Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/18/2000BOOK AGENDA MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD January 18, 2000 6:00 P.M. City Council Chambers Maplewood City Hall 1830 East County Road B 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes: December 21, 1999 4. Approval of Agenda 5. Unfinished Business 6. Design Review a. Woodlynn Heights Townhomes, Woodlynn Avenue - PJK Realty b. 1999 Annual Report c. Election of Chair and Vice Chair 7. Visitor Presentations 8. Board Presentations 9. Staff Presentations a. CDRB Volunteer Needed for the January 24 City Council Meeting b. Reminder: The December 28 Meeting is canceled. c. January 19 Planning Commission Meeting: White Bear Avenue Corridor Study 10. Adjourn p:com-dvpt~cdrb.agd WELCOME TO THIS MEETING OF THE COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD This outline has been prepared to explain the review process of this meeting. The review of an item usually follows this format. 1. The chairperson of the meeting will announce the item to be reviewed. The chairperson will ask the applicant or developer of the project up to the podium to respond to the staff's recommendation regarding the proposal. The Community Design Review Board will then discuss the proposed project with the applicant. The chairperson will then ask the audience if there is anyone present who wishes to comment on the proposal. o After everyone is the audience wishing to speak has given his or her comments, the chairperson will close the public discussion portion of the meeting. 5. The Board will then discuss the proposal. No further public comments are allowed. 6. The Board will then make its recommendations or decision. Most decisions by the Board are final, unless appealed to the City Council. You must notify the City staff in writing within 15 days to register an appeal. jw\forms\cdrb.agd Revised: 11-09-94 MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA DECEMBER 21, 1999 CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Ledvina called the meeting to order at 6:03 p.m. I1. ROLL CALL Matt Ledvina Present Ananth Shankar Present Tim Johnson Present Jon LaCasse Present Craig Jorgenson Present III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES November 23, 1999 Boardmember Shankar moved approval of the minutes of November 23, 1999, as submitted. Boardmember LaCasse seconded. Ayes--all The motion passed. IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Boardmember Jorgenson moved approval of the agenda as submitted. Boardmember Johnson seconded. Ayes--all The motion passed. V. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Waldorf School Building Design - 70 County Road B East Secretary Tom Ekstrand presented the staff report. Paul May, architect, gave a thorough description of the site layout, building placement, and building design, materials and colors. Sian Owen-Cruise, from the Waldorf School, explained the school's philosophy and education. Boardmember Jorgenson asked if Mr. May had any idea how far out the gymnasium is from being realized. Mr. May said about five to ten years. Boardmember Shankar asked if the tallest structure was the assembly space. Mr. May said they were taking off the center portion of the roof and raising it up. Boardmember Shankar asked why the windows were not all lined up on the modular unit. Mr. May said that the depiction on the plan was not entirely accurate and that the windows on the modular units to the south would be similar to the ones on the other side. Community Design Review Board Minutes of 12-21-99 -2- Boardmember Shankar asked if the paint used on the modular units was done on site or if they came already painted. Mr. May said they can be ordered already painted from the factory or they can be painted on site. This would be for the school to decide based on which option would be most cost effective, etc. The board asked if they are anticipating 2000 construction on this project. Mr. May said they were planning on construction starting in the summer and being completed by the end of the year so that, hopefully, school could start in January 2001 for the second semester. Boardmember Ledvina said that in the lefthand corner of the drawings he had it shows a play circle and that the new drawings show what appears to be a delivery area in that same location. Mr. May said that the area was large enough to turn a vehicle around in if need be but the intention was to use this area for play equipment and a basketball hoop, etc. The surface would be asphalt. Boardmember Shankar moved that the community design review board approve the building elevations date-stamped November 30, 1999 for the proposed Minnesota Waldorf School at 70 County Road B East. Approval is subject to city council conditions of August 23, 1999 and the applicant will resubmit elevations for the gymnasium when those are available. Along with the gymnasium, the design plans will also be submitted to the design review board for review at that time. Plans dated November 24, 1999 are referenced