Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-01-12 CDRB Packet AGENDA CITY OF MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD Tuesday, January 12,2010 7:00 P.M. (NOTE TIME CHANGE) Council Chambers - Maplewood City Hall 1830 County Road BEast 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Agenda 4. Approval of Minutes: a. October 13, 2009 b. November 10, 2009 c. November 24, 2009 d. December 8, 2009 5. Unfinished Business: a. T-Mobile Fencing Proposal, Harmony Learning Center, 1961 County Road C 6. New Business: a. Vegetation Guidelines for Maplewood 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, OCTOBER 13, 2009 I. CALL TO ORDER Acting chair Shankar called the rneeting to order at 6:00 p.rn. II. ROLL CALL Boardmember Jason Lamers Chairperson Matt Ledvina Boardmember Michael Mireau Boardmember Ananth Shankar Vice-Chair Matt Wise Present Absent Present Present Absent Staff Present: Michael Martin. Planner Alan Kantrud. Citv Attornev III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Boardmember Lamers moved to approve the agenda as presented. Boardmember Mireau seconded The motion passed. Ayes - all IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a. August 11, 2009 Boardmember Mireau moved to approve the minutes .of August 11, 2009 as presented. Boardmember Lamers seconded The motion passed. Ayes - all V. DESIGN REVIEW a. In-Service Training: Commission Handbook Review Planner Michael Martin introduced city attorney Alan Kantrud. Mr. Kantrud gave a presentation explaining the commission handbook and received comments and questions from the board. Mr. Kantrud invited the board to contact him or Planner Martin with any further questions or comments that might occur. VI. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None VII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS None Community Design Review Board Minutes 10-13-2009 2 VIII. BOARD PRESENTATIONS None IX. STAFF PRESENTATIONS a. Update on Sign Code Amendment status Planner Martin updated the board on the Sign Code Amendment, explaining that staff has visited with several community business groups soliciting feedback. Planner Martin said staff will be attending the St. Paul Area Chamber of Commerce business meeting this week to provide comment on the sign code and solicit feedback. b. Update of applications currently being reviewed by planning staff Planner Martin updated the board on current applications, saying that Aldi's has withdrawn its application for the White Bear Avenue site but they are interested in finding another site in Maplewood. Planner Martin explained that the application by T-Mobile for the communications tower at the Harmony Learning Center has been revised and will be resubmitted. Planner Martin said staff has had communications from businesses who are considering applying for a comprehensive sign plan amendment, which will be forwarded to the board for consideration if received. X. ADJOURNMENT Boardmember Lamers moved to adjourn the meeting at 6:16 p.m. Boardmember Mireau seconded Ayes - all DRAFT MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD 1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 10, 2009 I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Ledvina called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Boardmember Jason Lamers Chairperson Matt Ledvina Boardmember Michael Mireau Boardmember Ananth Shankar Vice-Chair Matt Wise Present Present Present Absent Present Staff Present: Michael Martin, Planner Shann Finwall. Planner III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Boardmember Lamers moved to approve the agenda as presented. Boardmember Mireau seconded The motion passed. Ayes - all IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a. October 13, 2009 Boardmember Lamers moved to table the minutes of .October 13, 2009 due to lack of a quorum. Boardmember Mireau seconded The motion passed. Ayes - all V. DESIGN REVIEW a. T-Mobile Telecommunications Tower, 1961 County Road C (Harmony Learning Center) Planner Michael Martin presented the staff report for the request from T-Mobile to erect a 75-fooHall wireless telecommunications tower for cellular telephone operations on land leased from Independent School District No. 622 at the Harmony Learning Center located at 1961 County Road C East. The pole is proposed to be located where a 30-foot light pole currently exists within the school's parking lot. Amy Dresch of FMHC and representing T-Mobile addressed the board. Ms. Dresch said other locations for the tower were evaluated, but none were