HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/22/2007
AGENDA
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
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: May 8, 2007
5. Unfinished Business: None Scheduled
6. Design Review:
a. Woodlands Townhouses - Sophia Avenue, east of McMenemy
7. Visitor Presentations:
8. Board Presentations:
9. Staff Presentations:
10. Adjourn
DRAFT
MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA
TUESDAY, MAY 8, 2007
I. CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Olson called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
II. ROLL CALL
Board rnernber John Dernko
Vice-Chairperson Matt Ledvina
Chairperson Linda Olson
Board member Ananth Shankar
Board member Matt Wise
Absent
Present
Present
Present
Present
Staff Present:
Shann Finwall, Planner
Lisa Kroll, Recording Secretary
III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Board member Ledvina requested a staff update regarding the Clear Channel Outdoor LED
Television Billboard under Board Presentations.
Board member Ledvina moved to approve the agenda as amended.
Board member Shankar seconded.
Ayes - Ledvina, Olson, Shankar, Wise
The motion passed.
IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Approval of the CDRB minutes for March 13,2007.
Board member Ledvina had a correction to page 6, 3rd paragraph, last word in the paragraph,
change West to East.
Board member Ledvina moved approval of the minutes of March 13, 2007, as amended.
Board member Wise seconded.
Ayes --- Ledvina, Olson, Wise
Abstention - Shankar
The motion passed.
V. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
None.
"
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 05-08-2007
2
VI. DESIGN REVIEW
a. Corner Kick Soccer Center-1357 Cope Avenue
Ms. Finwall said Mr. Ryan Manning, representing Corner Kick Soccer Center, is proposing an
expansion and several changes for the soccer center at 1357 Cope Avenue. The proposal is
for a soccer expansion including a regulation-sized soccer field and other interior
improvements, 12,000 square feet of retail space and the addition of 83 off-street parking
spaces to the site (including 27 underground parking spaces). They are proposing to use a
variety of materials and colors with this project to make it attractive and compatible with the
existing building. The proposed materials include rock-faced block, EIFS, prefinished metal
siding and roofing and face brick columns and accents. As proposed, the colors would include
tan dryvit or stucco, beige metal wall panels, two brown colors of rock-faced block, a dark red
face brick and black store fronts and metal roof sections. Staff agrees that the proposed
building additions would be generally attractive and would be compatible with the design and
materials of the existing soccer center. However, it also is important to note that the west and
north sides of the building will be very visible from English Street and from Highway 36. As
such, the design of these elevations and their view from the public streets is critical. Staff is
recommending that the project architect add more features and details to these elevations to
help give these elevations more character and to break up the large wall areas. Such changes
could be, but should not be limited to, adding windows or skylights (as shown on the south
wall), vertical columns of brick or rock-faced block, additional horizontal banding and the
planting of more or taller trees in the landscaping.
The building elevations in the project plans show the painting of the concrete block on the
existing building to match the rock face block on the building addition. The city will want to
ensure that the wall panels and the concrete block on the existing building are in good repair
and that they will match the building addition after the completion of the project.
The applicant should revise the landscape plan to add plantings in the ponding area so it
would be consistent with Maplewood ordinance standards. The plans should provide details on
the sizes and types of shrubs that are proposed for the areas near the building and shall show
the spruce and pine trees at least 8 feet tall at the time of planting (not 2Y:z inches in caliper,
balled and burlapped) as noted on the landscape plan. In addition to the above, the city code
requires all landscape areas to have underground irrigation, and turf areas should be sodded
(except for mulched and edged planting beds).
Board member Ledvina asked if the planning commission discussed the potential concerns of
this proposal and the future reconstruction of English Street and Highway 36?
Ms. Finwall said yes that was discussed at length at the planning commission meeting May 1,
2007.
Board member Ledvina said he wanted to make sure that was discussed at length so the
board doesn't need to discuss it. He said he is concerned about the amount of impervious
surface on this site and he asked if there was an impervious standard with the engineering
department and if this had been reviewed by the Ramsey Washington Watershed District and
what the status may be?
.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 05-08-2007
~
.:>
Ms. Finwall said this isn't located within the shoreland overlay district so city code doesn't
specify a maximum impervious surface area. She referred the question about the watershed
district to the applicant.
Board member Shankar said it appears the site is either building or parking lot, he asked if
there was requirement for green space for this site?
Ms. Finwall said perhaps the applicant can give an estimate of green space on the site. There
has been green space provided in the building and parking lot setback areas and the additional
green space where the water retention pond will be located.
Board member Wise said he noticed in the staff report that there was a suggestion for
additional window features and he asked if staff considered the impact that would have on the
neighbors in terms of the light that would be omitted?
Ms. Finwall said staff requested additional window treatments but those would be facing
Highway 36 and would not affect the neighbors to the south.
Chairperson Olson asked the applicant to address the board.
Ryan Manning, owner, Corner Kick Soccer Center at 1357 Cope Avenue, Maplewood,
addressed the board.
Mike Hoefler, Architect, Archnet, 12455 - 55th Street, Suite A, Lake Elmo, addressed the
board. He said they reviewed the recommendations and have agreed to the terms that have
been outlined in the staff report. Ken Roberts called us and stated he wanted them to review
the English Street elevation as well as the Highway 36 elevation, which they have done. They
brought drawings for the board to see this evening. The height of the building from English
Street and Cope Avenue is about 20 to 22 feet high from the front of the building to grade. The
elevation at the Highway 36 side is 35 feet tall to the eave so that is the difference between the
two. The peak of the roof is 55 feet off the soccer floor which is based off the grade of the
Highway 36 side. There was a traffic study done by SEH and that information was provided to
the planning commission. It was determined that traffic would increase but it would not be a
negative impact on the area. The review by the Ramsey Washington Metro Watershed District
is underway with the civil plans for the drainage and utilities. He said they have a sample
materials board for the board to review and they appreciate the board's time and look forward
to an exciting project.
Chairperson Olson asked the applicant to go through the materials for the board.
(Mr. Hoefler described the building materials away from the microphone and camera).
Chairperson Olson asked Mr. Manning if he was sure he had addressed the future parking
overflow situation and that this plan would appease the neighbors based on the plans
presented with this proposal?
..
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 05-08-2007
4
Mr. Manning said yes, we will try to limit the mass entrance and exits to the site. We have
three soccer fields, a store, and training facilities, in essence we are just adding one very large
soccer field. It doesn't change the number of kids that will be playing per team.
Commissioner Ledvina said he read the comments from the residents that live off Ide Court
who are concerned about the aesthetics of this building and what they would see. He wasn't
sure if the residents from Ide Court could even see the center. Those residents are almost a
half a mile away from this site.
Mr. Manning said he wasn't aware of any comments.
Mr. Hoefler said there were a few comments from one resident regarding the lights shining into
her home from the parking lot but that was all he was aware of.
Some comments staff had included in the staff report from residents living on Ide Court were:
1. We already get music in our home from there in the summer and the lights are a concern.
2. Who will take care of the landscaping? The current state of the exterior and the land is
poor. We wondered if they were going out of business. Will the new parking lot be rented
out to semi and moving trucks to park too?
3. Concerns about the traffic being backed up on Cope Avenue and Highway 36.
4. Concerns about the trail crossing near their building for kids on bikes, older people and
people walking dogs.
Chairperson Olson asked if they had any comments regarding the landscaping in the staff
recommendations?
Mr. Hoefler said they can add pine trees to the site but as it is he thinks they are basically
starting their own nursery with this project with the staff requirement to have 165 trees on the
site. Nursery staff laughed at him when he went to get quotes for the number of trees that they
are required to replace on the site with the landscaping plan. They could shift trees around but
he said they are running out of space on the site other than to plant trees along the north edge.
In fact they actually had a hard time spacing the trees on the site because there were so many
trees required.
Chairperson Olson asked if they had any concerns with the recommendations in the staff
report?
Mr. Hoefler said they reviewed the staff report and agree with the conditions and look forward
to an exciting project and they want to be a good neighbor and will do a great job on this
project.
Chairperson Olson said she likes the idea of the Cal Wall and she isn't worried about the light
being omitted to the west. This project will be a nice enhancement to the area. She thinks
there are too many trees on this site and the landscaping plan looks too crowded.
Ms. Finwall said the applicant was required to replace quite a few trees and it appears that
much of the setback area is full of trees. There is room to shift trees to the north side of the site
along Highway 36.
.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 05-08-2007
5
Chairperson Olson asked staff if they preferred trees be added to the site or would it be okay
for them to shift trees that are already on the landscaping plan to the north side around the
pond?
Ms. Finwall said the board could recommend some of the trees on the landscaping plan be
shifted to the north side.
Chairperson Olson asked about the retention pond, the grading and if the soils had been
surveyed yet? She asked if the soils in the area can absorb the runoff from this roof and from
the site without causing damage? She asked if this is a decorative pond on the north side?
Ms. Finwall said she would have to refer to Michael Thompson's engineering report in the staff
report which states they shall show the pond overflow location, it should reflect a 10-foot safety
shelf at 1-foot below the normal water elevation. The drainage structure just upstream of the
pond must have a minimum 3-foot sump in order to collect sediment and other pollutants.
Board member Ledvina said the regional storm water flow is from the area and drains north
under Highway 36 via a 24-inch culvert, so there is flow from that site. It will be treated by the
pond but it will not be infiltrated in that location.
Chairperson Olson asked if staff was looking for the materials that would be used on the
retaining wall?
Ms. Finwall said staff was referring to the engineering department's review of the grading
plans. The plan points to where the retaining wall would be located in the center of the parking
lot near the drive aisle, engineering requested a guard rail fence to be required on top of the
wall on the north side of the retail parking ramp. The city also may require a fence at the top of
the retaining wall to be determined by the building department due to the height of the retaining
wall, and that a permit is needed for a retaining wall over four feet in height and a licensed
professional shall design such walls. So far the applicants have not specified the material to be
used for the retaining wall if that is a concern of the board.
Board member Ledvina said the board could request the applicant submit the retaining wall
material subject to staff approval.
Chairperson Olson said that would be appropriate. She said she was very grateful to see the
perspective elevations; it was much easier to understand the plan showing the extensions and
the jet outs, particularly over your windows. She knows that's an extra effort on the applicant's
part and she thanked them for the additional effort put forth.
Board member Shankar asked what the dark vertical lines were and what they represent as
shown on the elevation.
Mr. Hoefler said those four dark vertical lines represent downspouts.
Board member Shankar asked why the downspouts weren't the same dimension from the brick
pilasters in all four bays?
Mr. Hoefler said they can be.
,.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 05-08-2007
6
Board member Shankar asked why the downspouts weren't dividing the Cal Wall and the
metal panel at that location?
Mr. Hoefler said the downspouts will be in the middle of the piers.
Board member Ledvina asked if that meant the downspouts wouldn't be seen?
Mr. Hoefler said they will be pocketed and flush with the block.
Board member Shankar asked why the architect chose to use EIFS on the south side but the
applicant still wants to use the metal panel on the west and north side?
Mr. Hoefler said they have proposed the elevations to match the existing facility. They are not
reclading the existing soccer field facility. 90% of the south elevation is covered with the new
elevation.
Board member Wise asked for clarification regarding the signage. He asked if the applicant
only had one tenant, how many signs would they be allowed?
Ms. Finwall said the city code requires a multi-tenant with five or more tenants to have a
comprehensive sign plan which would be approved by the CDRB.
Board member Wise asked if the applicant only had one shop would the signage go through
staff for approval and how many signs is Corner Kick entitled to?
Ms. Finwall said this is located in the M-1 light manufacturing zoning district so within that
zoning district they would be allowed signage based on the largest wall surface area according
to the sign code. If they had under five tenants they would be required to meet city code and
obtain permits for approval from staff.
Board member Wise said he is concerned about the comments made by the residents on Ide
Court and their visibility of Corner Kick. He is also concerned about the signage on the
building. He said he lives near Super America and is aware of the impact their backlit signs
have on the neighborhood. He didn't think the new trees would block the lit signage.
Mr. Hoefler said at this time there aren't any tenants, however, he said they would comply with
the sign ordinance and at that time, they would bring in the sign drawings and apply for permits
for approval from the city.
Ms. Finwall said the Corner Kick expansion requires a CUP because it's located within 350
feet of residential property. While it's not the CDRB's responsibility to make conditions on the
CUP, it's certainly something that staff could look at as far as the CUP, adding a condition that
all signage shall come back to the CDRB regardless of the number of tenants.
Chairperson Olson and Board member Wise said they would support that idea.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 05-08-2007
7
Board member Ledvina said he thinks the south elevation will work well and it is compatible to
the surrounding land uses. He thinks the west elevation is very nice with the changes the
applicant has made, but he is still very concerned about how the added building height is going
to look on the north elevation. When you are going to have a building with a 55 foot vertical
impact, it's a concern. He understands that is the lower part of the site, relative to Highway 36
and there will be a lot of plantings. He likes the design concept but looking at this from the
north this is really a large building.
Board member Shankar said the applicant said they are using the metal panels because there
are metal panels on the existing building, but he is not convinced that is the right thing to do.
