treated lumber and would allow vehicles to drive through this area and load materials without being
out in the weather elements. Mr. O'Neil said the existing treated rack would be demolished.
Mr. O'Neil said incorporating the larger structure that is opaque on the backside of the fence will
create a further screening of the lumber yard and since it is 25 feet high it will block some of the
yard lighting and sound inside the yard. Mr. O'Neil said the primary reason for the 25 feet in height
was to slope the roof north and allow the runoff to flow away from the neighbors and north into their
storm sewer. Mr. O'Neil said replacing the fence on the east side of the site will allow better
organization and cleanup of the lumber area.
Mark Olson, general manager of the store, was also present and available to answer questions
from the board.
Boardmember Ledvina asked if the lighting will be added on the south side of the building. Mr.
O'Neil responded that they are not proposing additional lighting or much change to the lighting
inside the lumber yard and no lighting packs installed on the south side.
Boardmember Shankar asked if there would be lighting on the 14-foot screen wall. Mr. O'Neil said
there would be lighting similar to the lighting on the other screening structures on the site.
Boardmember Demko asked if the drive-through will be wide enough to accommodate two
vehicles. Mr. O'Neil said the drive-through is designed for one-way traffic, but there will be enough
room for one vehicle to pass another parked vehicle. Mr. Olson said the lumber yard had a one-
way drive-through in the 1990s before the current remodeling in 2000.
Boardmember Wise said he feels the plans seem to meet the needs of any concerns the neighbors
might have and he has no problem with the plans.
Boardmember Shankar asked about plantings planned for the south side of the site. Boardmember
Wise said he looked over the fence on the south side of the property and there is considerable
vegetation along the property line and over-story trees on the neighbors'property. Mr. Martin
reviewed the plans and said there is substantial vegetation in that area.
Boardmember Ledvina said he agrees with the staff recommendation and feels this modification is
a much more unifying design and he does not have any issues with this proposal.
The board discussed with staff how to incorporate the new elevation plan presented at tonight's
meeting into the staff recommendation. Mr. Martin advised the board how this could be presented.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 11-25-2008
3
Boardmember Shankar moved approval of the site plan date-stamped October 1, 2008 and the
building elevations date-stamped November 24, 2008 as presented to the board on 11-25-08, for
the 16,750-square-foot unheated warehouse addition to Mendards at 2280 Maplewood Drive.
Approval is subject to the following conditions:
1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project.
2. The revised building elevations for the south elevation of the proposed building are
approved as presented to the review board on November 25, 2008. These revisions show
the south elevation with the wooden "fence" portion of this exterior wall matching the 14-foot
height of the proposed fencing on the east and west sides of the warehouse. The area
above the wooden siding shall be green corrugate metal as proposed on the building.
3. Before getting a building permit the applicant shall:
a. Submit grading, drainage, utility and erosion control plans to the city engineering
department for approval.
b. Submit to city staff 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.
4. All work shall follow the approved plans. Planning staff may approve minor changes.
Boardmember Demko seconded
Ayes - all
VI. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
None
VII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS
None
VIII. BOARD PRESENTATIONS
None
IX. STAFF PRESENTATIONS
a. Update - Capstone Project
Planner Martin handed out information on the Sustainable Maplewood presentation given by the
University of Minnesota students discussing their three months of work between the city and their
Capstone course. Mr. Martin said the students will give their presentation at 6:30 p.m. on
December 11 at the Maplewood Community Center.
b. January City Council Meeting - CDRB representative needed for Menards project.
X. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned by consensus at 6:38 p.m.
MEMORANDUM
LOCATION:
DATE:
Acting City Manager
Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner
Feed Products North-Conditional Use Permit, Lot Division
and Design Review
1300 McKnight Road
January 7,2009
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
INTRODUCTION
Project Description
John Fallin, owner of Feed Products North, is proposing to build a 5,800-square-foot,
twCl"stClry office building for his business and possibly some lease space on the westerly
portion of his property. The location of this office building would be on the east side of
McKnight Road west of the Lakewood Drive bridge. Refer to the attachments.
Requests
Mr. Fallin is requesting approval of:
. A conditional use permit (CUP) to construct an office building closer than 350 feet to
residential properties. The city code also requires a CUP for structures in M1 (light
manufacturing) zoning districts that are closer than 350 feet to a residential district.
The proposed office building would abut residential property on its southeasterly lot
line and would be 55 feet from the nearest residential lot. Refer to the maps.
. A lot division to split the office building site from the main part of his property lying
east of Lakewood Drive.
. Design plans.
BACKGROUND
November 28, 1998: The city council approved a CUP for an office building on the
currently-proposed site. Mr. Fallin did not build the office at that time and this CUP
ended.
May 19, 2005: The city staff approved a lot division to split the proposed office site from
the remainder of the Feed Products North property as is currently requested. The
property owner did not submit deeds for this lot division so the lot division never took
place.
DISCUSSION
Conditional Use Permit
Staff does not find any significant problem with the proposed office building and its
proximity to the residential neighbors. In 1998, the city previously approved an office at
this location for the applicant which he never built. There has not been any change to
the character of the neighborhood that would warrant any new concern. This proposed
office building would not have any significant impact on traffic or the neighborhood in
general.
The only concern staff sees is that the applicant should provide a substantial buffer for
the residents to the southeast. Code, in fact, requires a six-foot-tall, 80% opaque screen
between the parking lot and drive areas and these residential neighbors.
Regarding traffic, any new development will generate additional traffic. A small office
like this, though, would produce only a minimal traffic increase. Staff, therefore, does
not see this as an issue.
Wetlands
Shann Finwall, Environmental Planner, has reviewed the plans and found them in
compliance with wetland buffer requirements. The Ramsey Washington Watershed
District has made the same determination. Refer to Ms. Finwall's report.
Parking Lot Encroachment/Potential Setback Variance
The proposed parking meets city parking requirements with the exception of a parking
lot encroachment into the required 15-foot parking lot setback from the Lakewood Drive
right-of-way. The easterly parking lot is proposed to have a seven-foot setback from this
right-of-way at its northerly corner. The parking lot setback, though, increases further
south along the proposed parking lot edge to comply with code.
This parking lot encroachment would require an eight-foot setback variance. Staff feels
the site plan should be modified to meet the required 15 foot parking lot setback
minimum. It appears the applicant can modify the site plan to accommodate this
revision. If it becomes difficult or infeasible, the applicant would then have to apply for a
setback variance.
Lot Division
It makes sense to approve this lot split since the proposed site is physically separated
from the main part of the applicant's property east of Lakewood Drive. Staff
recommends, though, that the property owner dedicate cross easements on the west
property that cover the utilities (sanitary and storm) which serve the lot east of Lakewood
Drive. Also, the applicant should dedicate a public drainage and utility easement over
the 24-inch culvert on the property if it is found to belong to Ramsey County.
2
Architectural and Site Considerations
The proposed office building is attractively designed with an exterior of Harde (cement-
board) siding, stone and architectural shingles. The hip roof is residential in character
which would be compatible with nearby homes.
Parking
The proposed parking meets city ordinances with the exception of the parking-setback
encroachment as previously discussed.
Traffic Impacts
Any new use on vacant property will increase traffic. The proposed office building,
however, is a low traffic volume use. Staff does not foresee any substantial impact from
the proposed office building in terms of traffic generation.
Landscaping and Tree Replacement
Landscaping:
The proposed landscaping plan should be expanded upon to provide a six-foot-tall and
80 percent opaque screen to create a buffer for the homes to the south as required by
ordinance. This buffer can be a planted evergreen screen or a decorative six-foot-tall
fence. Staff also feels there should be additional trees planted along the Lakewood
Drive frontage for site aesthetics. Staff further recommends over-story trees to provide a
taller crown of tree foliage since the roadway is at a higher grade than the proposed site.
The rain garden on the McKnight Road side of the site would provide an attractive view
from the street, but staff further recommends more than one decorative tree on the
McKnight Road side of the building. This is the two-story elevation and additional
enhancements by adding more decorative trees would be a benefit. Staff recommends
two such trees on each side of the west elevation of the building for total of four in this
area.
Refer to the attached report from Ginny Gaynor, Open Space Naturalist. Ms. Gaynor
has suggestions for the proposed rain garden which staff recommends the applicant
follow.
Tree Replacement:
Refer to the attached report from Shann Finwall, Environmental Planner. Ms. Finwall
found the plans to be in compliance with tree-replacement requirements.
Site Liohting
The proposed light intensities shown on the photometric plan exceed the .4 foot candle
maximum of light intensity at the property lines as ordinance requires. This plan must be
modified to limit the lighting maximum to .4 foot candles at the perimeter of the site.
3
Trash Stora~e
There is no proposed outdoor trash storage. If the applicant later wishes to provide an
outdoor trash area for the building, he must propose an enclosure for staff review and
approval.
Additional City Department Comments
Enoineerino Comments
Refer to the engineering review comments from Steve Kummer, staff engineer. Other
than recommendations for additional details and plan modifications, Mr. Kummer has
determined the following:
. The proposed storm water management systems shown meet city requirements.