feasible. Ms. Dresch said the school district was not open to exploring other areas of the Harmony Learning Center site. Boardmember Ledvina asked why the tower site was not moved to the other side of the parking lot to the north. Ms. Dresch responded that there are ball fields and bleachers in that area and the school district did not want to locate the tower in that area. Community Design Review Board Minutes 11-10-2009 2 Chairperson Ledvina asked for comments from the public. Linda Olson, 2005 County Road C East, said she lives immediately next door to this site. Ms. Olson said she feels the tower location at this site is an accident waiting to happen. Ms. Olson said she spoke with the pastor from the neighboring church and said it would be possible to locate this tower in the undeveloped part of the church property. Ms. Olsen said the church would appreciate a cell phone tower located on their site. Ms. Olson showed photos of other cell phone towers in Maplewood. Ms. Olson said safety is a concern with this tower location and asked that statistics be kept on safety and vandalisrn on the site. Boardmember Ledvina said he understands Ms. Olson's concerns regarding the positioning of the tower and alternative sites, but he feels her concerns are land use issues and outside the scope of the board's discussions this evening. Boardmember Ledvina said these issues are best discussed at the planning commission. Boardmember Wise said he feels this tower location is an obnoxious use as close as it is to residential and asked how much lower the tower could be and still provide coverage. Mr. Wise said he has no concerns regarding the proposed cedar fencing. Mr. Wise said he disagrees with Mr. Ledvina on the scope of the board's review which includes site pianning saying this is a use on a particular site. Mr. Wise encouraged city staff to track vandalism and concerns from citizens on congregating or damage to this structure, particularly the fencing. Boardmember Ledvina suggested that bollards be installed inside the fencing for additional safety. Boardmember Wise agreed. Boardmember Mireau said the tower will be highly visible anywhere it is located on this site, but moving the tower to the north side of the parking lot would provide more screening. Mr. Mireau said he would like to hear the issues for not locating it near the ball field area. Mr. Mireau said he is not opposed to the tower site as proposed. Boardmember Lamers said if this tower is going to be vandalized, it would be vandalized anywhere on the site. Mr. Lamers said the proposed location of the tower is not of great concern for safety or vandalism, but his concern is more aesthetic. Mr. Lamers said he is in favor of the 8-fooHall cedar fence rather than building another structure on the site. Boardmember Lamers moved approval of the site and design plans stamped October 14, 2009 for a 75-foot-tall telecommunications monopole and ground equipment within the parking lot of Harmony Learning Center at 1961 County Road C East. Recommendation is based on the findings required by code and subject to the applicant doing the following: 1. Repeating the review in two years if the city has not issued permits for this project. 2. All work shall follow the approved plans. The community development staff may approve minor changes. 3. The flush mount design for the telecommunications tower shall be utilized. 4. The lighting fixtures installed on the tower shall comply with city ordinances and shall be approved by city staff. Community Design Review Board 3 Minutes 11-10-2009 5. An 8-foot-tall cedar fence shall screen both the ground equipment and the base of the tower. 6. The applicant shall provide cash escrow in the amount of 150 percent of the cost of the landscaping before a building permit will be issued. 7. The applicant shall address the safety concern relative to the proximity of vehicles by adding bollards internal to the fencing arrangement. Boardmember Ledvina seconded Ayes - Lamers, Ledvina, Mireau Abstention - Wise The motion passed. VI. UNFINISHED BUSINESS a. Sign Ordinance Arnendments Planner Shann Finwall presented the staff report and reviewed the sign ordinance amendments as proposed. Boardmember Ledvina suggested that the first part of item (d) on page one is superfluous and should be deleted. It was also suggested that the definition of "window" be better defined to consider the use of different types of glass. Planner Finwall agreed with both suggestions. The board discussed opinion signs and felt that all opinion signs should be limited to 16 square