Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/12/2004AGENDA CITY OF MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD OPEN SPACE COMMITTEE HISTORICAL PRESERVATION COMMISSION Tuesday, October 12, 2004 6:00 P.M. Council Chambers - Maplewood City Hall 1830 County Road B East . , . . . , . , , Call to Order Roll Call Approval of Agenda Approval of the September 21,2004, Minutes Staff Presentations: a. Gladstone Neighborhood Planning Process Update Design Review: None Scheduled Visitor Presentations: None Scheduled Board Presentations: a. September 27, 2004, City Council Meeting - Summerhill Senior Cooperative Building and Mapletree Townhouses Adjourn DRAFT MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 21, 2004 I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Longrie-Kline called the meeting to order at 6:03 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Chairperson Diana Longrie-Kline Board member Ledvina Board member Judy Driscoll Board member Linda Olson Board member Ananth Shankar Present Present Absent Present Present Staff Present: Shann Finwall, Planner Lisa Kroll, Recording Secretary III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Board member Ledvina moved to approve the agenda. Board member Shankar seconded. Ayes - Ledvina, Longrie-Kline, Olson, Shankar The motion passed. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of the CDRB minutes for August 24, 2004. Board member Shankar moved approval of the minutes of August 24, 2004. Board member Ledvina seconded. Ayes---Ledvina, Longrie-Kline, Olson, Shankar The motion passed. V. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. VI. DESIGN REVIEW aa Summerhill of Maplewood (Senior Cooperative Building) - 935 Ferndale Street (Transfiguration School Site) Ms. Finwall said Transfiguration Church proposes to construct an addition to their church and middle school site located at 6133 North 15th Street in Oakdale. The addition will house their elementary school students, who currently attend school at Transfiguration Elementary School located at 935 Ferndale Street in Maplewood. Community Design Review Board Minutes 9-21-2004 Ms. Finwall said because of the relocation of the elementary students, Transfiguration Church would like to sell the elementary school site. Ms. Finwall said submitted plans for a 52-unit, four-story senior cooperative building, the applicant's originally These revised plans were presented during the August 16, 2004, planning commission meeting after city staff had notified the neighbors and planning commission of the four-story building. Regardless of the last minute revision, the planning commissi · comprehensive land use cha,,,~.-..-.-.~ ..... _on ultimately recommended ,,~ ,~.u ~uzonmg of the Transfieuration ,-.~,,-,,-,, to 5 with one abstention. Because of this recommendation and neighborhood concerns voiced during the planning commission meeting, Transfiguration Church hoped to gain support for their revised plan during a second neighborhood meeting on August 31 2004, and their annual church/school festival on September 11, 2004. ' Ms. Finwall said based on staff and neighborhood concerns, the applicants have made several changes to their original plans including reducing the number of units from 52 to 44, reducing the height of the building from four stories to three, and relocating the location of the driveway from Ferndale Street to Harvester Avenue. The community design review board should review the revised plans at the September 21, 2004, CDRB meeting for design elements including architectural, landscaping, and lighting and ensure that it meets all design review criteria as specified in Section 2-290 of the city code. City staff recommends approval of the design review of the proposed 44-unit senior cooperative building. Board member Ledvina asked if the mechanical equipment included utility meters or did the mechanical equipment only refer to equipment such as chillers? Ms. Finwall said she was referring to mechanical equipment such as chillers but the applicant could address any other equipment such as utility meters and their location to ensure proper screening. Board member OIson asked if she understood that the trail to the Nature Center had been eliminated with this plan. Ms. Finwall said the applicants were originally proposing an access point to the nature center on the southwest corner of the site. However, they didn't confer with the Nature Center with that proposal and that shouldn't be part of this site plan. There is a steep grade there as well and would require a lot of grading. There is access to the Nature Center down the road on Ferndale St. Board member Shankar asked if the zoning change from single dwelling to multiple dwelling had already been denied by the planning commission. Ms. Finwall said the planning commission recommended denial of the comprehensive land use plan and rezoning. However, their recommendation is only a recommendation to the city council and the city council will make the final decision to approve or deny this proposal at their meeting on Monday, September 27, 2004. Chairperson Longrie-Kline asked the applicant to address the board. Community Design Review Board Minutes 9-21-2004 Mr. Chuck Armstrong, Director of Business Development, Nichols Development, 12750 Nicollet Avenue South, Suite 300, Burnsville. Mr. Armstrong thanked the board for the opportunity to speak on a very exciting project called Summerhill of Maplewood that they would like to bring to the City of Maplewood. Mr. Armstrong said this senior cooperative is for people aged 55 and older and is a three-story owner occupied building with underground parking. If this proposal is approved Nichols Development could break ground as early as the summer of 2005 after the school year is complete at the Transfiguration school. Mr. Greg Holly a parishioner at Transfiguration Church, addressed the board. Mr. Holly is also the legal representative for Transfiguration Church and stated the church had three meetings. The first town meeting was in June when they announced this development. The biggest concern voiced by the neighbors was the size of the project and asked if the building could be reduced from four stories to three stories? As a result of the actions made by the planning commission they had a second meeting that was well attended by 52 residents and two city councilmember's. Many concerns of the residents were addressed at this meeting. People better understood what the alternatives would be and have come to appreciate that a senior cooperative is the best alternative for this site. Particularly with the changes made to the landscaping and the reduction in the size of the building. They also had a fall festival September 10, 2004. At this meeting people were interested in how they could sign up to purchase a unit as well as obtaining further information. Mr. Armstrong showed photos of the other senior housing sites they have built in other cities as a comparison to how the buildings could look. The HVAC system would be located in the closet of each unit. The system is called a comfort pack or magic pack, is self contained, maintained on a regular basis and very quiet. There will be a trash shoot that goes down to the dumpsters to be located in the underground parking garage. The trash dumpsters would be rolled out into the garage where the garbage truck would pull up and empty the dumpsters, they will then be rolled back in place. The utility meters will be located in the underground parking garage as