He thinks that all the metal panel on the north elevation is doing is accentuating the verticality
of the building and make it look like it really is 55 feet tall and he is concerned about the
transition between metal panel and the Cal Wall. He feels the EIFS on the south side that the
applicant has proposed would be more appropriate on the north and west side. Especially
when you put it along side a Cal Wall translucent panel. He proposes to get rid of the metal
panel on the north and west wall and substitute it with EIFS.
Mr. Hoefler said the intent isn't always to construct things that are of a higher cost. Our design
was outlined around the existing building to pick up on the metal panel, raise the rock face
masonry and create piers to break up the north wall and to engage in metal. We provide and
install metal on some very high end buildings. It's not an inferior product; it's viewed as such,
because of the application on big buildings that look like pole barns but this is a metal ribbed
system that isn't the same corrugated type. The intent is to create something to tie into the
existing building and to carry things through.
Chairperson Olson said she didn't have a problem with that. She wasn't thrilled with the
original elevations but the way they have been revised and the materials that have been
submitted this evening, she feels comfortable with the proposal. She doesn't have a problem
with metal panels being used on this building. She isn't threatened by the height and the size
of this building because it's such an open expanse on Highway 36. The north side of the
building will face traffic on Highway 36 and she is comfortable with the design as it is
presented this evening.
Board member Shankar said even though the building elevation on the north side will face
traffic; that will be the elevation that most people will see as they drive by.
Board member Ledvina said at one time the CDRB spent a lot of time on the design of
Menards on Highway 36 which is a similar size building. Even though this building has a little
bit of a different scenario it is still important to have the building look nice from Highway 36. It's
hard for him to picture the scope of this structure vertically. They have done a very nice job on
this building and he likes the improvements the applicant has made, but he is cautious about
the vertical impact of the building, especially on the north elevation.
Chairperson Olson said the proposal for the soccer center is a substantial addition and impact
to the neighborhood and if the board had been presented with the original proposal she would
not have been in favor of the proposal but with the Cal Wall she thinks they made an effort to
make this addition much more appealing.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 05-08-2007
8
Board member Ledvina moved to approve the plans date-stamped April 6, 2007, (site plan,
landscape plan, grading and drainage plans and building elevations) and the buildinq
elevations submitted at the May 8, 2007, community desiqn review board meetinq for Corner
Kick Soccer Center. The city bases this approval on the findings required by code. This
approval is subject to the applicant or contractor doing the following: (additions to the motion
are underlined and deletions are stricken).
1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a grading permit or a building
permit for this project.
2. Complete the following before the city has not issued a grading permit or a building
permit for this project.
a. Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These
plans shall include: grading, utility, drainage, erosion control, retaining wall, tree,
sidewalk, 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) Including building, floor elevation, water elevation and contour
information. These shall include the normal water elevation and
1 OO-year high water elevation for the ponds.
(b) Include contour information for all the land that the construction will
disturb.
(c) Show sedimentation basins or ponds as may be 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" native 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 and a fence on
the top to help prevent falls. Retaininq wall desiqn and materials
are subject to staff approval. The applicant is encouraqed to tier the
retaininq wall and add landscapinq alonq the front, tiers. and the
back of the wall.
(f) Show the required sidewalk along Cope Avenue.
.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 05-08-2007
9
(3) The tree plan shall:
(a) Be approved by the city engineer before site grading or tree
removal.
(b) Show where the developer will remove, save or replace large trees.
This plan shall include an inventory of all existing large trees on the
site.
(c) Show the size, species and location of the replacement trees. The
spruce and pine trees shall be at least eight feet tall (not two and
one half (2Y:z ) inches in diameter).
(d) Show no tree removal beyond the approved grading and tree limits.
(4) All the parking areas and driveways shall have continuous concrete curb
and gutter except where the city engineer decides that it is not needed.
(5) The project engineer shall submit to the city a storm water management
plan, including drainage and ponding calculations, for the proposal.
(6) Make all the changes and meet all the conditions as required by the city
engineer and as noted by Michael Thompson in the memo dated April
23,2007.
b. Submit a certificate of survey for all new construction.
c. Submit a revised landscape plan to staff for approval that incorporated or shows
the following details:
(1) The manicured or mowed areas from the natural areas. The native
grasses and flowering plants shall be those needing little or no
maintenance. Specifically, the developer or contractor shall have the
natural areas seeded with an upland mixture and lowland mixtures as
appropriate.
(2) The location of all large trees on the site.
(3) That all new trees would be consistent with city standards for size,
location and species.
(4) The planting (instead of sodding) the disturbed areas around the
ponding areas 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 high
water mark (OHWM) of the pond. This is to reduce maintenance costs
and to reduce the temptation of people mowing into the pond.
..
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 05-08-2007
10
(5) The plantings proposed around the building shown on the landscape
plan date-stamped April 6, 2007, shall remain on the plan.
(6) In addition to the above, the contractor shall sod all front, side and rear
yard areas (except for mulched and edged plantings or tree beds).
(7) No landscaping being put in the Cope Avenue boulevard. The contractor
shall restore the boulevard with sod.
(8) The relocation of some of the everqreen trees currently called out in the
landscape plan adding of moro o'lorgraon trom; {Black Hills spruco or
/\ustrian pinos) along the north side of the building and along the south
side of the site. These trees are to be at least eight feet tall, and the
contractor shall plant these trees in staggered rows wherever possible.
The contractor shall place the trees on the north side of the addition to
help break UP the larqe expansive wall and the south side of the site to
reduce the effects of motor vehicle headlight glare onto adjacent
residential properties.
(9) An underground irrigation system for all landscape areas.
d. Submit revised north building elevations and material samples and color
schemes for the building addition to staff for approval. The revised building
elevations for the west aFl€I north sides should include placinq the downspouts in
the center and inteqral (flush) to the piers. moro foaturos and dotails to holp give
thoso olovations moro charactor and to braak up tho large wall aroas. Such
changos could bo, but should not bo Iimitod to, addin@-WiH€lews or skylights (as
sflewn on tho south 'Nail), vortical columns or brick or rock bcod block, addition31
horizontal banding and tho planting of mora or tailor troos in tho landscaping. All
building materials and windows (including the frames and glass) shall be
compatible with the existing building, includinq the proposed metal panels which
should match the color of the existinq buildinq.
e. Get the necessary approvals and permits from the watershed district.
f. If necessary, get any approvals and permits from Ramsey County.
g. Get the necessary approval and permits from MnDOT.
h. Provide city staff with design details (height, depth and materials) about the
proposed retaining walls, including any fencing for those that are more than four
feet tall.
i. Provide for city staff approval the final photometric plan that includes information
about the height of the proposed light fixtures and details about the style of the
light fixtures.
j. The owner shall combine all three properties into one at Ramsey County for tax
and identification purposes and provide the city with documentation of this action.
..
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 05-08-2007
11
k. Submit to the city a letter of credit or cash escrow for all required exterior
improvements. The amount of the escrow shall be 150 percent of the cost of the
work.
3. Complete the following before using the new parking lots or before occupying the
building addition.
a. Replace property irons that are removed because of this construction.
b. Restore and sod damaged boulevards. Sod all landscaped areas, except for the
ponding areas, which may be seeded.
c. Install continuous concrete curb and gutter along all interior driveways and
around all open parking stalls.
d. Install a handicap-parking sign for each handicap-parking space and an address
on the building. In addition, the applicant shall install "no parking" signs along the
driveways and drive aisles within the site and elsewhere, as may be required by
staff.
e. Paint any visible roof-top mechanical equipment to match the uppermost part of
the building. (code requirement)
f. 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. All 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 developer or contractor shall:
(1) Complete all grading for the site drainage 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) Install the curb and gutter, parking lots, sidewalk and retaining walls as
shown on the approved project plans.
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.
.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 05-08-2007
12
The owner or contractor shall complete any unfinished landscaping by June 1 if
the contractor finishes the new parking lot in the fall or winter or if the building
additions are occupied in the fall or winter, or within six weeks of occupancy if the
building additions are occupied in the spring or summer.
c. The city receives an agreement that will allow the city to complete any unfinished
work.
5. All work shall follow the approved plans. The planninq department diroctor of community
dO'lolopmont may approve minor changes.
6. This approval does not include signage. All proposed siqns must be approved by the
community desiqn review board. comply with tho city's sign ordinanco, and tho applicant
must obtain all raquirod eign pormits boforo tho installation or rolocation of signs.
Board member Wise seconded.
Ayes - Ledvina, Olson, Shankar, Wise
The motion passed.
This item will go to the city council on June 11,2007.
Chairperson Olson thanked the applicant for bringing in the sample material board because
having the colored samples helps the board understand how the building is going to look.
b. Costco - North of Beam, South of New County Road 0, West of Highway 61, East
of the Bruce Vento Trail
Ms. Finwall said Costco Wholesale Corporation is proposing to build a 158,000-square-foot
membership warehouse/retail building on the north side of Beam Avenue, at the easterly side
of the recently approved Mogren Retail Addition planned unit development (PUD). The
proposed store will include a 5,200-square-foot tire center and a 4,000-square-foot liquor store.
There would also be a freestanding gasoline station for Costco members in the southwest
corner of the site.
The proposed building is attractively designed, but the entire building would be constructed of
various forms of concrete block and precast concrete tip-up panels. Staff looked at three
existing Costco stores in the Twin Cities. These were stores in St. Louis Park, Maple Grove
and Coon Rapids. Each of these stores displayed more decorative exterior materials than the
concrete block proposed. St. Louis Park's Costco building is predominantly jumbo red-colored
brick with mustard-colored rock-face concrete block accents. The Maple Grove Costco building
is predominantly brick with flag stone columns, rock-face block and EIFS (exterior insulation
finish system). The Coon Rapids Costco building is predominantly brick with rock-face block.
Staff feels that the quality of the building exterior materials should be upgraded to something
more decorative than the varieties of concrete block proposed. Staff made the same
recommendation with the recently approved Carmax building in this development. Their
original building was to be all concrete block. Staff informed Carmax that there would be no
staff support for that material, and they then redesigned the building to be brick.
.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 05-08-2007
13
Staff feels the same in this case and recommends that the applicant revise the proposed
building materials to substantially enhance the building with brick. This should apply to the fuel-
island canopy columns which are also proposed to be all split-face concrete block.
Chairperson Olson asked the applicant to address the board.
Mr. Ted Johnson, President of T J Design Strategies, 2311 West 22nd Street, Oak Brook,
Illinois, addressed the board. He is a consultant for Costco and acts as the development
manager for the 14 Midwest states. He said Costco has applied for a parking waiver. Costco is
proposing 733 parking spaces with the potential of 55 proof-of-parking spaces so Costco
meets the city requirements. Costco has found that 733 parking spaces have been sufficient
for Costco's 400 plus warehouse buildings this size and are very comfortable with 733 parking
spaces. Should parking become a problem, space has been reserved on the site for the proof-
of-parking spaces located on the east and the north side of the building. If Costco were to meet
the city's light code with 25-foot-talllight poles that would increase the number of light poles to
78. Between the light poles and the light fixture count, Costco would be looking at doubling the
installation cost, but more importantly, if Costco went with the taller light fixture, Costco would
be looking at a 10% energy savings on an annual basis. That affects the amount of light in the
parking lot, between the 25-foot light pole height and the 35-foot light pole height along with
some 20-foot tall light poles at the perimeter of the parking lot; it's an average of 4.4 foot-
candles. By going with the 25-foot taillight pole which would equal 78 light poles in the parking
lot it would average 4.7 foot-candles throughout the parking lot. With the lower light pole height
you get more intense lighting at the parking lot level. Costco believes you wouldn't see the light
glare with the 35-foot tall light pole with a shoe box fixture and a flat lens. There are no
residential properties around. Costco feels 37-foot taillight poles are an appropriate light pole
height for this Costco proposal. The important thing is the taller the light pole, the fewer light
poles they need which means a 10% energy savings on an annual basis.
Board member Ledvina asked if Costco could reduce the light bulb intensity? Costco identified
the foot-candle illumination at 4.7 for the 25-foot-talllight pole and 4.4 foot-candles for the 35-
foot-taillight pole, isn't that where the energy costs are?
Mr. Johnson said not necessarily. For safety reasons Costco wants to maintain an average
foot-candle in the parking lot of about 4.5, so the 4.4 foot-candle Costco would get from the 35-
foot-taillight pole meets the city's requirements and so does the 4.7 foot-candles with the 25-
foot-tall light poles. Staff has indicated that Costco shall conform to the city's sign code. The
only signage Costco has is on the building. Costco would have three signs on the main
warehouse and four signs on the gas station canopy. There will be no freestanding monument
signs or pylon signs. There will not be a price sign at the gas station. The elevations that you
see will be for the sign proposal.
Chairperson Olson asked if Costco was planning on having any directional signs for traffic flow
on the site?
Mr. Johnson said within the fueling facility there will be some "do not enter signs". The fueling
facility will have a one-way operation so there will be some internal signs generally less than
two square feet in size and the sign ordinance usually doesn't count those. The fire department
will require signs around the building for fire lanes and Costco doesn't know if those signs will
be on the building or not. The fire marshal will regulate that requirement.