feet in size. The board further discussed proposed changes and made suggestions for modifications to staff. Chris Green, a local Realtor who lives in Maplewood, addressed the board saying he heard "really good stuff" from the board tonight, agreeing that signage needs to be regulated somewhat and he discussed real estate and open house signage. Boardmember Ledvina moved that the Sign Ordinance be forwarded to the city council for consideration at the November 23, 2009 city council meeting. Boardmember Wise seconded Ayes - all The motion passed. VII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS None VIII. BOARD PRESENTATIONS None IX. STAFF PRESENTATIONS a. November 23 City Council Meeting Representative: Matt Ledvina b. December 14 City Council Meeting Representative: Michael Mireau X. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned by consensus at 8:22 p.m. DRAFT MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD 1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 24, 2009 I. CALL TO ORDER Vice Chairperson Wise called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Boardmember Jason Lamers Chairperson Matt Ledvina Boardmember Michael Mireau Boardmember Ananth Shankar Vice Chairperson Matt Wise Present Absent Absent Present Present Staff Present: Michael Martin. Planner III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Boardmember Shankar moved to approve the agenda as presented. Boardmember Lamers seconded The motion passed. Ayes - all IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a. October 13, 2009 and November 10, 2009 Boardmember Shankar moved to table the minutes of October 13, 2009 and November 10,2009, due to lack of a quorum. Boardmember Lamers seconded The motion passed. Ayes - all V. DESIGN REVIEW a. Comprehensive Sign Plan Amendment, Pan era Bread, 2515 White Bear Avenue (Mapleridge Shopping Center) Planner Michael Martin presented the staff report for the request from Panera Bread for approval of a comprehensive sign plan amendment for the Mapleridge Shopping Center, located at 2515 White Bear Avenue. The applicant is proposing to install an awning that would have the company's wheat graphic displayed. The current comprehensive sign plan does not address the use of awnings for signs. Design plans were approved in August 2006 for this site showing solid colors being used for the awnings. Boardmember Wise asked if the sign application submitted by Panera Bread is tied to this request. Planner Martin responded that the wall sign request is a separate request and not tied to tonight's comprehensive sign plan amendment request. Community Design Review Board Minutes 11-24-2009 2 Boardmember Shankar asked if the request with the wheat graphic is considered advertising. Planner Martin responded that the reason staff is recommending denial of this request is that the wheat graphic would be a sign for Panera Bread and would create an inconsistent look within the shopping center. Mr. Martin explained the sign plan approved in 2006 had solid colors that were intended to show consistency from store to store. Scott Laage of Leroy Signs was present representing Panera Bread. Mr. Laage showed samples of the awning material and said that the various locations in the area have the wheat graphic on the awning. Boardmember Lamers said he feels the tone and brightness of the new colors proposed for the awning are different from what exists and would change the image of the shopping center. Boardmember Shankar said since not all of the tenants have awnings, there is already an inconsistent look and questioned whether a different kind of awning would make it worse. Boardmember Lamers questioned if Pan era Bread has made this awning change at other area locations as part of their national imaging, does Maplewood not want to be a part of that. John Hohman, operating partner of Panera Bread, said the wheat graphic is used in many of the Panera Bread sites in the Twin Cities, but not everyone of them. Mr. Hohman said there are a variety of different colored designs used. Mr. Hohman said they are putting a large commitment into the remodel of the interior and exterior of this site and they feel the new awnings proposed improve the look of the exterior. Boardmember Shankar said he does not equate the wheat graphic with the golden arches or the apple and that he is ambivalent for that being considered signage. John Nephew, 628 County Road B East, asked if the notification to neighboring properties included the tenants of the shopping center. Planner Martin responded that typically only