Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-01-11 CDRB Packet AGENDA CITY OF MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD Tuesday, January 11, 2011 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. September 28,2010 b. November 23, 2010 5. Unfinished Business: 6. Design Review: a. Design and Comprehensive Sign Plan Approval- Metro Transit Park and Ride Ramp, Northeast Corner of Beam Avenue and South lawn Drive 7. Visitor Presentations: 8. Board Presentations: 9. Staff Presentations: a. Election of Officers 10. Adjourn DRAFT MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD 1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 28,2010 I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Ledvina called the meeting to order at 6:28 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Boardmember Jason Lamers Chairperson Matt Ledvina Boardmember Michael Mireau Boardmember Ananth Shankar Vice Chairperson Matt Wise Absent Present Present Present Absent Staff Present: Michael Martin, Planner Michael Thompson, City Engineer III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Boardmember Shankar moved to approve the agenda as presented. Boardmember Mireau seconded the motion. Ayes all; the motion passed. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - August 24, 2010 Boardmember Mireau moved to approve the minutes of the August 24, 2010, minutes as presented. Boardmember Shankar seconded the motion. Ayes all; the motion passed. V. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None September 28, 2010 Community Design Review Board Meeting Minutes 1 VI. DESIGN REVIEW a. Frost Avenue Bridge Michael Thompson presented the background on the proposed Frost Avenue bridge replacement, which was previously presented to the CDRB. Mr. Thompson requested the CDRB's final feedback and a recommendation on the bridge design and form liner options as well as preferences for the rest area prior to presenting to the City Council. Jerry Pertzsch, from Kimley-Horn and Associates, also addressed the board to present the various concepts and answer board members' questions. Mr. Thompson summarized the CDRB recommendations as follows: 1. Concept 1 with the proposed height differential 2. Option B form liner 3. Rest area location Concept B VII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS None VIII. BOARD PRESENTATIONS None IX. STAFF PRESENTATIONS a. Green Building Program Presentation - Nick Carver Nick Carver, assistant building official with the City of Maplewood, presented a preview of the city's proposed green building program. b. Changes to Granting of Variances Michael Martin provided information regarding recent changes to the Minnesota Supreme Court's interpretation of how cities evaluate variance requests. X. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned by consensus at 7:56 p.m. September 28, 2010 Community Design Review Board Meeting Minutes 2 MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD 1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 23,2010 1. CALL TO ORDER Acting Chairperson Wise called the meeting to order at 6:17 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL Boardmember Jason Lamers Chairperson Matt Ledvina Boardmember Michael Mireau Boardmember Ananth Shankar Vice Chairperson Matt Wise Present Absent Present Present Present Staff Present: Michael Martin, Planner 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Boardmember Shankar moved to approve the agehda as presented. Boardmember Lamers seconded the Ayes - All The motion passed. 4. APPROVAL OF Vice Chairperson Boardmember Shankar the motion. Ayes - All The motion to table passed. Acting Chairperson Wise moved to approve the minutes of the October 26, 2010, minutes as presented. Boardmember Shankar seconded the motion. Ayes - Acting Chairperson Wise, Boardmembers Lamers & Shankar Abstain - Boardmember Mireau The motion passed. 5. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None November 23, 2010 Community Design Review Board Meeting Minutes 1 6. DESIGN REVIEW a. Design Approval - The Woodlands of Maplewood - Sophia Avenue, East of McMenemy 1. Planner, Michael Martin introduced the report and answered questions of the board. 2. Developer, Rich Kettler, Kettler Construction, presented the report and answered questions of the board. Acting Chairperson Wise moved to approve new buildinQ elevations and landscape plans date-stamped November 9.2010 and approve the previous September 12. 2005 site plan and qradinq and drainaqe plans for the Woodlands of Maplewood town houses on the east side of McMenemv Street. north of Kinqston Avenue. The citv bases this approval on the findinqs required bv the code. The developer or contractor shall do the followinq: (chanqes to the motion are underlined in the conditions below.) 1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. 2. Complete the following before the city issues a buildiggipermit: a. Comply or continue compliance with all engineering requirements as outlined in 2A of the May 22, 2007 community design review board's minutes. b. Submit a certificate of survey for all registered land surveyor. constrY91ion and have each building staked by a c. Submit revised building the following details: plan to staff for approval that incorporates (1) All lawn areas the ponding The city engineer shall determine the vegetation within (2) The addition of for screening along trees (Black Hills spruce or Austrian pines) and/or fencing and south sides of the site. (3) The developer shall install landscaping in the ponding areas to break the appearance of the deep hole and to promote infiltration. Such landscaping shall be approved by the city engineer and shall be shown on the project landscape plans. (4) Showing in-ground irrigation, including the location of the sprinkler heads, for all landscape areas (code requirement). (5) The plantings proposed around the front of the units shown on the landscape plan date-stamped November 9,2010, shall remain on the plan. (6) A concrete walk from the driveway to the door of each unit. (7) The manicured or mowed areas from the natural areas. This shall include planting (instead of sodding) the disturbed areas around the