.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 05-08-2007
14
Mr. Johnson said Costco brought building material samples with for the board to review. Staff
commented about some of the other Costco warehouse buildings in the twin city area. One
thing Costco doesn't have is a prototype design. Costco designs their buildings for the
community they will be located in. Staff mentioned Costco's buildings in St. Louis Park, Maple
Grove and Coon Rapids which are within a retail center and are not a stand alone unit. The
Maplewood location would not be adjacent to other retail centers. In St. Louis Park Costco is
adjacent to Home Depot, Office Max and other smaller retailers and restaurants. The location
in St. Louis Park has distinct design criteria, so all the buildings have to tie together. In Coon
Rapids there are certain design standards as well, that's why you see the tower caps on the
corners of Kohl's and Linen-n-Things and the other retail stores within the center. The same is
true in Maple Grove where Costco had to comply and incorporate similar building materials
that were used throughout the retail centers. He believes Costco has provided a very attractive
and interesting building for this area in Maplewood. Costco is using the main building
component for the warehouse with an integral color and precast panels. The panels are
manufactured off site at a plant and shipped to the site. The panels are then erected from flat
bed trucks at the site. These are not tip-up panels; these panels are constructed at the site and
then tilted up so the quality of the panels is extremely high. Costco proposes to use an integral
color to break up the mass of the building, because a building that is 150,000-square-feet is a
large mass. The precast colors on the elevations are a lighter color in an acid wash, smooth
finish. The darker colors are an acid wash to bring out the color of the aggregate. Even though
it's a precast panel, Costco is able to get two different colors and two different textures out of
the same panel. To that we add split face and smooth face concrete masonry units and utility
brick as horizontal accents throughout the elevations. By using the precast or the CMU's,
which is a veneer added to the precast, we add the architectural elements of the split face and
smooth face to that. The reason Costco chose CMU is that it's a larger brick and the larger
blocks look better and are more consistent with the overall design of a larger building.
Board member Wise said Mr. Johnson commented that the Maplewood Costco warehouse is a
stand alone building and that Costco doesn't have a prototype building. He asked what Costco
builds throughout the country for stand alone buildings?
Mr. Johnson said Costco constructs these buildings out of precast panels. In fact, the Costco
in Maple Grove is a precast panel building. On the inside of the warehouse you will see the
light gray concrete panel, but on the outside it's not an integral color panel because we had to
match about four different exterior colors. The outside of the Maple Grove Costco building has
painted panels and that's not typically what Costco uses. Mr. Johnson presented photos of a
Costco building that just opened in Columbus, Ohio, which has some of the same elements
Costco is proposing for the Maplewood warehouse building. He said the dark vertical elements
are a precast panel with a fluted rib cast to it. Costco is proposing the same panel in
Maplewood at the ends of the building. On a sunny day the fluted rib creates shadows and
breaks up the mass of the building. The darker color is split-face CMU and the lighter color is
smooth-faced CMU and on either side is the integral color of a precast concrete panel. Mr.
Johnson displayed a detail of the corner on the overhead that would be used on the
Maplewood Costco building. Costco is using building materials that would best break up the
mass of the building. Costco believes this is an attractive building and that the massing is
broken up better than some of the existing warehouse buildings in the twin cities.
Chairperson Olson asked if the photo shown on the overhead was what Costco was proposing
to use for the entrance to the Maplewood Costco?
.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 05-08-2007
15
Mr. Johnson said similar building materials would be used at the Maplewood location but the
parapet height at the Columbus, Ohio Costco is taller than the entry they propose at the
Maplewood location. The store front glass would be the same for Maplewood. During the
summer the side glass doors roll up for an entirely open canopy. The doors under the Costco
sign are sliding glass doors that stay year round.
Board member Ledvina said the parking issue is not an issue for him at all. He's always in
favor of applicants having proof-of-parking and he would strongly support that. He isn't entirely
convinced of the argument related to the lighting. Maybe the taller light pole is more
appropriate for this setting; at 35 feet tall, this is a large building so it makes sense to have
fewer light poles. Maybe there is a way to adjust the level of illumination to get to the lower
number of kilowatts. In terms of how this building will present itself, he thinks Costco could do
better with their building elevations and building materials. The rational of treating the building
in a different way because it would be a stand alone building, does not convince him. The
critical building elevation area is the west elevation and he's concerned how that would look
from the roadway. He isn't concerned about the east elevation. If you are on the Bruce Vento
Trail you will be looking at the roof of the Costco building and there are plantings along that
side.
Board member Shankar said he is concerned about the over use of precast panels. Even
though the applicant said the panels are factory fabricated and then erected on site. It's
basically the same thing whether you fabricate it at the factory or at the site. Looking at the
photos he said he doesn't care for the fluted precast corners. To him they make it look like an
industrial warehouse. He would suggest removing the fluted panel idea altogether. He asked if
Costco could use brick where the acid washed panels would be on the west, south and north
elevations. Brick comes in a wide variety of colors, it doesn't have to be red brick like the board
saw in a photo. He said he would leave the east elevation the way it is with the exception that
the fluted panels be removed.
Board member Wise asked if there would be a stop light at Country View Drive and Beam
Avenue?
Ms. Finwall said yes.
Board member Wise said because this is a PUD and because of it's proximity to the new
Carmax, the mall down the road and the traffic on Highway 61 and Beam Avenue, this building
will be highly visible. Regardless of the fact that this will be a stand alone building, it will still be
in Maplewood and he doesn't want to settle for something less just because Maplewood
doesn't have certain design criteria and this is the style of building Costco builds. He believes
this Costco building should be designed to give a new look and feel to the area.
Chairperson Olson said she was glad to hear Board member Wise make those comments
because she was totally under whelmed with this building design. This building is going to
establish a major presence in this area and she doesn't want to see an unattractive big box
built on this site. She read in Consumer Reports that Sam's Club and Costco have been
compared to each other. The conclusion was that Costco tends to market to a slightly upper
scale clientele. You will have to work harder to get that upper scale clientele into this store with
the current plan.
..
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 05-08-2007
16
Chairperson Olson said she believes Maplewood deserves a better product from Costco. She
is concerned about the location of the gas station and how the traffic will be routed. She knows
engineering has looked at this plan but she wants to make sure there aren't going to be traffic
issues here. Drainage and spillage from the fuel pumps is going to occur and she is concerned
about that. She usually prefers fewer light poles on the site but she isn't sure about the light
pole height. She would agree with Board member Ledvina's comments and she would like the
applicant to investigate the lumens or the light intensity to see if there is something that could
be worked out. This is directly across from a wetland where there is major nesting. The wildlife
to the south includes egrets, blue heron, and other wildlife and she would like the applicant to
respect the wildlife and check into other lighting possibilities. She was also concerned about
the sidewalk situation.
Ms. Finwall said she wasn't the person that wrote the staff report but read because of the
wetlands and the limited right-of-way width on the south side of the Carmax site, it's not
feasible to install a sidewalk from Highway 61 to Country View Drive and Costco. As part of the
roadway improvements approved for this area, there will be sidewalks provided on the north
side of Beam Avenue from Country View Drive to Hazelwood Street and from Beam Avenue to
County Road D to the north. Staff showed a map on the overhead representing in pink where
the sidewalks would run.
Chairperson Olson said that takes care of her concern then because she thought it would be
nice for people who want to take the bus to be able to access the sidewalk to Hazelwood
Street and the map that staff put on the overhead helped her see the connection. It may be
that the Costco purchases would be too large to bring on a bus anyway and that a vehicle
would be necessary to transport their purchases.
Board member Ledvina asked what staff's opinion was for modifications to the east elevation?
Ms. Finwall said that elevation faces the Bruce Vento Trail, which is at a higher elevation and
at the same height as the building and would be screened so that doesn't concern staff.
Board member Ledvina said he just wanted to confirm that.
Chairperson Olson asked what precautions would be taken to prevent leakage and fuel spills
from the ground water?
Ms. Finwall said the planning commission discussed that as well. They were concerned about
the fuel tanks and the soils in the area, maybe the applicant could address that.
Mr. Johnson said they are still in the due diligence phase. It appears that based on the
preliminary plans, the ground water is at 14 to 15 feet below grade. Then they dig down 15 feet
and fill in roughly 4 feet with stone and the fuel tanks will be above that.
Mr. Johnson said the fuel tanks would be 8-to-9-feet below grade. Costco hasn't done the
detailed design yet but there are ways to engineer those fuel tanks when near ground water.
Costco may have to find a different location on the site for the fueling facility if they find the
soils are not adequate in that location. The way the final grading plan will work is that anything
adjacent to the fuel pumps, under the canopy, will be drained into an oil/water separator before
going into the system.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 05-08-2007
17
Mr. Johnson said there are a number of safeguards that Costco does and the final engineering
plans will provide information for the city, engineering, and the fire marshal to review. One of
the other issues with the light standards is the height of the light pole and that the lower light
pole interferes with the landscaping. The landscape plan either meets or exceeds the city
code. Costco retained Landform as the civil and landscape architect. They came up with a plan
that was consistent with the Carmax plan that the city already approved. It's a fine plan. It
doesn't meet Costco's internal requirements though because where Carmax shows one tree
per landscape island, Costco has two trees per landscape island with exception of the truck
route. Costco will revise the plan to increase the landscaping. Costco puts the taller light poles
in the landscape islands; Costco doesn't have freestanding light poles in the parking lot
because of the weather in the Midwest with snow removal and cars backing into the light
poles. The higher the light pole the less conflict there is between the landscaping and the light
standard. The rooftop units will be screened from the parking lot and from Country View Drive.
The rooftop units will not be screened from the Bruce Vento Trail. However, Costco's roofs are
white and very reflective and the rooftop units are almond or light beige in color. If there is a
rooftop unit that's a different color, it would be painted to match. Mr. Johnson said Costco
would like to have this application tabled and continued at a later date due to the building
design concerns of the board members. Costco would like to meet with staff and go over some
of the recommendations such as in lieu of a letter for landscape improvements, Costco would
like to do performance bonds. Costco would like to make sure that before things are set in
concrete, everybody is happy with what is going to be done as well as with the building
elevations. Costco heard the board's comments, let us go back and meet with the architects
and staff and corne back with a revised plan for the board in the next few weeks.
Chairperson Olson thanked Mr. Johnson and she said he made some powerful comments
regarding the light standards.
Board member Ledvina said he agreed with those comments. This is a large site, it has a lot of
parking on it and there are some efficiency issues here to consider.
Chairperson Olson moved to table this proposal until Costco has the opportunity to make
changes and makes another submittal to city staff.
Board member Ledvina seconded.
Ayes - Ledvina, Olson, Shankar, Wise
The motion to table passed.
This item goes to the city council on June 11,2007.
Ms. Finwall said Costco could bring this back before June 11, 2007, and at the earliest this
could come back to the CDRB, June 12, 2007, or if the applicant can get the changes to staff
next week for the May 22, 2007, CDRB meeting before it would go to the city council, that
would also be a possibility.
Chairperson Olson said the board would leave that up to staff and the applicant to work details
and the timeline out.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 05-08-2007
18
VII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS
No visitors present.
VIII. BOARD PRESENTATIONS
a. Board member Ledvina asked for a staff update regarding the Clear Channel
Outdoor LED Television Billboard
Ms. Finwall said Clear Channel has an outdoor LED television billboard that is 750-square feet
in size and located along Highway 494 in south Maplewood. Clear Channel applied for a
building permit in September 2006 to do some repairs to the billboard that was constructed in
the early 1970's. Clear Channel had indicated that they were going to do some basic repairs,
city staff looked at the building plans and authorized the repair permit for the billboard. Two
months later Clear Channel installed a new sign face on the billboard which was a LED
electronic billboard that has the ability to display movies and things of that nature. The City of
Maplewood notified Clear Channel that they were in violation of the sign code and the billboard
ordinance and that they misrepresented themselves in the permit process. The City of
Maplewood required Clear Channel to submit a variance application as city code doesn't allow
flashing and blinking signs. The City of Maplewood gave Clear Channel 60 days to respond
and through that time Clear Channel's legal representative was in contact with the City of
Maplewood's city attorney and expressed concern over this requirement for a variance
indicating Clear Channel was uncertain they could meet the state statute guidelines for a
variance which requires them to prove a hardship.
Through some reinterpretation of the sign and the sign code, the city staff and the legal
counsel for Maplewood determined that they could consider this an expansion of a
nonconforming use in that the billboard was constructed in the early 1970's. Soon after that the
City of Maplewood enacted new billboard ordinances which required certain size restrictions
and certain setbacks to residential. The billboard that was there became a preexisting,
nonconforming billboard. The city is now requesting that Clear Channel apply for a CUP for an
expansion of a non-conforming structure in which case Clear Channel would not be required to
meet the strict standards of a hardship. The city's legal counsel has been working with Clear
Channel's representative to get them to submit this conditional use permit application which
would come to the board for review and recommendation and then go to the city council for
approval in which case if the city council ultimately approved this sign, the city could require
certain restrictions and conditions. At the end of April, the legal representative for Clear
Channel was present at the city council meeting representing another client. The city attorney
had a discussion about how things were proceeding and that they were clearly not meeting the
city's deadlines.
Ms. Finwall said the League of Minnesota Cities have been involved in this process and had
reviewed the City of Maplewood's billboard ordinance and determined that the City of
Maplewood's billboard ordinance is one of the best written ordinances throughout the
metropolitan area due to the fact that the ordinance clearly says you can't have flashing,
blinking lights on a billboard. The League of Minnesota Cities has determined that Clear
Channel is in clear violation of Maplewood's sign code and in clear violation of the permit
process and the League of Minnesota Cities has been in strong support of the City of
Maplewood in this regard. Staff will touch base with the legal counsel on the latest news.