well. The butterfly gardens will be incorporated into the holding ponds and they plan on being partners with the Maplewood Nature Center on the installation and planting of these gardens. Mr. Armstrong asked Mr. Howley to come forward and speak. Mr. Roger Howley, Architect, Miller Hansen, 1201 Hawthorne Avenue, Minneapolis, addressed the board. He has worked with Nichols Development on four Summerhill projects. He presented building material samples for the board to review. There will be screened in porches with aluminum railings on the exterior of the decks. This way the screening can easily and safely be fixed without going to the exterior to fix things. They hope to possibly work with the nature center in the hopes that the children that attend the center would help plant and maintain the rain and butterfly gardens. As far as the mechanical equipment goes visually there will be three condensers that are three feet high and are used to cool the common areas that they will screen. Mr. Armstrong said they want to thank the board for considering this project and ask for the boards support. He thanked Ms. Finwall for her assistance and guidance in walking them through this process. It has been very helpful and a learning and educational experience. Community Design Review Board Minutes 9-21-2004 Mr. Armstrong said he's a member of the Transfiguration Church and was a long time east side resident and he knows this project would be a good thing for the City of Maplewood. Board member Shankar asked if residents who have purchased units at the Summerhill buildings have asked for a satellite to have satellite television. Mr. Armstrong said that issue has not come up before, each unit is wired for cable and that seems to be sufficient for the homeowner. However, he doesn't see that happening. Board member Shankar asked if the applicant was agreeable to moving the driveway entrance on Harvester directly across from the neighbor's driveway. Mr. Armstrong said they don't want motor vehicle lights to shine into the neighbor's house either and if it's agreeable to the engineer and it can be done, and then they're agreeable to relocating the driveway location. Chairperson Longrie-Kline asked what the approximate cost per unit would be. Mr. Armstrong said they haven't priced the units out yet. The square footage can range from 1,000 to 1,500 square feet. Depending on the size of the unit and how many bedrooms they have, a one bedroom unit could run $160,000-$170,000 for the initial down payment, plus a monthly carrying fee. There is also a one bedroom plus a den plan and a two-bedroom plan. Board member Olson asked if the gazebo would be screened in like the individual decks would be? Mr. Roger Howley addressed the board. Mr. Howley said it's their intention to screen the gazebo. There would also be a large patio space for an outdoor grill, grills are not allowed on the individual decks. Board member Olson said the color rendition shows a six-sided concrete pad and the drawings they received tonight shows a square concrete pad. The concrete pad has changed and the size of the gazebo has gotten smaller. Chairperson Longrie-Kline asked if there were any other colors besides cream for the stucco, color board and trim. Mr. Howley said the product primed and then painted on the job, so the color selection is wide open. The beauty of the James Hardie paneled product compared to vinyl siding is that you can chose the color you want. Because it's a cement product it's a very stable product and holds paint very well. They haven't selected the building colors yet but expect the colors to be light. Chairperson Longrie-Kline said she would prefer a darker color scheme so the building does not appear so large. In her opinion the lighter the color the more the building stands out and appears larger. Chairperson Longrie-Kline asked if anyone in the audience wanted to be heard regarding this project to come forward, sign in and address the board. Community Design Review Board Minutes 9-21-2004 The following people spoke regarding the Summerhill of Maplewood senior housing cooperative project: 1 Laura Schweiker, 2607 Harvester Avenue, Maplewood. Ms. Schweiker said she lives in the house across the street from this proposal and the lights would shine into her home but she doesn't see that as a problem. She and her husband came to the planning commission meeting and have attended the rest of the meetings. She said they welcome this proposal because they look at it as an improvement to the neighborhood. A senior cooperative built in this location will increase the home values, not decrease them as it would having an apartment building or rental housing built in this location. She doesn't see single-family homes being built in this location because of the high cost for a developer to build here. This is a better project for the neighborhood. It is fine with them to have the driveway relocated to line up with her driveway. The school driveway is across the street from hers and it is busier than this building would be. The traffic is in the morning, late afternoon and in the evening. The senior housing would create less traffic for the area because it would be spread out throughout the day and night. She knows the neighbors don't agree with that but you have to live directly across the street from a school to see what really occurs. This building is going to be attractive with the proposed holding ponds, butterfly gardens and landscaping which will improve the appearance of the grounds especially compared to all the blacktop there is currently on the site. This will also help the runoff in the area. Her husband is a bricklayer and said this building is going to look very rich with the building products and colors. The stucco and brick building materials will be nice as opposed to other developments that have used vinyl siding on their buildings. Her parents built her house in 1953 and she grew up in this neighborhood. When her parents moved out they bought the home. From day one there has been change in this neighborhood and change is going to happen no matter what. Sometimes change is good. The night after the last neighborhood meeting there were five cars broken into in the neighborhood and her car was one of the cars damaged. Having an owned structure where people live and come and go make it safer than a vacant building with a vacant parking lot where kids park and party. This building will improve the look of the neighborhood, the value of the homes, the landscaping will be greatly improved and it will be a safer neighborhood, especially having seniors watching the activity in the neighborhood. . Margaret Kunde, 937 Glendon Street, Maplewood. Mrs. Kunde said she lives across the street from this proposed building. She is happy she is not one of the city councilmember's that will have to decide to grant or deny this plan. This is a tremendous change in the zoning. This is a beautiful building but her personal opinion is that this building is too big and does not belong on this site. 1 Eugene Kunde, 937 Glendon, Street, Maplewood. Mr. Kunde said he is very alarmed that a project this large has gotten this far. This building doesn't belong here. The reason he settled here years ago was because this was a nice residential neighborhood. Not because it had multifamily housing in it or a commercial center. He feels this building would be a complete misfit here and doesn't think it should be built here. He said he might have to board his front windows shut to keep the people from looking into his home from the balconies. Community Design Review Board Minutes 9-21-2004 . Alvin Geerdes, 987 Glendon Street, Maplewood. Mr. Geerdes said he and his wife have lived in the neighborhood for more than 40 years. When he became an employee at 3M Company a fellow employee suggested he move here. There are schools, churches, the Nature center, post office, bank and shopping within walking distance and he really enjoys the area. He would prefer to see this development built here rather than something else. He thinks the neighborhood needs this building and it would be an asset to the community. 