HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/21/2004.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
AGENDA
MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
Tuesday, September 21, 2004
6:00 P.M.
Council Chambers - Maplewood City Hall
1830 County Road B East
Call to Order
Roll Call
Approval of Agenda
Approval of the August 24, 2004, Minutes
Design Review:
a. Summerhill of Maplewood (Senior Cooperative Building) - 935 Ferndale
Street (Transfiguration School Site)
b. Ramsey County Suburban Courthouse - 2050 White Bear Avenue
Visitor Presentations: None Scheduled
Board Presentations:
a. September 13, 2004, City Council Meeting - Cottages at Legacy Village
Staff Presentations:
a. Community Design Review Board Representation at the September 27,
2004, City Council Meeting (Summerhill of Maplewood and Ramsey
County Courthouse)
b. Cancellation of the September 28, 2004, Community Design Review
Board Meeting
c. Gladstone Strategic Planning Update
9. Adjourn
MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 21, 2004
I. CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Longrie-Kline called the meeting to order at 6:03 p.m.
II. ROLL CALL
Chairperson Diana Longrie-Kline
Board member Ledvina
Board member Judy Driscoll
Board member Linda Olson
Board member Ananth Shankar
Present
Present
Absent
Present
Present
Staff Present:
Shann Finwall, Planner
Lisa Kroll, Recording Secretary
III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Board member Ledvina moved to approve the agenda.
Board member Shankar seconded. Ayes - Ledvina, Longrie-Kline, Olson, Shankar
The motion passed.
IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Approval of the CDRB minutes for August 24, 2004.
Board member Shankar moved approval of the minutes of August 24, 2004.
Board member Ledvina seconded. Ayes---Ledvina, Longrie-Kline, Olson, Shankar
The motion passed.
V. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
None.
VI. DESIGN REVIEW
al
Summerhill of Maplewood (Senior Cooperative Building) - 935 Ferndale Street
(Transfiguration School Site)
Ms. Finwall said Transfiguration Church proposes to construct an addition to their church and
middle school site located at 6133 North 15th Street in Oakdale. The addition will house their
elementary school students, who currently attend school at Transfiguration Elementary School
located at 935 Ferndale Street in Maplewood.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 9-21-2004
Ms. Finwall said because of the relocation of the elementary students, Transfiguration Church
would like to sell the elementary school site. Ms. Finwall said the applicant's originally
submitted plans for a 52-unit, four-story senior cooperative building. These revised plans were
presented during the August 16, 2004, planning commission meeting after city staff had
notified the neighbors and planning commission of the four-story building. Regardless of the
last minute revision, the planning commission ultimately recommended denial of the
comprehensive land use change and rezoning of the Transfiguration School site by a vote of 3
to 5 with one abstention. Because of this recommendation and neighborhood concerns voiced
during the planning commission meeting, Transfiguration Church hoped to gain support for
their revised plan during a second neighborhood meeting on August 31,2004, and their annual
church/school festival on September 11,2004.
Ms. Finwall said based on staff and neighborhood concerns, the applicants have made several
changes to their original plans including reducing the number of units from 52 to 44, reducing
the height of the building from four stories to three, and relocating the location of the driveway
from Ferndale Street to Harvester Avenue. The community design review board should review
the revised plans at the September 21, 2004, CDRB meeting for design elements including
architectural, landscaping, and lighting and ensure that it meets all design review criteria as
specified in Section 2-290 of the city code. City staff recommends approval of the design
review of the proposed 44-unit senior cooperative building.
Board member Ledvina asked if the mechanical equipment included utility meters or did the
mechanical equipment only refer to equipment such as chillers?
Ms. Finwall said she was referring to mechanical equipment such as chillers but the applicant
could address any other equipment such as utility meters and their location to ensure proper
screening.
Board member Olson asked if she understood that the trail to the Nature Center had been
eliminated with this plan.
Ms. Finwall said the applicants were originally proposing an access point to the nature center
on the southwest corner of the site. However, they didn't confer with the Nature Center with
that proposal and that shouldn't be part of this site plan. There is a steep grade there as well
and would require a lot of grading. There is access to the Nature Center down the road on
Ferndale St.