along with the elevations that were submitted to the design review board for approval. Boardmember Johnson seconded. Ayes--all The motion passed. VI. DESIGN REVIEW There were no new design review items. VII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS There were no visitor presentations. VIII. BOARD PRESENTATIONS Boardmember Ledvina was scheduled to attend the December 13th council meeting and as it turned out there were no design review board items for that evening. IX. STAFF PRESENTATIONS A. CDRB Volunteer for the December 27 Council Meeting: Mr. Johnson will attend this meeting. B. CDRB Volunteer for the January 10 Council Meeting: Mr. Ledvina will attend this meeting. The community design review board meeting for December 28th has been cancelled. Secretary Ekstrand said he had a scheduling conflict on January 11th and wanted to know if that meeting could be rescheduled. The boardmembers agreed to combine the two meetings into one on January 18, 1999. Community Design Review Board Minutes of 12-21-99 Secretary Ekstrand presented volunteer service award plagues to those boardmembers who were not present at the Appreciation Reception earlier in December. X. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 6:44 p.m. TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: DATE: MEMORANDUM City Manager Tom Ekstrand, Associate Planner Preliminary Plat, Front Setback Variance and Design Review - Woodlynn Heights Townhomes No. 7 West of 2175 Woodlynn Avenue December 28, 1999 INTRODUCTION Project Description Patdck Kinney, of PJK Realty, is proposing a preliminary plat for the balance of the Woodlynn Heights Townhomes development. Refer to the maps and drawings on pages 10-14. Mr. Kinney is proposing nine additional lots for three, three-unit buildings. These nine units would complete the Woodlynn Heights Townhomes development which started in 1984. Each of the proposed three-plexes would have the same design and exterior materials. The proposed buildings would have exteriors of horizontal-lap vinyl siding. The front elevations would also have brick which would wrap around onto the side elevations. Refer to the building elevations. Requests Mr. Kinney is requesting: 1. Approval of a preliminary plat. 2. Approval of a front setback vadance for the paved driveway/parking area. The code requires a 15-foot setback; the applicant is proposing eight feet. Refer to the letter on page 15. 3. Approval of site, landscaping and building design plans. BACKGROUND On November 25, 1991, the city council approved the preliminary plat for Woodlynn Heights Townhomes Buildings 5-8. Buildings 1-4 were already built. To date, the first six four-unit Townhomes have been built. In 1991, townhome numbers 7 and 8 were approved to be a four- unit and a five-unit building to complete the remaining nine units that could be built. Since 1991, the city council renewed this preliminary plat several times. The preliminary plat for these two remaining buildings ended, however, on July 1, 1998 since the previous developer did not complete the project. DISCUSSION Preliminary Plat The preliminary plat for the nine remaining units complies with density requirements. Even though these last units would be three-plexes, they would be compatible with the previous buildings in layout and design. Driveway Setback Variance The front driveway setbacks for the six buildings to the east vary. The first four buildings meet or exceed the 15-foot minimum setback. The last two buildings built do not meet the pavement setback because of contractor error. The applicant could meet the 15-foot setback requirement if the buildings were moved north to the NSP easement line. The front of the proposed buildings would not line up with the adjacent structure, however, and the deck stairs would encroach into the NSP easement. Staff feels it is better to allow the lessened driveway setback for visual consistency. The development would not benefit in appearance by requiring greater setbacks than the adjacent site. As a condition of approval, the city should require the applicant to revise the landscape plan for the front yard area to match the planting types and quantities of the buildings to the east. Building Design The proposed buildings would be attractive and would fit in with the design of the existing townhomes. Landscaping As stated above, the applicant should revise the landscape plan to be consistent and compatible with the buildings to the east. The applicant should present a revised landscape plan providing for seven spruce trees, two clumps of birch trees and an assortment of Iow-growing shrubs in the front yards on each side of the entrance driveways for each three-plex. The spruce trees must be at least six feet tall and the birch at least 2 % inches in caliper, balled and budapped. This planting layout is consistent with the existing buildings to the east. The plantings proposed around the front of the units should remain on the plan. In addition to the above, all yard areas should be sodded (except for mulched and