HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/08/2000BOOK
AGENDA
MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
August 8, 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: June 27, 2000
4. Approval of Agenda
5. Unfinished Business
6. Design Review
a. P, oSoto Seniors Apartments, P, oselawn Avenue and DeSoto Street-
P, oSoto LLP
7. Visitor Presentations
8. Board Presentations
9. Staff Presentations
a. CDP, B volunteer Needed for City Council Meeting on August 28, 2000.
b. Meeting Rescheduling: September 26, 2000 - Tom out of town.
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.
2. 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.
3. The chairperson will then ask the audience if there is anyone present who wishes
to comment on the proposal.
4. 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.
7. 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~:lrb.agd
Revised: 11-09-94
MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA
JUNE 27, 2000
CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Ledvina called the meeting to order at 6 p.m.
II. ROLL CALL
Matt Ledvina Present
Ananth Shankar Present
Tim Johnson Present
Jon LaCasse Present
Craig Jorgenson Present
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
June 13, 2000
Boardmember Johnson moved approval of the minutes of June 13, 2000, as submitted.
Boardmember Jorgenson seconded.
The motion passed.
IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Ayes--all
Boardmember Johnson seconded.
The motion passed.
Guest Speaker--Tine Thevenin
Secretary Tom Ekstrand introduced Tine Thevenin, recipient of a grant from the University of
Minnesota, who was present at the meeting to discuss site lighting. Ms. Thevenin's objective
was to raise the level of lighting awareness. She said she would look at why there is site lighting,
the problems of typical outdoor lighting, the solutions to these problems and all the benefits that
good solutions will provide.
Ms. Thevenin emphasized that quality lighting is that "which shines where it is suppose to light."
Two good reasons for site lighting are security and visibility. She showed a picture of the United
States, taken from 500 miles up, that picked up all lighting over 50 watts. Ms. Thevenin explained
that an estimated 33 percent of this lighting/energy/money is wasted. She said this situation is
similar all over the world.
According to Ms. Thevenin, glare is one of the key issues when looking at outdoor lighting. She
spoke about physical and environmental problems that are associated with glare and light. A
solution to this is to shine the lighting down. Ms. Thevenin said "good outdoor lighting systems
put light where it is needed" and have the bulb inside the light fixture. She listed additional criteria
for good light.
Ayes--all
Boardmember Jorgenson moved approval of the agenda as submitted.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes of 07-27-00
-2-
The boardmembers and Ms. Thevenin discussed lighting concerns in Maplewood. Chairperson
Ledvina thanked Ms. Thevenin for her presentation and felt that she offered "a lot of good
information." He recommended that Maplewood's ordinance be reevaluated. Mr. Ledvina liked
the suggestion that lighting be restricted to a certain amount per acre. Ms. Thevenin asked to be
informed of any ordinance change so that she could share this information with other
communities.
Chairperson Ledvina thought site lighting was a significant issue and asked Secretary Ekstrand to
evaluate the ordinances from other cities for ideas on how to improve the Maplewood ordinance.
Mr. Ekstrand agreed to do this.
V. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
There was no unfinished business.
VI. DESIGN REVIEW
Code Amendment--Curbing Ordinance Changes
Secretary Tom Ekstrand presented the staff report. Chairperson Ledvina noted the fact that the
revision allowed the city engineer to waive the curbing requirement. Secretary Ekstrand asked if
the wording should be changed to "the CDRB may waive the curbing requirement in instances
where the city engineer has determined that sheet drainage over ground would improve storm-
water quality." Mr. Ledvina agreed with this.
Boardmember Shankar moved the Community Design Review Board approve the code change
ordinance, allowing the Community Design Review Board to waive the curbing requirement in
instances where the city engineer has determined that sheet drainage over ground would improve
storm-water quality.
Boardmember Jorgenson seconded.
The motion passed.
Ayes--all
VII. VISITOR PRESENTATION
VIII.
There were no visitor presentations.
BOARD PRESENTATIONS
There was a report on the June 26 City Council meeting.
IX. STAFF PRESENTATIONS
A. CDRB Volunteer for July 24 City Council Meeting: Mr. Ledvina is available for this meeting.
B. Secretary Tom Ekstrand reminded the boardmembers of the July 31, 2000, city tour.
C. Secretary Tom Ekstrand mentioned that someone will be present at future review board and
planning commission meetings to take notes and then transcribe the minutes of the meeting.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes of 07-27-00
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 7:15 p.m.