Board member Shankar asked if the zoning change from single dwelling to multiple dwelling
had already been denied by the planning commission.
Ms. Finwall said the planning commission recommended denial of the comprehensive land use
plan and rezoning. However, their recommendation is only a recommendation to the city
council and the city council will make the final decision to approve or deny this proposal at their
meeting on Monday, September 27, 2004.
Chairperson Longrie-Kline asked the applicant to address the board.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 9-21-2004
Mr. Chuck Armstrong, Director of Business Development, Nichols Development, 12750
Nicollet Avenue South, Suite 300, Burnsville. Mr. Armstrong thanked the board for the
opportunity to speak on a very exciting project called Summerhill of Maplewood that they
would like to bring to the City of Maplewood.
Mr. Armstrong said this senior cooperative is for people aged 55 and older and is a three-story
owner occupied building with underground parking. If this proposal is approved Nichols
Development could break ground as early as the summer of 2005 after the school year is
complete at the Transfiguration school.
Mr. Greg Holly a parishioner at Transfiguration Church, addressed the board. Mr. Holly is also
the legal representative for Transfiguration Church and stated the church had three meetings.
The first town meeting was in June when they announced this development. The biggest
concern voiced by the neighbors was the size of the project and asked if the building could be
reduced from four stories to three stories? As a result of the actions made by the planning
commission they had a second meeting that was well attended by 52 residents and two city
councilmember's. Many concerns of the residents were addressed at this meeting. People
better understood what the alternatives would be and have come to appreciate that a senior
cooperative is the best alternative for this site. Particularly with the changes made to the
landscaping and the reduction in the size of the building. They also had a fall festival
September 10, 2004. At this meeting people were interested in how they could sign up to
purchase a unit as well as obtaining further information.
Mr. Armstrong showed photos of the other senior housing sites they have built in other cities
as a comparison to how the buildings could look. The HVAC system would be located in the
closet of each unit. The system is called a comfort pack or magic pack, is self contained,
maintained on a regular basis and very quiet. There will be a trash shoot that goes down to
the dumpsters to be located in the underground parking garage. The trash dumpsters would
be rolled out into the garage where the garbage truck would pull up and empty the dumpsters,
they will then be rolled back in place. The utility meters will be located in the underground
parking garage as well. The butterfly gardens will be incorporated into the holding ponds and
they plan on being partners with the Maplewood Nature Center on the installation and planting
of these gardens.
Mr. Armstrong asked Mr. Howley to come forward and speak.
Mr. Roger Howley, Architect, Miller Hansen, 1201 Hawthorne Avenue, Minneapolis, addressed
the board. He has worked with Nichols Development on four Summerhill projects. He
presented building material samples for the board to review. There will be screened in
porches with aluminum railings on the exterior of the decks. This way the screening can easily
and safely be fixed without going to the exterior to fix things. They hope to possibly work with
the nature center in the hopes that the children that attend the center would help plant and
maintain the rain and butterfly gardens. As far as the mechanical equipment goes visually
there will be three condensers that are three feet high and are used to cool the common areas
that they will screen.
Mr. Armstrong said they want to thank the board for considering this project and ask for the
boards support. He thanked Ms. Finwall for her assistance and guidance in walking them
through this process. It has been very helpful and a learning and educational experience.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 9-21-2004
Mr. Armstrong said he's a member of the Transfiguration Church and was a long time east
side resident and he knows this project would be a good thing for the City of Maplewood.
Board member Shankar asked if residents who have purchased units at the Summerhill
buildings have asked for a satellite to have satellite television.
Mr. Armstrong said that issue has not come up before, each unit is wired for cable and that
seems to be sufficient for the homeowner. However, he doesn't see that happening.
Board member Shankar asked if the applicant was agreeable to moving the driveway entrance
on Harvester directly across from the neighbor's driveway.
Mr. Armstrong said they don't want motor vehicle lights to shine into the neighbor's house
either and if it's agreeable to the engineer and it can be done, and then they're agreeable to
relocating the driveway location.
Chairperson Longrie-Kline asked what the approximate cost per unit would be.