property owners are notified; therefore the tenants were not notified. Mr. Martin said the property owner of the shopping center supports this amendment. Planner Martin explained that if this request were to be approved, it would apply to all tenants in the center. Board members voiced their concerns that the tenants have a chance to speak to this rnatter, that their opinions matter, and to make thern aware that the board is trying to do what it can to reinvest in the shopping center. Board members agreed they do not consider the wheat graphic a sign and that other companies also use a wheat graphic. Planner Martin explained to the board that the current comprehensive sign plan requires landlord approval of any signs by the owner of the building. Mr. Martin said any sign application request needs the approval of the property owner before staff considers it and this application was signed by the building owner. Boardmember Shankar moved to approve the comprehensive sign plan amendment as visualized by plans date-stamped October 30, 2009 for the proposed awning sign for Pan era Bread at the Mapleridge Shopping Center, 2515 White Bear Avenue. This approval is based upon the tenants of the shopping center approving this signage and awning for Panera Bread. Boardmember Lamers seconded Community Design Review Board Minutes 11-24-2009 3 Boardmember Wise suggested a friendly amendment be added to clarify what tenant approval would be required. Boardmember Shankar said he would request that staff survey the tenants to see that a majority of the tenants approve this awning and sign age. Boardmembers Shankar and Lamers approved that the friendly amendment be added to the motion. The board voted: Ayes - all The motion passed. VI. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None VII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS None VIII. BOARD PRESENTATIONS Boardmember Wise spoke concerning the safety of monopoles. IX. STAFF PRESENTATIONS Planner Martin reported that the city council held the first reading of the sign code amendment. Mr. Martin said the amendment was approved with changes to the percentage of window signage allowed and the timeframe. Mr. Martin explained the amendment will go back to the city council for the second reading before it is adopted into code. Planner Martin said the terms for board members Shankar and Wise will end this year and reminded those board members that applications for reappointment are due by November 30. Planner Martin requested that board members let staff know if they will be unable to make the December 22 scheduled board meeting. X. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned by consensus at 6:35 p.m. DRAFT MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD 1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, DECEMBER 08, 2009 I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Ledvina called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Boardmember Jason Lamers Chairperson Matt Ledvina Boardmember Michael Mireau Boardmember Ananth Shankar Vice Chairperson Matt Wise Present Present Absent Present Absent Staff Present: Michael Martin. Planner Shann Finwall. Environmental Planner Ginnv Gavnor. Natural Resources Coordinator III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Boardmember Shankar moved to approve the agenda as presented. Boardmember Lamers seconded The motion passed. Ayes - all IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a. October 13,2009, November 10, 2009 and November 24,2009 It was decided by consensus to move this item to later in the meeting due to lack of a quorum. V. UNFINISHED BUSINESS a. Sign ordinance Amendments Planner Shann Finwall updated the board on the adoption of the first reading by the city council of the sign ordinance amendments. Planner Finwall explained neighboring communities' sign ordinance regulations regarding window signs and presented photos showing examples. Boardmember Shankar said he prefers sign coverage to consist of 50 percent of the glass on each window pane and also, zero percent coverage on the door glass as a safety issue. Planner Finwall said she would review with the building official the 50 percent coverage on door glass and get some feedback on the safety issue. The board decided that the window sign coverage recommendation should remain at 50 percent and the door glass coverage should be reviewed by staff. Planner Finwall explained the neighboring communities' regulations on off-site real estate directional signs. Community Design Review Board Minutes 12-08-2009 2 