. The wetland delineation shown on the plans and required wetland setbacks meet city
requirements. The RamseylWashington Watershed District has approved the plans.
Buildino Official's Comments
Dave Fisher, Maplewood's Building Official, gave the following comments:
. The city will require a complete building code analysis when the construction plans
are submitted to the city for building permits.
. An elevator may be required.
. All exiting must go to a public way.
. The applicant must provide adequate fire department access to the building.
. The building is required to be sprinklered.
. A preconstruction meeting is recommended with the building staff, contractor and
project manager.
Police Comments
Lieutenant Michael Shortreed reviewed this proposal and has the following comments:
. There should be adequate lighting provided and security mechanisms on the building
and parking lot to deter thefts and burglaries.
. Construction site thefts and burglaries are a large problem affecting many large and
small construction projects throughout the Twin Cities metro area. The
contractor/developer should be encouraged to plan and provide for site security
during the construction process. On-site security, alarm systems and any other
appropriate security measures would be highly encouraged to deter and report theft
and suspicious activity incidents in a timely manner.
4
Fire Marshal
Butch Gervais, assistant fire chief and fire marshal, reviewed the proposal and requires
the following be provided:
. A fire protection system per code.
. A fire alarm system per code.
. A 20-foot-wide fire department access road.
. A fire department key box (order from AC/FM).
COMMITTEE ACTIONS
January 6, 2009: The planning commission recommended approval of the CUP and lot
division. The planning commission added a requirement to the CUP recommendation
that the site plan be revised, as shown to the commission at the meeting, with a retaining
wall along the east side of the parking lot near Lakewood Drive. The retaining wall and
site grades shall be subject to the approval of the city's engineering department.
The planning commission also forwarded a suggested recommendation to the
community design review board that they require that all site lights be required to shine
inward toward the site and not toward any residential neighbors, as site and automobile
lights were a concern expressed at the public hearing.
RECOMMENDATIONS
A. Adopt the resolution approving a conditional use permit for the Feed Products North
office building, located at 1300 McKnight Road. This permit allows the construction
of an office building on land zoned M1 (light manufacturing) within 350 feet of
residential property. Approval is based on the findings required by ordinance and
subject to the following conditions:
1. All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city. Staff may approve
minor changes.
2. The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of
council approval. The city council may extend this permit one additional year.
3. The city council shall review this permit in one year. After two years the permit
shall end unless construction has started.
4. Compliance with conditions in the report by Steve Kummer, Maplewood Staff
Engineer, dated December 2, 2008. The site plan shall be revised, as shown to
the commission at the public hearing, with a retaining wall along the east side of
the parking lot near Lakewood Drive. The retaining wall and site grades shall be
subject to the approval of the city's engineering department.
5
5. Compliance with conditions in the report by Ginny Gaynor, Open Space
Naturalist with the city, in her report dated November 26,2008.
6. Compliance with conditions in the report by Shann Finwall, Environmental
Planner with the city, dated December 26, 2008.
7. Provide wetland-protection signs along the wetland buffer as required by
ordinance. The number and placement of these signs shall be determined by the
environmental planner. These signs shall prohibit any building, mowing, cutting,
filling or dumping in or around the wetland.
8. To develop this site adjacent to residential property, the applicant shall provide a
screening buffer that is at least six-feet-tall and 80 percent opaque upon
installation. This buffer may be comprised of evergreen trees or a decorative
wood fence. Such screening shall be subject to staff approval.
B. Approve the lot split to separate the office site from the main part of the applicant's
property located at 1300 McKnight Road, subject to the following conditions:
1. The property owner shall dedicate cross easements on the west property that
cover the utilities (sanitary and storm) which serve the lot east of Lakewood
Drive.
2. The applicant shall dedicate a public drainage and utility easement over the 24-
inch culvert on the property if it is found to belong to Ramsey County.
C. Approve the plans date-stamped November 4, 2008, for the proposed Feed
Products North office building. Approval is based on the findings for approval
required by ordinance and subject to the developer doing the following:
1. Repeat this review in two years if the applicant has not obtained a building
permit by that time. After two years this review must be repeated.
2. Obtain a conditional use permit from the city council for the proposed office
building.
3. Comply with the requirements of Shann Finwall in her report dated December
26, 2008.
4. Comply with the requirements of the engineering report by Steve Kummer
dated December 2, 2008. The site plan shall be revised, as shown to the
commission at the public hearing, with a retaining wall along the east side of
the parking lot near Lakewood Drive. The retaining wall and site grades shall
be subject to the approval of the city's engineering department.
5. Comply with the requirements of Ginny Gaynor in her report dated November
26, 2008.
6
6. Take into account the suggestions by Lieutenant Michael Shortreed as stated
in this report.
7. Revise the site plan to provide a 15-foot parking lot setback from the
Lakewood Drive right-of-way line. If a 15-foot setback cannot be provided,
the applicant must apply for a setback variance.
8. Any retaining walls over four-feet-tall shall be designed by a structural
engineer and have a protective guard rail or fence on top.
9. The applicant shall install in-ground lawn irrigation in formal landscaped
areas.
10. The landscaping plan shall be revised to include the following:
a. A six-foot-tall and 80 percent opaque buffer along the south side of the
property to screen the area between both parking lots and the connecting
drive aisle. This screen shall be comprised of evergreen trees a
decorative wood fence.
b. Five over-story trees along the east side of the east parking lot. The
three evergreens can be deleted.
c. Four ornamental deciduous trees on the west side of the proposed
building.
d. Additional landscaping in the "front yard" in front of the building's main
entrance (easterly side), subject to staff approval.
11. Obtain any necessary permits from the RamseylWashington Metro
Watershed District.
12. All work shall follow the approved plans. The city planner may approve minor
changes.
13. All pole-mounted site lights shall comply with the 25-foot height maximum.
The site lighting plan shall be redesigned so that the light intensity does not
exceed .4 footcandles at the property lines. All lighting fixtures shall be
designed so lenses and bulbs are recessed or shielded to avoid nuisance
complaints. All site lights are required to shine inward toward the site and not
toward any residential neighbors.
14. If outdoor trash storage is used, such containers must be kept in a screening
enclosure. The design and placement of the enclosure shall be subject to
staff approval.
7
15. Before obtaining a building permit, the applicant shall provide cash escrow or
an irrevocable letter of credit in the amount of 150 percent of the cost of
completing landscaping and other site improvements. An irrevocable letter of
credit shall include the following provisions:
a. The letter of credit must clearly indicate that it is an irrevocable letter of
credit in the name of the City of Maplewood, payable on demand, to
assure compliance with the terms of the developer's agreement.
b. The letter of credit must allow for partial withdrawals as needed to
guarantee partial project payments covered under the terms of the letter
of credit.
c. The letter of credit shall be for a one-year duration and must have a
condition indicating automatic renewal, with notification to the city a
minimum of 60 days prior to its expiration.
CITIZEN COMMENTS
Staff surveyed the 51 property owners within 500 feet of this site for their comments.
There were four replies. Two were in favor and two were opposed.
In Favor
1. Refer to the letter from Gary Salkowicz. This letter speaks to his and his mothers
comments about this proposal.
Opposed
1. I don't think an office building belongs in my residential neighborhood. If it is built,
the design enclosed 'here is a better style than most office buildings. I oppose it but if
it is built, make it look good and fit the area. (Tara L. Gerlach and Joseph N.
Jorgenson, 2317 Tilsen Avenue)
2. Refer to the letter from Lyle Puppe, 2531 Nokomis Avenue. Mr. Puppe is most
concerned about traffic increase.
8
REFERENCE INFORMATION
SITE DESCRIPTION
Site size: 2.19 acres
Existing Use: Undeveloped
SURROUNDING LAND USES
North: Railroad right-of-way
South: Single Dwellings
East: Lakewood Drive and Feed Products North
West: McKnight Road and single dwellings
PLANNING
Land Use Plan: M1 (light manufacturing)
Zoning: M1
Applicable Ordinance
Section 44-637(b) states that, in an M1 district, a CUP is required for any building within
350 feet of a residential district. .
Criteria for Conditional Use Permit Approval
Section 44-1 097(a) states that the city council may approve a CUP, based on nine
standards. See findings 1-9 in the resolution.
APPLICATION DATE
The city received the applicants' requests on November 4, 2008. Under the provisions
of state statute, staff extended the initial 50-day review period an additional 60 days.
The deadline for completion of the city's review of these requests is now March 4, 2009.