ponding area with native grasses and native flowering plants. The native grasses and flowering plants shall be those needing little or no maintenance and shall extend at least four feet from the ordinary November 23, 2010 Community Design Review Board Meeting Minutes 2 high water mark (OHWM) of the pond. This is to reduce maintenance costs and to reduce the temptation of mowers to encroach into the gardens. Specifically, the developer shall have the natural areas seeded with an upland mixture and lowland mixtures as appropriate. (8) In addition to the above, the contractor shall sod all front, side and rear yard areas (except for mulched and edged planting beds and the area within the ponding area). (9) The contractor shall restore the McMenemy Street and Kingston Avenue boulevards with sod. (10) Shall be approved by the city engineer before site grading and shall be consistent with the approved grading and landscape plans. (11) Shows in detail the landscape or ground treatment for the areas between the driveways of the double dwellings. (12) Per staff approval. the landscapinq plan shall be revised to show adequate screeninq between units and of the mechanical equipmeht associated with each unit. (13) BuildinQ elevations shall be revised to show shared ridQe vents as allowed bv buildinQ code. (14) The front buildinQ elevations shall be revised to show the thin cut stone used on the qaraqes be limited in heiqht to the level of the wainscotinq location also on the front elevations. (15) All twin homes shall be of the same color. (16) The developer shall use no more than three home colors throuQhout the development and all units must share the same shinQle color. d. Show that Ramsey Courityh.!i\~recorded the final plat for this development. e. Get the necessary approvals and permits from the watershed districts. f. Submit a site lighting plan for city approval. This plan shall show the existence of the seven street lights and how the lighting on the buildings would add to the site lighting. This plan also shall show details about the proposed light fixtures to ensure they are a design that hides the bulb and lens from view to avoid nuisances. The light fixtures must have concealed lenses and bulbs to properly shield glare from the adjacent street right-of-ways and from adjacent residential properties. g. Have the Saint Paul Regional Water Services approve the proposed utility plans. h. The developer or builder will pay the city Park Availability Charges (PAC fees) at the time of the building permit for each housing unit. i. Submit the homeowners' association bylaws and rules to the city for approval by the city staff. These are to assure that there will be one responsible party for the care and maintenance of the common areas, outlots, the private utilities, trails, sidewalks, signs, November 23, 2010 Community Design Review Board Meeting Minutes 3 landscaping and retaining walls. j. Provide the city with a letter of credit or cash escrow for all required exterior improvements. The amount shall be 150 percent of the cost of the work. 3. Complete the following before occupying each building: a. Replace property irons that are removed because of this construction. b. Restore and sod damaged boulevards and sod all turf areas. c. Complete all landscaping and turf irrigation for that building and its rainwater garden(s). d. Install the required concrete curb and gutter. e. Install a reflectorized stop sign at the exits onto McMenemy Street and addresses on each building for each unit. In addition, the applicant shall install "no parking" signs within the site, as required by staff. f. Install and maintain all required trees and landscaping (including the plantings around each unit and around the pond) and an in-ground sprinkler system for all landscaped areas (code requirement). g. Install on-site lighting for security and visibility that follows the approved site lighting plan. All exterior lighting shall follow the approved lighting plan that shows the light spread and fixture design. The light fixtures must have concealed lenses and bulbs to properly shield glare from the adjacent street right-of-ways and the nearby homes and residential properties. h. Install a six-foot-high solid screening fence or additional eight-foot-high trees along the west and south property lines of the site where the vegetation does not adequately screen the town houses from the existing dwellings. These additional materials are to ensure there is at least a six-foot-tall, 80 percent opaque screen on these sides of the site. The location, design and materials of the fence or the additional landscaping shall be subject to city staff approval. i. The developer or contractor shall: (1)Complete all grading for the site drainage, complete all public improvements and meet all city requirements. (2) Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits. (3) Remove any debris or junk from the site. 4. If any required work is not done, the city may allow temporary occupancy if: a. The city determines that the work is not essential to the public health, safety or welfare. b. The above-required letter of credit or cash escrow is held by the city for all required exterior improvements. The owner or contractor shall complete any unfinished landscaping by June 1 of the next year if the building is occupied in the fall or winter, or within six weeks of occupancy if the building is occupied in the spring or summer. November 23, 2010 Community Design Review Board Meeting Minutes 4 5. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 6. Provide a sign and landscape plan for the entrance and island at McMenemy Street for city staff approval. The monument sign shall be no more than six feet tall and shall have materials that are consistent with and architecturally compatible with the buildings within the development. The landscaping shall be compatible with the extreme conditions of the location and the materials shall need little or no maintenance. Seconded by Boardmember Lamers. Ayes - All The motion passed. 7. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS None 8. BOARD PRESENTATIONS None 9. STAFF PRESENTATIONS a. Planner, Martin 2011. 2010, CDRB meeting to January 11, 10. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was Chairperson Wise at 7:15 p.m. November 23, 2010 Community Design Review Board Meeting Minutes 5 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: LOCATION: DATE: James Antonen, City Manager Michael Martin, AICP, Planner Charles Ahl, Assistant City Manager Design and Comprehensive Sign Plan Approval - Metro Transit Park and Ride Ramp Northeast Corner of Beam Avenue and Southlawn Drive January 3, 2011 SUBJECT: INTRODUCTION Project Description Metro Transit, a division of the Metropolitan Council, is proposing to build a three-level (a ground-floor level and two above-ground levels), 1 ,OOO-space parking ramp at the park and ride site located west of Sears at 1793 Beam Avenue. The applicant would also construct a sidewalk along the Southlawn Drive frontage. The current transit center consists of a 426 space parking lot for the park and ride and a bus-transit hub. Refer to the plans. Request To develop this site, the applicant is requesting that the community design review board approve the ramp design, site and landscaping plans. In addition, a comprehensive sign plan approval is required. This project also required a CUP (conditional use permit) for a planned unit development (PUD). The city council approved the CUP at its meeting on September 27, 2010. As part of this CUP, the council approved: . A building-setback reduction on the South lawn Drive side from 30 feet to 15 feet. . A parking space width reduction from 9 Y:! feet to 8 Y:! feet. BACKGROUND November 25, 2003: The community design review board (CDRB) approved the plans for the existing park and ride facility. June 8, 2009: The city of Maplewood adopted a resolution in support of Metro Transit's funding request for Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality-Transit Expansion grant financing. September 27, 2010: The city council approved a CUP for a PUD along with the setback and parking width reductions as stated above. DISCUSSION Ramp Design The proposed parking ramp has three levels, one on the grade level plus two structured levels. There is a very significant slope from the north to the south of the site and the floor levels of the proposed project follow the slope in order to minimize the overall-height of the facility and conform to existing land contours. The height of the ramp is also limited by an agreement between Metro Transit and the Sear's store located at the Maplewood Mall. Metro Transit's design consultant, Bentz/Thompson/Rietow, considered the comments and concerns of the CDRB in the development of the proposed design plans. The applicant uses patterns, layering, textures and varying building heights as tools to soften the extended building lines along Southlawn Drive and Beam Avenue. These tools are used in an effort to break up the scale of the parking ramp. The applicant's proposed exterior materials include architectural pre- cast concrete, anodized aluminum, and glass. In addition to the building fayade elements the applicant is proposing extensive landscaping which will be discussed later in the report. One of the main concerns the CDRB has previously stated was a concern over the design of the large, exterior walls. The CDRB made it clear it considered Southlawn Drive and Beam Avenue a key intersection in the city and that Metro Transit's would be held to high architectural standards. The applicant has stated its main challenge is providing an architecturally appealing fayade while also providing enough visibility to encourage a safe feeling within the structure. The applicant intends to use aluminum panels in a layered matter to give the building a more three-dimension feel instead of a typical, flat building. These panels work to avoid a large, blank wall facing either street frontage. Staff feels the use of these panels meets the difficult challenge of proving a visually appealing building while also functioning as a safe and practical parking ramp. Landscapi ng/Screen ing The applicant is proposing to line Southlawn Drive and Beam Avenue with maple trees in front of the structured portion of the site. The applicant states that two types of maple trees will be planted in order to provide for alternating colors in the fall. Two other tree species, hackberry and skyline honey locus are proposed for the north and east sides of the site. A variety of shrubs and ivy is proposed throughout the site. Refer to the attached landscaping plan. Virginia Gaynor, the city's natural resources coordinator, as reviewed the applicant's plans. Her comments are attached to this report. Lig hts The applicant is proposing several pole mounted lights throughout the site. The code says that this light intensity must not exceed .4 footcandles at any property line. The design of the light fixtures is included with this report's attachments. The applicant's electrical site plan shows that there is some light spillage that exceeds the .4 footcandles standards on the northeast property line. The applicant will be required to submit a revised photometric plan showing code compliance. Comprehensive Sign Plan A comprehensive sign plan is required for this site. The city's sign ordinance would allow one freestanding and one wall sign for each street frontage. This site has three street frontages. The applicant's proposed plans would exceed the code requirements on the number of signs. However, the comprehensive sign plan allows the CDRB to provide the applicant flexibility from code. Staff feels that given the type of use, large size of the proposed building and the need for clear instructions for way finding purposes, the proposed comprehensive sign plan is acceptable. Also, the proposed additional signs do enhance the visual appeal of the building fayade. Each sign will require a separate sign permit prior to installation. Staff is recommending 2 any changes to the comprehensive sign plan be reviewed by the CDRB. Department Comments Bui/dina Official: Dave Fisher, the building official, has the following comments: The city will require a complete building code analysis when the construction plans are submitted to the city for building permits. Provide accessible parking spaces per 20061BC. Provide