1 William Fye, 973 Glendon Street, Maplewood. Mr. Fye and his wife have lived here for many years. About six years ago the city put in the raingardens. This was a way to beautify the neighborhood. This proposal will enhance the beautification the city did six years ago. He and his son like the landscaping and plantings the applicant proposed. This building is the best possible thing to happen to this property. All they look at now is 2 acres of blacktop. When the blacktop is removed the runoff problem should be corrected. This plan has a lot of greenery, plantings and landscaping. The applicant has bent over backwards to accommodate the neighbors and cannot say enough good things about this development. This will not reduce the value of the homes it will only increase them. There may even be something for a retired person like himself to do to help out with working on the building grounds. He has lived here for 25 years and wants to continue living here. He asked the board to give this project their thought felt consideration and approve this plan. 1 Janel Heroff, 940 Ferndale Street North, Maplewood. Ms. Heroff said she lives directly across from the main entrance to this building. She asked the developer what the maximum height of the trees would be. (Mr. Howley said the trees are planted at 2½ inches and could grow to 45 feet high. Ms. Heroff asked what the maximum height of the building would be. (Mr. Howley said the peak is shown at 49 feet high.) She said basically the trees won't cover the height of the building. There will be 20 balconies that would be looking into their front windows. She is concerned about her private property and loosing her privacy. They moved into this neighborhood 32 years ago because it was a single-family neighborhood. It's going to be a hardship for them to consider moving but if this project gets approved this may be what pushes them out of the City of Maplewood because of the lose of privacy. A development of this size doesn't belong in a neighborhood of 1½-to2-story homes. The building is beautiful but belongs in a different setting. Ms. Heroff had asked the developer if they could build a two-stow building and the developer said they could not make this affordable down sizing from a three-stow building to a two-stow. She said maybe this building shouldn't be built in this neighborhood. She asked the developer for a copy of the shadow study and hasn't received it yet. The report is important to her because she believes the shadowing will impact her property. (Chairperson Longrie-Kline said the staff report states the height of the building is 40 feet 2 inches to the top of the highest roof. She said when the developer comes forward to answer those questions he can show the shadow study.) Community Design Review Board Minutes 9-21-2004 . John Heroff, 940 Ferndale Street North, Maplewood. He doesn't have a lot to add to what his wife said other than this is a nice building design but it's not right for the neighborhood. Mr. Armstrong said at the very peak of the building is 49 feet 2 inches with the remainder of the building maintaining a 40-foot 2 inch height. He gave a presentation on the shadow study for a four-story building and a three-story building. The key times for the study were at 9:00 a.m., 12:00 noon, and 3:00 p.m. during three different times of the year. This information had also been shared at a past neighborhood meeting. Board member Shankar asked about the lighting? Mr. Howley said the lighting plan would stay the same but they would provide a decorative light fixture as opposed to the box style light fixture and bring it lower. They provide screens with the light fixture to control light glare. The light fixture plan will be reviewed by city staff. Board member Olson asked if the medallion lighting shown as part of the CDRB packet was still proposed. Mr. Howley said if the city required a different light fixture they would do that. Board member Olson said she thought this was one of the most comprehensive plans she has ever seen as far as anticipating questions and addressing the issues. The applicant has done an excellent job on this proposal. She lives next door to a school and she would love to see a building like this built next to her rather than living next to a school. The traffic issues are a real problem. She is not concerned about the balconies looking into people's homes. The screening will help prevent details from being observed from 100 feet away. Her neighbors are less than 100 feet away and she can't see inside their homes. If she had to have neighbors she would prefer to have senior citizen neighbors watching over her home. It substantially cuts down on crime occurring. The design of the building is tremendous and she prefers the darker tones of the building as opposed to the lighter. The lighter tones tend to visually push the building forward. This will be a positive feature and a real asset to the neighborhood. Board member Ledvina said the applicant has done a very good job with the building design. This will be a very interesting building with the changes of the roofline, the variety of the floor plans, and amount of common space that would be available to residents. The applicant has done a good job with the landscaping and how it all lays out in the surrounding area. Board member Shankar echoed Board member Ledvina's comments. He said he lives in a residential neighborhood and during the day people can't see into your home. In the evening everyone closes their curtains or blinds which would take care of anyone's issue with privacy. With minimal parking in front of the building it will help to see cars coming and going from the area and this helps with keeping crime down. Chairperson Longrie-Kline said the staff report shows a single family home diagram where the home would be built much closer to the street than this building would be. That is information that was very important to her. Community Design Review Board Minutes 9-21-2004 Chairperson Longrie-Kline said those of you that were concerned about the shadow study could possibly ask the developer to give you a copy of it. Board member Ledvina moved to approve the site plan, building elevations, and photometrics plans date-stamped September 10, 2004, for the 44-unit, three-stow Summerhill of Maplewood senior housing cooperative to be located at 935 Ferndale Street. Approval is subject to the applicant doing the following: (changes made during the 9-21-04 CDRB meeting are underlined if added and stricken if deleted.) o Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. , Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit, the applicant must submit to staff for approval the following items: a, Revised grading and drainage plan for the three-stow building. Revised landscape plan for the three-stow building as follows: C, d, e, 1 ) Locate and protect existing nature center trees adjacent to the site. 2) Expansion of the nature center oak savanna a few feet into the Summerhill property with the addition of large red or white oak trees. 