..
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 05-08-2007
19
Chairperson Olson wondered why the City of Maplewood is being so nice to Clear Channel.
She would like to take the City of Minnetonka's tactic and pull the electricity on this electronic
billboard.
Board member Ledvina said this issue has been dragging on for 6 months already. The city
has provided timelines to Clear Channel for resolution of this matter and that has not
happened. The board directed staff to resolve this matter quickly, one way or the other. The
sign is very offensive and intrusive to the neighborhood and he thinks it's a clear violation of
the city's sign ordinance.
Chairperson Olson said for the City of Maplewood to bend over backward to make this sign
ordinance more attractive for Clear Channel so they can argue their position, is a ridiculous
tactic to take when they have violated the City of Maplewood's ordinances. She doesn't
understand what is going on here and why this is still dragging on so long. She doesn't think
the electronic billboard sign should be in existence and she would like the city to pull the
electricity on this electronic billboard sign.
Board member Shankar asked what has happened with the electronic sign for the Myth
nightclub?
Chairperson Olson said the Myth sign was apparently grandfathered in. The CDRB can't do
much about this. She has spent time watching this sign. The Myth has been timing their
displays so that the Myth isn't advertising their products more than 30 minutes in any hour. It's
primarily the Myth logo with the flames. Their electronic sign is considerably smaller than this
LED billboard. You cannot see the Myth sign from Highway 694 or White Bear Avenue when
the trees are leafed out. It's not nearly as offensive and its primary audience is the Best Buy
parking lot and the traffic along County Road D. She thinks Clear Channel overstepped their
bounds. The sign permit for the Myth's nightclub was approved by the city. The electronic
billboard for Clear Channel was installed with a clear disregard for the city ordinance and they
misrepresented themselves; that's what the difference is here.
Board member Wise said we need to distinguish the difference between a billboard sign and a
freestanding sign such as the Myth nightclub. Clear Channel violated city protocol. This forces
the city to look at how to evaluate electronic signs regarding the size and placement for this
LED billboard sign for Clear Channel. He said even though he is fairly new to the CDRB, he
has seen the LED outdoor billboard sign and he doesn't like how it affects the area, it doesn't
seem right. He said he agrees with all of the comments from other board members he heard
tonight.
Chairperson Olson said she is worried about the precedence this sets for other cities within the
metro area that are fighting this same battle. The fact is, other cities acted on electronic LED
outdoor billboard signs and the City of Maplewood is very clearly dragging their feet. The
longer the LED electronic sign is up, the more it sets precedence for Clear Channel to do the
same thing to another city. She said she didn't know how much stronger the board could stress
the way they feel about this.
Board member Ledvina said the board is directing city staff to ask the city council to act on and
resolve this matter in a very quick manner.
.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 05-08-2007
20
Board member Ledvina moved that the CDRB recommend a quick resolution to this electronic
billboard matter with Clear Channel.
Chairperson Olson seconded.
Ayes - Ledvina, Olson, Shankar, Wise
The motion passed.
Ms. Finwall said the board's comments are very prudent and she appreciates the support the
board is giving her as a staff member in regard to working with the city attorney and the city
manager in this regard. She feels these comments will be helpful for them to understand how
the board feels.
Board member Ledvina said the board has worked hard on the city's sign ordinance. This
electronic LED billboard sign is a problem and he thinks a quick resolution should be in order.
Chairperson Olson asked what the status is with the revised sign ordinance the board worked
so hard on?
Ms. Finwall said the pending timeline would be for the city attorney to review the sign
ordinance to ensure it meets the guidelines in light of the lawsuits that have happened the last
few years from billboard companies challenging the cities' sign codes because they don't
adapt to both non-commercial and commercial speech. Step two is to bring it back to the
CDRB for some recommended changes and then to the city council through some workshops
to get the process started again. The city council was concerned that the city didn't have a
code enforcement person to enforce the new sign ordinance if it was adopted. The city has
hired a code enforcement officer, Michael Samuelson, who has been with the city now for one
month. Mr. Samuelson has been busy with other code issues at the city and sign enforcement
is something Michael Samuelson will be working with eventually. Currently Michael is working
on residential properties but that will expanded that to other code issues.
IX. STAFF PRESENTATIONS
a. Questions for Future Community Design Review Board Applicants
The city council accepts questions from the advisory boards to use during the interview
process. On Friday, March 23, 2007, the city manager, Greg Copeland, requested that
each staff liaison obtain a list of suggested questions from their prospective advisory
boards that the city council asks applicants in future interviews. On March 28, 2005, the
CDRB suggested 11 questions for the city council's use during the interview process of
prospective board members at that time. Many of these 11 questions still fit the board's
needs. The board offered a few new questions for staff to pass onto the city manager
and city council for future use.
b. Community Design Review Board Meeting Times
Chairperson Olson requested that staff put this item on the agenda to discuss the start
time of the CDRB meeting. Earlier this year several advisory committees' meeting days
were rescheduled in order to ensure that all advisory committees could be videotaped
live in the city council chambers for cable viewing.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 05-08-2007
21
The planning commission, housing and redevelopment authority, park and rec, historical
preservation commission, community outreach, and the police civil commission all meet
at 7:00 p.m. The environmental and natural resources commission meet at 4:45 p.m.
and the CDRB meets at 6:00 p.m.
The board discussed the pros and cons of changing the meeting time and they decided
that because it's easier for contractors and developers to come to the CDRB meeting
right after work, it would be more convenient to keep meeting at 6:00 p.m. Two board
members preferred to meet at 6:30 p.m. because of traffic concerns and two board
members preferred to meet at the 6:00 start time. One board member was absent so
staff could not get his input. This item will be revisited by the CDRB and staff in the fall.
c. May 22, 2007, Joint Meeting with the CDRB and the Environmental and Natural
Resources Commission
This joint meeting with the Environmental and Natural Resources Commission is
scheduled for May 22, 2007, to discuss the urban streetscape plan for the Gladstone
Area as well as the Savanna updates.
d. June 5, 2007, Sustainable Building Presentation
Ms. Finwall said DuWayne Konewko from the Public Works Department, Rick Carter,
Senior Vice President of LHB Corporation, and Cliff Aichinger from the Ramsey-
Washington Metro Watershed District will have a sustainable building presentation at
the Maplewood Community Center in the Banquet Room on June 5, 2007, from 5:30 -
8:00 p.m. The purpose of this meeting is to discuss sustainable development, green
building and energy conservation. More information will follow.
e. Board representative for the June 11, 2007, city council meeting.
Matt Ledvina volunteered to serve as the board representative at the June 11,2007, city
council meeting. Items to discuss include the Corner Kick Soccer Center at 1357 Cope
Avenue, and Costco - North of Beam, South of New County Road D, West of Highway
61, East of the Bruce Vento Trail.
X. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 8:37 p.m.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
LOCATION:
DATE:
City Manager
Ken Roberts, Planner
Design Approval -The Woodlands of Maplewood
Sophia Street, east of 1740, 1750 and 1766 McMenemy Street
May 15, 2007
INTRODUCTION
Project Description
Ms. Lisa Lillestrand, representing Integra Homes, is asking the city to approve the building
elevations for a 28-unit town house development called the Woodlands. This project will have 14
detached townhomes and seven twinhomes. This development is on an 8.2-acre site on the east
side of McMenemy Street, north of Kingston Avenue and south of the Saint Paul Hmong Alliance
Church. Refer to the maps on pages 10 -13. A homeowners' association would own and
maintain the common areas.
The project plans show that each building would have horizontal-lap vinyl siding, shake siding for
accent areas, aluminum soffits and fascia and stone veneer on the fronts. In addition, each unit
would have a two-car garage. (See the building elevations on pages 15 - 24 and the enclosed
plans.) .
Request
To proceed with this project, Ms. Lillestrand is requesting that the city approve the building
elevations for the single dwellings and for the twinhomes.
BACKGROUND
On July 26, 2005, the community design review board (CDRB) recommended approval of the
project design plans. This recommendation was subject to the applicant bringing revised building
elevations back to the CDRB for final approval. (See the minutes of this meeting starting on page
33.)
On September 12, 2005, the city council made several approvals for this development. These
included a land use plan change, a zoning map change, a street right-of-way vacation, a
conditional use permit for a planned unit development, a preliminary plat and design approval
(except the building elevations).
DISCUSSION
Design Review
Integra Homes has submitted all new building plans for the single-family units and for the
twinhome units that they want to build on this site. The new elevations are on pages 15-24 and in
the enclosures and their plans from 2005 are on pages 25-29 for comparison. An important
difference between the plans is the proposed placement of the garage door - the new plans have
all garage doors facing the street while the plans from 2005 had some of the garages as side-
loaded (where the garage doors would not be directly visible from the street).
Building Design and Exterior Materials - Single Family Units
The proposed buildings should be attractive and should fit in with the design of the existing homes
in the area. They would have an exterior of horizontal vinyl siding (earth tone, green or grey in
color) with a stone veneer on the fronts and the roofs would have asphalt shingles. In addition,
there would be a mix of 1 Yz-story and walk-out units and each unit would have white soffits and
accent boards and an attached two-car garage. (See the proposed elevations on pages 15-19 and
the enclosed project drawings.) Staff does not have any major concems about the proposed
building elevations since this development will be on cul-de-sacs and would be somewhat isolated.
In fact, only the buyers of the town houses would be able to see the fronts of most of the new
buildings.
The builder is proposing a mix of three front elevations for these units. (See the proposed
elevations for these three building styles on pages 15 and 16.) Having this mix of front elevations
will provide more variety within the development. However, as staff noted earlier, none of the
proposed plans have side-loaded garages. If some of the units would have side-loaded garages
that would help create a variety of looks for the units from the streets.
Building Design and Exterior Materials - Twinhomes
The proposed twinhome buildings would have a style and a mix of materials that are very similar to
the proposed single dwellings. As such, they also should be attractive and should fit in with the
design of the existing and proposed homes in the area. They also would have an exterior of
horizontal vinyl siding (earth tone, green or grey in color) with a stone veneer on the fronts and the
roofs would have asphalt shingles. In addition, there would be a mix of 1 Yz-story and walkout units
and each unit would have white soffits and accent boards and an attached two-car garage. (See
the proposed elevations on page 20-24 and the enclosed project drawings.) Staff does not have
any major concerns about the proposed building elevations since this development will be on cul-
de-sacs and would be somewhat isolated. In fact, only the buyers of the town houses would be
able to see the fronts of most of the new buildings.
As with the single dwelling units, the builder is proposing a mix of three front elevations for these
units. (See the proposed elevations for these three building styles on pages 20 and 21.) Having
this mix of front elevations will provide more variety within the development. None of the units as
now proposed show side-loaded garages.
The community design review board noted in 2001 concems about "snout-designed" homes.
These dwellings have garages as the dominating street-side feature. The proposed town homes
have this design. The community design review board may want to have the developer change the
proposed designs or add features to the buildings to lessen the impact of the garages. This could
include additional landscaping in front of the dwelling parts of the buildings, adding covered front
porches, using side-loaded garages, enhancing the design of the garage doors or adding
decorative light fixtures next to the garages and entrance doors.
While the proposed building plans and elevations are quite complete, city staff would like more
information about some of the details that the builder will include in these units. As such, city staff
is recommending that before the city issues a building permit, the builder should submit to city staff
for approval revised building plans and elevations. These should show or include (but are not
limited to) the colors of all materials, side loaded garages on some of the units, any shutters,
window grids, the style and materials of balcony railings, and provide more detail about the color
and amount of the stone accents.
2
RECOMMENDATION
A. Approve the building elevations date-stamped May 10, 2007, for the Woodlands of
Maplewood town houses on the east side of McMenemy Street, north of Kingston Avenue.
The city bases this approval on the findings required by the code. The developer or
contractor shall do the following:
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 building permit:
a. Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans
shall include: streets, grading, utility, drainage, erosion control, tree, sidewalk and
driveway plans. The plans shall meet the following conditions and shall also meet all
the conditions and changes noted in Erin Laberee's memo dated September 2, 2005.
(1) The erosion control plan shall be consistent with city code.
(2) Submit to staff revised plans that show as many of the private driveways as
possible at 28 feet wide to allow parking on one side.
(3) The grading plan shall:
(a) Include building, floor elevation and contour information for each home site.
The lot lines on this plan shall follow the approved preliminary plat.
(b) Include contour information for the land that the construction will disturb.
(c) Show sedimentation basins or ponds as may be required by the watershed
board or by the city engineer.
(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 the proposed street and driveway grades as allowed by the city
engineer.
(g) Show the drainage areas, and the developer's engineer shall provide the
city engineer with the drainage calculations. The drainage design shall
accommodate the run-off from the surrounding areas.
(h) Show details about the proposed pond fencing including the materials, gate,
height and color.
3
(4) The tree plan shall:
(a) Be approved by the city engineer.
(b) Include an inventory of all existing large trees on the site and shall show
where the developer will remove, transplant, save or replace large trees.
(c) Show the size, species and location of the transplanted and replacement
trees. The new coniferous trees shall be at least eight feet tall and shall be
a mix of Black Hills spruce and Austrian pine.