-3-
TO:
fROM:
SUBJECT:
LOCATION:
APPLICANT:
DATE:
MEMORANDUM
City Manager
Ken Roberts, Associate Planner
RoSoto Senior Housing Design Approval
Southwest Corner Roselawn Avenue and DeSoto Street
RoSoto Limited Partnership (Tom Schuette)
August 2, 2000
INTRODUCTION
Project Description
Mr. Tom Schuette, representing RoSoto LLP, is proposing to build a 70-unit apartment building
for seniors. He is proposing to build this project on the southwest corner of Roselawn Avenue
and DeSoto Street. (See the location map on page 9 and the property line/zoning map on page
lo.)
The project would be a 3-story apartment building with underground parking for 70 cars and a
mix of 19 one-bedroom units and 51 two-bedroom units. There also would be a sitting area,
lounge, office, storage lockers and an exercise room near the center of the building on the first
and second floors and a storm shelter in the garage area of the building. (See the project plans
on pages 12 through 16 and the separate attachments.)
Requests
To build the development, the applicant is requesting that the city approve the design plans for
this project. The city had earlier made several preliminary approvals for this development.
BACKGROUND
On January 24, 2000, the city council approved the following requests for this development:
1. A change in the city's land use plan. This change was from R-1 (single family residential)
to RH (residential high density).
A conditional use permit (CUP) for a planned unit development (PUD) for a 70-unit senior
citizen housing development. The applicant requested the CUP because the R-1 (single
family) zoning district limits the uses in the district to single dwellings and their accessory
uses and prohibits multiple-family residential uses. (See the property line/zoning map on
page 10 and the proposed site plan on page 12.) This PUD approval included the basic site
plan shown on the proposed plans.
A reduction in the number of city code required parking spaces. Code requires two spaces
for each unit or 140 spaces. The proposed site plan (page 12) shows a total of 102
parking spaces on the site. These include 70 underground garage spaces and 32
uncovered spaces near the apartments.
DISCUSSION
Design Approval
Building Design and Exterior Materials
The proposed building would be attractive. It would have an exterior of brick, colored rock face
concrete blocks, gable ends with shingle siding, horizontal vinyl siding and the roof would have
asphalt shingles. (See the elevation drawings on page 16 and the proposed project plans.) As
proposed, the building colors would be a mix of brown, tan, gray with white trim and accents. The
building would have three stories above grade and an underground parking area.
Wetland and Drainage
The project plans show a wetland on the southeast corner of the site. This wetland serves as a
natural storm water collection and absOrption area for this site and for some of the surrounding
area. The Ramsey/Washington Metro Watershed District classified this wetland as a Class Five
(highly impacted) wetland. Maplewood's wetland protection ordinance does not require a buffer
around a Class Five wetland. The developer is not proposing any changes to the wetland and has
designed the storm water drainage for this site to go into a new pond to the west of the wetland. In
times of large storms, storm water may overflow from the new pond into the existing wetland. The
city will need a drainage and utility easement over the proposed pond and the wetland area. This
project will need a permit from the watershed district.
Landscaping
The proposed plans (pages 13 and 14) show most of the site being graded. This will remove much
of the existing vegetation and many of the existing mature trees on the property. The city should
require the developer to preserve most of the existing vegetation along the north side of the site
near Roselawn Avenue and near the wetland on the southeast corner of the property. This existing
vegetation in these areas will protect existing slopes, are in and near the wetland and will help
provide screening of the building.
As proposed, the developer would plant at least 19 trees including maples, honey locust and
Colorado spruce on the 3.2-acre site. The proposed plans, however, have some areas that appear
sparse. The landscape plan should have additional new trees on the south side of the building and
on the southeast corner of the parking lOt near DeSoto Street.
The city also may want to have the developer create more screening along the east edge of the
site. This could be done with additional plantings to help screen the building from the homes to the
east and to help buffer the effects of the traffic from the proposed building.
Site Lights
The applicant should provide a lighting plan indicating the light spread and fixture design. The
lighting code requires a plan when near homes. The fixtures installed should be a design that
hides the bulb and lens from view to avoid nuisances.
Conditional Use Permit Conditions
The city approved this development with a conditional use permit (CUP) that is subject to ten
conditions. There are three of these conditions (listed below) that the city now has to ensure that
the developer completes with the design review and before the city issues a building permit for the
project.
Remainin,q Conditions from CUP Approval to be Addressed
The developer shall provide an on-site storm shelter in the apartment building. This shelter
shall be subject to the approval of the director of emergency preparedness. It shall have a
minimum of three square feet per person for 80% of the planned population.