accessible bathrooms per 2006 IBC or provide documentation per 2006 IBC Section 2902 for facilities. Provide elevator per Minnesota State Building Code. Provide address numbers on the building. All exiting must go to a public way. Provide adequate Fire Department access to the building. I would recommend a pre-construction meeting with the contractor, the project manager and the city building inspection department. City Engineer: Steve Kummer, a staff engineer, reviewed this proposal and has submitted the attached report. The applicant will be required to meet any requirements Mr. Kummer has stated. Appeals For reference purposes, the applicant, staff and city council may appeal the CDRB's decision. An appeal shall be presented within 15 days of the CDRB decision. If the decision is appealed, staff will schedule a hearing with the city council. RECOMMENDATION A. Approve the parking-ramp design plans, the site plan, the lighting plan, and the landscaping plan date-stamped December 2, 2010 for the proposed parking ramp proposal for Metro Transit at the northeast corner of Beam Avenue and Southlawn Drive. The applicant shall comply with the following conditions: 1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. 2. Submit a revised photometric plan for staff approval displaying code compliance. 3. Comply with any and all requirements in Virginia Gaynor's report, dated December 22, 2010. 4. Comply with any and all requirements in Steve Kummer's report, dated December 20, 2010. 3 5. Submit an irrevocable letter of credit or cash escrow in the amount of 150 percent of the cost of completing the landscaping and site lighting. 6. These items must be provided before the city shall issue a building permit. 7. All work shall follow the approved plans. Planning staff may approve minor changes. B. Approve the comprehensive sign plan for the proposed parking ramp proposal for Metro Transit at the northeast corner of Beam Avenue and Southlawn Drive. The applicant shall comply with the following conditions: 1. All signs shall follow the approved plans. Planning staff may approve minor changes. 2. Any major changes to the comprehensive sign plan must be approved by the CDRB. 4 REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Site size: 4.41 acres Existing Use: Metro Transit Park and Ride Facility SURROUNDING LAND USES North: Maplewood Mall parking lot South: Beam Avenue and Chili's East: Maplewood Mall parking and the Maplewood Mall West: Southlawn Drive, Olive Garden and McDonald's PLANNING Land Use Plan: C (commercial) Zoning: BC (business commercial) APPLlCATION/DECISION DEADLINE The city received the complete application and plans for this proposal on December 2, 2010. State law requires that the city take action within 60 days of receiving complete applications. The deadline for city action on this proposal is January 31, 2011. As stated in Minnesota State Statute 15.99, the city is allowed to take an additional 60 days if necessary in order to complete the review of this application. P:ISEC2NIMetro Transit Park and Ride Design RevieVlAMetro Transit Park and Ride Design_011111 Attachments: 1. Location/Zoning Map 2. Land Use Plan Map 3. Site Plan 4. Applicant's Narrative date-stamped October 23, 2010 5. Landscaping Plan 6. Ramp Design Elevations 7. Virginia Gaynor's report, dated December 22, 2010 8. Steve Kummer's report, dated December 20, 2010 g. Plans date-stamped December 2, 2010 (separate attachments) 5 Attachment 1 r1 ~ , ~ "' 1 lOCATION I ZONING MAP ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~I aQ ~ ~ fl\1lI ~ u." 8 Attachment 2 c.. <( :e z c.. <( CO ..J :E c.. w CD en U>> ~ ::) :::,) Q) ~ C () <( z "C c: <( CO ..J ...J ~ Q) "0 "'0 '" ::s cO ...... ::s u... I 0 '" "C "'- ~ 0 0 - Q) 3= c - () 11l C. I)) ...- (/) ""0 CD N 0 CO z-< J: V1 ~;;:i or ~ )> r-< ~. 0 (Q C v. -i c Cl)> ~ Z o ~GJ ;0 m 1 Z m ~ I ~ ~ o )> :;;! ~ - - o p ~ ~ '" ~ ~ " ~ ~ ~ ~ .. " . ~ ~ o o ~ ~ o . . . ~ ~ i!' "'. o w i!i' m < Z ~. ~ ~ - ~ "- :c ~ o ~ ~ ~ (/> ~ o z - z ~ ~ ~ 3 o ~ ? ::; z ~ (1 Q Attachment 3 I / / f ~ ~J2~~~~i;~ i~~~~~~~ ~~>~~ ~ ~?;';~>~ z ~~g:0'~ ~ ~;]~r0F::i ~ ~~.,.,~> ~ j';;'; >;:~ -< ~ ~ a; ~.,~ m I, V'~' '1,,-, .,., ~. ",,,-, 21:;# ~ r:r: -I, ......:> Q9~~~~ p;::P~E~ m ;;~~ w~ ~ <5 0 '"', V1 ~ Z ~ C\ 8 m c o z ~ ~ ~ ~ o .. + " / - " $:';g ~8 o ~ " ~ ~ i z " " " m '\ ~ % " " '< ~ ";, o "'0 f \ ,I " " 'j BEAM AVENUE / Attachment 4 MAPlEWOOD MAll TRANSIT CENTER - GENERAL PROJECT INFORMATION -10/231 2010 . Parcel Area: . Existing Parking lot Parcel Impermeable Area . Existing Parking lot Parcel Permeable Area . Existing Percentage of Permeable to Impermeable Area 4.686 Acres or 204,128 SF 187,480 SF 16,648 SF 8.9% . Proposed Project Impermeable Area 168,263 SF . Proposed Project Permeable Area 35,665 SF . Proposed Percentage of Permeable to Impermeable Area 21.2% (Proposed project has more than twice the permeable area compared to the existing parking lot development) . Area of Proposed Project Including Surface lots and Main lobby Building (Excludes Area of Existing Bus Waiting Area, Island, and Entry Drives) o level 1 (Including Surface lots A and B) o level 2 o level 3 o Total Area of Proposed Project - Approximately 124,679 SF 94,088 SF 93,850 SF 312,617 SF . Number of Parking Stalls: o level 1 (Including Surface lots A and B) 370 o level2 315 o level 3 315 o Total Number of Parking Stalls 1,000 o Number of Accessible Stalls Required and Provided (2%) 20 (Accessible stalls are provided at locations closest to the main accessible route) . length of East and West Building Elevations . length of South Building Elevation (Along Beam) . length of North Building Elevation . Tallest Building Portion Above Grade (Excludes Lights) . Tallest Height to Top of level 3 Light Fixtures Approximately 502' Approximately 246' Approximately 125' Approximately 32' Approximately 48' Dear Staff Members of the City of Maplewood and Board Members of the City of Maplewood Community Design Review Board (CDRB) On behalf of Metro Transit, a division of the Metropolitan Council, and our entire consultant design team, we at BentzrThompson/Rietow (BTR) are pleased to submit this Community Design Review Board and Comprehensive Sign Plan Application packet