(d) Be consistent with the approved grading and landscape plans and shall
show no tree removal beyond the approved grading and tree limits.
(e) Show additional tree planting for screening along the south and west
property lines of the site.
(5) The street, driveway and utility plans shall show:
(a) A water service to each lot and unit.
(b) The repair and restoration of McMenemy Street and Kingston Avenue
(including curbing, street, and boulevard) after the contractor removes the
existing driveways, connects to the public utilities and builds the new
streets, sidewalks, trails and driveways.
(c) The street and the driveways with continuous concrete curb and gutter
except where the city engineer decides that it is not needed.
(d) The developer or contractor posting the streets and driveways with "no
parking" signs to meet city standards.
(e) The public streets and private driveways labeled on all plans.
(I) The common area labeled as Outlot B on all plans.
(g) Areas for proof of parking off the streets wherever possible.
(6) The design of the ponding areas and any rainwater garden(s) shall be subject
to the approval of the city engineer. The developer shall be responsible for
getting any needed off-site utility, grading or drainage easements and for
recording all necessary easements.
b. Submit a certificate of survey for all new construction and have each building staked by
a registered land surveyor.
c. Submit a revised landscape plan to staff for approval that incorporates the following
details:
(1) All lawn areas shall be sodded. The city engineer shall determine the vegetation
within the ponding area.
4
(2) The addition of eight-foot-tall trees and/or fencing for screening along the west
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 for all landscape areas (code requirement).
(5) The plantings proposed around the front of the units shown on the landscape
plan date-stamped February 1, 2005, 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 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) The adding more evergreen trees (Black Hills spruce or Austrian pines) along the
west and south property lines of the site. These trees are to be at least eight feet
tall, and the contractor shall plant these trees in staggered rows to provide
screening for the houses to the south and west.
(11) Shows the in-ground lawn-irrigation system, including the location of the sprinkler
heads.
(12) Shall be approved by the city engineer before site grading and shall be consistent
with the approved grading and landscape plans.
(13) Shows in detail the landscape or ground treatment for the areas between the
driveways of the double dwellings.
d. Show that Ramsey County has 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 installation of at
least seven street lights and how the lighting on the buildings would add to the site
5
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 (SPRWS) 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.
1. 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, landscaping and retaining walls.
j. The builder or contractor shall submit to city staff for final approval revised buildinq
plans and elevations. These shall show or include (but are not limited to) the colors of
all materials. side loaded qaraoes on some of the units, anv shutters, window qrids,
the style and materials of balconv railinos. and provide more detail about the color and
amount of the stone accents that the builder or contractor will use on the exterior. The
city must approve these revised plans before the city will issue a buildino permit.
k. 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.
6
h. Install a six-foot-high solid screening fence or additional 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.
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.
7
REFERENCE INFORMATION
SITE DESCRIPTION
Site size: 8.2 acres
SURROUNDING LAND USES
North:
South:
West:
East:
A single dwelling and the Saint Paul Hmong Alliance Church
Houses on Kingston Avenue
Houses on McMenemy Street
Houses on Desoto Street
PLANNING
Existing Land Use and Zoning: R-2 (single and double dwellings)
Ordinance Requirements
Section 2-290(b) of the city code requires that the community design review board make the
following findings to approve plans:
1. That 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.
2. That 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.
3. That 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.
Application Date
The city received the revised building elevations for this development on May 10, 2007. State law
requires that the city take action within 60 days of receiving complete applications for a proposal.
As such, city action would normally be required on this proposal by July 8, 2007, unless the
applicant agrees to another time extension.
8
p:sec 17\The Woodlands (cdrb) - 2007.mem
Attachments:
1. Location Map
2. Address Map
3. Preliminary Plat dated August 29,2005
4. Grading and Drainage Plan dated August 29,2005
5. Unit Landscape Plan (2005)
6. Single Family Front Elevation dated May 10,2007
7. Single Family Optional Front Elevations dated May 10, 2007
8. Single Family Rear Elevation dated May 10,2007
9. Single Family Right Side Elevation dated May 10,2007
10. Single Family Left Side Elevation dated May 10,2007
11. Twinhome Front Elevation dated May 10,2007
12. Twinhome Optional Front Elevations dated May 10, 2007
13. Twinhome Rear Elevation dated May 10,2007
14. Twinhome Side Elevation A dated May 10, 2007
15. Twinhome Side Elevation B dated May 10,2007
16. The Boardwalk Elevation (2005)
17. The Boardwalk Elevation (2005)
18. Rear and Street Side Elevations (2005)
19. Twin Home Elevations (2005)
20. Twin Home Side Elevations (2005)
21. September 2,2005 memo from Erin Laberee
22. July 26, 2005 CDRB meeting minutes
23. Project Plans date-stamped May 10,2007 (separate attachments)
9
Attachment 1
( )
I
c
R s I.,
\ parr 'l
mr
, .------, (------' i
I ,
, ,
, ~,
,
I
,
!
i
,
,
" ,
'L'
!,~
,
I-ie-
,
,
,
.-1--
'1~e-
'I
---'I--------~--i
~'-~ i I 1\
, , r--
i I'
I li~
;i
"-
il I
il
I'
I'
,I
"
g
'"
Z
g
0:
W
'"
'"
ll.(
0\1
fffi,a."l
"
"
"
"
!i
;!
o
-II
II
II
I,
Ii
,
(,==11
I il
I iI_
, ,
!4f-- \
~I--! :u
.... 'ieo ~L.
en ' ,>_7-
1i--'4 I
, if-~
\ I Zf--
;I\_~____~i 1~.~
o
,t--
~-
I. )}--
-(< -j
c:::'
Park
i (1-': lffiffi-------:, i'
r,' 'I II
'i! 'I
i ~ i l_________i:
-1:111 II i
&m::
, ' I c::::o Ell
--- JI:\ ./ e
' ClI' , EIffiiI8]~
I, ['-.. I \ \
........v\llml \
,~ \L-
., ,
,.....--i7^T
( \
,
;11< :
- --
-~
"
-!I
-I:
I / I -r- ;1
0= ....
:: r / ,l~~9:!1
i~/)J\I [)
~~nli]1
f-~ Ic[_~ lf9!1 -/
0: _ ..-/'
~ l}:' /'"
EfFI~~: r-, :
h SITE ~i!~? ~ ,!~
i~ ,,\ I ~ 51;::[; ~u m
;~:! /0 ~.~~~! 85!
\ "-." ..... - ',,- -
__ --w-- ------- ~LARP-Ebl1:EURAv:E--_-_------- .- - - - - - - - - - - --. .- - - ---
0:
<:
,
,
o
~ 1
:ir-
I'
"
,
I
I
I
,
,
I
,
I
"
:j
:1
ill
I ir'
"
'1-
"'-J
\ I
_j I
r' :
,
I
\ i I
\
I
\
\ "
I
I I,
,
I
'i: ;,
i:
,
--- ~----------
SAINT PAUL
10
11
N
LOCATION MAP
87
]
r:m
tJ9
o
~7
03
---_/'
i
1180
o
111~
1110
1110
i
! 116f5
!~
.." .."
'" '"
cr. '"
I-
U)
>-
::;
w
z
w
::;
u
::;
i
1~
i1~
:
!1tl
,
: 1~
1~
:1B
l1~
Attachment 2
o
I
~~C?~ ~~ nJGJG?CJ
--!!:tar;- '~_ C') ~ ::; ":j ":j ":j ~
I RIPLEY AVE --/
~~~,__/;;---~--------;----~- W ~ -,
~/r!; b DuO DC:Jej bc!i~ ct!J\
/' ~ 0 \
I
\
I
I
I
I
CJ
o
00
{J1
1111
~
1765
1721
I:~O
, I
I
: i 1~O
il U
i I
!
1790
CJ
eJ
~
j'7sb
,\
i
: el[
\\18
!:, 1koS
D
~
St Paul Hmong Alliance Church
-..I -..I -..I (0
0) (S) Ci> l::
a "-> .j::o. -
D 0
0
F\1 I" C
L.~ -""/1717
~
/ '
, "-
v' ,
, "/ ,
0 ~99
'" J
c~
"
319
311
o
v
u
I
\ '
'0
'11
'?-
'~~\
LARPENTEUR AVE
.~------------------------_._------------------------------------------------------
115[J 1151 1150
1152
its 1149 ni4l\
1141 \11<'"
i 11.=!~ ~'" "''''' '" SITE
~
11 "'" '" " "'" iff '"
o'tJ'" "'''' '" '" '"
'" ,.,
c:J
315
cO
"' ~
% ,.>
a",
a
Dn
"Wl1
D
o
" "
/\ cP uiJ c;J 0
/. '> "'-:\ '" '" ! {? ^
/ /1;>0 /-- KINGSTONAVE--', ''h~
~! <"." ------------ ' .,,'C,
'-../ 'V' ,/ ...-- -', " III. \
. <;I i
-1;113 ;' i 11'{4\0 ~ c!J, \ \1W r
'O~; ~ 6 Cl 11~:t.-\ ,!
&i i'n w rl : tJ
1 'i 11061, \ ~5 i,..! 11 [
;~: - , w
!~ ~ ~
Q5 i ~ 11fo\~~ []pe5 ~. 16~ D
~vl ! gi \~.. ~:
.-'"- ,wi ~ ;<:! LJ
" "'-... _/"V'\ r!J
(pEBe i i 16S1),~'i? c 16 5 ' i 16f.:"j
" iJ
-i'
o
[J
"
o
a
------------------~
SAINT PAUL
ADDRESS MAP
11
11
N
'-
'.... \'
I
I
I
I -i~"
I
I
1-
1-_-
I It;;
I .~.~
I>;:
I-I~ I
I '1...I.!
1- ,I
I-
I ~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Nell-S9't'.n
34\.99
"
r\ ~
. ---~
r- i
-:-'\ - ",j
, 1;:,', .,....~,
,
i ,_
11,'-"
1I1l1l-S:r,1S"E
;'35:00
<,
.~g
~g..
= g
"'1 ~c. ~ (PUBUe) ~~l>>
....~,..,
t ."""' Sge l! -AVENUE.,.:':::'
=1a.Cll' <l"'.....2~~1~
{~a~~~:.._~_._-
I
I
.~ II
,.,'--~
-. \-, -- -- .......;;;
"'''''7~1.1l~
,',_ of5'.25"1\' 52.4J
. ~ ~-_.. R..22s.oo
~. "~!3-'3!'oo.
"
"
"
"
"
y
/
I
/
- ,'-~_, l-
-, 'l
I
----.-j
I
k
---~
I
I
I
~
I
I
I
I
Attachment 3
j:
'''~
" \ ::.."';r~~"r";"".:.~~,..":.~r.'::'.."~~,:::'!..r~~i'E:~::::::"'=""_":t':;=':1'~';;.~,=,::
l ~~~~~~"~~:~~,~:~:~:~:~:t::~\'~,r.-~,.~,;:.~~.~.
.....,. ......,"-,_........,........,~.::r-~-- n...... ....--,.__.__.
"" _.ut ..,,,--, ....,......,....._"':.:-'..:',r.,::::.~.::;~~~-:..::.:::.......-.....___.........__
-_OU>_,........,...."...,....._..L::,::;.:,'i:.::::.."1t~i"::..:::~.~__.,..._,_.,...__
... -- "~I "'\'~.'" 0.."1........'" ';;.:-'~~ "':,'::':"_''ft';=':'~::;' ~~~.'::::..:'':'"'''''' --:I\.-~""', -;--
:",\_'---'~'" --
',:'- .. _.--
___ - t',.,";'~~.,t::::.:I.i:<G- .____;:~':..~. _. --
Liit--::-:.:--~:-.
.~
~/
=
-
,.,
>>"
;~..-'
e~
~
.,
-""
..
"
\
29
..-
~t:".xNi'<"""""
. ,
.
w
c"
.~
l:i~
oc
g
20
19
,
:16.,15
j
,
1~; ?~ ~
"
1ft i=
.,
LOTA.REAS
I
/ i. I,.
, ,;;"". '(f! \...
~~_.
",.,-_;;:,;:.~~ ~:S-'-'.
"," .,~. \e~ 'j :-~-~ ----.., f' 1
. "1'52.99' ,~- -!l~"~'
558'03'35"1\'''' ,..,,~, \1....1/,\"
'\ : :',:""'::, ..,~,.,'
-'-'--~" -. i~t. ~
\ '''''_JCi,:.,
F-E-:J -
-, fi~~
\ ,~t. .O~Tllllt ) -.J ~
.....~~i,=
1'\ !!
__\_ _ __J
,
,
"""""'.
1!:>C:: __
IA Xv u~
lVA
.c.\2.74
_.sB5:5:5~'W-
.l~ --,,-',___
-.!!~-~._--
.+..:~;::::-.- ..}
:-1. ' I
:;:,1 .......'. I
'I": ,..
CI
.F' . I
l"J.,'-':l.t""""'T:lll< I
r-f"'''''ll.~~ '
LL.~I
-..
/
/
/
/
/
/
'<
"
'."
.." ~
.. . ~
.
f
t'i'\
Y
,
"
"
"
,
"
"
.,
........
......
"~
-,
'"
'.
----
-.....
KINGSTON AVENUE
.;;
--I-
I
----
\
..
----
\
----
/
/
t:;
,
'-
"
"
"
1>101,
'"
zoo...