The board discussed the acceptable time for off-site real estate directional signs to be in the right- of-way and changed their recommendation from 30 days to 14 days for these signs to be allowed. The board discussed portable temporary signs and recommended that the city require a deposit, in addition to the temporary sign permit fee, which would be returned if the applicant abides by the city's sign permit and ordinance requirements. The board reviewed the off-site directional signs for non profits and looked at neighboring cities regulations. The board recommended that these signs be allowed for non profits such as places of worship, hospitals, nursing homes, parks and schools and should be approved by the government body responsible for the right-of-way on which the sign is installed. The board also recommended that signs be limited to four square feet with a maximum number of three signs per nonprofit. Boardmember Ledvina volunteered to attend the city council meeting as board representative for the second reading on January 11. VI. NEW BUSINESS a. Vegetation Guidelines for Maplewood Ginny Gaynor, Natural Resources Coordinator, gave a presentation to discuss developing vegetation guidelines for Maplewood as part of establishing policies to encourage sustainable vegetation. Coordinator Gaynor said the board will have a presentation and discussion on the MnDOT Landscaping Partnership at the January 12, 2010 board meeting. Ms. Gaynor explained that this MnDOT program provides grants to communities to landscape along highways, which includes the landscape design and materials. Ms. Gaynor said the city would be required to prepare the site, plant it and maintain it. Ms. Gaynor said staff is looking to landscape along Highway 36 in 2010 as part of this program. Ms. Gaynor asked the board to think about what Maplewood streets they feel are the most important for establishing plantings. b. Community Design Review Board Membership Interview Questions Planner Martin presented the staff report concerning the interview questions for the city council to consider when they interview for board vacancies and reappointments. Boardmember Ledvina suggested a question be included on the role of sustain ability in building design and also a question to get an applicant's experience and opinion regarding specific things in Maplewood. c. City of Maplewood Commission Handbook Appendices Planner Martin handed out the appendices for the commission handbook. VII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS James Llanas, 2424 Barclay Street, thanked board members for their service to the city and also noting the sign ordinance amendments, reminded them that the decisions they make impact business owners and thanked them for their work Community Design Review Board Minutes 12-08-2009 3 VIII. BOARD PRESENTATIONS Boardmember Lamers moved to table the minutes of October 13, November 10 and November 24, 2009, due to lack of a quorum. Boardmember Shankar seconded The motion passed. Ayes - all IX. STAFF PRESENTATIONS a. Planner Martin mentioned that Boardmember Mireau is scheduled as board representative at the December 14, 2009 city council meeting. b. December 22, 2009 CDRB meeting As there were no items for consideration, the board decided by consensus to cancel the meeting of December 22, 2009. X. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned by consensus at 7:01 p.m. MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: LOCATION: DATE: James Antonen, City Manager Michael Martin, AICP, Planner T-Mobile Fencing Proposal FMHC Corporation, as agent for T-Mobile Central LLC 1961 County Road C East January 6, 2010 INTRODUCTION On December 14, 2009, the city council approved T-Mobile's request for a conditional use permit and design review to construct a 75-foot-tall wireless telecommunications tower for cellular telephone operations on land leased from Independent School District No. 622 at the Harmony Learning Center located at 1961 County Road C East. The pole is to be located where a 30-foot light pole currently exists within the school's parking lot. The city council added a condition of approval requiring T-Mobile to receive community design review board (CDRB) approval on the materials for the required fencing. The CDRB had recommended approval for an 8-foot cedar fence to surround the tower and ground equipment. Concerns were raised at the council meeting about the durability and upkeep of the fence. The council decided to require the applicant to submit plans for a non-chain link fence that would weather better