9
p:sec24-29\Feed Products CUP 1 09 te
Attachments:
1. Location Map
2. Land Use Plan Map
3. Zoning Map
4. Site/Landscaping Plan
5. Site/Grading Plan
6. Site/Utility Plan
7. Building Elevations (2 sheets)
8. Floor Plan
9. Applicant's Project Narrative date-stamped November 4, 2008
10. Engineering Report dated December 2,2008
11. Open Space Naturalist's Report dated November 26, 2008
12_ Environmental Planner's Report dated December 26, 2008
13_ Survey-Response Email Correspondence from Gary Salkowicz dated November 6, 2008
14. Survey Response Email Correspondence from Lyle Puppe dated November 18, 2008
15. CUP Resolution
16. Plans date-stamped November 4, 2008 (separate attachments)
10
Attachment 1
Iii A
Lu
AVE. -l
~ IlWiO AVE. d
Iii :J ~
~ ~ is
Ii
"
"
I
AVE. WOHr_
"""
I ~OR
2 _~OR
~~%
PROPOSED OFFICE
BUILDING SITE
~ Iii g ';:;;r- i AV ....
ci l
It: 3~
Rf Pl.EY
.~ KINGSTON
!i: AVE.
Q
... ~ "
m jllCl<NlGHT LH
m :r
lARPENTEIJR
5 PfHE lRfE OR
8 _OR
7 _ HIU.S DR
E. INIR'11.>>lO
Ii
"
PL
BIWID AVE.
~
g
!i:
!2
~
::IE
ci
. It:
::I
.~
AVE.
7th sr.
LOCATION MAP
11
N
PROPOSED
SITE
L )
c;JJ:j
,/i~"^/
i(
\1
"\\
\'c
\)
.~L
'-..---''---_,"r-,.'''..
".}..
'\,
'",
\\
1\
li
II
II
'" If
'-'" iil_
OS "II
if
/(
Ii"
r2
'\
'I
f
I>
I
If
'- jL~o-
(,-:/
//
"/
/-.(
/-.--/
_~-j I
, if
LAND USE PLAN
/
Attachment 3
\~ '\,
.' .
.i
..'
f,or'
..:.:.....;;.."::.:;.
','
@
I'-"'~"""-....:..'~ ~'...... ~'::---..
,---)
. '"~'''''
_......._ I .....~... :~O"_'_"_'_~"""--'-
, .
Il
PU~: ',.".
i'~
/~/ LI. I' l~';...
..,
<I<t_O)
R3
>-
I-
U
n.,_
~.....-..
",....-.\
1--
:r
"
Z
'"
u
:>
,.,
I
r....--.~.....-..
PROPERTY LINE I ZONING MAP
11
N
l;jlJ
.=: Ii 31
1'1;1
~ -~~ ~~.
~ ,m'-'if~ ~alIS
v ,. .....EMII:
~:;::s'i,......."i';t'3 ....SI:lIIIIIiIllll
__..... .::..":'::'""~';:....J;i:.:.::::.., I:IWDIDIII
idfi II l;) lllhlk ~ ~ ~- ! .-
I'i Ii \d1....ll,;I'~\."'JI ! U
. .. a. ii' ! -
i ,
. I .
~ i ~ ~ -,'
i l! .:..
!! ! I HI
II ; I.l!.
I' ".,
. I' ..
I ..:1<;1
I Hi! IJ
!l 'i 'il 'I
I ~ d{i!i
II IUllj!
.1111 '
"1 f IJ
ilIIH..
! If,...
/
/
/
/
/
/
II II !
iI, I ~
jH I i ~
JliIi I
.
.~
"5 /
I~ /
ii /
/
/
/
/
i!
-=
a
z
en
I-
U
=-
a
a
-=z
a..:s
a::
... a. ....
...=;1
... MI _
1:1
IzlE
... :s ;;
u";;e
_ :0- _ ..
... == ... CD'
... ... MI ,;
_zl:l- .
.... ... 'I:i
:.1Il..
_z.....
_-CIlIa
_...z5
... ... - =
Ill.....
... ... ;a _
.....-'S
-.......:: !:: ii !l
_ c.o ... a
I,' ~
. .
Ih
.12
I' ~
dl~
II; IlliS 'II h Z
II! i!!!rl Illll! ~
Iii !II''' Ii-!tlll
I::i tl~ liI.!.:~I~
~...!l! ,':!l!
:'.'.' <ol(Q. f(-<
.' Q.
I !
! . I i
!,J(I .1
I I l <.
W ill !'
i Ili'! 'H
'1,',1 eSl
11 I..~
I .. , . ;h
1111" ,.. ,,".. a.,
x 1J;~!:i: ~~s;!: 1;;(1
Q "l!:g~ll! g"'lil<d
-< ........ ~,.. c. it'"
_.ll>i(J~ lie!!' Imh! .I~
11l j:;l.8~ ! "....g UI e:Sl'!
a
.
Il~! !
II i (J;
.Ii l: ~ I
!'Sll
, ,
l
it
11
II
I it
,I
I'
:1
- .
ill !!
'l!dl
iI" nl
i !li!i; i~
,,'i sl!lUi'"
~ t".... I" .
i jliillr ili
, 'il.hl!
'Ji",;!;-.',;'l!"
~ ai..l/hlll
Il"fl"ll'"
B.J'UJ
...01.......
,
i
I
!,11
J
I,
i
,
;1
il!
I'll ii!
,lit '"!
in ,I
:Ii ..~,;;
~ h ! lii
. Ill: ~ ~ ~
, "Jll..
~ ., II
~!!
~1II::
'.<
! ii!_~
~si~~f ~~~
.,",.- ~~-
!l.~~=~ iJ~~~
~~.,.j 'lil~
i~~;i~ Mi
.~:!f;h'. ~~~
~'!J"~~ t~.~
f~...1Ii8~ !SL::i...
:I:
....
=
CD
Z
=
U
=
1:1
=
=
a-
1:1
...
...
...
.
... Z
u...s!
-"'11..
...ca_=
... c 0.5
_Za:liiOl
.... - .... 'l:is;
== Z =-
z~gi!i
-=Z'ii,!l
"'zo.
... -_Iii
=11I_
:=l == =;
ca ... is
~ _.~~ --,~
c;l ._._~
., ."'-V ..
" -,
'.."'iOOl,._..................
~-''''.''''''''~
__1iJII ,';'"........._~';:..'T.:"..:.::...,
Attachment 5
<3 "'11 II x "
I, . 1I11MP i~ ~i ~
"",..m.l "
~""""""
i "'
ill,l k
li!~g fl!~
~ll~ l~
.........
..............
"WlJfIJlI(
Iii
.~.
~j!:~
~..
~~
1
,
!: il!
i ijl. i ~i; H
II';!; ~b -,
"'~.. ~ .co . i
'''A · '. .", .
lljm. ',e~. d
jiii~ II ~d ~!
9.11 ~~ ~1 H
~Ii~. 1= !t~ ; l
;l~l~ " .~~ ~;
fn~~ <:i :l;:~ d
, .
.
.
/
i~ ~i
~~ r,tii
aa I!Q
~i! / ~~!il
'a/ ~.~
,;
\!I
. .;:;!i
-'1!J
"':,:t;:;"",,?,.,' "~l '~~" y~
.::::.'.' "-'~lllC 5 .,'..
M ~ ---:-.1. )< 1 llj~J.
1111~ ~
r-'" .."'==:;...._~--:"I=r..... -!'F-"'==--7-"'."'''--r-''.-
iJ1 l~~>::->----@J
"" ~~lii~" _ i~~.-~ii"-j-"...""""_J~~..._"~_"""""___"_
"' a~!l.;!lf ~;: i'lI1""'.
-- --"-~
UJl....r.; ~a:IIIl< u l5 ~ .
"s' .do ~ ~ ~." . .
"I.." B .il. I "
""'lO;e :f~9 ,j~ lit.
. . , .. . " I dlJI. -:iil!
; i :ilj~i J I ~if ":11 z} i i 1 ii:;i!h!j II Ii
!!!j iH~j !:i;U~! i li Ilii f IjJjIU!i!\!ilhj
~: i jl!:!i i iI11!il!li !'l: _,ll" : I: ~rn;Ill.HIi II .
Ill! jl]J&!i .JilI: .h.... 'ill !:' ' I
;; j .',U!i Iil.-.~:!jll II-'j ~: ~ I~
~ 1 '.EO ~'il "1= . .. ~.." ! . .
= 1 :tl:1Uj pI -Jj hntt if ~ ~j It .i
I! f~ fil~h U~i!~~!l!!/'hi i:;.~ r!d -Ili!! tHt I !
.., 'I.I.....! l.iHH"I!II' If! I i i"'l l",.:i;l'lti ~ i
.. i ~ f~!i!.; :<:lIf-="-,,_ j..z i~1 {,}J:,!! l&"liJuh :;:
1\; irsii,;l~i~h!:H;i~~I.tflli~I':: IU;!'I'!I{ffE!I)fE!
l!I ~J 11~~ 1;-11. i''!!' ~It -- ~f .!l";lIE t _ '" It
ill .. Ii i 'h'l#'O i" l~i - It J1 Ii"' ~ 1: 1 i: I III
!!U~!ii:n!IU1LJiJi~!~n!i hi:;t iilt-QX8Da<s.~
'" '. ... ..
,
ll!
.. 1 ,j- ~ a f j I J
J&. .. :i so,;) r 'i I ,.