3) Rain gardens planted in the storm ponds. 4) Allocation of at least 1 percent of the overall construction cost to trees. 5) Barberry shrub replaced with an alternative shrub. 6) The addition of a native butterfly garden. Revised building elevations showing the following: 1) Gazebo/porch located on west side of the building. The gazebo and porch must be constructed of quality building materials and be consistent with the proposed senior cooperative building. 2) Front entry overhang with a clearance of at least 12 feet to accommodate ambulances and fire vehicles. The front entry must be constructed of quality building materials and be consistent with the proposed senior cooperative building. 3)Screen porches for all 44 units. 4) Consistent building and color elevations showing additional dormers and porches on the east and west elevation. 5) Screening of all exterior mechanical equipment from surrounding residential properties. 6) The north elevation revised to reflect the chanqe in the driveway location. Site plan to scale ensuring a 15-foot setback from the parking lot to the right-of- way; construction of 14 northerly parking stalls and 12 southerly parking stalls designated as "proof-of-parking", Harvester Avenue driveway lining up, to the extent possible, with the existing driveways across Harvester Avenue; trail grading width reduced to ensure no disturbance of nature center trees; no trail access to Nature Center; interior sidewalks leading to exterior sidewalks; play area. Registered land survey of the property. Watershed district approval. Community Design Review Board Minutes 9-21-2004 go Building material samples. A cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit for all required improvements. The amount shall be 150 percent of the cost of the work. exterior 3. The applicant shall complete the following before occupying the building: a, d, Replace any property irons removed because of this construction. Provide continuous curb and gutter around the parking lot and driveways. Install all required landscaping and an in-ground lawn irrigation system for all landscaped areas. Install all required outdoor lighting. Install all required sidewalks and trails. 4. If any required work is not done, the city may allow temporary occupancy if: a, bo The city determines that the work is not essential to the public health, safety or welfare. The above-required letter of credit or cash escrow is held by the City of Maplewood for all required exterior improvements. The owner or contractor shall complete any unfinished exterior improvements by June 1 of the following year if occupancy of the building is in the fall or winter or within six weeks of occupancy of the building if occupancy is in the spring or summer. , All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. Board member Shankar seconded. Ayes- Ledvina, Longrie-Kline, Olson, Shankar Chairperson Longrie-Kline offered a friendly amendment including the landscape plan the CDRB received 9-21-04 during the meeting along with the proposed elevations and to show the gazebo is screened and providing the building materials samples as provided at the 9-21- 04 CDRB meeting. Board member Shankar moved that the north elevation as submitted be revised to reflect the change of the driveway location. The motion passed. This item goes to the city council on September 27, 2004. The CDRB makes this recommendation to the city council based on the findings to approve plans because: , The design and location of the proposed development and its relationship to neighboring, existing or proposed developments, and traffic is such that it will not impair the desirability of investment or occupation in the neighborhood; that it will not unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring, existing or proposed developments; and that it will not create traffic hazards or congestion. Community Design Review Board Minutes 9-21-2004 ]0 . The design and location of the proposed development is in keeping with the character of the surrounding neighborhood and is not detrimental to the harmonious, orderly and attractive development contemplated by this article and the city's comprehensive municipal plan. o The design and location of the proposed development would provide a desirable environment for its occupants, as well as for its neighbors, and that it is aesthetically of good composition, materials, textures and colors. The board took a 5-minute recess. b. Ramsey County Suburban Courthouse- 2050 White Bear Avenue Ms. Finwall said David Chase of Kraus-Anderson Construction and Ramsey County, is proposing to build a 15,150 square-foot suburban courts building on the vacant city-owned property at 2050 White Bear Avenue. As proposed, the exterior of the courts building would have colored jumbo brick, prefinished cement fiber board panels (with a look similar to EIFS), colored rock face block, metal panel siding and a standing seam metal roof. In addition, it would have two courtrooms, office space, meeting rooms and associated space for the suburban courts operation. City staff recommends approval of the design review for the proposed court building. Board member Ledvina asked if staff's recommendation to change the building design elements as stated in the staff report was ever discussed with the applicant. Ms. Finwall said Mr. Roberts who wrote this report may have had contact with the applicant regarding these changes but she was not aware of anything. Perhaps the applicant can answer that. Chairperson Longrie-Kline asked the applicant to address the board. Mr. Randy Wagner, DSGO, 548 Apollo Drive, Suite 10, Lino Lakes, addressed the board. The changes recommended by city staff have been made to the plan since the CUP was submitted. He went over the building materials that were used on the City Hall and Community Center buildings that they were working to maintain some kind of context with. They want to maintain consistency with the existing building colors and materials so they will be using rock face block, brick, metal siding and have a flat roof. He said the owner will provide benches outside for the employees to use. Chairperson Longrie-Kline said regarding the benches outside for people to use, had anyone thought of installing a drinking fountain? Because of the proximity of the walking and biking trail people would appreciate having a drinking fountain outside for their use? The benches would be nice; however, they would be used by the employees as well as people using the trails that will stop to rest. Mr. Wagner said a drinking fountain is something to be considered and would require additional maintenance. Community Design Review Board Minutes 9-21-2004 Chairperson Longrie-Kline said at the current courthouse site there are 100 reserved parking spaces now. Since she is an attorney she has first hand experience with the parking shortage that occurs at the courthouse. She asked how the parking shortage is going to be handled with the shared parking agreement with the community center. Mr. Wagner said they are planning on potential additional parking spaces if the parking situation doesn't work out. Chairperson Longrie-Kline said the community center is trying to rent parking space out to other organizations to improve their bottom line and she wondered if there was ever a discussion regarding how to resolve the parking situation? Mr. Steve Lanak, DSGO, 