then a cedar fence. DISCUSSION The applicant has submitted plans to the city requesting an 8-foot tan vinyl fence to surround the tower and ground equipment. Staff finds the proposed fence acceptable and feels the tan color of the fence will complement the color of the existing school building. The vinyl material will also require minimal maintenance over time. The applicant has submitted a letter, a photo example of what the fence would look like, and promotional material from the fence company. All of these items are attached to this staff report. Staff will request the applicant bring material samples to the meeting. RECOMMENDATIONS A. Staff recommends approving the applicant's plans to build an 8-foot tall tan vinyl fence to screen the tower and ground equipment. Recommendation is based on the findings required by code and subject to the applicant doing the following: 1. Building the fence according to the approved site and design plans date- stamped October 14, 2009. 2. The applicant is required to receive a building permit for an 8-foot tall fence. PI SEC2S11961 Co Rd CIMonopole CUPICDRB_101210 Attachments: 1. Applicant Letter, dated January 4, 2010 2. Fence example and promotional material (separate attachment) Attachment 1 )>> fm c taking telecom to new heights January 4, 2010 Mr. Michael Martin, Planner City of Maplewood 1830 County Road BEast Maplewood, MN 55109 Re: T-Mobile Fencing Information for Community Design Review Board Meeting Location: Harmony Learning Center -1961 County Road C East Dear Mr. Martin, Enclosed for the Community Design Review Board's review and consideration, please find the specifications regarding the fencing material T-Mobile is proposing to use to enclose their communications facility at the Harmony Learning Center. T-Mobile is proposing to use a vinyl fencing material that is manufactured by Heritage Vinyl Products and distributed by Authority Fence & Decks out of Clearwater, Minnesota (www.authoritvfence.com). This vinyl fencing product is available in white and tan as the color grey has recently been discontinued. T-Mobile proposes to use the color tan for their installation at the Harmony Learning Center. A representative from Authority Fence & Decks personally confirmed for me that an eight-foot- tall fence without lattice is available. T-Mobile has previously used this product to enclose its radio equipment at an existing site located in the metro area. A photo has been enclosed for review. I will plan on attending the Community Design Review Board meeting to answer any questions. Please don't hesitate to contact me should you have any questions or require additional information beforehand. Sincerely, Amy Dresch FMHC Corporation 7400 Metro Blvd., 5uite 260 Edina, MN 55439 Office: 952.831.1043 Mobile: 612.802.0452 E-Mail: adresch@fmhc.com This is a photo of the Heritage "Franklin" vinyl fencing at an existing T-Mobile site. This photo depicts a 6 foot white fence but the "Franklin" model also comes in tan and can be designed up to 8 feet in height. t!~X,~~&e@ Go outside. Relax. Have fun. (forget about fence maintenance - there isn't any.) Herirage@ fence systems begin with premium materials and our exclusive vinyl for- mula, ensuring the highest level of quality. A Heritage system retains its structural integrity even under duress, so you can depend on it for you and your family's safe- ty. Unlike wood, which continually needs annual upkeep like painting and staining, Heritage vinyl keeps its good looks year after year with just an occasional rinse with the garden hose. Wirh the money saved from suc~ upkeep, a Heritage fence system practically pays for itself. And the new time you find for yourself and your family is priceless. Custpm colors and post caps make a fence as individual as you. " Seven post cap styles, three designer colors and complementing gates (in single or double-drive configuration), give you the freedom to customize your Heritage fence system and create a style iliat perfectly accentuates your home. Gothic Dome Flat Top Inside Pyramid '----- WHITE GRAY TAN Outside Pyramid New England "H"Cap / ( Imagine your new picket fence, its woven shadow shrinking under a summer's rising sun. Imagine the same scene, year after year, as your unchanged fence keeps its appearance, asking little of your time. So you can tend to your Ilowerbeds and laze on your porch. CLASSIC PICKET 1 Now YOll can own the classic picket fence of your dreams - without worrying about maintenance. The traditional style of the Classic Picket 1 with its narrow pickets gives a look of