I.~o! I' i" ., t,:, .
,,,!. '! Ii' II " ':"
1 'i & it.. .!. ~
j;jj .I 1", : -I : ~ 'I f . l~ 1
f~ ti 11 HI I I il! i .jj
'!:'! IHlli I : ~ I ,f ilJ
t;!h ~11tii! I: J ~I If'"
jUB i~lh t I ! i :j I oj
=i~U ,,1:;6' i il f ~i1..p!
il~=! ji:; uil i :i I 11 t JIll Ii
lillj 'iil!!! IljjllP}o!,
IHl ,; Mll'l ~ ~I!ll' lit li I! lL
&hBH~U:u~.UJii l( ih1l'...~l:llIi
. .. .. .........
I 'i
, i'l
.. .l-
e I lli
:: i dlll!
& 1 Ii,n i
Ii 1 t ~ Ifi ;
! z;! :ai !
: ! 11aJ II
Ii 1"1:lhll
U "d' I
1):' ! ~J!j
lE' i!J.! j
.!'!!1!~"
:,'1 I
!iI"l.","
, . 'I
I'ill;
II:
....
=
o
z
en
=
=-
1:1
o
=
D..
1:1
...
...
...
~:;
Q IIoS
-E=
... -i
... i: iii
0=.
:.--
z=-
_=1
... - ..
... !5';
- .....
~=i:!
_ 110 CO
~ (j ~ .:..,.;::'.:'u.
~ ' ." 1i ~
"'.l'lS....."=_.
_.. ..__._7::1
__ _ '::.:r::""_"':;~~""'='
<a "'1I ,-
" n:B1=ilh L~ ~~
, ~!9 ~;iD~~ .
110 illll Z !
~=
I'~!i II
,JI ;t=
<f~1 ..;
U~~ fj
~
U
---
IllIIJlUlllll"mI
,....11I1II
"y'" ~~~<?
/ ",/'.../, Vj
/ ~f 4
,," ~~# .;1 1
/ ;+' ++# / J
/' .....-,~ ,/ / r/
+,+ l'+" I I
./" ..+# J / /
"# .' 1/- 1
,.
"
"
"
" ..",' /
...
"
.'
"
"
.'
"
.'
..-
/'r.-..# /
..\("
,
\/
,
/\
"
\
,
i\
'<Ji;
\ 1-
\ / I
/"\ / /~ 1
.......,,) I
........ \ I
/ /' 1
......"'" 6<:#.'*t/ ...)
...... A,+.G~ /
~\ ......
/' /
, /
/
/
/
~~
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
------_..~----------------_..._._..------ -----.---
~. ~ ~"~~
,- .."...~
\oiiI~ ~.Q.!.~:i
tl!i!&';:! "61i11~'
"I ~.-.
: ~" a~. ;~a.
::o::! !l~oI:""
b~ li~"=idi i
1 11.
Illllil il!l ,,; I
llflllflllll!llililf
flflilflflflilllff!ll
]111]1 .
fiiilfe.~*~:~~M~!198.
d .
!.i H: IPi I ' ,I. 1 I I .
;Ii I ~l JIM' !! I ,; t.j . .! . ,.;
ni J!, HI'!' i j ~! Ii Ill! ih HI' 11 Ii ilt:~
Hi i1dl' i Ii ,!. ", ji, I I Iii q,:
~ ':Mlf fHI j ! i ! Ii !m! Irl !lll~!!! iUlilj~
i fill.!! ih: j Ild,.jll!'l-;!' dli" II;' "I,jll ';!~'I'!H:
it .!!.!!I.l!af Ojlj : I II If!' t ..- j!.! .!l..i id= Ji"'i~" 11-1;
ilifitlHIU j ;~'1HJt,I]H Jlli l~!~ :fll!E ~1~iiUUiii;
j..." .l!j"'lilo 'Sf i..!" Jl .fItEI "j 'h 1"~! . IE:pl: ii
J~t.!!11l ~~!~:ilif .!j~ttil~!i! if l]~ -~!~ ~lllitltlf.
:d !:I~!J!t~: ~~~jHJ~i~!~ Hi ~~IfHI!J i:!nUiJ!i
... ..
Attachment 7
......._"""_._...'l'I...
-'l,.",.,"O:",...._""'~..,........'-'''''.
.......""""'~.o..""@
0 ~
< 0 ~
, 0 " 0
! 0 i-
,
,
!, ,
! i
_eo_a
SlIYO'IYA01l
;; I"
~
~~
UlS!;:;
, I
~~~~?li~
~H'jV
,!Ii!;
~.~t~
,l~,!
.i'i~~li
!~btU
i'l
,"
I,
h~
c
~
1i
.
.
.
f
@
~
S
00
=
=
"-'
=
.'<1"
"""
~
@
~
~
,
,
______________~1
'"
",
",
",
'"
",
'"
",
'"
",
----------lri
,'I
---------41
ill
",
",
",
",
",
,"
",
",
",
I"Z
:1\0
,11-
lllf-
::i<l
,II>
,:lw
111-1
11iW
::iI
"If-
1,1:::J
,\ ~O
I,ll!)
",
,"
",
",
",
,"
",
",
",
,"
",
",
",
",
",
,,,
Iii
----R4
----~J
'"
I::
---i\-J
,
,
,
,
,
,
--1--"'
,,,
,,,
,,,
--,....J
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
>
o
:z:
,.,
en
,
'"
'"
'"
'"
'"
'"
'"
'"
'"
'"
II
'"
'"
'"
'"
'"
'"
______________J.I"1
'"
'"
'"
'"
'"
'"
'"
'"
'"
'"
'"
'"
'"
______________-1-1"1
'"
'"
'"
'"
'"
'"
'"
'"
'"
'"
'"
'"
'"
'"
'"
'"
'"
'"
'"
'"
'"
'"
'"
'"
'"
'"
--------------T\-J
'"
~
z
()
;::
~
ill
-'
ill
~~
<1:.
w3\
~
,
~
~
l
'"
'"
'"
'"
'"
'"
'"
'"
'"
'"
'"
-----------1i-J
'"
'"
'"
'lID
'"
,I -.
'"
'"
'"
'"
'"
'"
'"
'"
'"
'"
'"
---------T\-J
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
~
1\
,
~
.i1
..
~
~
~~
l~
--...."""'.,....,
"""""..""''''......'''"''',.."_.....''''''',,,,.
a.llD_ClIJ
ftV()'IVA01I
"I"
0 w
" 0 ~
, 0 .0
! 0 "~
, ;
~ ,
tli ' , ,
'.~ 16 I .
! i i
......""',""--@
.,~,...,,_'~.,.,...A__".. ........
_.....""...,~._,""""_............
{.::::.~r:-.:;;.:.'::t.::.;';::::;:,:~.;;~::.:'
'-:;:,z..';;~':':::'::::=";l:=:~
p...._~-"" ",--"",,,,,~,,,..........,,,
....,_....ft.................-_...._..
(
I':"::'J
8
'!i\!t~
_~ ~ ll'
-;t~
_ ,t~~1~~
iIl:ir.'
.!lit:n
_~;< .o~
'1
=
=
=
N
___--4"1
"
"
"
___--4"1
"
U
---"11
"
"
"
"
-n-H
"
"
~___J j
"
"
l:z
"0
,,-
"I-
::<t
,,>
:iw
________-f1...J
:IW
---------{J :r
"I-
"Ili
\:0
iiz
"
II
"
___________J'1
"
"
"
-----------""i-J
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
------------1-1
"
"
- -------,-,--~J
"
"
"
"
"
"
, "
, "
, "
-i--------------tJ
,
i
=
"'"'
"'"
[lJ':!J
@
I':"::'J
~
~.
CJ
Z
>,
m
6
,- I , ~
Ii i I w
,I ij ij --'
I w
I- ~
<l)
w l
3
Ji
~
,
1:
,
i
j
1
-l
,
'"
.~
~
d
~~
~~
~-~
~ll i
ii, 8
Ii'! i
~
@
II~ ' I iJ, hdtllIMli!!' J 111111111111
. - 'j'! I-'l'III,I,,+ j
'I ,lil!l!!!M!!!jit I -
O 1,1 WllltlIII'!!' - ~
. j g !j~jth"~il>ihl' ~~
! I umn!hlwl H IIIIIIIIIII!!
Attachment 8
I
NVld 3:)'v'dS J..HIINllNl13l:1d
1-
.1
!'
II
! II.!
! !II i
" ODD i
GlIS;NV>l'OOOM31dWl
H.UIONO'<'OH1HDIN)/::IlIlOOCI
.ONI 'Hll:iON SLOnomfd o33~
"",,,,,,,o"'''''''nlro;Jd
z "
D
NIlIJ F F
< <
:;;N W ~v
~ ~~ . ~~
~ D
~. . E~
- . z z - z 0
0 W 0
F ~ F
~ 0 <
~. ~'"
fi .