548 Apollo Drive, Suite 10, Lino Lakes, addressed the board. He said there has been discussion regarding the parking situation. If there was an event at the community center that would cause a parking conflict, and the courthouse knew about the conflict early enough, the courts could adjust the schedule to help the parking situation. Board member Shankar asked to see the building material samples. Mr. Lanak presented the board with building material samples. Elliott Stendel, DSGO, 548 Apollo Drive, Suite 10, Lino Lakes, addressed the board. He described the different building products and where they would be used on the building exterior. Board member Olson asked why there were no windows shown on the east elevation? Mr. Lanak said that was the preference of the courts not to have windows on the east elevation due to distraction, security, and privacy purposes. Chairperson Longrie-Kline stressed her parking concern. She would like to see the Ramsey County Courthouse put the parking agreement in writing. This document would be good for the City of Maplewood and the Maplewood Community Center. The court calendars are very full and people don't want to be delayed with their arraignments and the other issues that they go to court for because of lack of parking due to an event taking place at the community center. She would like to see the drinking fountain installed as she stated earlier since this building is being used by the community. As far as the building proposal, the building materials and landscaping appear to be fine. Board member Ledvina said the building composition seems nice and the applicant has done a good job of matching the surrounding building materials that have already been used. He hoped the courthouse would have an understanding of what their parking needs are. Community Design Review Board Minutes 9-21-2004 12 Board member Olson moved to approve the project plans date-stamped September 10, 2004 and the revised landscape plan date-stamped September 21, 2004, for the Ramsey County Suburban Courts building at 2050 White Bear Avenue, subject to the findings required by the city code. The county or the developer shall do the following: (changes made during the 9- 21-04 CDRB meeting are underlined if added and stricken if deleted.) · Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. , Complete the following before the city issues a grading permit or a building permit: Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall include: grading, utility, drainage, erosion control, tree, sidewalk and driveway and parking lot plans. The plans shall meet the following conditions' (1) The erosion control plan shall be consistent with city code. (2) The grading plan shall' (a) Include building, floor elevation, water elevation and contour information. These shall include the normal water elevation and 100-year high water elevation. (b) Include contour information for the land that the construction will disturb. (c) Show sedimentation basins or ponds as required by the watershed board or by the city engineer. The ponds or basins shall meet the city's design standards and shall include best management practices and rainwater gardens wherever practical. (d) Show all proposed slopes steeper than 3:1 on the proposed construction plans. The city engineer shall approve the plans, specifications and management practices for any slopes steeper than 3:1. This shall include covering these slopes with wood-fiber blankets and seeding them with a "no mow" vegetation rather than using sod or grass. (e) Show all retaining walls on the plans. Any retaining walls more than four feet tall require a building permit from the city. (f) Show as little disturbance as possible on the north and south sides of the site to minimize the loss or removal of natural vegetation. (3)* All the parking areas and driveways shall have continuous concrete curb and gutter, except where the city engineer decides it is not necessary for drainage purposes. (4) A storm water management plan, including drainage and ponding calculations, for the proposal. Community Design Review Board Minutes 9-21-2004 (5) Make all the changes and meet all the conditions noted by the city engineer in the memo dated September 13, 2004. b. Submit a lawn-irrigation plan to staff showing the location of sprinkler heads. c. Submit a certificate of survey for all new construction. d. Submit a revised landscape plan for city staff approval showing: (1) The planting of native grasses, flowering plants and Iow-level shrubs around any storm water pond(s). These materials shall extend at least four feet from the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) of each pond. (2) The planting details (including flowering plants and shrubs) for any rainwater gardens on the site. e. Get the necessary approvals and permits from the watershed district. Submit a detailed photometric plan for all proposed outdoor lighting for city staff approval. This plan shall show how the lighting on the building 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 properties. g. The applicant shall record the following with Ramsey County: (1) The deeds creating the new lot for the courthouse. (2) A thirty-foot-wide permanent easement for the public trail across the east part of the lot. (3) The ingress and egress easement agreements between the two properties. h. Have the Saint Paul Regional Water Services (SPRWS) review and approve the proposed utility plans. Submit plans for city staff approval for any outdoor trash or recycling enclosure, if the county is going to have an outdoor dumpster. These shall include a revised site plan to show the location and elevations of all four sides of the enclosure. The gates shall be 100 percent opaque and the materials and colors of the enclosure shall be compatible with those of the new courts building. This plan shall be subject to city staff approval. Community Design Review Board Minutes 9-21-2004 ]4 k. Meeting all the conditions of the city engineering department as outlined in the memo dated September 13, 2004. I. 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 the building: a. Install new property irons to designate the corners of the new lot. b. Restore and sod damaged boulevards. C, Install reflectorized stop signs at each exit, a handicap-parking sign for each handicap-parking space and an address on the building. In addition, the applicant shall install "no parking" signs within the site, as required by staff. d. Paint any rooftop mechanical equipment to match the uppermost part of the building. Screening all roof-mounted equipment visible from White Bear Avenue. (city code requirement) el Construct trash dumpster and recycling enclosures as city code requires for any dumpsters or storage containers that the owner or building manager would keep outside the building. Any such enclosures must be 100 percent opaque, match the materials and colors of the building and have a closeable gate that extends to the ground or driveway. f. Install all required landscaping. gl Install and maintain an in-ground sprinkler system for all landscaped areas. ho Install continuous concrete curb and gutter along all interior driveways and around all open parking stalls. 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. Install an outdoor drinkinq fountain near the outdoor public seatinq area. k. 