The developer shall secure a transfer of development rights (TDR) agreement with Saint
Jerome's church for enough property to make the housing project's density no higher than 16
units per gross acre.
The developer shall not disturb the boulevard and slope along the south side of Roselawn
Avenue between the proposed sidewalk on the site to the east line of the first driveway on the
church property to the west of the site. If this area is disturbed, the developer shall install a
five-foot-wide sidewalk after stabilizing the slope.
Staff will be working with the developer to ensure that these are met according to the city council's
approval.
RECOMMENDATION
Approve the landscape plans and building elevations date-stamped July 25, 2000, and the site
plan, grading and drainage plans date-stamped June 26, 2000, for the RoSoto senior housing
development. 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:
Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans
shall include: grading, utility, drainage, erosion control, tree, sidewalk and driveway and
parking lot plans. The plans shall meet the following conditions:
(1) The erosion control plan shall be consistent with city code.
(2) The grading plan shall:
(a)
Include building, floor elevation, water elevation and contour information.
These shall include the normal water elevation, the 10-year highwater
elevation, the 100-year highwater elevation, the 2-100 year water elevation and
the emergency overflow elevation.
(b) Include contour information for the land that the construction will disturb.
3
(c)
(d)
(e)
Show sedimentation basins or ponds as required by the watershed board or by
the city engineer.
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.
Show all retaining walls on the plans. Any retaining walls more than 4 feet tall
require a building permit from the city.
bo
(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 deciduous
trees shall be at least two and one half (2 %) inches in diameter and shall be a
mix of red and white oaks and sugar maples. The coniferous trees shall be at
least six (6) feet tall and shall be a mix of Austrian pine, eastern red cedar and
other species to replace some of the proposed Colorado Spruce.
(d) Show no tree removal beyond the approved grading and tree limits.
(e) These plans shall be consistent with the approved landscape plan.
(4)
The design of the storm water pond shall be subject to the approval of the city
engineer. The developer shall be responsible for getting any needed off-site
grading or drainage easements and for recording all necessary easements.
(5) All the parking areas and driveways shall have continuous concrete curb and gutter.
(6) The entryway and driveway in front of the building shall meet the minimum
standards for turning and access for firefighting equipment.
(7)
The developer shall not disturb the boulevard and slope along the south side of
Roselawn Avenue between the proposed sidewalk on the site to the east line of the
first driveway on the church property to the west of the site. If this area is disturbed,
the developer shall install a five-foot-wide sidewalk after stabilizing the slope.
Submit a lawn-irrigation plan to staff showing the location of sprinkler heads.
Submit a certificate of survey for all new construction.
Revise the landscape plan for city staff approval showing:
(1)
That all proposed trees would be consistent with city standards for size, location
and species. In addition, this plan shall show the size, species and location of the
replacement trees. The proposed deciduous trees shall be at least two and one
half (2 %) inches in diameter and shall be a mix of red and white oaks and sugar
maples. The coniferous trees shall be at least six (6) feet tall and shall be a mix of
Austrian pine, eastern red cedar and other species to replace some of the proposed
Colorado Spruce.
(2) As much of the existing vegetation (including large trees) along the northern
property line and around the wetland preserved as possible.
(3)
At least four additional new deciduous trees on the south side of the building and at
least two additional coniferous trees on the southeast corner of the parking lot near
DeSoto Street.
(4)
The manicured or mowed areas from the natural areas. This shall include planting ·
(instead of sodding) the disturbed areas on the south side of the apartment building
around the storm water pond with native grasses and native flowering plants. The
native grasses and flowering plants shall be those needing little or no maintenance.
This is to reduce maintenance costs and to reduce the temptation of mowers to
encroach into the pond. Specifically, the developer shall have the natural areas
seeded with an upland mixture above the 876 contour and shall use a lowland
mixture below the 876 contour.
e. Get the necessary approvals and permits from the watershed district.
Submit a site lighting plan for city staff approval showing 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 from nearby homes.
g. The developer shall record with Ramsey County:
(1)
A transfer of development rights (TDR) agreement with Saint Jerome's church for
enough property to make the housing project's density no higher than 16 units per
gross acre.
(2)
A drainage and utility easement for the proposed ponding area and the wetland
area. This easement shall be for all property south of a line located at about the
proposed 886 contour near the midpoint of the site and shall be subject to the
approval of the city engineer.
h. Have the Saint Paul Regional Water Services (SPRWS) review and approve the
proposed utility plans. The SPRWS shall do the wet tap and water main offset.