for the proposed expansion of the Maplewood Mall Transit Center proposed to be located at the corner of the Southlawn Drive and Beam Avenue intersection, adjacent to Maplewood Mall. The BTR team is very familiar with and has won acclaim for designing buildings that are sensitive to and augment the urban and suburban fabric and environment. We are perhaps best known for our work at Metropolitan State University on Dayton's Bluff in Saint Paul and our Lake Harriet Band Shell and Refectory projects in Minneapolis; however, closer to your home, we were the designers of the Dayton's (now Macy's) Department Store at the Maplewood Mall. Also, we have garnered several awards for parking ramp projects of similar scope and importance to this project at the Maplewood Mall. These ramps are located in very significant and sensitive contexts including our Minneapolis Convention Center Parking Ramp which is adjacent to both the Convention Center and Central Attachment 4 Lutheran Church and our Minneapolis Community and Technical College Parking Ramp which is adjacent to both the College and the Basilica of Saint Mary. As one can imagine, these two parking ramp projects needed to fulfill aesthetic needs and requirements far beyond the basic functional requirement of parking cars. BTR received overwhelmingly positive public comments and several awards on these projects and we have invested the same commitment to urban design and public architecture to this wonderful parking structure for Metro Transit's Maplewood Transit Center. The entire team appreciates your diligence in reviewing this project and thanks you for the opportunity to present you our site plan layout earlier this year on August 24, 2010. Due in large part to your earlier review and comments, the project's Conditional Use Permit - Planned Unit Development (PUD) Application was approved on September 27, 2010 by the City Council. While that earlier CDRB meeting did not focus on visual design issues, we are very thankful to have had the opportunity to hear your thoughts and expectations regarding design of the project. We listened carefully to your earlier comments and have directly incorporated them in our design. In particular, you will note that we listened to your comments regarding landscaping and general "greening" of the site. As a quick preview (more detail will be provided later in this text) you will see significantly more trees and other planting than those indicated in our August site layout submittal. All of these planting have been carefully selected and designed to augment the building architecture and the importance of this highly visible site. We also heard your comments regarding the importance of the South lawn and Beam intersection, the length of the South lawn elevation, and the closeness of the west building elevation to Southlawn Drive. You will note that we have completely redesigned the southwest and northwest corners of the building utilizing an architectural precast concrete panels in rather civic-oriented proportion and formal manner to help "anchor" the building to the site and to help it visually address the South lawn I Beam intersection. The intersection is further enhanced by two planter beds at the base of the precast concrete wall panels that contain wonderful planting (including ivy that will climb the pre-cast concrete walls) that will change colors and textures with the seasons. The City Council's decision to approve the 8' - 6" stall width and their direction to move the Southlawn Drive sidewalk to the public way have had very positive impacts on the building design. In particular, the overall length of the building has been reduced by nearly sixty feet from our original submittal and the additional green space provided along Southlawn, due to moving the sidewalk to the west, has left significantly more room for the planting of trees. PROJECT SPECIFICS The proposed, expanded Maplewood Mall Transit Center is a 1,000 stall parking facility that will be constructed just west of the existing park and ride bus lanes, island, and waiting facilities. The existing site soils near the top are underlaid with very poor soils that are unsuitable for the project; therefore, a significant amount of soils must be replaced with engineered fill and all structural building elements will be required to be supported on a deep foundation (pile) system down to the bedrock which occurs some forty to fifty feet below the surface. The existing bus lanesldrives, passenger shelter, and bus boarding island are to remain operational throughout construction. During construction, parking for patrons of the facility will be accommodated on the Maplewood Maillot via separate agreement. The proposed parking ramp has three levels, one on the grade level plus two structured levels. There is a very significant slope from the north to the south of the site and the floor levels of the proposed project follow the slope in order to minimize the overall- Attachment 4 height of the facility and conform to existing land contours. There are two surface parking lot areas immediately adjacent to the structured portion of the ramp: Surface Lot A, located to the southeast; and Surface Lot B, located to the north. Bicycle parking is located just east of the Main Lobby Building. Vehicular entrieslexits are located in three locations: one off South lawn Drive that accesses the lower level (Level 1) of the ramp; one off the Mall ring road at the south end of the site that also accesses Level 1 and Surface Lot A; and one at the north end of the east elevation of the structured portion of the ramp that accesses the second level (Level 2) of the ramp from the Mall ring road. The top level (Level 3) is accessed via the internal vehicular ramp system or via the exit stair to the northwest or the Main Lobby Building stair or elevator located on the east side of the building. Both the exit stair to the northwest and the Main Lobby Building connect each of the three levels. Only the Main Lobby Building will have an elevator and be enclosed and have a tempered environment. The exit stair to the northwest is enclosed at Level 3 by a roof and four walls but on Levels 1 and 2 is only sheltered by the north and