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. Community Design Review Board Minutes 9-21-2004 (3) Remove any debris or junk from the site. , If any required work is not done, the city may allow temporary occupancy if: ao The city determines that the work is not essential to the public health, safety or welfare. bo 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 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. C, The city receives an agreement that will allow the city to complete any unfinished work. , This approval does not include the signs. All signs need permits from the city. , All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. , This approval does not include any future additions on the east end of the building. The developer or builder shall submit all necessary plans to the CDRB and the city council for their approval before the city may issue a building permit for such an addition. o This approval does include the proof or parking area shown on the site plan. The city engineer must approve the construction plans for this parking before the county starts constructing the additional parking. Chairperson Longrie-Kline seconded. Ayes- Ledvina, Longrie-Kline, Olson, Shankar The motion passed. This item goes to the city council on September 27, 2004. The CDRB makes this recommendation to the city council based on the findings to approve plans because: , The design and location of the proposed development and its relationship to neighboring, existing or proposed developments, and traffic is such that it will not impair the desirability of investment or occupation in the neighborhood; that it will not unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring, existing or proposed developments; and that it will not create traffic hazards or congestion. , The design and location of the proposed development is in keeping with the character of the surrounding neighborhood and is not detrimental to the harmonious, orderly and attractive development contemplated by this article and the city's comprehensive municipal plan. Community Design Review Board Minutes 9-21-2004 VII. . The design and location of the proposed development would provide a desirable environment for its occupants, as well as for its neighbors, and that it is aesthetically of good composition, materials, textures and colors. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS VIII. IX. Xl No visitors present. BOARD PRESENTATIONS a. September 13, 2004, City Council Meeting - Cottages at Legacy Village Board member Olson was the CDRB representative and said the city council reviewed the Cottages at Legacy Village, which was approved by the city council. STAFF PRESENTATIONS a. Community Design Review Board Representation at the September 27, 2004, City Council Meeting (Summerhill of Maplewood and Ramsey County Courthouse) Chairperson Longrie-Kline will represent the CDRB at the September 27, 2004, city council meeting at 7:00 p.m. b. Cancellation of the September 28, 2004, Community Design Review Board Meeting The next CDRB meeting will be Tuesday, October 12, 2004. c. Gladstone Strategic Planning Update Ms. Finwall invited the CDRB to the workshop regarding the revitalization of the Gladstone area at the Maplewood Community Center in the banquet room from 6:30 to 8:00 p.m., on Thursday, September 23, 2004. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:47 p.m. MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: DATE: City Manager Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner Gladstone Redevelopment Planning Review Discussion Gladstone Neighborhood--English Street and Frost Avenue Area October 6, 2004 INTRODUCTION Gladstone Redevelopment Study The Maplewood City Council dim cted staff to conduct a planning study for the revitalization of the Gladstone Neighborhood. Gladstone is recognized as the corn neighborhood of Maplewood with a hedtage of milroad opera tions, industry and a housing stock dating back to around 1875. Neighborhood Conditions and Existing Zoning Neighborhood Conditions Today, Gladstone is still considemd by many to be the corn neighborhood of Maplewood. Many long-time msidents remember this ama as being called "Gladstone" as opposed to Maplewood. Some long-time Gladstone msidents have raised their families and mmained in the ama for 50+ years. Newer msidents am raising their families here today. Residents and business owners alike in Gladstone have a strong feeling of attachment with this neighborhood and have made it their home. Today, parts of Gladstone am in somewhat of a decline. Them am businesses that am in need of cleaning up and there has not been much reinvestment in the area by some property owners. The available housing stock has remained the same for the most part since the 1950s with a handful of newer homes added since then. The single family homes in Gladstone am, in general, very nice and well kept. Them am also apartments in the neighborhood that provide rental housing opportunities. Existing Zoning Essentially, the Gladstone study ama is comprised of existing commercial properties along Frost Avenue and English Stm et. Refer to the data on pages 5-10 which discusses the uses and density allowed under the current zoning m quire ments. In summary, the currant zoning, land use provisions and density tables that am in place have the potential for allowing up to 325 apartments, 269 townhomes or a combination of these in the Gladstone neighborhood. Single dwellings would not be allowed in any of these commercially- zoned areas under the current regulations. Examples of Mixed-Use Projects In evaluating the potential for Gladstone, the city staff has looked at several examples of mixed- use developments in the metro area. Some of the noteworthy ones are: Excelsior and Grand in St. Louis Park, Heart of the City in Burnsville and 50th and France in Edina. Granted, these areas are considerably more urban in character than Gladstone. They have, however, characteristics that we can use and encourage here. These characteristics are: · Abundant pedestrian ways · Attractive building design that reflects the area's heritage · Attractive landscaping and streetscapes · Needed neighborhood-scale retail and service businesses · Housing opportunities for persons in all stages of their lives · Public spaces to meet, relax and enjoy the outdoors Staff will present examples of mixed-use developments at the advisory committee meetings. Why Do Redevelopment? The city's goal in doing this study is to accomplish the following for Gladstone: · Reinvest/Revitalize · Create housing opportunity · Preserve/enhance existing businesses · Create opportunity for neighborhood retail and services · Enhance open space · Continue investment in streetscape & beautification · Create transportation options; including pedestrian trails and connections to existing amenities Review of the Gladstone Planning Process to Date Last January, the city planning staff, along with our planning/design consultant, Rich McLaughlin of Architecture and Town Planning, began this strategic-planning study. In March, the city staff hosted two open houses at the Gladstone Fire Station to introduce this issue to the area residents and business owners. Since then, we surveyed the community, took part in five planning sessions with the Gladstone Neighborhood Coalition and talked to many area property owners about their wishes and concems. The five planning sessions with the Coalition are summarized as follows: Meeting #1 April 22, 2004 This meeting was largely introductory for the Coalition members and city staff to begin working together. We held this meeting at the Gladstone Fire Station. During this meeting the Coalition recapped