distinction. l-Ieight: 36",42" and 48" Width, 72" CLASSIC PICKET 2 The popular Classic Picket 2, with 3-1/2" p~kets, adds subtle refinement to your home's landscaping. Height: 36",42" and 48" Width, 72" I. , With Heritage fences you'll hnd more spare time. Not just for now or in the near future - but forever. Because it comes with one of the best lifetime warranties in the industry, you'll have a fence designed to last even longer than you own it. Imagine, a fence giving you the time to do what you love most. fjf "'l' CLASSIC PICKET 3 The Classic Picket 3 makes an elegant statement with its sculpted look and 1-1/2" pickets. Gothic post caps accentuate this style perfectly.. Height: 42" and 48" Width, 72" CLASSIC PICKET 4 . The striking design of the Classic Picket 4 feature~-a scalloped top and full 3-1/2" pickets. Height: ~42" and 48" Width, 72" ~" ~ tliI I. "'..<: A Heritage fence system allows you peace of mind. Thanks to designs that are not only beautiful, but safe and durable as well. With never a twisted board, splinter or rusted nail, you'll feel secure whatever the occasion. CIERRA A popular fence for homeowners across the count:ry, Cierra is the ideal accent for patios and pools. Heigh" 36",48-1/2" and 60" Width, 72" and 96" COLONIAL (4" & 5" POSTS) This semi-private design offers the same finished look on both sides. With its dog-ear caps, the Colonial design is a traditional favorite that blends with many architectural styles. 4" Post Style Height: 48",60" and 72" Width: 70" a.nd 96" 5" Post Style Height: 60" and 72" Width, 71" md 97" I, A Heritage fence is strong. It's made with vinyl that retains its flexibility regardless of the temperature and its structural integrity even under impact. In fact, it's strong enough to handle the imaginations of a neighborhood of children - you might even have a few people thinking it's magical. AMERICAN The American features smaller pickets spaced Close together to contain your small pets. Height: 36",48-1/2" and 60" Width, 96" MARQUIS The Marquis makes your home more beautiful and secure, with alternating sized pickets for visual impact. Height: 36",48-1/2" and 60" Width: 72" and 96" DYNASTY (4" OR 5" POSTS) Dynasty lets you enjoy your privacy without totally blocking your view. 4" Post Style Height: 48-1/2",60" and 72" Width, 70-1/2" and 96" 5" Post Style Height: 60" and 72" Width, 71-1/2" and 97" A private moment in the back garden. A sunlit afternoon, a good book, and a lawn chair, all enjoyed in complete privacy. In fact, the only time you'll let the world in is when you invite it - through the garden gate. FRANKLIN With tongue-and-groove pickets and maimenaEce-free steel inserts, Franklin gives you a robust, full privacy fence. Height: 60" and 72" Width, 70-5/8" and 95" FRANKLIN WITH LATTICE It's made using the same quality vinyl so it never twists, warps, shrinks Of gaps like an ordinary wood fence. A beautiful lattice top adds a decorative touch. Heigh" 72" and 84" Width, 70-5/8" and 95" SHADOW BOX 2 Privacy never looked so good. Shadow Box 2 beautifully blocks out the outside world with a decorative privacy fence. Heigh" 48",60" and 72" Width, 72" ~i- ~.I 1\ II ~ '~....I (c! 11 ~. m II I I~( 'I i I i ~1 ~I ,:1 ~i' ~ i,1 ~ k This post and rail style gives classic beauty in a long-term fencing solution _ engineered to absorb most impacts and bounce back when challenged. Also available in TRUE 2" x 6" rail. TWO RAIL The clean lines of the Two Rail Ranch blend beautifully with a wide range of architectural styles.. Also available in TRUE 2" x 6" rail. Height: 36" Width: 96" THREE RAIL ! , Height: 54" Width, 96" " CROSSBUCK RAIL '! ~I ~i ~ ~ Hardworking and affordable, a Hericage ranch system is a great choice for a busy ranch or child-filled neigh- borhood. This elegant Post and Rail style adds a classic touch. A favorite choice among horse lovers, Heritage ranch rail systems outper- form wood, wire and iron. Vinyl is an ideal material foi horses since it resists chewing, The Four Rail style gives solid protection and performance, Also available in TRUE 2" x 6" rail. FOUR RAIL Height:' 54" Width: 96" ;il ~l ~I Height: 54" Width, 96" o SPLIT RAIL II m m I This classic design combines style with tough wearing performance, Simple and elegant, the Split Rail is the perfect complement, Available in 2 or 3 rail. 2 Rail Styl, Height: 36" Width, 96-112" 3 Rail Styl, Height: 48" Width, 96-112" PICKETS Fence Style Heights Widths Post Size Rail Size Metal Reinforced Picket Size Spacing Middle Rail Colors I Classic Picket 1 36", 42". 