edged planting beds) and an in-ground lawn irrigation system installed for all landscape areas (code requirement). RECOMMENDATIONS Adopt the resolution on pages 16-17 approving a seven-foot front setback variance for Woodlynn Heights Townhomes Number 7. Approval of the setback vadance is because it would meet the spirit and intent of the ordinance--it would result in consistent building and pavement setbacks with the adjacent townhouse site to the east. This variance is subject to the applicant revising the landscape plan for staff approval which incorporates the following details: Bo 1. Seven spruce trees, two clumps of birch trees and six Iow-growing shrubs in the front yards on each side of the entrance driveways for each three-plex. 2. The spruce trees must be at least six feet tall and the birch at least 2 % inches in caliper, balled and buriapped. 3. The plantings proposed around the front of the units shown on the landscape plan date- stamped December 3, 1999 shall remain on the plan. 4. In addition to the above, all front side and rear yard areas shall be sodded (except for mulched and edged planting beds and the area within the NSP easement) and an in- ground lawn irrigation system shall be installed for all landscape areas (code requirement). The NSP easement area may be seeded. 5. No landscaping shall take place in the boulevard and the boulevard shall be restored with sod. Approve the preliminary plat date-stamped December 3, 1999 for the proposed Woodlynn Heights Townhomes No. 7. Approval is subject to the applicant complying with the following conditions: 1 .* Obtaining the city engineer's approval of the final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall include grading, utility, drainage and erosion control plans. The plans shall meet the following conditions: a. The erosion control plans shall be consistent with the city code. b. The grading plan shall: (1) Include proposed building pad elevation and contour information for each home site. The lot lines on this plan shall follow the approved preliminary plat. (2) Include contour information for all the land that the construction will disturb. (3) 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. 2. Paying for costs related to the engineering department's review of the construction plans. 3. Signing a developer's agreement with the city that guarantees that the developer or contractor will: a. Complete all grading for overall site drainage, complete all public improvements and meet all city requirements. b.* Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits. c. Provide five-foot-wide drainage and utility easements along each side lot line between buildings and along the west and east lot lines of this addition. 3 d. Extend the five-foot-wide concrete sidewalk from its current location to the west lot line of this townhouse addition. e. Provide for the repair of Woodlynn Avenue (street and boulevard) after the developer connects to the public utilities and builds the sidewalk. If the developer decides to final plat the preliminary plat, the director of community development may waive any conditions that do not apply to the final plat. Submitting the homeowner's association bylaws and rules to the Director of Community Development. These are to assure that there will be one responsible party for the maintenance of the private utilities, driveways and structure. Providing a written statement from NSP and Amoco Oil Company which allows the grading in the easement that the developer proposes. *The developer must complete these conditions before the city issues a grading permit or approves the final plat. Approve the plans date-stamped December 3, 1999 for Woodlynn Heights No. 7 Townhomes, based on the findings required by the code. The developer, Patrick Kinney, shall do the following: 1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. 2. Before getting a building permit the applicant shall: a. Submit a grading, drainage, utility and erosion control plan to the city engineer for approval. b. Submit a revised landscape plan to staff for approval which incorporates the following details: (1) Seven spruce trees, two clumps of birch trees and six Iow-growing shrubs in the front yards on each side of the entrance driveways for each three-plex. (2) The spruce trees must be at least six feet tall and the birch at least 2 % inches in caliper, balled and burlapped. (3) The plantings proposed around the front of the units shown on the landscape plan date-stamped December 3, 1999 shall remain on the plan. (4) In addition to the above, all front side and rear yard areas shall be sodded (except for mulched and edged planting beds and the area within the NSP easement) and an in-ground lawn irrigation system shall be installed for all landscape areas (code requirement). (5) No landscaping shall take place in the boulevard and the boulevard shall be restored with sod. c. Stake the NSP easement line and the front and side lot lines with survey irons. d. Revise the site plan to increase the ddveway turnaround setback from the east lot line to five feet (code requirement). Complete the following before occupying the building: a. Replace property irons that are removed because of this construction. b. Restore and sod damaged boulevards. Sod all landscaped areas except for the area within the NSP easement which may be seeded. c. Install an automatic in-ground irrigation system. d. Extension of the five-foot-wide concrete sidewalk to the west lot line of this development. 