west walls and is completely open to the elements within the ramp to the east and south. The required van-accessible parking spaces ( 20) are dispersed on all three levels and are located immediately adjacent to the Main Lobby Building and its elevator tower and accessible route. There will be two snow dump areas that will take snow off of each level for deposit on site and removal by Metro Transit or contracted snow removal service vehicles. These snow dumps are located at the extreme north and south ends of the structured portion of the ramp. In terms of storm water management and the "greening" of the site, this proposed project will more than double the amount of permeable, landscaped area. In addition, a major underground storm water holding system is located under Surface Lots A and B and at the southwest corner. This system of increased permeable area and underground cisterns conforms to the Watershed District's requirements for water volume retention and water filtration and quality. Landscaping figures prominently in the design and is closely coordinated with the architecture of the building, the conditions of the site, and the strong visual presence of this major intersection. First, maple trees will line the Southlawn Drive (west) and Beam Avenue (south) elevations along the structured portions of the ramp and be centered on the middle of each structural bay. The two lines of trees will be set at a slight angle to the building to create a forced perspective that will place more emphasis on the SouthlawnlBeam corner. Two species of maples will be used within these two lines of trees and they will be planted alternately so that, in the fall, there will be a rhythmic repeating of red and yellow trees along the line. Set in counterpoint to the lines of trees are the rows of willow bushes that will flank and screen the surface parking lot areas. The main corner at Beam and South lawn will feature a monumental wall assembly of an architectural pre-cast (very similar in finish, color, and texture to the panels used at Macy's Department Store at Maplewood Mall) and anodized aluminum bar grating panel, that will at its base, have large planting bed areas with two species of plants plus ivy that will grow up the two walls. The monumental wall element at the corner will have, near its top, an internally illuminated Metro Transit sign. The northwest exit stair will also feature a similar set of design elements as the South lawn I Beam corner. One of the most challenging visual issues on a parking ramp is the design of the exterior, perimeter screen walls. The enclosures must be sufficiently transparent to encourage safety and Attachment 4 security while sufficiently opaque to provide some screening of vehicles and structure. The screens need to be modular so as to be cost efficient but must also be able to be configured in a variety of manners to avoid monotony. At the same time, the exterior must have sufficient opening to allow air to naturally vent the ramp. Also, there are very few ancillary building elements that can help break down the scale of a parking ramp (for example, there is much more ramp wall area than there are stair towers and lobby buildings). To respond to these challenges, the design team has relied on a set of proven design principles: Limiting to a Selective Palette of Materials: We have limited our palette of exterior materials to: integrally colored architectural pre-cast concrete, anodized aluminium, glass, and landscape elements in order to provide clarity of design. These materials are used in a variety of manners to give them greater texture and diversity of expression. Each of these materials is durable, long- lasting, and easy to maintain and is perfectly suited for this type of transit oriented development that has heavy vehicular and pedestrian traffic patterns. Rhythm and Pattern: At each structural grid line (every 28' - 6" to 30' - 0" depending on location) a 5 1/2" diameter anodized aluminum pipe is placed vertically as a framing element. Then, at the third points between the structural columns, an additional, vertical anodized aluminum pipe is placed. These pipes then form a framework upon which a series of anodized aluminum panels can be placed. This regular rhythm of supports sets up a pattern that helps to break down the scale of the facades and offers a unique opportunity to apply the anodized aluminum panels in a very unique manner that emphasizes: Layering and texture: The project exterior is built of layers of elements that help to provide more interest and depth to the design. Starting at the street curb and sidewalk and moving toward the building, we first come upon the grassy perimeter and line of maple trees and bushes and planters. Next is the series of undulating anodized aluminum bar grating panels that weave back and forth among the aluminum pipe framing system. About one-third of the panels are open, one-third are grating only, and about one-third are grating panels with a backup panel of anodized expanded aluminum. The variety of panel types along with their subtle back and forth modulation within the aluminum pipe framework creates a highly animated facade with significant visual depth due to the play of light and shadow. Finally, the layering ends on the aluminum pipe framework system, the perimeter vehicle barrier strands and the concrete ramp structure itself. Variation in Building Height and Facade Elements: This principle is used extensively along the long west and east elevations where the building follows the contours of the site thus allowing the panelized system of facade elements described above to step up and down along the length of the elevations. The varying height of the building along the long elevations is also placed in counter point with major building facade elements such as, 1) the large wall panellsign system at each of the three vehicular entrylexit points, 2) the corner wall elements at Beam and South lawn, 3) the northwest stair tower, and 4) the Main Lobby Building. Together, these two techniques create a more interesting and varied facade and help to break the elevations down to a more human scale. SUSTAINABILlTY This project is sustainable right from