=.'l.'~I=";l
~gl~~~
~l"!:' c."""
U&>!:' o.'~..e
,::",,!:re.,n.o.::
Llltt :>
l'~,n J....~!:' 1"-"" A:)
l:.J.<J!:r
.':"U
'Ii'- Z'i-C)~
PRELIMINARY PLAT
11
N
12
Attachment 4
".
EROSiON CONTROL NOTES
....~_~""""O:::."""'-l,I:>"""""'~...
........,1PVU........,IIl;.........>>C<><1:......."""-='~"'_!:Il:
"''<l_~
~~<=>r.lI:>.!...y.l<D...~twY="'"lov.=t:l
.........:m-.......~l>Q.;~IOlJl>l",W""J.
""""""'l>WJ.lIt~.."'......~....,.",~>.:~
...,"""'IIl;tl>C\C>..""""""'..",........._or=
. n-=t:lI=u::fD<___.......rt..n.uc..,T>e:;..".........
~O;~_....."."...~
.....~"""'!litt"tlI.""'i:>O::=_<:oUfI:ll_lro:Y..
"""1T.........""'o1;I;lI:ll;><~,.....,><nAU.C.
"""""-""'........=_..............lZn\J<IIt:>........""''''..=-
l:tl:I><;l>I.o.t.""""-........J:>OT..c:......,.,.,...."tr",...,o:o:,.
:Il;1l>N::OII'<><O............._............ll:lI:>:l'IlIlt.."""I...""'><:I
.>IJJ..~...........#&7l......."'...a............Mt>.l><""'"
""""....."'...=......,.",_>a=.l'M~""'..............Il:......ue..
~_...=II'C.""=n......"..",ot-.JW"...tl
""""'."'''''''t.....".........Il:~_.='''''''''-'"'tIl'''
-~~
......=-.-.......-..._n.......1:lt;<=.
1't:>UOI'f""""1I<~""".II.l.<QlO/1't:lI.-."'=..'='-'T
...,""ltll._..O=...."'"'_"""~I.=
\
\~
i
,
"
~
o
:)
f'!
~
.1
.'l
0-
[
""'-'tm.tt::: "'....,l>; lHt:=:............:'-'="''''''''''''.........=,,:;.
..pe;-=l.t...~'..",..""'-tn::.M;""-""""r:""'l:>1:t
""""......."""I:u--r...~"""""'-..".,......."""""''''''
_""10;"""'""""'..."."=..........."""".,,"""'..""',,
~;...~~~~~~,;;"~~
""'''''''''''l'O'l.>><<.
_""",""'""""""'."lI:OI<l"""-n...-z:>_mn...........",.
r.:p::.o,.."""""'\.CCo\"""".............w=
c:>mI..........=",....."'Tf:'l=n:m:..
"'T><:=~IIQ>O''''''OV..'''...
o ~~
. ,~....::::;...~-\.~ _ _,:,., ';.::--. ---.:7=_
, " :-';:;;;::.,- " .. -~ J ': ~'-I': ,- .." -, /,
-....,,-""".:;,.....J '""".::." 11'.j,. 'I ',,:.,., /
'\ '0\ -" .~ -~.:;i: (I ..::;. I /
'; "II ! "af;~IU'i:'11"l IC)' /
"' I., r! ,,, 9,1]L-.1J /
~<D<\U.I<::""""""1M:l<C>1I.Wc(ll.r>"='ll'\flllr<""'''' ...J. i 'I' fl 11/ I
""'""'"""""="""""""''1;.'0.<:>;<6''- ~' /
"""".."1:lI\........"""'n::otf'<..t""'IQ_~"""""""'~'l'::""""" 1.1,- 1'1 \'
......IlQ..".",r=-.."")'l'::""...,...,.,,""""""".I="'ll:C<:- _ -1... --~ J t1t--...:::..--.__
:o""'~~~""~'=~J.:ii!,-;.~.:.... I ..........;; I
..-O::O"':ll.r>'._........""".......IrT><:><::..............h"""::."'.."r:. ~.__ N
=~~~~~~~~~~'" -O-OKIW;S1b11 AVEllui-._.--.... '< -r
Do<tn.-=......IJ;l><A;:(:l'l'::""'"BK>4a""'~1'><::><>C:. ''i\
~~~~-,~~_.~~. ~""7"..;. :-I~-O~!'=- .~. '::-''' -+H-
,......""..tom:1.~~...""""'"O'tWIt....,"'=""':t~..,,'= ~ "- +
~~*~~~=~ "~" 0" '\ .
" I "\' "'.1'1' , .~
,....,........"KCC:"'t!:UlWll<l:l""...>t...""'..........,. ,,,- \:;...; -!!!!
~~==~~~""'=t"I~...""",,== ',,-
PONDS y
I - !..:---I~,~"'..,~-5:?~,J
IW'-' .u , ... , -, I
"""_,.". I .... I.m
....,._. ..... . ..,. . .."
LEGEND
~rt>::.- -==-
~-
~
-- --------
-.-
--
...,.....-
--
~~.""
:=;:::=: ::=;0;::::::::
.-..",,~
-.;:
-:~:-
.:..-
"".,.",,--,.;.....",.,
g-zc,--6:=:
13
\r
N
GRADiNG AND DRAiNAGE PLAN
Attachment 5
>~(I'llP.:lt.wA.<t.
l':>~~
.""",~
"""-"'
"S~b.WI~
tS!n
,.,....c~/1kn.......
fSln6otU:sr~
3~m....,.
~\D~
O:~,o..l,.~1
..5 A_'S1'~...
,}~f'.....(
....'-.-F
......",:,A:::t;;s.,.,_
~
Ja...-.s.oi:F.iw
.B~.,
--
+.~r.t._
.....
"1.I:l:ka...:c:.~
......C)~
/
DRlIJlSJ.VAl
-""''''''''
"""'''''''-
,J~t>fIlle',4
,."W'~
UNIT LANDSCAPE PLAN
'2cA:? 5'
\I
N
14
Attachment 6
) '" I'.~
FfL:::.(i.'t'U:
1"'"
t' I , II' I I I I , ,
1\ I I I I ! I I
11111111111111111111111111 I
1111111111111111111111111111111111111111
1111111111 IIIIIIIIIIIIII!IIIII IIII!IIIII
fROi~HIJVl\jl0i~
I/o\..) ~Ci.. H" 5:Rid/-I"-f'-C"
SINGLE FAMILY - FRONT ELEVATION
15
5-/0-07
!H.>n;~
fdli'lJV,SO"r
mmx.v,
\f
N
Attachment 7
I
fROI~nLt:V/\1l01~ 'B'
~,-tf-I!BII..I'wO"
r
----I
I
fROl~1 t:Lt:VA1l01~ 'C'
s::\..e 1/ ~Il .. J'~O"
SINGLE FAMILY - OPTIONAL FRONT ELEVATIONS
16
5-/0-07
1I
N
A-.9i:.:..r SilUE5
~U veNfS i'5 Fie'O.
VNY!- 5t7N)
18DJB
RfAR ~~~VA1l0N
s.:~Lf:I/Bl ..1'-.]01
B
Attachment 8
SINGLE FAMilY - REAR ELEVATION
17
5-[0-07 .
\r
N
Vhli. 5Wt\\Ci
B
RICHI ~~~ V A 1l01~
?:fi.f:I/-III..I'-J"
Attachment 9
r.Prtl{.' :HtUe,
SINGLE FAMilY - RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION
18
y/o-o7
11
N
Attachment 10
A,.'f'rPi.'n\uu';
'IIN'it5!iN;l
2"'J"G;
B
o
o
~fff ~~EV A1l0N
50'{.~: / ell ~ I -I.)"
19
5-(0-07
1)
N
SINGLE FAMiLY = LEFT SIDE ELEVATION
Attachment 11
:~\'<l
"".'"
..-.:lr~:J
=,1,~~-n
r'IlS~tm'
/ .it"!l:I,
,""'.........,
~~.''';,'i
~~~~~ .1[,\' .
fRCNre~~VAi10N 'N
;';''Il.:v.'.,''7
fWNreL~VAlKiN 'B'
;:cl,!,v....'-O-
Cd-rersUire Cfu5~e5bi1
~~~
LJ"'". ....":""
, ~J'>'" __
,-/!;n:.w
INTEGRA HOl1ES
=="""""...e:=.........,
>:>=""",.,..=",:>=1
~~~~.';:~-;.l~:; !
,.."=,,,,=:>"'=,.,~ I
=.tU-:l"~'''''
,~!""~.<>.
()I..';,-".':;..:J'
_"'Oioo"
[.O(.:.~"j,,, ,,",O"~'"'
IWINH{)ME D81XE
PLAN #070420
PG lOFL
20
~-fo.o7
\r
N
TWiNHOME - FRONT ELEVATiON
Attachment 12
OPll01~AI.. FROI~f II
5Oil:115" ~ !'./)"
OPll01~AI.. FROI~f III
5Oi!:1/f." ~ pO'
21
S--(O -0 7
11
N
TWINHOME = OPTIONAL FRONT ELEVATIONS
fl..,9-{;(.f5-t'\UlS
ROC!" lleIJ5f5IXO'v,
ier.A.-f5itmS
FiliA' "I~rs AS I1Q'U.
fROI~1 fLfVA1101~ 'B'
fROI~nLfVA1l01~ 'A'
5:-:ru::l:B" ..I'-J'
~e:l/e"..I"O'1
Attachment 13
VNl1.301'-t
~l il
TWINHOME - REAR ELEVATiON
22
5-/0 -07
11
N
D'rolli.
rr..a./pDi:::H
EBB B
1!I!lil!liiilll IlIillll II!
I
v,iiI',',\Ieu..
}5EQ'P.
VUl~5t'li<
51v.; ~l~Vf,1l0i~ 'A'
5-':;;.;:l:'!; .I'~,)"
Attachment 14
p
;;;;:::"
]
TWINHOME - SIDE ElIEV A TION
23
S-/O~7
\r
N
A5"lf~.StW5
,..,./
Gt!
\'IJlt~,:::;
I"
'1iW.:3:i,'~
EEl
8.~
1m
Attachment 15
C!"ll;it~
lI.:o:!Fcry.
Immmllllllll~illl
51DE ~L~VA1l0N 'B'
TWiNHOME - SiDE ELEVATION
:OU::I/-\"~l'-C" \'O,V.\'.O"
f5F-Q';i.
2'1
5-10-07
\r
N
Attachment 16
i'::::t
/ n,' ....'.'''-.,
C ./;....~,,!.\..<' ""
,,>l,.:...~':>___,
e~' /
. €--:'~c " " ,"'f'S~)
~~~ I~ '"--~:-'-'-'~I~:i''' ". '~"'" "-'i~,:~~j:'1b.Ji~ "I~ lD1~W~. I!
I I~., -'. \Iiil' ,I' 'lit - ~ .~i :."'=- '. ! .JlJ~:... ~.
, r ' -tTI~ ~ "! :- '" ~... -"= n' " -~! . -" t
~ - -=- - _dlk:ill. ~~_:.:: _ ":"'::~~~-:k-:::)?? -1 __. ,-- __ ~-- I
_ I;;::L............. _",,""" >..._ - .~ --.1--- -::_-~ .l! itc..p-c; :i =-
~jl' .'. ::cjl'.1 'n.:, ~',:.- " .., I ~=:~.I ' ,', :. ~ :;::g...:. "
, . I' I, -.', --"3IIJ '" -~.:;,.~:_..
. ::";ii: L..JI"-~::" "'~~l ' ~ ~/-"' ",.-. ,,," ~~"C
I ,
-1-, I _oI.~ - I' ,~...f" v
,\1><::: ;:::oO,;;>~""L_
'I.
"
'7
.-. ,...
t; ".L'} m JUi j ~ "
__ .____.,.. ,_."-', , 0 _'
: -t- T-~'f' ._'~:~~'!~ -2) .~
,f'1iO"~ I
',' 'I' '::-' . ,.,.
. -
).',DDi<'_ ::_i.
25
ZVOb
11
N
THE BOARDWALK (SiNGLE UNIT)
SIDE ELEVATION
Attachment 17
,f' / ~,
I~
.
/
~/
~l/ 5/.z.
/'
I
10
r~' f':.P,.6:l.lolt";';.o:.,.r(
_.
--~
-
."-
[7
~:k
. ~
~
I I I g ~!81
I I
~--r-iLd~r,c=r=J r-
--._~
D LLJ
1-
~VIN:{~ $l'OI;Jy ~.--'"
g.IGH"f -:::?1C":Z; 6~Vh.:,:oJ
'Ie" = "-0"
26 7COS
1!
N
THE BOARDWALK (SINGLE UNIT) SiDE ELEVATION
Attachment 18
/"-...
// "-
,,/ ""
71 rU"''''~l1~
V~~ _
~. ~- ~- :~........~-
....-! -. ./<<~.---- ---
1,,1 . -~.
rl h I'
'I I I I ii,
."''''''J U B ~I~ ~ ~...I I II
Dill ' ^.~ dj]
/./~
I III'! I II :,L-1U: .'