Mr. Armstrong said they haven't priced the units out yet. The square footage can range from
1,000 to 1,500 square feet. Depending on the size of the unit and how many bedrooms they
have, a one bedroom unit could run $160,000-$170,000 for the initial down payment, plus a
monthly carrying fee. There is also a one bedroom plus a den plan and a two-bedroom plan.
Board member Olson asked if the gazebo would be screened in like the individual decks would
be?
Mr. Roger Howley addressed the board. Mr. Howley said it's their intention to screen the
gazebo. There would also be a large patio space for an outdoor grill, grills are not allowed on
the individual decks.
Board member Olson said the color rendition shows a six-sided concrete pad and the drawings
they received tonight shows a square concrete pad. The concrete pad has changed and the
size of the gazebo has gotten smaller.
Chairperson Longrie-Kline asked if there were any other colors besides cream for the stucco,
color board and trim.
Mr. Howley said the product primed and then painted on the job, so the color selection is wide
open. The beauty of the James Hardie paneled product compared to vinyl siding is that you
can chose the color you want. Because it's a cement product it's a very stable product and
holds paint very well. They haven't selected the building colors yet but expect the colors to be
light.
Chairperson Longrie-Kline said she would prefer a darker color scheme so the building does
not appear so large. In her opinion the lighter the color the more the building stands out and
appears larger.
Chairperson Longrie-Kline asked if anyone in the audience wanted to be heard regarding this
project to come forward, sign in and address the board.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 9-21-2004
The following people spoke regarding the Summerhill of Maplewood senior housing
cooperative project:
Laura Schweiker, 2607 Harvester Avenue, Maplewood.
Ms. Schweiker said she lives in the house across the street from this proposal and the
lights would shine into her home but she doesn't see that as a problem. She and her
husband came to the planning commission meeting and have attended the rest of the
meetings. She said they welcome this proposal because they look at it as an
improvement to the neighborhood. A senior cooperative built in this location will
increase the home values, not decrease them as it would having an apartment building
or rental housing built in this location. She doesn't see single-family homes being built
in this location because of the high cost for a developer to build here. This is a better
project for the neighborhood. It is fine with them to have the driveway relocated to line
up with her driveway. The school driveway is across the street from hers and it is busier
than this building would be. The traffic is in the morning, late afternoon and in the
evening. The senior housing would create less traffic for the area because it would be
spread out throughout the day and night. She knows the neighbors don't agree with
that but you have to live directly across the street from a school to see what really
occurs. This building is going to be attractive with the proposed holding ponds, butterfly
gardens and landscaping which will improve the appearance of the grounds especially
compared to all the blacktop there is currently on the site. This will also help the runoff
in the area. Her husband is a bricklayer and said this building is going to look very rich
with the building products and colors. The stucco and brick building materials will be
nice as opposed to other developments that have used vinyl siding on their buildings.
Her parents built her house in 1953 and she grew up in this neighborhood. When her
parents moved out they bought the home. From day one there has been change in this
neighborhood and change is going to happen no matter what. Sometimes change is
good. The night after the last neighborhood meeting there were five cars broken into in
the neighborhood and her car was one of the cars damaged. Having an owned
structure where people live and come and go make it safer than a vacant building with a
vacant parking lot where kids park and party. This building will improve the look of the
neighborhood, the value of the homes, the landscaping will be greatly improved and it
will be a safer neighborhood, especially having seniors watching the activity in the
neighborhood.
Margaret Kunde, 937 Glendon Street, Maplewood.
Mrs. Kunde said she lives across the street from this proposed building. She is happy
she is not one of the city councilmember's that will have to decide to grant or deny this
plan. This is a tremendous change in the zoning. This is a beautiful building but her
personal opinion is that this building is too big and does not belong on this site.
1
Eugene Kunde, 937 Glendon, Street, Maplewood.
Mr. Kunde said he is very alarmed that a project this large has gotten this far. This
building doesn't belong here. The reason he settled here years ago was because this
was a nice residential neighborhood. Not because it had multifamily housing in it or a
commercial center. He feels this building would be a complete misfit here and doesn't
think it should be built here. He said he might have to board his front windows shut to
keep the people from looking into his home from the balconies.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 9-21-2004
1
Alvin Geerdes, 987 Glendon Street, Maplewood.