~
0
0
000
DO ~~
rO
z -
a w
,
~~ ~~
< -
w - ,-
~ 0
m
~ ~~
z"
0
u
\:i~
~o
~-
o
tl~
E~
o
@]
@]
o
=~
li:
I ; ~ ~
~ ~ R li
0-#;;
III ~!E9
;Ii
I
i
,
!
.
!
~~I>II~ NO!2:\1l-
1'$00 Ml<lCNlG.l\-'r !CoM:> A.
1^M>~o b. M.N
Attachment 9
Written statement describing intended use ofthe property:
The City should approve our request for construction of an additional office
building because it is within the intended use ofthe property. The property
is zoned M-l (light industrial) and this office space will replace what we are
currently doing on the property from our scale office.
The City approved a CUP application for an office building previously in
1998.
The building will be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated
to be in conformity with the City's comprehensive plan and Code of
Ordinances.
The office building will not change the existing or planned character ofthe
surrounding area.
The use will increase property values by provIding a better looking structure.
The office building will not involve any activity that would be a nuisance or
interfere with the surrounding area.
The use will not generate more vehicle traffic because it is to service our
existing employees. The current public facilities are more than adequate to
service the existing conditions.
~~@~Dill~~
W NOV 04 Z008 W
By
Attachment 10
Maplewood Engineering Comments - Feed Products North
12-2-08
Page 1 of4
Enqineerinq Plan Review - Suoolemental Narrative and Comments
PROJECT:
PROJECT NO:
COMMENTS BY:
Feed Products North
08-19
Steve Kummer, P.E. - Staff Engineer
DATE:
12-2-08
PLAN SET:
City Submittal Set: Civil Drawings by Plowe Engineering
Dated 9-10-08
Revised Sheet C2 Dated 9-11-08 and rec'd electronically 12-1-08
COMPS:
Drainage Computations by Plowe Engineering
Dated 7-23-08, No Documented Revisions
Summary
Feed Products North is proposing to develop a 2-f100r office building with a parking lot on a
parcel west of Lakewood Drive and east of McKnight Road.
Storm Water Runoff Comments
The net impervious increase of the proposed development is 0.49 acres with a net disturbed
area of 1.24 acres. The site will be held to Maplewood Engineering standards for storm water
management.
Storm water runoff from the site will be managed by a rain water garden with an underdrain
system. Drainage from the roof, parking lot and driveway access will drain into the rain garden
via a curb cut and rip-rap swale. Based on the provided computations, the storm water
management systems on the site adequately mitigate the runoff from ~!:le proposed development
to city standards, which includes limiting proposed runoff to existing conditions and
treatment/volume control for the 1.3-inch storm event.
Comments
1) The pond is considered a filtration basin with an installed under drain and shall be
designed to meet 90% of the 1.3-inch storm event instead ofthe 1.0-inch storm event as
indicated with the submitted computations. Therefore, the required volume reduction
would be 2,071 cubic feet. The volume provided for infiltration, according to the
computations is 4,746 cubic feet, which exceeds the requirement. However, the
Engineer shall resubmit computations based on the 1.3-inch standard.
2) The applicant shall submit soil borings and infiltration tests of the soils underlying the
rain garden. The minimum boring depth from existing grade shall be 10 feet.
3) The rain garden basin design shall be subject to approval by the City Naturalist.
4) The applicElnt shall put up an escrow or letter of credit for 100% of the cost of building
the propoSf#d rain water garden and shall contact city staff 48 hours prior to construction
of the rain water garden. Care must be taken to avoid compaction of bottom area in
order to avoid losing the infiltration characteristics of the soil. If the rainwater garden or
Maplewood Engineering Comments - Feed Products North
12-2-08
Page 2 of 4
infiltration basin does 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, and may coordinate with the city building department to withhold certificate of
occupancies for buildings on the development site, until the proper functioning of the
rainwater garden and/or infiltration basin is restored.
5) The following note shall be added to the plans: "Avoid compacting infiltration areas by
limiting the use of heavy equipment in rain water garden basin area during construction.
Excavation to final depth shall occur prior to installation of bedding material and after
major grading activities. "
Wetlands
An existing wetland near the southwest corner of the site has been delineated. A report by
Critical Connections Ecological Services, Inc. dated July 31, 2008 has been submitted to and
approved by the Ramsey Washington Metro Watershed District.
Based on Maplewood ordinance, the wetland is considered a Class 3 wetland with a 50-foot
averaged and 25-foot minimum no-disturb buffer requirement. The wetland outline is shown on
the plans.
Comments
1) The wetland delineation, 25-foot and 50-foot offset lines shall be shown and clearly
labeled on the plans.
2) No grading shall be allowed within the 50-foot buffer of the wetland. The applicant
shall explore possibilities Of using other areas of the property to accomplish the storm
water management on the site. The applicant may want to consider parking
requirements as well.
3) A grading limits line accurate according to the contours shall be shown on the plans
where grading contours tie into grades near the wetland buffer.
4) A heavy duty silt fence with compost log reinforcement shall be shown along the
periphery of the wetland buffer.
Grading. Drai~~Qe. Erosion Control and Geometrics
The generall~YQl1t of the parking lot grading is from east to west. All drainage is routed
overland and concentrates in gutter lines. The drainage is eventually routed to the rain water
garden near the southwest corner of the site.
Comments
1) It appears that the applicant will be cutting into the Lakewood Drive embankment with
the construction of the proposed parking lot and will be constructing a retaining wall.
The applicant shall provide details and recommendations from a licensed
geotechnical engineer for stabilization of the embankment during and after
construction including engineered details on the retaining wall. Applicant shall also
send plans Ramsey County Public Works for review.
Maplewood Engineering Comments - Feed Products North
12-2-08
Page 3 of 4
2) Grading along the south fence line of the site shall be such that the grades near the
bottom of the fence are kept similar to existing conditions. No mounding of dirt
against the fence is allowed. The applicant shall insure that the runoff from the swale
is not directed toward the private properties to the south.
3) Capacity computations for the 2-12" driveway culverts shall be submitted by the
applicant for review.
4) Applicant shall show the Map/ewood standard plate for a concrete commercial
driveway entrance with curve radii.
5) Applicant shall dimension the drive width and typical parking stall measurements.
6) Applicant shall show a rock entrance pad at the entrance to the site.
7) A note shall be added to the plans: "Erosion control and inlet protection shall be in
place prior to the start of construction."
Sanitarv Sewer and Water Main
The applicant is proposing a 6-inch PVC sanitary sewer service and a 6-inch DIP combined
fireldomestic water service connection for the building. Both services are proposed to connect
to existing water and sewer stubs from McKnight Road.
Comments
1) Applicant shall consider an a/tern ate route for the sanitary sewer service. Installation
of the sanitary sewer is not allowed within the wetland buffer. It is suggested that the
applicant consider connecting into the sanitary main that currently services the Feed
Products property on the east side of Lakewood Drive.
2) Applicant shall add a note to the plans indicating that a connection to the sanitary
sewer shall be per Maplewood standards and specifications and that the Utility
Maintenance division shall be contacted 48 hours prior to connection to the sanitary
sewer.
3) Applicant shall consider an altemate route for the water service. Installation of the
water service is not allowed within the wetland buffer. Instead of utilizing the existing
stub, the applicant may consider a 6x6 wettap into the McKnight watermain at the
driveway access point, or a 16x6 wettap into the water main running through an
easement on the property.
4) Plans shall be submitted to Saint Paul Regional Water Services for review with the
city copied on review comments.
Maplewood Engineering Comments - Feed Products North
12-2-08
Page 4 of 4
Miscellaneous Comments
1. The applicant shall enter into a Maintenance Agreement with the City of Maplewood for the
maintenance of the rain garden.
2. Copies of all permit approvals (i.e. SPRWS, RWMWD, Ramsey County, etc) shall be
submitted prior to city approval of plans.
Attachment 11
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Steven Kummer, Engineer
Ginny Gaynor, Open Space Naturalist
November 26, 2008
Fallin Office - Feed Products North - filtration basin planting design
I reviewed the planting designs for the filtration basin on the Fallin Office project and have the
following recommendations.
1. My review only relates to the planting design for the filtration basin and makes an
assumption that our engineers will approve the size, capacity, and design for the basin once
soil borings are provided.
2. Plant species selected.
a. Arrrowhead. This plant requires standing water during at least a part of the season. If
the basin will have standing water for less than a four days after rainfall, please replace
this species.
b. All other species selected should perform well in this wet basin.
c. I strongly recommend you increase the diversity of the grasses and flowers in the basin
since it is so large, or please indicate why the design concept called for low diversity.
There are many showy flowers that would do well in these conditions and give you
more in bloom in summer and fall. In addition, you may want to consider massing
shrubs together in the garden and increasing the number of shrubs.
3. Number of species. The number of plants in the basin seems low, based on my rough
estimate that the planted area is approximately 2400 square feet.
a. Please use a line on plan to distinguish the planting bed from the surrounding turf area.