. L.j : ! i__LLL..1
, , . I ' , I
""''''''H-I'~--l ;.i,. ~1
~e.t., ..! !.:,,:,.:5l
I
(!!;;r;.;. c,ww.G ORe>
\~
)
$\RiG.;T/FR::>/-J! 0k'I.!:ilCd
lie ,\ ~ \ '-0"
F-:;::..~.:~_ JG.L""v/.\' 10..1
Yeo" ., 1'_(/' ..
27
--zoo~
1r
N
REAR AND STREET SIDE ELEVATIONS
Attachment 19
~'Z.
~, ....
ill 83 ,0'
__ ___. I
.J_C 1'~lJj-- t-4. r I ..-1
"i.
.1 -,I'
. .\' ..
~;. '. - .
. '
".-'. ,,'. .
.<~' 1-
'':::: " ;;~>-.
:;..
. I .
:';;;;~/~:~;,t';;EiFl' ~------
~2.-
IJIoJ.J.I. "-I
~~0""..w--.w~ .
QFlTI'7 z:
. ~M,~..L a!Av",..,.,oJ- ,
28
?0::?.5
'fro
N
TWiN HOME ELEVATIONS
Attachment 20
; I
, I
1E8
II !
OJ
ill
_....~~~ - ='_..w....,-c,l.
_.___..Il"/..C=t...L._..e::<..Y:::t...Y~;.J:oh;L..
,--
.r-----
Ii .0
m".!
. ,
I,
!
i
i
~..
I"
., .
I!
~ ~---'----'
.f:lj, ~"""_..".._,.
29
~~
11'
N
TWiN HOME SIDE ElEV A liONS
Attachment 21
Enl!ineerinl! Plan Review
PROJECT: The Woodlands of Maplewood
PROJECT NO: 05-04
REVIEWED BY: Erin Laberee, Maplewood Engineering Department
DATE: September 2,2005
Integra Homes is proposing to develop the properties at 1740, 1750 and 1766 McMenemy Street
into 28 townhomes. They recently submitted revised plans to the city for the proposed development
- these comments are about those plans. As now proposed, the primary access for the development
would be from McMenemy Street. The plans also show an emergency vehicle access with a
pedestrian trail off of Kingston Avenue.
The existing site includes two 10w areas with no outlets that currently store and infiltrate storm
water runoff from most of the site. As proposed, the developer would enhance the 10w areas to
create two ponds to treat runoff from the new development. These new ponds would function as no
outlet ponds and store the 100 year rain event. An emergency overflow pipe from the western pond
would direct additional runoff into the existing stonn sewer on McMenemy Street.
The developer and the project engineer shall address the following issues.
Streets and Drivewavs
1. The developer is proposing Sophia Avenue as a public street. Typically public streets and
public utilities are constructed as a public improvement project, administered and
constructed by the city. If the developer wishes to administer the construction of the public
street and utilities in conjunction with the private construction, then Maplewood' s
Engineering Standards must be strictly followed. These standards include a construction
inspection schedule that outlines erosion control, grading, utility and street construction, and
testing requirements. The developer and/or engineer shall submit a letter outlining how
Maplewood's standards will be followed.
The developer shall ensure that all construction activities conform to Maplewood's
standards by entering into a Development Agreement with the city. City staffwill keep a
close watch on the site during all construction activities - especially those relating to the
construction of the public street and utilities.
2. The proposed street section does not meet the city's standards. The project engineer shall
revise the public street section detail to include 1.5 inches of wear course, 2 inches of base
course, 8 inches of aggregate base and 24 inches of select granular borrow.
3. All vertical curve information shall be shown on the plans. The vertical curve at station
11 +00 on sheet 6 is too short and should be increased to achieve a K value closer to 20.
4. It is recommended that the developer construct a six-foot-wide concrete sidewalk along the
east side of McMenemy Street to provide a 100p trail system around the development.
5. The proposed trail at the northeast corner of the site has a 10% grade. The trail must meet
the following grade requirements.
3U
Running slope shall be 1:12 maximum for 200 feet maximum. Resting Intervals complying
shall be provided at distances no greater than 200 feet apart.
Running slope shall be 1:10 maximum for 30 feet maximum. Resting intervals complying
shall be provided at distances no greater than 30 feet apart.
Running slope shall be 1:8 maximum for 10 feet maximum. Resting Intervals complying
shall be provided at distances no greater than 10 feet apart.
Resting Intervals. Resting intervals shall be 60 inches minimum in length, shall have a
width at least as wide as the widest portion of the trail segment leading to the resting
interval, and have a slope not exceeding 1:20 in any direction.
Grading & Erosion Control
I. The city requires a building permit for retaining walls greater than four feet high. A plan and
a specific soil stabilization detail for the wall design will be required as part of the building
permit. All retaining walls greater than four feet high require a fence along the top for
safety.
2. The city, Ramsey/Washington Metro Watershed District, and the MPCA (new NPDES
Construction Permit) all require grading permits.
3. The applicant shall note on the plans the exact seed mixtures the contractor is to use in the
different areas. The contractor shall use native seeding around the pond areas. The
developer shall enter into a maintenance agreement for the establishment of the native
seeding.
Drainage
1. The project plans do not appear to show an emergency overflow swale for the eastern pond.
The engineer shall model the pond for a plugged outlet situation to ensure that none of the
adjacent homes are in danger of flooding.
2. All inlet and outlet pipes shall be shown to the NWL along with rip rap shown at the FES.
3. The inlet and outlet to the western pond shall be combined into a single storm sewer line.
CB 30 and 31 should be eliminated.
4. The invert at FES 33 on sheet 6 does not match indicated in the drainage calculations. The
project engineer shall revise the project plans to correspond with the drainage calculations.
5. The infiltration area shall include 8" of bedding material or topsoil on top of the geotextile
fabric to allow for seeding above the infiltration area.
6. The project engineer shall note the EOF elevation of the church pond north of the site on the
project plans.
31
Utiliti es
1. The project engineer shall note the material for the sanitary sewer main SDR 35 and the
services as Schedule 40.
2. The applicant shall obtain St. Paul Regional Water Services (SPRWS) approval.
Misc.
1. The contractor shall use a native seed mixture around the proposed basins. The project
engineer shall call this out on the project plans.
2. Outlot A shall be dedicated to the city and maintained by the homeowner's association. It is
recommended that the developer screen the south side of Sophia Avenue with screening
fencing and/or landscaping. The homeowner's association shall maintain alllandscaping
within the public right of way, within the ponding or drainage basins and in the common
areas.
3. The applicant shall enter into a maintenance agreement with the city for the maintenance of
the ponds, sump structures and any landscaping proposed within the city's right of way. The
city will require a homeowner's association to be the responsible party for all landscaping
maintenance, including right-of-ways, the common areas and the ponding areas.
4. The developer shall enter into a developer's agreement with the city for the construction of
the public street and for the utilities.
32
,
Attachment 22
MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA
TUESDAY, JULY 26, 2005
I. CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Longrie called the meeting to order at 6:03 p.m.
II. ROLL CALL
Board member John Hinzman
Board member Matt Ledvina
Chairperson Diana Longrie
Vice chairperson Linda Olson.
Board member Ananth Shankar
Present
Present until 9:07 p.m.
Present
Present
Present
Staff Present:
Shann Finwall, Planner
Lisa Kroll, Recording Secretary
III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Ms. Finwall requested the addition of the Annual City Tour under staff presentations.
Board member Shankar moved to approve the agenda as amended.
Board member Hinzman seconded.
Ayes - Hinzman, Ledvina, Longrie,
Olson, Shankar
The motion passed.
IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Approval of the CDRB minutes for June 28, 2005.
Board member Hinzman moved approval of the minutes of June 28, 2005.
Board member Shankar seconded.
Ayes ---Hinzman, Ledvina, Longrie,
Olson, Shankar
The motion passed.
V. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
8.
Maplewood Toyot;! Vehicle Parking a d Sales Facility - Northwest corner of
Beam Avenue and ffighw. y 61, acro s the street from the existing sales lot.
Ms. Finwall said on June 28, 2005, th munity design review board reviewed plans by
Steve McDaniels, of Maplewood Toyota, f proposed one-level parking ramp. This would
be one parking deck over the existing par ing 10 t the northwest corner of Beam Avenue and
Highway 61.
Community Design Review
Minutes 7-26-2005
ed. Ayes - Hinzman, Ledvina, Longrie, Olson
~Shaok"
The motion passed.
VI. DESIGN REVIEW
a. Woodlands of Maplewood - McMenemy Street, north of Kingston Avenue
Ms. Finwall reported Mr. Chris English, representing Integra Homes, is asking the city to
approve plans for a 28 unit townhouse development. He has prepared a site plan that shows
28 townhouses (in 14 detached townhomes and seven twin homes) in a development called
The Woodlands. It would be on an 8.2-acre site on the east side of McMenemy Street, north
of Kingston Avenue and south of the Hmong Church. The applicant's designer has told staff
that each building would have horizontal-lap vinyl siding, aluminum soffits and fascia and brick
veneer on the fronts. In addition, each unit would have a two-car garage. The planning
commission approved requests 1-5 of the staff report at their July 18, 2005, meeting.
Ms. Finwall said it should be noted that the city allows no parking on 24-foot-wide streets,
parking on one side of 28-foot-wide streets and along both sides of streets that are 32 feet
wide. In this case, the developer is proposing to construct the new public street (Kingston
Court) and the private driveways 24 feet wide and then the city would not allow parking on the
street on driveways. The project has not shown any areas for proof-of-parking spaces within
the development. This is something that the final project plans should show. Locations for
such parking could be north of Kingston Court near Unit 20, north of Kingston Lane near Units
7 and 8 and along Edgemont Lane near Units 10 and 11. These are locations that the city
could require the developer or the homeowners' association to add more parking if it becomes
necessary.
Board member Shankar asked if staff is recommending a cul-de-sac next to unit 4, and asked
how people would get to units 1, 2, and 3?
Staff said that question would be better addressed by the applicant.
Board member Olson said the police department stated the street should be renamed to
eliminate confusion with the street names and she asked what the name of the street would
be?
Ms. Finwall recommended the applicant address that question.
Chairperson Longrie asked the applicant to address the board.
Mr. Brian Bourassa, MFRA Engineering, Plymouth, addressed the board. He displayed the
original layout from the previous proposal and then displayed the new design to represent the
changes in the design layout. This represents the additional property Integra Homes acquired
to add to the development layout. The name of the new street will be Sophia Avenue per the
Police Department's request. With the redesign of the plan they were able to design some
hammerhead turn arounds and a large cul-de-sac on the plan.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 7-26-2005
5
Mr. Bourassa said regarding staffs suggestion for additional visitor parking Integra Homes will
be adding some additional visitor parking stalls on the plan in the areas staff suggested.
Board member Ledvina said he is concerned with the large cul-de-sac on the plan. It is shown
on the plan to be 120 feet curb to curb in terms of the diameter. In his neighborhood they have
a huge cul-de-sac with a tremendous amount of asphalt. He personally measured his cul-de-
sac and it measured 96 feet curb to curb. He estimates the proposed cul-de-sac to be 12,000
square feet of asphalt on the plan and he believed a much smaller intersection could be built
there. He doesn't understand the need for a cul-de-sac of that size. If it can be reduced it
should be reduced and it would be a benefrt to the project.
Mr. Bourassa agreed with that comment. Staff recommended a cul-de-sac of this size and
that's why it's shown that way on the plan. In the past Integra Homes has used planters in the
center of the cul-de-sac or island area. He's not sure if this is common practice in Maplewood
or if it's allowed but that's a possibility.
Board member Hinzman said the Kingston Court right of way comes close to the homes to the
south. He asked if there was additional land acquired for this right of way or was that the way
the property line is presently?
Mr. Bourassa said additional land was acquired in order to meet some of the requirements
from staff as well as to meet the objectives of Integra Homes.
Board member Hinzman knows this is the second time the plans have been redesigned for this
proposal and he appreciates the work and effort that has gone into preparing this proposal. He
is looking at the double frontage with the existing lots to the south. He wondered if Integra
Homes had thought about taking the southern street and flipping the street design to the north
so there would be a street adjacent to the church area which would cause less of an impact.
The existing homes to the south would then back up to the new townhomes rather than
backing up to asphalt.
Mr. Bourassa said after meeting with the residents and staff this plan was the preferred plan.
They realize it creates double frontage lots but that was the preference of the neighbors to the
south. They spent a lot of time out in the field thinking of the design but because of the pond
location there was a problem trying to snake the road in and still develop a logical lot design for
the proposal. This is the plan the neighbors to the south are supporting.
Board member Hinzman asked how it is determined which trees are removed from the
property?
Mr. Bourassa said the bulk of the site is being graded. They did a tree inventory on the entire
site. They are working with a certified arborist and will identify prior to construction the trees
that are healthy and that have the capacity to stand a move. They will transplant all the trees
that can be transplanted, which is about 150-200 trees on this site. They will be planting
landscaping to buffer the south property line behind the Monn's Villa neighborhood as well as
on the west side of the property buffering McMenemy Street. The landscaping plan will be
difficult. Staff has stated they would prefer to have some strong language in the developer's
agreement to ensure the landscaping and trees are taken care.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 7-26-2005
6
Mr. Bourassa said this would ensure any concerns the neighbors have during construction and
if the landscaping or trees should die it would be Integra Homes' responsibility to replace it.
Board member Ledvina said the east boundary shows a retaining wall. He asked if that
retaining wall was to preserve the trees and what the height of the retaining wall is going to
be?