the beginning with its functional purpose - to reduce the number of cars on the road and the amount of vehicle emissions. The project also has the following sustainable features: . strong alternative transportation access .on-site bicycle . parkingstorm water management via Best Management Practices including increased pervious areas, underground storm water retention and filtration systems. water efficient landscaping. Attachment 4 geothermal heating and cooling system. LED lighting used throughout the project. durable, long- lasting, easy to maintain materials and finishes. use of pre and post consumer recycled materials . use of low to no VOC interior finishes and sealants. use of recyclable fly ash in all concrete portions of the structure. recycling of all recyclable site materials that will be demolished as part of clearing the site. specified and mandated construction waste management. use of regional materials (particularly with the concrete and pre-cast concrete materials) . controllability of lighting and thermal systems. good access to daylight (Main Lobby Building and Stair Tower) . and innovation in design to provide exterior screening via low mass materials and having those materials anodized locally. ;;0 m ~ Z 0 0 m ~ ;;0 r m ~. (Q 0 v. V1 c -i Cl ~ m ~ r ~ )> Z ;0 0 1 V1 ~ n I )> u m U r )> Z ....,-::; ~ ~j: m m E;~ I' mZ ('; ~C1 "0 r Vm ~ z~ a pP r ~ -~ z. o~ r p :;:0 Z ~r p~ Z :='-" 0' 00 ,::;"7' ~ r p p Z 2'.'"" ~ r n v; p c ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .. " . ~ ~ 0 0 ~ ~ 0 . . . ~ ~ i!' "'. 0 w i!i' m < Z ~. ;:; ~ - ~ :c "- ~ 0 . ~ s: ~ 0 V> !!: 0 z - z ~ ~ ~ , 0 .. ? ~ w Z ~ (1 " Q Attachment 5 n 1\ I \ 1 \ \ \ ~ " Si ~ i z "'" " ~~ ~ i.;$j ai' " , v, BEAM AVENUE ~ T ~ OJ C ~r 00 ~ Q-Z (Q GJ (/)m c r Q.m ~ < ~ )> :j ~O ;0 , z ?- Vi ~ I ~ ~ ~ .. Ii' ~ ~ o o ~ ~ o . . . . ~ i!' "'. o w i!i' m < 3 ~. N ~ - ~ ~ ~ o . s: [ -r.:: ;::;: (/) s- 0- Z - ~ il' m ;:;: 0;' ~ ~ ,w ~ " Q (N .:f 1: = Q 0 (Q ~ , . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 g: 'T' CTl ;!.' ::; ?~ CJ ~ cf ~~ v, o n@ '" J ~! " qJ zr f ;: . . . . . ~ 1: 'fi '-' c- ((~ -~ ~ ~ ,', ~ )~ < r; " V -'- Z ~ n~ N ~ ~> :J v) ? i Q:~ = )'; ~~ ~ ^ " ~~- . . . . . . . . --~~ , . . . . . 29';5' . . . . . U_@ ~ ~ """" ~ ~ " ~ ~~H~ ~~ 0,;;;0. ,to:;;: "fiE ~~ tp~ ~~ ffi~ ~ ;o~ ~I _.P . . . . . . . 1: ::s:- o ,-;, " v 'D --< ?::i ~ :"), ;~ 00 7 U'B --@ ';;:E>' ~~ 61~ --'8 Attachment 7 MEMORANDUM TO: Mike Martin, Planner FROM: Ginny Gaynor, Natural Resources Coordinator DATE: 12/22/10 RE: Metro Transit Parking Ramp - Review of Landscape Design I reviewed the landscape design dated 11/23/10 and comments are provided below. 1. Species selection (LPS.01). a. The trees, shrubs, and grass species selected are fine. However, I would strongly recommend that the designer incorporate a few more shrub species into the design. Only two species are used to cover a large area of foundation planting. The city encourages diversity in plantings to help minimize disease and to increase success of planting in the event soils or site conditions are not as expected. We understand that sometimes a monoculture or use of limited species is an appropriate design choice. Also note that the shrubs selected in many situations will be S'-6' high. They can be maintained smaller by pruning, but if designer intends this to be a 3' or 4' shrub, you may want to consider a different species to reduce pruning. RECOMMENDATION: Please add a few additional shrub species or provide explanation for why only two shrubs are preferred on this project. b. The use of ivy on the wall panels will be attractive but the ivy will eventually grow to cover parts of the aluminum bar grating. Will ivy growing over the aluminum grating be tolerated, or will the owner need to prune the ivy? If it is not appropriate for the ivy to cover the grates, please consider selecting a different type of vine that will not grow as high. 2. Planting notes (LPS.01). The detail on shrub planting and Planting Notes #12 indicates weed barrier will be used in the shrub beds. The shrubs selected will spread and roots will end up above and below the fabric creating a tangled mess. City staff prefers that landscape fabric not be used in planting beds. If properly prepared and mulched, the shrub beds should be easy to maintain without the use of fabric. The detail indicates sod will be placed right to the tree trunk and a 4' diameter ring will be removed and mulched after sod is established. Staff is concerned that mowing in the Attachment 7 interim will damage tree trunks since there is no protection for the trunk. In addition, to adequately inspect planting depth, access to the top of the root ball is needed. RECOMMENDATION: Please remove weed barrier from the shrub bed detail. RECOMMENDATION: Please change plan to mulch the 4' diameter ring when the tree is installed. Or, if the method in the plan is for some reason better for the tree (not for planting logistics or cost) please provide an explanation of why it is better for the tree. 3. Water efficient landscape. The section on sustainability (Page 1), promotes the project as having "water efficient landscaping". Because of this language, I had expected to see a more drought-tolerant landscape design or something to support this claim. The two relatively small areas with ornamental grasses will be drought tolerant, but most of the landscaped area is turf, which requires irrigation and I am assuming the shrubs will receive irrigation along with the turf. One way to support this claim would be to use rainwater captured from the site for irrigation. No irrigation plan was provided so it is not clear what type of irrigation system will be installed. The city encourages the use of sustainable landscaping on all sites. REQUEST: Please address the following questions. What makes this plan water efficient landscaping? Would the designer consider using rainwater from the site as irrigation water? If no, does the designer want this to be a water efficient landscape? If yes, what changes will be made to make it a more environmentally friendly landscape? Attachment 8 Maplewood Engineering Comments - Maplewood Mall Park and Ride Expansion 12-20-10 Page 1 of 2 