48" 72" 4" 1_1/2" x 3-1/2" y" 7/8" x 1-1/2" 2" No W,T,G Classic Picket 2 36",42", 48" 72" 4" 1-112" x 3-112" y" 7/8" x 3-112" 3" No W,T,G Classic Picket 3 42".48" 72" 4" 1-112";;:: 3-1/2" y" 7/8" x-I-If2" 2" No W. T,G Classic Bicket 4 42",48" 72" 4" 1-112" x 3-1/2" y" 7/8" x 3-1/2" 3" No W,'CG SEMI-PRIVACY FenceSty[e Heights Widths Post Size Rail Size Metal Reinforced Picket Size Spacing Middle Rail Colors American 36",48-1/2",60" 96" 4" 1-1/2"x 3-1/2" y" 7/8" x 1-1/2" 1-3/4" 60" only W.T,G Gerra 36'~ 48-1/2",60" 72'~96" 4" 1-112" x 3-1/2" y" 7/8" x 1-1/2" 3-l/2" 60" only \X~ T, G Colonial (4" post) 48",60",72" 70",96" 4" l~lI2" x 3-1/2" y" 7/8", ,-)/2" 1" 72" only \\~ T, G Colonial (5" post) 60",72" 71",97" 5" 1_1/2" x 3-112" y" 7/8" x 5-1/2" 1" 72" only, w,T, G Dynasty (4" post) 48-1/2",60",72" 70-112",96" 4" 1-1/2" x 3-1/2" y" 7/8" x 3-]/2" 5/8" 60" & 72" W,T,G Dynast}'(5" post) 60".72" 71-112",97" 5" 1-1/2"x 3-112" y" 7/8" x 3-If2" 5/8" 60" & 72" W,T,G Shadow Box 2 48", 60",72" 72" 5" 3"x 3" y" 7/8" x 5~1/2" 0" 60" & 72" W,TG Marquis 36",48-112",60" 72",96" 4" 1-112" x 3-112" y" 7/8" x 1-112" 2-114" 60" only \'i7,T,G 7/8" x 3-112" PRIVACY Fence Style Franklin Franklin w/Lattice Heights Widths Post Size Rail Size Metal Reinforced Picket Size Spacing Middle Rail Colors 60'~ 72" 70-5/8",95" 5" l-I/2"x 5_1/2" y" 7/8" x 8-118" 0" No W,T.G 72".84" 70-5/8",95" 5" 1-l/2" x 5-1/2" xl. y" 7/8" x 8-118" 0" No W,T,G 1-1/2" x 3-112" , <, RANCH Fence Style Heights Widths Post Size Rail Size Metal Reinforced Picket Size Spacing Middle Rail Colo'rs 2-RaiJ Ranch 36" 96" 5" 1-1/2"x 5-1/2" No N/A 10-J/2" N/A W,T.G 3-Rail Ranch 54" 96" 5" I~1I2"x 5-112" No N/A 10-112" N/A W,'l;G 4- Rail Ranch 54" 96" 5" 1-1/2"x 5-1/2" No N/A 6-112" N/A W,T, G True 2 x 6 --- 2-RaiI 36" 96" 5" 2" x 6" No N/A 10-1/4" N/A W,T,G True 2 x 6 m 3-Rail 54" 96" 5" 2"x 6" No N/A 10-1/4" N/A w,T,G True 2 x 6 --- 4-Rail 54" 96" 5" 2"x 6" No N/A 6-114" N/A W,T.G Crossbuck 54" 96" 5" 1"1/2"x 5-112" No N/A 2'~ 10-718",2-3/16" N/A W,T,G Split Rai12-Rail 36" 96-1/2" 5" 3"x 3" No N/A 7-3/16" N/A W,T,G SplitRai13-Rail 48" 96-112" 5" 3"x 3" No N/A 7-3/16" N/A W,T,G MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: DATE: James Antonen, City Manager Michael Martin, AICP, Planner Ginny Gaynor, Maplewood Natural Resources Coordinator Steven Kummer, P.E., Engineer Vegetation Guidelines for Maplewood January 6, 2010 TO: FROM: INTRODUCTION At the December 8, 2009 CDRB meeting, staff briefly introduced the concept of establishing vegetation guidelines for Maplewood. The discussion was focused around the following questions. 1. What are the main principals of sustainable landscapes? 2. What level of maintenance is needed for different planting styles? 3. Why do we need a hierarchy of plantings and what might that involve? 4. What boulevards in Maplewood should receive the highest level of planting? 5. What type of vegetation and plantings do you associate with Maplewood? . DISCUSSION The Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) has a Community Roadside Landscaping Partnership Program (CRLP). This program provides landscape design services and funding for plants and landscape materials along highways. For many commuters, their primary experience of Maplewood is the landscape they see when they drive through the city on Highway 36 or Highway 94. The CRLP program is an opportunity to improve the aesthetics of the highway landscape and the impression it gives of Maplewood. Todd Carroll, landscape architect for Mn/DOT, will be attending the January 12, 2010 CDRB meeting to discuss possibilities for landscaping along Highway 36. While Mr. Carroll will be focusing on Highway 36, board members should think about the larger context of vegetation in Maplewood. Staff would like to begin developing guidelines for vegetation on city lands with the goals of: 1. Creating an visual image that people associate with Maplewood; 2. Ensuring plantings are sustainable and the city only plants what it can maintain; 3. Creating plantings that reflect our natural heritage; 4. Minimizing the need for watering, fertilizing, and the use of pesticides. RECOMMENDATION Staff requests board members review the Sustainable Maplewood 2050 project, which was created by a group of students from the University of Minnesota. Board members received electronic copies of the report in early 2009, but it can be accessed on-line at: www.cLmaplewood.mn.us/DocumentView.aspx?DID=915. Board members should also be prepared to discuss landscaping opportunities along Highway 36 as well as a larger vision for vegetation guidelines in Maplewood.