Mr. Bourassa said the neighbor with the large oak tree is real close to the property line and
Integra Homes is going to be working with the homeowner along with the arborist to ensure the
tree is trimmed and cared for before and during the construction to preserve the trees.
Mr. Michael Villari, Metro Land Surveying & Engineering, Lino Lakes, addressed the board.
They have not submitted plans for the retaining wall along the east property line yet but would
submit that to the city staff and engineering department. It appears that retaining wall would
be about half a foot tall ranging up to about four feet in height along the east side. There
would be some additional significant retaining walls along the ponds that are even taller.
Board member Ledvina asked if the goal was to not have any significant grading on the east
side?
Mr. Villari said that is correct.
Board member Shankar asked what the width of the roads would be?
Mr. Bourassa said the width of the public street is 26 feet wide curb to curb but the width of the
road at the entrance is larger because of the median in the middle. The private street from
curb to curb is also 26 feet wide. For clarification the cul-de-sac is at a 60 foot radius.
Board member Olson asked if they were proposing any sidewalks in this development?
Mr. Bourassa said they will have a paved private trail connection in the development. At the
planning commission meeting the sidewalk issue came up and at some time in the future Mr.
Ahl said there may be a trail corridor that would connect along the east side of McMenemy
Street. But there are no sidewalks in this development.
Board member Olson said if individuals in this development wanted to walk to the bus they
would have to walk on these narrow roads because there are no sidewalks.
Mr. Bourassa said there is a trail connection from Kingston Avenue to this area as well. He is
not sure if there is a bus route on McMenemy Street but he believes there is.
Chairperson Longrie said regarding the large cul-de-sac in the center she asked if there is a
potential for a planter to be put in the center to decrease the amount of impervious surface?
Ms. Finwall said yes. The 60 foot radius is indicated in the city's subdivision ordinance and the
city engineering department supports a 50 foot radius and as small as a 45 foot radius. The
large cul-de-sac is surprising to staff and she isn't sure why the city engineers recommended
the 60 foot radius. Maybe it could either be reduced in size or a planter could be used to break
up the amount of asphalt.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 7-26-2005
7
Board member Olson said she is concerned about fire trucks or school buses not being able to
maneuver around in the area and if there were a planter in the middle of the cul-de-sac she is
concerned the planter would cause a problem for those vehicles trying to turn around.
Ms. Finwall said she wasn't sure and said that is something the city engineer w.ould have to
clarify. Staff could follow up on that for the board.
Board member Shankar said if it needs to be a 60 foot radius they could use some colored
concrete or brick in the center to break up the expanse of the asphalt cul-de-sac.
Board member Ledvina said if the city could get by with a smaller radius cul-de-sac he would
recommend changing the plan to eliminate as much asphalt as possible.
Board member Shankar asked if the roads are 26 feet wide why wouldn't the applicant make
the roads 2 feet wider and allow for on-street parking on one side of the street and eliminate
the visitor parking?
Mr. Bourassa said that's a good idea but they would like the opportunity to investigate that
possibility and how that would affect the area. They would also have to make sure they could
meet the setbacks and check on the plantings in the area.
Board member Hinzman said he thinks that's a better idea than having small visitor parking
spots put in small areas.
Mr. Bourassa said they would take a look at that and report back to city staff on their findings.
Chairperson Longrie said you still need to make sure there is room for people to walk around
whether there are kids living here or not. We are moving towards a more livable walkable
community.
Board member Hinzman said with the size of the development they have done a good job with
the design and the connections within the site.
Board member Shankar said the colored elevations look like stucco but isn't the intent to use
horizontal siding?
Mr. Bourassa deferred that question to Ron Lillestrand.
Mr. Ron Lillestrand, representing Integra Homes, Dayton, addressed the board. He said his
daughter usually handles this information but is not present this evening. These buildings will
have vinyl siding along with stone and brick on the building exterior.
Chairperson Longrie said she remembers the last time the board reviewed this proposal the
board had a lengthy discussion regarding the building exteriors and making changes to the
exterior.
Mr. Lillestrand had three different building product samples that they would propose using on
the building exterior which includes vinyl siding, cedar shakes, asphalt shingles, and window
shutters.
Community Design Review Boar,d
Minutes 7-26-2005
8
Mr. Lillestrand said at the previous CDRB meeting his daughter had discussed some building
exterior changes and additional colors to use but she was unable to be here tonight. Some of
the employees are on vacation and his draftsman was called away unexpectedly so he is not
as organized as he would like to be. He said they ended up acquiring some additional
property and may be designing more twin homes than they originally planned. They will be
redesigning some of the buildings so for these reasons he would like to bring the revised
building elevations and building colors back to the board for review with some of his staff.
Chairperson Longrie asked if she understood Integra Homes would like to come back to fully
present the revised building design and building colors. If that is the case she said she had
some additional questions to ask about the design so she would hold those questions until
they come back with the revisions.
Mr. Lillestrand said that's what they would prefer to do.
Chairperson Longrie said she would support tabling the building elevations until Integra Homes
wants to come back to the board with the revisions.
Board member Shankar asked if the CDRB would be reviewing just the site plan, landscape,
grading and drainage plans then?
Chairperson Longrie said that's what it sounds like. If the applicant is willing to alter the width
of the private and public drive aisle to minimize the cul-de-sac width as well.
Board member Ledvina said he is wondering about the cul-de-sac on the southeast corner and
why there isn't a curve in the road instead? T'here is no conflict in terms of traffic in that area.
When a new development is proposed you have to look at the development as a whole and he
believes some of the impervious surfaces could be made smaller.
Board member Hinzman agreed.
Board member Ledvina said he wasn't present for the previous meeting for this proposal but
he thinks this is a nice plan. He especially likes the side loaded garages. He is concerned
about the positioning of units 21 and 22. Maybe they could be staggered a bit to add more
character.
Board member Hinzman said this is a difficult piece of property to develop with the topography.
From a design standpoint he would prefer to see the private street moved to the north but he
understands the neighbors prefer this plan. He thinks this will be a nice subdivision.
Board member Shankar said even if the cul-de-sac is reduced to a 45 foot radius perhaps they
could consider using a 10 foot circle radius with a alternate material other than asphalt with
either colored concrete or brick.
Board member Olson said she remembered seeing this proposal before and she thinks this
plan is much improved. She appreciates the developer's efforts to work with the neighbors.
. She is concerned about pedestrian traffic and the need for sidewalks.
Board member Shankar asked if there was a minimum width for sidewalks?
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 7-26-2005
9
Ms. Finwall said the minimum sidewalk width in Maplewood is six feet wide.
Board member Olson said she thinks a four foot wide sidewalk would be sufficient.
Board member Ledvina said this is a PUD and the city doesn't have to follow the ordinances
with a planned unit development like this.
Board member Shankar suggested the road between McMenemy and the cul-de-sac be 24
feet wide with a four foot wide sidewalk for a total of 28 feet wide. The private road could be
28 feet wide which would allow parking on one side of the street.
The board agreed that was a good idea.
Board member Ledvina moved to approve the project plans (site plan, landscape plan, grading
and drainage plans and building olevations) for the Woodlands of Maplewood townhouses on
the east side of McMenemy Street, north of Kingston Avenue. The city bases this approval on
the findings required by the code. The developer or contractor shall do the following: (changes
made by the CDRB during the meeting are underlined if added and stricken if deleted)
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 building permit:
a. Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These
plans shall include: streets, grading, utility, drainage, erosion control, tree
sidewalk and driveway plans. The plans shall meet the following conditions and
shall also meet all the conditions and changes noted in Erin Laberee's memo
dated July 11, 2005.
(1) The erosion control plan shall be consistent with city code.
(2) A revised site plan showing the following:
(a) That the units alonq the north property line are scatted to break UP
the linearity.
(b) The public road at 24 feet wide UP to the cul-de-sac. alonq with a 4-
foot wide sidewalk runninq from McMenemy Street to the cul-de-sac.
(c) All private roads to be 28 feet wide with parkinG allowed on one side.
(d) Review the concept with the enqineerinq department of reducinq the
amount of impervious surface on the western cul-de-sac by the
installation of a center landscape island or the reduction in the radius.
or the possibility of the installation of different color or materials.
(e) Review the concept with the enqineerinG department of removinG the
southeast cul-de-sac.
Community Design Review Boal:O
Minutes 7-26-2005
10
(3) The grading plan shall:
(a) Include building, floor elevation and contour information for each
home site. The lot lines on this plan shall follow the approved
preliminary plat.
(b) Include contour information for the land that the construction will
disturb.
(c) Show sedimentation basins or ponds as may be required by the
watershed board or by the city engineer.
(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 the proposed street and driveway grades as allowed by the city
engineer.
(g) Show the drainage areas, and the developer's engineer shall provide
the city engineer with the drainage calculations. The drainage design
shall accommodate the run-off from the surrounding areas.
(h) Show details about the proposed pond fencing including the
materials, gate, height and color.
(4) The tree plan shall:
(a) Be approved by the city engineer.
(b) Include an inventory of all existing large trees on the site and shall
show where the developer will remove, transplant, save or replace
large trees.
(c) Show the size, species and location of the transplanted and
replacement trees. The new coniferous trees shall be at least eight
feet tall and shall be a mix of Black Hills spruce and Austrian pine.
(d) Be consistent with the approved grading and landscape plans shall
show no tree removal beyond the approved grading and tree limits.
(e) Show additional tree planting for screening along the south and west
property lines of the site.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 7-26-2005
11
(5) The street, driveway and utility plans shall show:
(a) A water service to each lot and unit.
(b) The repair and restoration of McMenemy Street and Kingston
Avenue (including curbing, street, and boulevard) after the contractor
removes the existing driveways, connects to the public utilities and
builds the new streets, trails and driveways.
(c) ,^.I1 drivoways at least 20 foot 'iI'ide. If tho devolopor '",ants to havo
parking on one cido of tho stroot or driveway, thon it must bo at loast
28 foet 'Nido.
(d) The street and the driveways shall have continuous concrete curb
and gutter except where the city engineer decides that it is not
needed.
(e) The developer or contractor shall post the streets and driveways with
"no parking" signs to meet city standards.
(f) The public streets and private driveways labeled on all plans.
(g) The common area labeled as Outlot B on all plans.
(h) ,^,raac for proof of parl~ing off of the stroots wherevor pocsible.
(6) The design of the ponding areas and the rainwater garden(s) shall be
subject to the approval of the city engineer. The developer shall be
responsible for getting any needed off-site utility, grading or drainage
easements and for recording all necessary easements.
b. Submit a certificate of survey for all new construction and have each building
staked by a registered land surveyor.
c. Submit a revised landscape plan to staff for approval which incorporates the
following details.
(1) All lawn areas shall be sodded. The city engineer shall determine the
vegetation within the ponding area.
(2) The addition of eight-foot tall trees and/or fencing for screening along the
west 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) Having in-ground irrigation for all landscape areas (code requirement).
Community Design Review BOC!fd
Minutes 7-26-2005
12
(5) The plantings proposed' around the front of the units shown on the
landscape plan date-stamped February 1, 2005, 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 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) Adding more evergreen trees (Black Hills spruce or Austrian pines)
along the west and south property lines of the site. These trees are to
be at least eight feet tall, and the contractor shall plant these trees in
staggered rows to provide screening for the houses to the south and
west.
(11) Show the in-ground lawn-irrigation system, including the location of the
sprinkler heads.
(12) Shall be approved by the city engineer before site grading and shall be
consistent with the approved grading and landscape plans.
(13) Show the landscape or ground treatment for the areas between the
driveways of the double dwellings.
d. Show that Ramsey County has recorded the final plat for this development.
e. Get the necessary approvals and permits from the watershed district.
f. Submit a site lighting plan for city approval. This plan shall show the installation
of at least 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.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 7-26-2005
13
g. Have the Saint Paul Regional Water Services (SPRWS) approve the proposed
utility plans.
h. Pracont to staff for approval color building elovations or building rnatorial samploc
of all olovations of tho townhouses. Thoco olovationc should show that tho
townhouso '.viii h:Jvo oarth tonec, groon or gray colorod vinyl ciding and a
'.vainccot of briok or etono. Theco elovations aleo should show or includo (but aro
not limited to) the colorc of all matorials, any shutterc, window gridc, the ctylo and
matorialc of balcony railings, and provido morc dotail about tho brick or ctono
acconts and tho w:Jinccotc.
i. The developer or builder will pay the city Park Acoess Charges (PAC fees) at the
time of the building permit for each housing unit.
j. 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, signs,
landscaping and retaining walls.
k. 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.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 7-26-2005
14
h. Install a six-foot-high solid fencing or additional trees along the west and south
property lines of the site where the vegetation does not adequately screen the
townhouses 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.
5. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may
approve minor changes.
6. Provide city staff with a sign and landscape plan for the entrance and island at
McMenemy Street. 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 landscapinq shall be compatible with the extreme
conditions of the location and the materials shall need little or no maintenance.
7. Buildinq elevations are not approved with this desiqn review. All final buildinq
elevations must be approved by the community desiqn review board.
Chairperson Longrie seconded.
Ayes - Hinzman, Ledvina, Longrie, Olson,
Shankar
The motion passed.
This item goes to the city council on August 8, 2005.