3. Complete the following before occupying the building:
a. Replace property irons that are removed because of this construction.
b. Restore and sod damaged boulevards.
Install reflectodzed stop signs at the exit, a handicap-parking sign for each handicap-
parking space and an address on the building. In addition, the applicant shall install
wetland buffer and no parking signs within the site, as required by staff.
d. Paint all rooftop mechanical equipment, stacks and vents to match the uppermost part
of the building. Screen all roof-mounted equipment visible from streets or adjacent
5
property. (code requirement) Roof-top equipment must be screened from view from the
homes to the north and east if the roof design does not provide adequate screening.
Construct trash dumpster and recycling enclosures as city code requires for any
dumpsters or storage containers that the owner or building manger would keep outside
the building. Any such enclosures must match the materials and colors of the building.
Install and maintain an in-ground sprinkler system for all landscaped areas.
Install continuous concrete curb and gutter along all interior driveways and around all
open parking stalls.
Install a storm shelter in a central location in the apartment building. This shelter shall
be subject to the approval of the Maplewood director of emergency preparedness. It
shall have a minimum of three square feet per person for 80% of the planned
population.
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 from nearby homes.
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) Post the driveway to the garage and the center island with no parking signs.
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.
The city receives 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 1 if the building is occupied in the fall or winter,
or within six weeks of occupancy if the building is occupied in the spring or summer.
c. The city receives an agreement that will allow the city to complete any unfinished work.
5. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may
approve minor changes.
REFERENCE
Site Description
The site has one single dwelling.
Surrounding Land Uses
North: Houses across Roselawn Avenue.
East: Houses across DeSoto Street.
South: A ponding area and single dwellings.
West: Saint Jerome's church and school
Past Actions - Parking and Garages
The city has approved reduced parking and garage requirements for all past senior housing.
This includes the following:
1. Concordia Arms: 100 spaces for 124 units or .8 spaces per unit.
2. Hazel Ridge: 75 spaces for 75 units or 1 space per unit.
3. Casey Lake (Harmony School site - never built): 62 spaces for 62 units or 1 space per unit.
4. Village on Woodlynn (former Cottages of Maplewood): 87 spaces for 60 units or 1.5 spaces
for each unit.
5. Carefree Cottages: 132 spaces for 108 units or 1.22 spaces for each unit.
6. Cardinal Pointe: 149 spaces for 108 units or 1.38 spaces for each unit.
CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL
Section 25-70 of the city code requires that the 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.
kr/p: Sec 17/rosoto.des
Attachments:
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Location Map
Property Line/Zoning Map
Site Survey
Site Plan
Proposed Grading Plan
Proposed Landscape Plan dated 7-25-00
Proposed Utility Plan
Proposed Building Elevations dated 7-25-00
Project Plans date-stamped June 26, 2000 and July 25, 2000 (separate attachments including
colored building elevations)
Attachment 1
2640N
SAINT PAUL
LOCATION MAP
9
Attachment 2
· .",2-.,4,~ ;..:,~:--- '~ - Irm---- i,,~- m,- i,, --'
----4 ~ -- ~ ,~%F, -- .j - . . ., ' .
,z,.~ ~__,,, ..... ',~.' ~'"."-~ i~ ~ ~. _ _ _ ~. , _..'... _.',...,,,~
/
o{ (-,.~, ~=1 k'~m'~) ~'"= .~z ~-
~. 500..
tO.~ '~
CHURCH OF'
F
T. J~.ROM[
ST. JEROMES
1915
SITE
1860
~; 1858,~)
.~o,,,.. 186:
k.oe~ 121
~/~, 1855
1843
1835
4
K F 0 RT~)
OUT LO'r A
RIPLEY AVE RIPL£¥ AVE:
oND 2
Attachment
SITE SURVEY
~
Attachment 4
A VENUE
i i
I
I
I
i
i
~IN~TY IAI~
14P CONCRITE CURB · GUTTER TY~CA/ PAYMENT ·ECTIO~
SITE
PLAN
12
Attachment 5
\
2-i
i
i
PROPOSED
GRADING
13
PLAN
!
!
Attachment 6
'-7- ~ 5'- oO
PROPOSED LANDSCAPE PLAN
14
Attachment 7
I
I
PROPOSED
UTILITY
15
PLAN
Attachment 8
EAST ELEVATION':
NORTH
nm, ~n[ mD
tilT1 m13I
, NORTHWESTi
SOUTH'
SOUTHEAS'I~
PROPOSED BUILDING ELEVATIONS
16
·