(The existing design shows the countours and not the delineation between lawn and
garden.
b. Please indicate the number of square feet for the planted area of basin.
c. Please indicate plant spacing for shrubs and for plugs. Recommended spacing is:
1) Shrubs - 5' -6' on center
2) Plugs - 15' on center. If shredded hardwood mulch is used instead of blanket,
plugs may be spaced 18" on center.
d. Please recalculate number of plants based on the above.
4. First and second year maintenance. Many native plantings fail because people do not
understand that weed control is essential the first two years. Please indicate on the plan
that there will be a 2-year maintenance contract for weed control in the basin. We
encourage you to work with a contractor that guarantees establishment and will provide a
maintenance contract.
5. Wood fiber blanket. I strongly recommend that shredded hardwood mulch is used for the
basin rather than blanket, unless the basin will hold standing water for several days after
rainfall. The mulch will greatly reduce weeds. Because the garden design clumps species,
it is designed to be more ornamental than a native planting that mixes grasses and flowers
throughout. Thus, there will be an expectation that that garden is relatively weed free.
6. Riprap. It appears that part of the riprap is surrounded by turf grass. For improved
aesthetics and ease of mowing maintenance, we recommend you extend the plantings in a
narrow border around the riprap.
7. Edging. We encourage you to use edging on the borders of the garden that are adjacent to
turf grass.
Attachment 12
Tree Preservation and Wetland Buffer Review
Project: Feed Products Office Building, 1300 McKnight Road North
Date of Plan: September 10, 2008
Date of Review: December 26, 2008
Reviewer: Shann Finwall, Environmental Planner
(651) 249-2304; shann.finwall(ii)ci.maplewood.mn.us
Background: John Fallen of Feed Products North is proposing to build a 5,311 square
foot, 2-story office building on a vacant lot located west of Lakewood Drive at 1300
McKnight Road.
A. Tree Preservation Ordinance: The city's tree preservation ordinance describes
a significant tree as a hardwood tree with a minimum of 6 inches in diameter, an
evergreen tree with a minimum of 8 inches in diameter, and a softwood tree with
a minimum of 12 inches in diameter. The ordinance further described a
specimen tree as any tree with a caliper inch greater than 28 inches.
Development on a site should attempt to preserve all healthy specimen trees.
The ordinance requires any significant tree removed to be replaced based on a
tree mitigation calculation. The calculation takes into account the size of a tree
and bases replacement on that size. In essence, it penalizes developers for
removing larger trees by requiring a greater amount of replacement for those
trees,
Tree Removal and Required Replacement: Tree replacement is based on the
following calculation:
Ordinance Calculation: [(AlB - 0.20) x C] x A = D
Leoend
Feed Products
A = Total Diameter Inches of Significant Trees Lost
B = Total Diameter Inches of Significant Trees on Site
C = Tree Replacement Constant (1.5)
D = Replacement Trees (Number of Caliper Inches)
111.00
506,00
1.50
3.22
Feed Product's Calculation: 111/506 - .20 x 1.5 x 111 = 3.22 Cal. Inches
Reouired Replacement Trees: 3,22/2 caliper inch replacement trees = 4 trees
The tree plan indicates that there are 506 caliper inches of significant trees on
the site (36 trees), and 111 caliper inches of significant trees (7 trees or 21,94
percent) removed with the development. Based on these figures, the city's tree
replacement calculation requires the developer to replace 3,22 caliper inches (4,
2 caliper inch trees). The reason the developer only has to replace 4 trees (0.63
percent) of the 21.94 percent removed is due to the fact that there are a number
of trees on the 2,19 acre site. The tree replacement calculation takes into
account that not as many trees can be planted on a site that is already forested.
1
Proposed Tree Replacement: The developer is proposing to replace 32 caliper
inches of significant trees on the site by planting three, 2-caliper inch ornamental
trees and eight, 6-foot high evergreen trees.
Tree Preservation Recommendation:
1. The applicant is proposing the removal of two specimen trees with the
development (one 36 caliper inch and one 35 caliper inch cottonwood
tree). With the relocation of the utilities as required by the city's
engineering review dated December 2, 2008, the applicant should be able
to preserve these trees. Therefore, the two specimen trees proposed for
removal as stated above should be preserved.
2. While the planting of 32 caliper inches of replacement trees meets the
city's tree ordinance for this site, the applicant should plant additional
trees as required in the overall landscape review for buffering and
aesthetics, -
3. Tree species must be specified on the landscape plan. Currently the plan
calls for 2-caliper inch ornamentals and 6-foot high evergreen trees, with
no specific species called out.
B. Wetland Ordinance: There is a Class 3 wetland located on the south side of the
property. The city's wetland ordinance requires a 50-foot average and 25-foot
minimum buffer around a Class 3 wetland. The new Ramsey-Washington Metro
Watershed District wetland map classifies this wetland as a Manage 3. The draft
wetland ordinance the city council will be reviewing again in the near future has a
50-foot minimum buffer around a Manage 3 wetland,
Grading Plan: The grading plan shows an infiltration basin and utilities being
constructed partially within the 50-foot buffer.
Wetland Recommendations: The following wetland recommendations are also
found in the city's, engineering review dated December 2, 2008:
1, The wetland delineation, 25-foot and 50-foot offset lines shall be shown
and clearly labeled on the plans,
2, No grading shall be allowed within the 50-foot buffer of the wetland, The
applicant shall explore possibilities of using other areas of the property to
accomplish the storm water management on the site.
3, A grading limits line accurate according to the contours shall be shown on
the plans where grading contours tie into grades near the wetland buffer,
4. A heavy duty silt fence with compost log reinforcement shall be shown
along the periphery of the wetland buffer.
2
Attachment 13
Tom Ekstrand
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Gary Salkowicz [salkowg@comcast.net]
Thursday, November 06, 2008 9: 15 AM
Tom Ekstrand
Proposal development-1300 McKnight
Tom:
This morning when my mother and I went to breakfast, she showed me the letter relating to
the proposed building. We discussed it and she has no objection to developing that
parcel. I suspect I didn't get a letter because I am out of the radius. I have no
objection to the building either.
I walk the dog past there 3-4 days a week and actually think it would be an asset. The
policeman in me looks at the amount of illegal dumping that occurs between Ivy and Tilsen
along that stretch. Not only do I live in the area but this is the eastern edge of the
district where I am a supervisor.
Despite my best efforts, I have never been able to catch anyone dumping.
It looks to be an attractive building. My only qualification, and this is related to the
dumping aspect, is that of lighting. I firmly believe that (semi-aggessivelexterior
lighting for the lot of the new building would cut the amount of illegal dumping for both
the Maplewood and St. Paul sides of the street.
Feel free to call me at 651-485-5543 if you have any questions.
Gary Salkowicz
1
-
Attachment 14
Tom Ekstrand
~-",--,----,,~--,,"--'--""'---~-----'-'--~~--'----'-"._~._~------------~_.._-
From: We Deliver [Iylepuppe@hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:34 AM
To: Tom Ekstrand
Subject: FW: 1300 McKnight Road North
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Red
Mr. Ekstrand, Thanks for call back. Please advise if you have now gotten my note
about the property we discussed. Lyle
From: Iylepuppe@hotmail.com
To: tom.ekstrand@ci.maplewood.mn.us
Subject: 1300 McKnight Road North
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 200803:50:13 +OOOQ
Mr. Ekstrand,
I am in receipt of your letter about the above property. I live at 2531 Nokomis
Ave., in St. Paul around the corner from the address. I also left a message on
your voice mail, however when you return, I will be busy doing recount for
Ramsey County.
I do have a couple questions regarding the new office building.
Am I correct this office building would be the office building for the site on the east
side of Lakewood Dr.? That is what it appears according to the drawing. If that is
correct, am I also correct, they will not have driving access from the proposed
office building to the east site under Lakewood? What type of traffic will this
proposal generate?
At the present time, there is the site just to the south of this proposed office that
has sort of a scattered array of semi truck that come north up McKnight and end
up backing into their driveway, having to drive into Tilsen and back east
across McKnight into their driveway. With the railroad tracks stopping traffic, the
semi some times stopping traffic and putting what would appear to be another
driveway on the east side of McKnight certainly will complicate matters.
I guess I would like to have more information on this.
Thank you for your information.
Lyle Puppe
2531 Nokomis Ave.
St. Paul, MN55119-3219
ph: 651. 739.5953
12/4/2008
Attachment 15
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, John Fallin, owner of Feed Products North, applied for a conditional use
permit to build an office building on property zoned M1 (light manufacturing) located within
350 feet of residentially-zoned property.
WHEREAS, Section 44-637(b) of the city ordinances require a conditional use permit for
a building in a M 1 district closer than 350 feet to residential property. The proposed
building would be on a lot abutting residential property.