4. If any required work is not done, the city may allow temporary occupancy if: The city determines that the work is not essential to the public health, safety or welfare. o The city receives a cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit for the required work. The amount shall be 200 percent of the cost of the unfinished work. Any unfinished landscaping shall be completed by June I if the building is occupied in the fall or winter or within six weeks if the building is occupied in the spring or summer. All work shall follow the approved plans. approve minor changes. The director of community development may CITIZEN COMMENTS I surveyed the 24 surrounding property owners within 350 feet of this property for their comment about this proposal. I received the following 10 replies: I would have preferred that the city would have added this property to the open space property behind it. But in reality, if the new townhomes are decent, fit in with ours, don't block views of our members, have proper drainage and aren't Iow income housing, my objection wouldn't be big. I hope they don't bdng another FARM museum with them though. (Woodlynn Heights Townhomes No. 5 Homeowners Association, 2185 Woodlynn Avenue) Thank you for the information regarding the proposed three-unit townhouse buildings to be built across Woodlynn Avenue from the Village on Woodlynn. After reviewing the plans, I see no reason why this request should be refused. It seems that the plans fit the neighborhood as it has been developing over the past years. I would encourage the planning commission and city council to approve this request. (Howard L. Rekstad, Cottages of Maplewood) 3. I have no objections or comment on the matter. (Smeed, 2191 Woodlynn Avenue) I have no objections to additional townhomes on Woodlynn Avenue. Is there a possibility of NSP burying the electrical lines behind our homes? They are an eye-sore and very close to some homes. (Nelson, 2187 Woodlynn Avenue) We support the proposed townhouse plan and site development as submitted by PJK Realty to be built on the Woodlynn Heights site. The design is complementary to the present existing structures. The only question we submit is developing a drainage system that run-off will flow in the west and southern drainage water between #5 and g6. This problem needs more improvement. (Arko, 2181 Woodlynn Avenue) When I purchased my unit at 2177 Woodlynn Avenue, I was informed that additional units might be built. My concerns are for adequate drainage and attractive units. Obviously, if I could stop the project altogether I would do so, but I don't believe that is possible. The proposed units look similar to current existing units. I think that is good. (Donnay, 2177 Woodlynn Avenue) I have no objections to them and think they could be an improvement to the neighborhood. However, I feel there should be a sidewalk all the way to Adel Street and cleared of snow in the winter. There are many people walking in the street. Very dangerous! Thank you. (Sommerhauser, 2184 Woodlynn Avenue) 8. What pdce range will they be? How will they blend in with the present townhouses? Will they have the same landscaping in front? (Olson, 2179 Woodlynn Avenue) o I would prefer no further development on Woodlynn Avenue, Ariel Street or County Road D. We now have a farm which will bdng tours and traffic. We have beautiful wildlife in the area behind our homes (supposed to be open space). We see deer and red foxes. Woodchucks and pheasants. My fear is additional traffic will drive away these beautiful creatures. Please keep this open space open to the animals. Thanks. (Herpolsheimer, 2197 Woodlynn Avenue) 10. Thanks for inquiring! The city apparently missed a fine opportunity to purchase these lots to add visual access and more vadety to the open space for a small amount of money. If that is true we should be aware of how the development would fit into the OS/heritage farm setting. Someone needs to walk the property and check for plant or plant areas (line of shrubs on the north) that have been valuable to the OS critters. We believe that at the most two three-unit townhouses should be built, allowing more open buffers between and on both sides of buildings. Or three double-wide townhomes eliminating the less desirable middle units. Please work on the possibility of doing wildlife plantings and limiting sodding on the north side of land. We were told that drainage is a problem. Soils are filled from previous construction. Please talk to watershed district. There was an histodc pond on the OS. It would be great to get