Enqineerinq Plan Review PROJECT: PROJECT NO: COMMENTS BY: Maplewood Mall Park and Ride Expansion 10-03 Steve Kummer, P.E. - Staff Engineer DATE: 12-20-10 (Supplemental Comments to 12-13-10 review) PLAN SET: CDRB Submittal (Design Review) 11-23-10 REPORTS: Stormwater Calculations dated 11-23-10 Summarv Metro Transit is proposing to expand its Park and Ride facility at the NE corner of South lawn Drive and Beam Avenue. The proposal is to convert the existing 426-stall surface lot into a 1000-stall parking ramplsurface lot combination. Request The applicant is requesting design review. Comments for design review were submitted for the CDRB report on 12-13-10. Since then, the applicant submitted storm water calculations for engineering review. Following are supplemental comments to the 12-13-10 engineering review comments. DrainaQe Maps and Storm Water ManaQement, C3.2 1. The treatment and infiltration computations show proposed drainage area C1 as included in the disturbed impervious surface computations. Based on email correspondence with the applicant's engineer on 12-13-10, it was not intended to have this area included with the tabulation. The total area required for treatment is 128,466 sf or 2.95 acres. 2. Storm water treatment in the proposed design is accomplished through filtration methods, therefore infiltration credits do not apply. The required water quality treatment volume (WQTV) for filtration based on the disturbed area (2.95 acres or 128,466 sf) is 15,294 ct. The design provides for 9,524 cf. Revise the design such that the total volume of storm water captured for infiltration on the site meets the required WQTV. The RWMWD Volume Control worksheet should be revised such that the volume above the 12-inch outfall from each of the three filtration systems is subtracted from the volume provided. 3. The City's storm water treatment requirements are similar to the Watershed District's, but not the same. The basis for the City's storm water requirements is the Storm Water Ordinance and subsequent engineering regulations based on the ordinance. Please revise the narrative language to reflect this. Be sure to submit calculations for the City's volume control requirements separate from the RWMWD worksheet. Attachment 8 Maplewood Engineering Comments - Maplewood Mall Park and Ride Expansion 12-20-10 Page 2 of 2 4. Expand on the basis for the reduction in runoff volume as shown in the Stormwater Rate and Volume Summary. Is this due to the increase in pervious surface on the site overall? 5. The storm water computations assume Hydrologic Soil Group B for the runoff computations but are assuming low permeability for the purposes of the design of the storm water treatment systems. HSG B soils are typically ok for the purposes of infiltration. Please explain. 6. The outflow computations should assume tailwater effects as necessary, especially if surcharging occurs in the Mall trunk sewers. Assuming a 1 O-year design on the trunk drainage system, it is likely that surcharging would occur for the 1 OO-year flow. Please provide modeling to this effect, and conclusions indicating whether or not tailwater will affect the flow rates and peak elevations of these storm water treatment systems. 7. Related to Comment #6 above, please refer to Comment #46 on 12-13-10 engineering comments. -END COMMENTS- MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: Community Design Review Board Members Michael Martin, AICP, Planner Charles Ahl, Assistant City Manager Election of Officers January 5, 2011 INTRODUCTION The City of Maplewood's Commission Handbook requires the community design review board (CDRB) elect a chairperson and vice-chairperson. Matt Ledvina currently serves as chairperson and Matt Wise as vice chairperson. DISCUSSION The Commission Handbook states officers should be elected at the first regular meeting in December. However, the CDRB did not meeting in December, so the commission will need to nominate and elect officers at its first meeting in January. Staff is recommending the CDRB elect a chairperson and vice-chairperson to serve in 2011. On January 11, 2011, nominations will again be taken for officers to serve through 2011. The handbook has a section which deals with the role of the chairperson and vice chairperson. Below is the excerpt from the handbook: Role of the Chairperson and Vice Chairperson Commissions generally appoint the chair and vice chair at set times of the year. Although the appointment is usually for a year, the chair and vice chair serve at the pleasure of the commission. The willingness and ability of an individual to serve as the chair or vice chair should be taken into consideration. Commissions should try to give all commissioners an opportunity to serve as chair. The responsibility of service as chair or vice chair does take extra time. Responsibilities of the Chair . Preside at all official meetings of the board, commission, or committee. . Consult with the staff liaison in drafting the meeting agenda. . Attend City Council meetings, in person or through another commissioner as designee, as needed to represent the commission, board, or committee with the approval of the commission, board, or committee. . Sign correspondence from the commission with the approval of the City Council. The effective chairperson also, during meetings: . Solicits opinions and positions from reticent commission members. . Protects new thoughts from being rejected prior to fair evaluation. . Discourages blame-orientated statements. . Keeps the discussion focused on the issue. . Builds trust by even handedness and fairness to all the participants. Responsibilities of the Vice Chair . Substitute for the Chair as needed. The section is silent on the procedure for election of the chairperson and vice chairperson. CDRB members should voice nominations for chair and vice chair, and the body will then vote for the positions. If only one nomination emerges for each position, a motion can be made to formally appoint that person to the post. If there is more than one nomination, the CDRB should vote publicly to decide which candidate will be appointed. RECOMMENDATION Consider nominations and elect a chairperson and vice chairperson for 2011.