Mr. Geerdes said he and his wife have lived in the neighborhood for more than 40
years. When he became an employee at 3M Company a fellow employee suggested
he move here. There are schools, churches, the Nature center, post office, bank and
shopping within walking distance and he really enjoys the area. He would prefer to see
this development built here rather than something else. He thinks the neighborhood
needs this building and it would be an asset to the community.
Sm
William Fye, 973 Glendon Street, Maplewood.
Mr. Fye and his wife have lived here for many years. About six years ago the city put in
the raingardens. This was a way to beautify the neighborhood. This proposal will
enhance the beautification the city did six years ago. He and his son like the
landscaping and plantings the applicant proposed. This building is the best possible
thing to happen to this property. All they look at now is 2 acres of blacktop. When the
blacktop is removed the runoff problem should be corrected. This plan has a lot of
greenery, plantings and landscaping. The applicant has bent over backwards to
accommodate the neighbors and cannot say enough good things about this
development. This will not reduce the value of the homes it will only increase them.
There may even be something for a retired person like himself to do to help out with
working on the building grounds. He has lived here for 25 years and wants to continue
living here. He asked the board to give this project their thought felt consideration and
approve this plan.
w
Janel Heroff, 940 Ferndale Street North, Maplewood.
Ms. Heroff said she lives directly across from the main entrance to this building. She
asked the developer what the maximum height of the trees would be. (Mr. Howley said
the trees are planted at 2½ inches and could grow to 45 feet high. Ms. Heroff asked
what the maximum height of the building would be. (Mr. Howley said the peak is shown
at 49 feet high.) She said basically the trees won't cover the height of the building.
There will be 20 balconies that would be looking into their front windows. She is
concerned about her private property and loosing her privacy. They moved into this
neighborhood 32 years ago because it was a single-family neighborhood. It's going to
be a hardship for them to consider moving but if this project gets approved this may be
what pushes them out of the City of Maplewood because of the lose of privacy. A
development of this size doesn't belong in a neighborhood of 1½-to2-story homes. The
building is beautiful but belongs in a different setting.
Ms. Heroff had asked the developer if they could build a two-stow building and the
developer said they could not make this affordable down sizing from a three-story
building to a two-story. She said maybe this building shouldn't be built in this
neighborhood. She asked the developer for a copy of the shadow study and hasn't
received it yet. The report is important to her because she believes the shadowing will
impact her property.
(Chairperson Longrie-Kline said the staff report states the height of the building is 40
feet 2 inches to the top of the highest roof. She said when the developer comes forward
to answer those questions he can show the shadow study.)
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 9-21-2004
1
John Heroff, 940 Ferndale Street North, Maplewood.
He doesn't have a lot to add to what his wife said other than this is a nice building
design but it's not right for the neighborhood.
Mr. Armstrong said at the very peak of the building is 49 feet 2 inches with the remainder of the
building maintaining a 40-foot 2 inch height. He gave a presentation on the shadow study for a
four-stow building and a three-stow building. The key times for the study were at 9:00 a.m.,
12:00 noon, and 3:00 p.m. during three different times of the year. This information had also
been shared at a past neighborhood meeting.
Board member Shankar asked about the lighting?
Mr. Howley said the lighting plan would stay the same but they would provide a decorative light
fixture as opposed to the box style light fixture and bring it lower. They provide screens with
the light fixture to control light glare. The light fixture plan will be reviewed by city staff.
Board member Olson asked if the medallion lighting shown as part of the CDRB packet was
still proposed.
Mr. Howley said if the city required a different light fixture they would do that.
Board member Olson said she thought this was one of the most comprehensive plans she has
ever seen as far as anticipating questions and addressing the issues. The applicant has done
an excellent job on this proposal. She lives next door to a school and she would love to see a
building like this built next to her rather than living next to a school. The traffic issues are a
real problem. She is not concerned about the balconies looking into people's homes. The
screening will help prevent details from being observed from 100 feet away. Her neighbors are
less than 100 feet away and she can't see inside their homes. If she had to have neighbors
she would prefer to have senior citizen neighbors watching over her home. It substantially cuts
down on crime occurring. The design of the building is tremendous and she prefers the darker
tones of the building as opposed to the lighter. The lighter tones tend to visually push the
building forward. This will be a positive feature and a real asset to the neighborhood.