water back. (Mammenga and Brooker, 2172 Woodlynn Avenue) REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Site size: 2 acres Existing land use: Undeveloped SURROUNDING LAND USES North: Undeveloped City of Maplewood open space land South: Woodlynn Avenue and single dwellings West: Undeveloped City of Maplewood open space land East: Woodlynn Heights Townhomes (six four-unit buildings) PLANNING Land Use Plan designation: R3(M) (multiple dwelling residential-medium density) Zoning: R3 (multiple dwelling residential) Ordinance Requirements Section 36-28(c)(5)(a) requires that parking lots be set back 15-feet from a street right-of-way. Section 25-70 of the city code requires that the community design review board (CDRB) make the following findings to approve plans: 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. 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. 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. Criteria for Variance Approval State law requires that the city council make the following findings to approve a variance from the zoning code: 1. Strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the property under consideration. 2. The variance would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. "Undue hardship," as used in granting of a variance, means the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property, not created by the landowner, and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance. Application Date We received the preliminary plat and CDRB applications on December 3, 1999 and the variance application on December 27, 1999. State law requires that the city take action within 60 days of receiving complete applications for a proposal. City council action is required on this proposal by February 27, 2000. p:sec2n/woodhts.#7 Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Property Line/Zoning Map 3. Site Plan 4. Front and Rear Building Elevations 5. Side Building Elevations 6. Letter of Variance Request Dated December 27, 1999 7. Variance Resolution 8. Plans date-stamped December 3, 1999 (separate attachments) Attachment ! ® I W/tl TE BEAR c~C ¢71 a c~1/~r/VAT~ NORTH SA/NT PAUL LOCATION lO MAP Attachment & ROAD D - , F ! WOODLYNN HEIGHTSi~,'7 NO. 7 NO.3 ' (~ N(~.4 ~' NO.2 ,0 4 8 .97&c. 2O " 0~)'°*" ll Attachment 3 ~IRI~LIMIN~R¥ I~L~'I', t~I~LIMIISI~tR¥ ~1~.~1~11~ ,ml~O~lON C. ONT~Oli ANII~ UTILI?¥ ~LAISl 329. )V89°46 'O0"ff SITE PLAN 12 Attachment 4 1 1 13 ! 14 Attachment 5 DEO-27-l@9@ ~ON 02:22 ?N OBBURNE? ?~X NO, 6517708890 Attachment6 DEC ?I 199 City of Maplcwood Re: Woodlynn Heights Townhomes. I am asking that you consider a 7' front setback variance for thc driveways and asphalt surfaces of this proposed townhomc plat. Thc reasoning for this var/anco will bc so that the front's o~'thcse units will line up and be continuous with the previously built Woodlynn townhomes. This variance would also allow for thc rear or' thc Townhomcs to bc more in lino with the previously built Lmits. Sincerely, Patrick $, Kinney 15 Attachment 7 VARIANCE RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Patdck Kinney, of PJK Realty, applied for a vadance from the zoning ordinance. WHEREAS, this variance applies to property west of 2175 Woodlynn Avenue. The legal descdption is: LOT ONE, BLOCK ONE, WOODLYNN HEIGHTS TOWNHOMES NO. 6 WHEREAS, Section 36-28(c)(5)(a) requires that parking lots be set back 15 feet from a street right- of-way. WHEREAS, the applicant is proposing a setback of eight feet. WHEREAS, this requires a vadance of seven feet. WHEREAS, the history of this vadance is as follows: 1. On January 3, 2000, the planning commission recommended that the city council approve this variance. The city council held a public headng on ,2000. City staff published a notice in the Maplewood Review and sent notices to the surrounding property owners as required by law. The council gave everyone at the headng an opportunity to speak and present wdtten statements. The council also considered reports and recommendations from the city staff and planning commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above-described variance as recommended by the city staff that would allow no more than a seven-foot encroachment into the required 15-foot front setback area because it would meet the spirit and intent of the ordinancc it would result in consistent building and pavement setbacks with the adjacent townhouse site to the east. This variance is subject to the applicant revising the landscape plan for staff approval which incorporates the following details: 1. Seven spruce trees, two clumps of birch trees and six Iow-growing shrubs in the front yards on each side of the entrance driveways for each three-plex. 2. The spruce trees must be at least six feet tall and the birch at least 2 % inches in caliper, balled and burlapped. 