WHEREAS, this permit applies to the property located east of 1300 McKnight Road. The
legal description is:
That part of the West Half of the Southwest Quarter of said Section 24, Township 29,
Range 22, Ramsey County, Minnesota bounded as follows:
On the North by a line drawn parallel with and distant 95 feet Southeasterly, as measured
at right angles, from the center line of the main track of said railway company, as now
located and established; on the West by the East line of the West 66 feet of the Southwest
Quarter of Said Section 24 to a point on the West line of said Section 24 which is distant
450 feet South of the Southerly line of the 100 foot right of way of said railway company,
said Southerly line being a line drawn parallel with and 56 feet Southeasterly as measured
at right angles, from the center line of the main track of said railway company as originally
located and established, and on the East by the East line of the Northwest Quarter of the
Southwest Quarter of Section 24; excepting therefrom that part that lies Northwesterly of a
line drawn parallel with and distant 8.5 feet Southeasterly, as measured at right angles from
the center line of the most Southerly side track I.C.C. No. 114 of said railway company, as
now located and established all in the County of Ramsey, State of Minnesota.
EXCEPT that part of said West Half of the Southwest Quarter of said Section 24, lying
easterly of the centerline of the 99 foot wide road easement as described in document
No. 2325930.
WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows:
1. On January 6, 2009, the planning commission held a public hearing. The city staff
published a notice in the paper and sent notices to the surrounding property
owners. The planning commission gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak
and present written statements. The planning commission also considered the
reports and recommendation of city staff. The planning commission recommended
that the city council approve this permit.
2. On , 2009, the city council considered reports and recommendations
of the city staff and planning commission.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council
described conditional use permit, because:
the above-
1. The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be in
conformity with the City's Comprehensive Plan and Code of Ordinances.
2. The use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding
area.
3. The use would not depreciate property values.
4. The use would not involve any activity, process, materials, equipment or methods of
operation that would be dangerous, hazardous, detrimental, disturbing or cause a
nuisance to any person or property, because of excessive noise, glare, smoke,
dust, odor, fumes, water or air pollution, drainage, water run-off, vibration, general
unsightliness, electrical interference or other nuisances.
5. The use would generate only minimal vehicular traffic on local streets and would not
create traffic congestion or unsafe access on existing or proposed streets.
6. The use would be served by adequate public facilities and services, including
streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, water and sewer systems,
schools and parks.
7. The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services.
8. The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and
scenic features into the development design.
9. The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects.
Approval is subject to the following conditions:
1. All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city. Staff may approve
minor changes.
2. The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of
council approval. The city council may extend this permit one additional year.
3. The city council shall review this permit in one year. After two years the permit
shall end unless construction has started.
4. Compliance with conditions in the report by Steve Kummer, Maplewood Staff
Engineer, dated December 2, 2008. The site plan shall be revised, as shown to
the commission at the public hearing, with a retaining wall along the east side of
the parking lot near Lakewood Drive. The retaining wall and site grades shall be
subject to the approval of the city's engineering department.
5. Compliance with conditions in the report by Ginny Gaynor, Open Space
Naturalist with the city, in her report dated November 26, 2008.
6. Compliance with conditions in the report by Shann Finwall, Environmental
Planner with the city, dated December 26, 2008.
7. Provide wetland-protection signs along the wetland buffer as required by
ordinance. The number and placement of these signs shall be determined by the
environmental planner. These signs shall prohibit any building, mowing, cutting,
filling or dumping in or around the wetland.
8. To develop this site adjacent to residential property, the applicant shall provide a
screening buffer that is at least six-feet-tall and 80 percent opaque upon
installation. This buffer may be comprised of evergreen trees or a decorative
wood fence. Such screening shall be subject to staff approval.
The Maplewood City Council
this resolution on
,2009.
MEMO
FROM:
Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner and Michael Martin, Planner
Community Design Review Board (CDRB)
Jennifer Haskamp, Pulse Land Group
TO:
DATE:
RE:
January 6, 2008
Comprehensive Plan Update
INTRODUCTION
On December 8, 2008 the City Council approved the Draft Comprehensive Plan Update. This action was the first step in
moving the document forward to ullimate adoption and therefore the policy direction of the City over the next ten years.
Although the Draft was approved, there remains a bit of time in which the Council and other Commissions can review the
document to ensure that the information In the document accurately reflects the goals and objectives of the community moving
forward, As a courtesy, and in light of the timeline, the Council has directed Staff 10 bring the drafl documenl to each
commission to solicit any feedback on the document in its entirety.
BACKGROUND AND TIMELlNE
The Comprehensive Plan is a large document that includes eleven chapters each addressing a different Issue related to land
use, development, infrastructure or the environment. The Comprehensive Plan Update process was struclured to allow each
commission to comment and develop Ihe chapter that most directly related to Ihe responsibilities of that commission. The
CDRB reviewed and commented on the Sustainability Chapter (Chapter 3) and design components of other chapters at
meetings in the fall of 2008, Since the CDRB reviewed Ihe chapter, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to review
the entire Comprehensive Plan Update draft and recommended the document to the City Council. The document has been
publicly reviewed at numerous meetings, and there were not any significant comments or changes made to the Sustain ability
chapter.
CHAPTER HIGHLIGHTS
The Sustainability chapter Is a new chapter in the Comprehensive Plan Update. The idea of suslainability and green design is
Interwoven throughout the entire comprehensive plan document, but is synthesized into a set of goals and implementation
strategies in the Sustainability chapter. The chapter speciflcally addressed LEED standards and Minnesota Greenstar
programs that could change and aiter the design standards in the community. Additionally, the chapler emphasizes natural
resource preservation, BMPs for future development, and encouraging multi-modal transportation options.
REQUESTED ACTION
Staff is requesting the CDRB to review Chapter 3 once again to ensure that the chapter addresses the issues, concerns, or
goals for the next planning period. Staff has also provided you wilh a copy of the Comprehensive Plan Update in its entirety if
you are interested in seeing how Chapter 3 fits into the larger document. Please come to the meeting prepared to discuss the
Sustalnabillty Chapter and bring any other comments you might have about the document. It is our intent to pass along all
comments/concerns to the City Council for their consideration and possible action.
Attachment 1
DRAFT
Chapter 3: Sustainability
Our world is facing many complex environmental challenges, and possible solutions will require the
creativity and energy of forward-thinking people and communities. One way the City of Maplewood
will undertake this challenge is through our city's comprehensive planning process.
Maplewood's quality of life depends on the preservation and enhancement of its environment. The
city recognizes the sensitive interface between the natural and built environments and as such will
promote balanced and sustainable practices in the community in order to. ommodate the needs
of the present without compromising the ability of future generations t their needs.
Maplewood's 2030 Comprehensive Plan as a whole will encoura . able practices through
the use of land, management of water, and protection of our r, I resources. These
practices and policies will ensure that the residents, busin wners live and
function in a way that considers the livelihood of future beings on
this planet.
In addition to the overriding theme of environment€U~,~wardship f
sustainability chapter will focus on sustainable poliC1e:'? u'
human activities and built environment. This will be ac
goals that will serve as important build' cks to future
strategies which will assist Maplewoo obtaining t
. throughout the?~I~g, the
directed toward the'city's
hrough the development of
able policies and implementation
oals.
Vision
nvironment by using best practices for
nd the city's overall marketability will rise
)jwing its tradition as an environmental
sion for sustainability:
. "order to ensure stewardship of its environment, will promote
me ?~nd,practices for the preservation, design, and maintenance of
virorim~nts. Developments and practices should maintain or
portunity and community well-being while protecting and restoring
t that people, economies, and ecological systems depend on.
Goals
The sustainability chapter is a tool for action and is intended to change long-standing practices
through the creation of goals and implementation strategies. To realize the sustainability vision,
the city will promote these goals:
1. Protect and enhance air quality and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
2. Make energy efficiency and conservation a priority through building code improvements
and city operations.
Sustainability
3-1
DRAFT
3. Promote sustainable building practices such as green building standards,
4. Encourage sustainable and aesthetic design and maintenance practices for multi-family
residential and commercial developments,
5. Adopt an urban tree program that encourages a healthy and thriving urban tree canopy
and other desirable forms of vegetation.
6. Provide transportation options by promoting a transportation system that is safe, efficient,
minimizes disruption, promotes betler land development, improves the aesthetic
appearance of the city, reduces air pollution, and provides connections.
7. Follow low impact and environmentally sensitive city operation practices.
8. Address noise, air, and water pollution by taking these pollutants at
point and non-point sources..(..;;.:
9. Focus on reducing, reusing and recycling SOli~;l~~~teprior to
10. Provide educationai opportunities to prorT1;~;t~Fusfainable pr.actices,
11. Promote local production and consumPti6r\9E~~R,dS an~;~~g9uctS.
12. Encourage and promote healthy lifestyles for resiq.~nl~~;:;
Implementation Strategies
<,:'i-"
The city's present and future residents, businesses, and' property owners will benefit from
Maplewood's sustainable practices and guiding prinCiples. The plan for sustainability has the
following strategi!,s: .'
,<.t<;::::~:_::'i-'!-\\
Education/Partnerships'. i; ,'itl;>. .
':\:_,;.+:,iii,_:,:\;;"'.--.'._,,". ,', ---"~_;',:;:-_::_:, "
. Give annual~\J~iainabiliiy. progress reports to the city council and the community.