what they did not like about Rich McLaughlin's two development concepts presented at the March open house workshops. The Coalition wanted the existing businesses to remain and wanted only single dwellings-not multi-family-if any housing was to be added. The Coalition also presented their first draft of their neighborhood redevelopment plan, "Concept C." Meeting #2 May 6, 2004 This meeting was held at the Maplewood Community Center. Our objective was to set a schedule for continuing this study, to review the Coalition's redevelopment plan and to review the market feasibility of potential redevelopment. Meeting #3 May 20, 2004 This meeting was held at the Gladstone Fire Station. The Coalition presented their revised plan called "Plan C2." The big change was the inclusion of multi-family in the form of town homes. The Coalition again stressed "no rental." They did include areas that could be mixed-use with retail below residential units. Meeting fi4 June 24, 2004 This meeting was held at the Gladstone Fire Station. The issues covered or presented were the potential redevelopment under the existing zoning; presentation of a developer's analysis of the Coalition's Plan C2; discussion of redevelopment areas; '~finding common ground" between the Coalition's plan and city goals; and,discussion of city staffs continued schedule. Meeting #5 July 20, 2004 This meeting was held at city hall with city staff and the executive committee of the Gladstone Neighborhood Coalition. Tony Kuechle, of United Properties, presented his concept for the redevelopment of Gladstone. Mr. Kuechle prepared a concept plan on behalf of the Gladstone Neighborhood Coalition. This plan was later rejected by the Coalition. City staff also has surveyed the community and talked to many area property owners about their wishes and concerns. We have been tabulating responses as we receive them. To date, we have received 74 replies to our surveys and received many emails and telephone calls on the subject. Staff has conducted two surveys, asked for written comments at three open houses in March and September and have just placed an on-line survey/questionnaire on the city's web page. We are doing all we can to get word of this study out to the community. After the five sessions with the Coalition, Mr. McLaughlin applied the information gained from these meetings to formulate his proposal for Gladstone. Subsequently, the city staff then hosted two meetings. On August 26, 2004 we conducted a planning session with the city council and the city's advisory committees. The public was also present to attend and we heard presentations from Ms. Jan Steiner of the Gladstone Neighborhood Coalition and Mr. Del Benjamin, owner of the Maplewood Bowl. Following this meeting, on September 23, 2004, we held an open house with the Gladstone community and presented Mr. McLaughlin's proposal. Note: City staff mailed a notice to all of the Gladstone property owners and other interested parties to inform them of the upcoming discussion with the advisory committees. Refer to page 11. DISCUSSION Review of the Redevelopment Process As an integral part of this review process, city staff wants to engage the city's advisory boards and get their input and advice. Staff feels it is important to review and discuss the existing conditions of the neighborhood and to consider the ramifications the existing zoning would have on future development/redevelopment in Gladstone. It is equally important to look at examples of mixed-use developments to see what is appropriate for this neighborhood and to determine and envision the "look" or "character" of Gladstone for future years. The redevelopment process is new to Maplewood. Staff, therefore, wishes to get the advisory boards' evaluation of the current process. What can or should we do differently to engage the area property owners? What can or should we do differently in this process? What is your reaction to this process so far? Do you have any suggestions or advice on how to continue this process? Staff is suggesting that we take a small step back to answer these questions at this time since Mr. McLaughlin will be absent from our planning process for about one month. This will give us a chance to evaluate our work so far, to consider whether we are on the right track and to decide if our schedule (page 12) is reasonable. We look forward to your input. P:Gladstone/GladstoneRedevelopmentUpdateOctober,04 Attachments: 1. Gladstone Density/Development Potential 2. Letter to Area Property Owners About the Review Process 3. Proposed Gladstone Strategic Planning Timeline Attachment 1 GLADSTONE DENSITY/DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL June 24,2004 INTRODUCTION This data shows what the development potential is for Gladstone based on the current land use classifications in the city's comprehensive plan. It considers what type of commercial uses and what type of residential uses would be permitted or considered. In order to calculate the development potential for the study area, staff identified areas currently planned for commercial and industrial purposes. The density formulas from the comprehensive plan on page 5 were applied to the land areas to determine the maximum number of units that could be built on the sites shown on the map on page 4. Currently Allowed Land Uses Permitted Non-Residential Uses · Hotel/motel · Retail stores, offices, studios, banks · Day care centers · Restaurants · Publishing, photocopying or pdnting shops · Indoor theaters · Parking lots "Conditional" Non-Residential Uses (uses that are allowed, subject to the approval of a conditional use permit by the city council) · Apartments and townhomes · Beverage distribution facilities · Outdoor recreational facilities · Exterior storage · Automobile maintenance garages · Pawnbrokers · Trucking yards Apartments and Townhomes The Gladstone Neighborhood Coalition has expressed substantial opposition to there being any new multi-family development built in their neighborhood. As stated above, apartments and townhomes are allowed by conditional use permit throughout the Gladstone neighborhood on the properties zoned for commercial or industrial. Refer to the ordinance on page 6. Density Provisions The city's townhome density guidelines allow 6 units per acre at medium density and 10.4 units per acre at high density. The apartment density guidelines vary depending on the number of units in the apartment building. Refer to the table on page 5. On the average, the density guidelines for apartments allow 7.26 units per acre at medium density and 12.5 units per acre at high density. Multi-Family Development Potential Using the density provisions, the following calculations show the number of apartment and townhome units at both high and medium density that could potentially be built along Frost Avenue in Gladstone (compare these figures to the site locations on page 4): # of Apartments # of Townhomes Site # Acreage Hi.qh Medium High Medium 1 1.17 15 8 12 7 2 2.31 29 17 24 14 3 5.00 63 36 52 30 4 6.41 80 47 67 38 5 3.3 41 24 34 20 6 3.3 41 24 34 20 7 .74 9 5 8 4 8 1.49 19 11 15 9 9 1.22 15 9 13 7 10 1.00 13 7 10 6 Total 325 188 269 155 SUMMARY In summary, the current zoning, land use provisions and density tables that are in place have the potential for allowing up to 325 apartments, 269 townhomes or a combination of these in the Gladstone neighborhood. Single dwellings would not be allowed in any of these areas under the current regulations. p:Gladstone/GladstoneDensityPotential6-04 Attachment: 1. Gladstone Study Area Map 2. Site Location Map 3. Density Table City Ordinance Keller Golf Course :17 1.1 I I .I - Study Area Gladstone Neighborhood Strategic Planning Study Area Timber pa rk ELDRIDGE AVl BELMONT LN Keller Golf Course OS pFlicek Park z Glost~r Park . )> Z SOPHIA ST RI Gladston Savanna FR[SBIE AVE . . . RIPLEY AVE LU > SKILLMAN AVE Robinhood Park SUMMER AVE PRICE AVE TABLE 5 II ESTIMATED PERSONS PER DWELLING UNIT AND PLANNED MAXIMUM DENSITY OF DWELLING UNITS People/Gross Acre (a.o.oroximate) R-3L R-3M R-3H 11.9 13.3 22.8 Type of Dwelling People/Unit~ Planned Maximum Density (Units per gross acre) Single Dwelling2 2.9 4.1 4.6 Double Dwellings2 2.2 5.4 6.0 10.4 ,_Townhome.s ........................ _2.:2. ................................... Manufactured Homes f~'Apartments (3-4 units/bldg.) Apartments (5-9 units/bldg.) Apartments (10-19 units/bldg.) Apartments (20-49 units/bldg.) Apartments k (50+ units/bldg.) --Ap~/i~eh~ (1-bedroom senior) Apartments (2-bedroom senior) Apartments (3-bedroom senior) 2.0 6.0 6.7 11.4 2.4 5.0 5.5 9.5 2.2 5.4 6.0 10.4 1.9 6.3 7.0 12.0 1.6 7.4 8.3 14.3 1.4 8.5 9.5 16.3 1.1 2.0 2.5 (Based on bedroom mix.) (Based on bedroom mix.) (Based on bedroom mix.) Notes: (1) (2) (3) From the 1990 census. The City shall determine the maximum allowed density by the minimum-lot areas in the zoning code. The City shall determine the maximum nUmber of units from Table 5 if minimum-area lots for each unit are not platted. The City may allow reduced minimum-lot areas in planned unit developments (PUDs) where the overall PUD project does not exceed the maximum allowed density. The City intends to review the density figures in Table 5 after each federal census. 9 ZONING § 44-512 (11) CNG (compressed natural gas) or LPG (liquid petroleum gas) dispensing facilities. Tanks shall not exceed a water capacity of 1,500 gallons for those dispensing facilities whose primary purpose is to produce power and light for nonvehicle uses, such as at 3M, NSP's facility on CenturyAvenue, or for temporary use on construction sites. Refer to the licensing requirements in chapter 14, article X. (12) CNG (compressed natural gas) or LPG (liquid petroleum gas) retail dispensing facilities--Limited capacity. Tanks shall not exceed a water capacity of 1,000 gallons for dispensing facilities as an accessory use to a motor fuel station or convenience store, the primary purpose of which is the filling of LPG tanks for recreational vehicles, portable heaters and gas grills. These limited-capacity dispensing facilities shall be at least 350 feet from any property the city is planning for residential use. (13) Repair shop, except motor fuel stations or maintenance garages. All business, storage or display, except signs and parking, shall be in a closed building. (14) Organized athletic activities, such as dance, physical fitness or karate, that are conducted indoors. (15) Itinerant carnivals, subject to the licensing requirements in chapter 8, article IV. (16) Any use that would be similar to any of the uses in subsections (1) through (15) of this section, if it is not noxious or hazardous. (17) Adult use accessory, subject to the requirements in chapter 14, article III. (Code 1982, § 36-151(a); Ord. No. 825, § 1, 4-8-2002; Ord. No. 835, § 2, 11-13-2002) Sec. 44-512. Conditional uses. a BC business commercial district, the following uses must have a conditional use permit:  (1) All permitted uses in the R-3 district. (2) Processing and distributing station for beverages. (3) Place of amusement, recreation or assembly, other than an indoor theater, indoor athletic activity or itinerant carnival. (4) The exterior storage, display, sale or distribution of goods or materials, but not including a junkyard, salvage automobile, or other wrecking yard. The city may require screening of such uses pursuant to the screening requirements of subsection (6)a of this section. (5) For motor vehicles, t~e following activities, if not within 350 feet of any property that the city is planning for residential use: a. The sale or leasing of used motor vehicles. ,-~ . b. The storage or rental of motor vehicles. CD44:67 Together We Can Attachment 2 October 1, 2004 CHANGE IN THE REVIEW PROCESS REGARDING THE GLADSTONE NEIGHBORHOOD STRATEGIC PLANNING STUDY Dear Maplewood/Gladstone Property Owners and Interested Parties: The Maplewood Planning Staff had informed you at recent public meetings of our timetable for future reviews for the Gladstone Neighborhood Strategic Planning Study. We were planning to present our planning consultant's concept and other concept plans to the advisory boards at two upcoming meetings. The first review was to take place on October 12 at the community design review board meeting and the second on October 18 at the planning commission meeting. We need to postpone our review process at this time for two reasons: First, Rich McLaughlin, the city's planning consultant, has indicated that due to a medical emergency, he will be out for one month. Second, city staff would like to take a breather, or a step back to evaluate the process to date and receive feedback from our advisory boards. We need to get input and direction as to how we can do a better job of collecting and synthesizing comments on the vision. Simply put, we need to hear if there are ways we can improve the input process. Staff also wants to check in with the city policy makers to ensure the planning process is worth pursuing and to determine if this is still a high priority city project. (There will not be any plans presented or considered at these two upcoming meetings.) We anticipate that the concept plan review meetings will take place in November. We still welcome and encourage your input in the intedm. Please use the survey forms handed out at the last meeting or check the city web site at www. ci.maplewood.mn.us. for our on-line survey form. Our office will inform you of future public meetings that involve the presentation of plans, whether they are city's consultant, the Gladstone Neighborhood .Coalition or others. Thank you, TOM EKSTRAND- SENIOR PLANNER p~com-dev\Gladstone\CDRB Meeting Neighborhood Notification 10-14(2) 11 Office of CommuniTY DEVELOPMENT · 651-770-4560 · Fax: 651-748-3096 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD 830 East COUNTY ROAD B · MAPLE:WOOD, MN 55109 Attachment 3 Proposed Gladstone Neighborhood Strategic Planning Timeline Tue., Oct. 12, 6 p.m.: Gladstone Neighborhood Strategic Planning Update: Community Design Review Board/Open Space/Historical Commission (Maplewood City Council Chambers) Mon., Oct. 18, 7 p.m.: Gladstone Neighborhood Strategic Planning Update: Planning Commission/Housing Redevelopment Authority/Parks Commission (Maplewood City Council Chambers) Tue., Nov. 9, 6 p.m.: Gladstone Concept Plan Recommendation: Community Design Review Board/Open Space/Historical Commission (Maplewood City Council Chambers) Mon., Nov. 15, 7 p.m.: Gladstone Concept Plan Recommendation: Planning Commission/Housing Redevelopment Authority/Parks Commission (Maplewood City Council Chambers) Mon., Dec. 13, 7 p.m.: Gladstone Final Concept Plan Approval: City Council (Maplewood City Council Chambers) Jan. 2005 - March 2005: Zoning and Land Use Designation Changes as Needed Based on the Adopted Gladstone Concept Plan: Public Hearings held at the Maplewood City Council Chambers March 8, 2005: Development Moratorium Expires - Land Owners within the Gladstone Strategic Planning Study Area Free to Develop According to Adopted Gladstone Concept Plan 12