3. The plantings proposed around the front of the units shown on the landscape plan date- stamped December 3, 1999 shall remain on the plan. In addition to the above, all front side and rear yard areas shall be sodded (except for mulched and edged planting beds and the area within the NSP easement) and an in-ground lawn irrigation system shall be installed for all landscape areas (code requirement). The NSP easement area may be seeded. 16 5. No landscaping shall take place in the boulevard and the boulevard shall be restored with sod. The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on ,2000. 17 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: MEMORANDUM City Manager Thomas Ekstrand, Associate Planner 1999 Community Design Review Board Annual Report January 6, 2000 INTRODUCTION The city code requires that the community design review board (CDRB) prepare an annual report for the city council. I have attached the 1999 annual report for review. RECOMMENDATION Approve the community design review board's 1999 annual report. p:~misscell~drban rep.99 (6.2) Attachment: 1999 Community Design Review Board Annual Report TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: MEMORANDUM City Manager Matt Ledvina, Chairman 1999 Community Design Review Board Annual Report January 6, 2000 INTRODUCTION In 1999, the community design review board (CDRB) reviewed 28 items: New Development Proposals 12 Expansions and Remodeling 6 Sign Reviews 1 Code Changes 2 Variances 1 Miscellaneous --6 Total 28 COMPARATIVE TABLE 1993-1998 Year Number of Items 1993 49 1994 54 1995 57 1996 31 1997 53 1998 35 Reviewed ATTENDANCE Board Member Meetings Attended (there were 11 meetings) Marv Erickson (resigned April 13, 1999) Marie Robinson (resigned July 27, 1999) Ananth Shankar Tim Johnson Matt Ledvina Craig Jorgenson (appointed August 23, 1999) Jon LaCasse (appointed August 23, 1999) 3 6 8 11 11 3 3 DISCUSSION In 1999, there was a drop in the number of meetings held by the CDRB. Development requests were more prevalent in the first half of the year than the second, when many meetings were canceled due to a lack of development requests. In spite of this, though, the CDRB reviewed a relatively high number of new development proposals. These were: Acorn Mini Storage, Pep Boys, Office Depot & Pier 1 Imports, Pineview Estates Condominiums, the Bruentrop Farm Relocation site, Goodrich Golf Course Miniature Golf, First Financial office building, Waldorf School, U.S. West Monopole at Presentation Church, Kline Volvo and U.S. Bank. Building addition requests included: Maplewood Auto Service, Carver Elementary School, Hill-Murray High School, Schroeder Milk, Menard's and Excel Air Systems. The board also studied the site- lighting ordinance and recommended changes to the city council which amended the code based on their recommendation. This past year, the CDRB experienced the loss of two long-standing members who contributed substantially to the review board and the City of Maplewood. These were Mary Erickson and Made Robinson. Marv served on the board for 12 years and Marie nine. We are pleased to welcome, however, our two new members, Jon LaCasse and Craig Jorgenson. In the upcoming year, the board anticipates possible changes that may result from the development moratorium now in effect for the undeveloped land west of the Maplewood Mall between Southlawn Drive and Highway 61. There may also be special attention focused on the White Bear Avenue corridor due to the currently ongoing White Bear Avenue Corridor Study. This study is a joint effort by the White Bear Avenue Business Association, the City of St. Paul and the City of Maplewood. The board is dedicated to promoting attractive development in Maplewood and will continue to require quality building designs in the year 2000. p:~'nisscell~drban rep.99 (6.2) 2 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: MEMORANDUM City Manager Thomas Ekstrand, Asso~ate Planner Community Design Review Board ElectionofOfficersfor2000 Janua~ 6,2000 INTRODUCTION City code requires that the community design review board elect a chairperson and vice-chairperson each year. The current chairperson is Matt Ledvina. The vice-chairperson is Ananth Shankar. RECOMMENDATION Elect a chairperson and vice-chairperson. p:com_dvpt~cdrbelec.sav(6.2) MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: City Manager Thomas Ekstrand, Associate Planner White Bear Avenue Corridor Study Presentation January 6, 2000 INTRODUCTION The members of the community design review board are invited to attend the January 19, 2000 planning commission meeting. This meeting will be held at 7 p.m. in the council chambers. Bob Close, of Close Landscape Architecture, will make a presentation to the planning commission about the White Bear Avenue Corridor Study. This is the study that is jointly being undertaken by the White Bear Avenue Business Association, the City of St. Paul and the City of Maplewood to consider ways to enhance the vitality of businesses on the "Avenue' from 1-94 to 1-694. Elements are being considered such as: streetscape design, lighting, signage, landscaping, paving, fencing, public art, transit stops, traffic flow and buffers between commercial and residential uses. p:com_dvpt~cdrbmem.2