"",".:<-"';;.\'/ -'<',:.'i,.:<.L. '_\L_.:_,:;'.'__>"
'F;epare a sustai~~bl~newsl'~tl~ti1.Rd brochures for residents and businesses.
. ., Ct~<lte a sustainabilit~:p~ge on t'h~itity's website.
::)-::/<r~-:--__ >':''i:'-i':
. Contiri~~i1.nd expand !lDy(ronmental and sustainable programs which outreach to the youth,
adults,anq~~s~nes~~,~,j~the city.
. CoordinatewitQrT1~~s transit providers to facilitate bus transportation and promote alternative
mass transit options'.
. Provide educational material on sustainable building and operational practices.
. Work with other government units, owners, and developers to identify and implement ways to
buffer, reduce, or eliminate noise, air, and water pollution originating from businesses,
industries, railroads, and highways.
. Have a city employee become certified in Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design
(LEED) standards.
<-'::i/:!-\;~_
'.....i.,..:.-.^..
Sustainability
3-2
DRAFT
. Encourage efficient city trash hauling by reducing multiple pick ups and trips in one
neighborhood.
. Encourage composting.
. Create opportunities for community gardens.
City Policies, Ordinances, and Proqrams
Modify the city's policies, ordinances, or programs to implement feasible
fu~ .
. Encourage developments to utilize renewable energy source
geothermal, hydro, and biomass.
. Encourage low impact development and conservati
o Green building modeled after the U .'
Leadership in Energy and Envir
programs.
o Low impact landscaping which promo
irrigation.
o Green space requirem
. Encourage and offer incentives to de
standards or which c me LEED
. Continue to strive
include provisi
location, acc
. Use
transpo
promote all
. Enforce and stre
of noise pollution.
Ign standar and ordinances that will
ectural design, off-street parking ratios and
ing or screening, and trash handling.
's urban tree canopy by:
loss policy e city's urban tree canopy by maintaining and
trees and planting new trees on public and private property.
. ions to plant trees.
ee City .SA standards.
eview process to actively promote alternative modes of
lic transit, bicycles, car and bike share programs, carpools, and
schedules.
. en ordinances which require buffering of developments from the impacts
City Operations
The city is in a unique position to implement and influence approaches to achieving a balance
between the environment, the economy, and our community. The city can demonstrate and
showcase applications of new sustainable technologies in the following ways:
Sustainability
3-3
l:"
DRAFT
. Take an inventory of current city operation efforts that make progress toward sustainability and
be frank about areas that need improvement.
. Work to increase awareness of sustain ability among its staff and management.
. Create a green team made up of city employees to make suggestions and help implement
sustainable practices within all areas of city operations.
. Encourage partnerships with other organizations to make public buildings, operations, and
maintenance sustainable.
. Establish goals for reduction of greenhouse gasses within all aspe9!~enhe city's operations
including such things as a "no idle" policy, increasing the fueleWsh,ncy of city fleet vehicles,
and the conversion of vehicles that operate with environm~~I~I!~S'~'1t~!,~able alternative fuels.
. Require that all new city buildings or city-funded buildings' obtain at jea~tten points toward the
LEED standards."'"
'v1
!:'!,
. Recycle at all parks, city buildings, and city event~;:W>;';n;,:.
""<"","""',' .......
. Increase recycling efforts at multi-tenant buildlh~~'~nd school~{"ii'i,l:
';:"';--'-'<' ,.,'::.,....,:.::;."...., ".:.
. Encourage employees to commute to work by al{~frratiyef)i9~~~of transportation than single-
car commuting. oo,i" , ."
. Become paperless in city
. Measure the carbon footprint of city
where feasible.
measures to reduce carbon emissions
City Budqet
Modify the city's
strategies found to
to implement the sustainability
Sustainability
3-4
Attachment 2
MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA
TUESDAY, MAY 13,2008
VI. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
a. Comprehensive Plan - Sustainability Section and Design Provisions
Planner Shann Finwall presented the staff report and explained that the city desires to include a
sustainability section into the comprehensive plan in order to become more sustainable in all
aspects of its operations and regulatory review. Planner Finwall said she needs comments from
the board tonight in order to do a more formal document for the next meeting for the board's final
comments. She will then submit the document to the environmental and natural resources
committee for their review. Ms. Finwall said staff plans to have the comprehensive plan completed
by July in order to allow adjacent communities time for their review and comments.
Ms. Finwall mentioned that the next open house for the comprehensive plan review public
comments will be held on May 22 and the last open house is scheduled for June 26.
Planner Finwall suggested the city might recommend following some of the LEEDS program
guidelines but without requiring certification in the program.
Boardmember Shankar explained he is very familiar with the LEEDS program and that it is an
expensive program and includes a great deal of paper work to get to a certifiable level in the
program. Mr. Shankar mentioned there are 65 points in the LEEDS program certification levels, but
that the city might mandate that only 10 of the lowest level points are attained, which would be an
easy thing to do.
Boardmember Olson said she would like to encourage a separate goal for landscaping, including
preferred and non preferred plants, and for permeable green space surfaces.
It was discussed that city ordinance currently prohibits planting boulevard trees; the board
suggested that the city reconsider this issue and encourage boulevard planting of canopy trees as
a method of sustainability,
Boardmember Shankar suggested that the city should provide incentives for using sustainable
practices such as a reduction in permit fees.
Boardmember Shankar mentioned that requiring irrigation systems is not a sustainable practice.
The board discussed low impact planting such as native plants that do not need as much watering
and also the need for more sidewalks and trails.
Board member Olson mentioned that there are financial questions for the city to consider as well
when considering sustainability issues and questioned whether the board should be responsible to
financial issues.
Boardmember Shankar said the board should establish baselines that have minimum financial
implications yet meet the goals of sustainability for both new development and operations. Mr.
Shankar said both financial and social responsibilities need to be taken into account when
considering sustainability practices.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 05-13-2008
2
Planner Finwall said she would request comments from the board members who are absent
tonight and then update the report for the next board meeting,
Attachment 3
MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA
TUESDAY, MAY 27,2008
VI. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
a. Comprehensive Plan - Sustainability Section and Design Provisions
Planner finwall presented the staff report and asked for comments from the commission regarding
the design-related and sustainability sections of the plan to be included in the 2008 plan.
Boardmember Ledvina said he likes having the sustainability chapter as a separate chapter rather
than sprinkled throughout the document. Mr. Ledvina said the city of St. Paul's sustainability
document, which was given to the board for review, is very interesting and detailed and is also very
specific regarding their projects and policies. Mr. Ledvina said he feels the staff report covers the
all of the topics and is a good addition to the comprehensive plan. Mr. Ledvina said he does not
have anything further to add to it.
Boardmember Demko said he feels the draft report is complete and that he has nothing further to
add to it.
Boardmember Wise suggested the clarification that the city will try to provide education for
developers and business owners on incentives, so they can be made aware that there are
incentives available to help with funding for some of the projects. Mr. Wise suggested that staff be
cognizant of lack of flexibility and said some of the standards seem a little excessive at times and
that there might be alternatives that could be allowed that would encourage sustainability and
balance cost and environmental impact. Mr. Wise suggested that the city could benefit by having a
representative get tested and certified through the USGBC.
Boardmember Olson complimented planner Shann Finwall on her work completing the draft report
saying she feels all of the board's comments are included and the report appears comprehensive.
Boardmember Ledvina said he would like to see specifics and analysis with tactical plans for being
a sustainable community, similar to the city of St. Paul's document, which could be included in
Maplewood's final documeht.
Planner Finwall commented that as an environmental planner, this would be the next step of the
process to create the implementation strategies and plans.
Boardmember Olson said she feels that this is a new issue to the city of Maplewood and would
expect modifications over the next few years. Also, she feels Maplewood cannot match St Paul's
level of depth and detail since Maplewood doesn't have the paid staff or volunteer resources
available to do the same scope of work.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
Planning Commission and Community DeSig6ieview Board
Shann Finwall, AICP, Environmental Planne
Sustainable Maplewood . .
December 23, 2008
Over the last 15 weeks the University of Minnesota Environmental Policy undergraduate
students have been busy collecting data from city employees, commissioners, residents,
and outside experts on various aspects of the city's land use and operations in order to
formulate recommendations on how the city can create models for sustainability, The
students gathered this data through park surveys, energyltransportationlwaste audits,
surrounding community interviews and ordinance reviews, inventories of impervious
surfaces in the Maplewood Mall area, public area vegetation coverage, and reviews of
the city's current environmental education and communication,
The students presented their findings during an open forum at the Maplewood
Community Center. The final documents reflect valuable recommendations for the city
to consider as we move forward with our sustainable goals, The reports will be reviewed
by the city's commissions, boards, and green team members for possible
recommendations on sustainability policies or actions to the city council in the future,
City staff will schedule some time in February to review the findings with the Planning
Commission and Community Design Review Board.
Thanks to all of the University of Minnesota students and their professors on a job well
done,