Board member Ledvina said the applicant has done a very good job with the building design.
This will be a very interesting building with the changes of the roofline, the variety of the floor
plans, and amount of common space that would be available to residents. The applicant has
done a good job with the landscaping and how it all lays out in the surrounding area.
Board member Shankar echoed Board member Ledvina's comments. He said he lives in a
residential neighborhood and during the day people can't see into your home. In the evening
everyone closes their curtains or blinds which would take care of anyone's issue with privacy.
With minimal parking in front of the building it will help to see cars coming and going from the
area and this helps with keeping crime down.
Chairperson Longrie-Kline said the staff report shows a single family home diagram where the
home would be built much closer to the street than this building would be. That is information
that was very important to her.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 9-21-2004
Chairperson Longrie-Kline said those of you that were concerned about the shadow study
could possibly ask the developer to give you a copy of it.
Board member Ledvina moved to approve the site plan, building elevations, and photometrics
plans date-stamped September 10, 2004, for the 44-unit, three-story Summerhill of Maplewood
senior housing cooperative to be located at 935 Ferndale Street. Approval is subject to the
applicant doing the following: (changes made during the 9-21-04 CDRB meeting are
underlined if added and stricken if deleted.)
o
Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this
project.
,
Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit, the applicant must submit to staff for
approval the following items:
ao
Revised grading and drainage plan for the three-story building.
Revised landscape plan for the three-story building as follows:
Co
do
eo
1 ) Locate and protect existing nature center trees adjacent to the site.
2) Expansion of the nature center oak savanna a few feet into the
Summerhill property with the addition of large red or white oak trees.
3) Rain gardens planted in the storm ponds.
4) Allocation of at least 1 percent of the overall construction cost to trees.
5) Barberry shrub replaced with an alternative shrub.
6) The addition of a native butterfly garden.
Revised building elevations showing the following:
1) Gazebo/porch located on west side of the building. The gazebo and
porch must be constructed of quality building materials and be consistent
with the proposed senior cooperative building.
2) Front entry overhang with a clearance of at least 12 feet to
accommodate ambulances and fire vehicles. The front entry must be
constructed of quality building materials and be consistent with the
proposed senior cooperative building.
3)Screen porches for all 44 units.
4) Consistent building and color elevations showing additional dormers and
porches on the east and west elevation.
5) Screening of all exterior mechanical equipment from surrounding
residential properties.
6) The north elevation revised to reflect the change in the driveway
location.
Site plan to scale ensuring a 15-foot setback from the parking lot to the right-of-
way; construction of 14 northerly parking stalls and 12 southerly parking stalls
designated as "proof-of-parking", Harvester Avenue driveway lining up, to the
extent possible, with the existing driveways across Harvester Avenue; trail
grading width reduced to ensure no disturbance of nature center trees; no trail
access to Nature Center; interior sidewalks leading to exterior sidewalks; play
area.
Registered land survey of the property.
Watershed district approval.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 9-21-2004
g,
Building material samples.
A cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit for all required
improvements. The amount shall be 150 percent of the cost of the work.
exterior
3. The applicant shall complete the following before occupying the building:
a,
d,
Replace any property irons removed because of this construction.
Provide continuous curb and gutter around the parking lot and driveways.
Install all required landscaping and an in-ground lawn irrigation system for all
landscaped areas.
Install all required outdoor lighting.
Install all required sidewalks and trails.
4. If any required work is not done, the city may allow temporary occupancy if:
a.
b,
The city determines that the work is not essential to the public health, safety or
welfare.
The above-required letter of credit or cash escrow is held by the City of
Maplewood for all required exterior improvements. The owner or contractor shall
complete any unfinished exterior improvements by June 1 of the following year if
occupancy of the building is in the fall or winter or within six weeks of occupancy
of the building if occupancy is in the spring or summer.
.
All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may
approve minor changes.
Board member Shankar seconded.
Ayes- Ledvina, Longrie-Kline, Olson, Shankar
Chairperson Longrie-Kline offered a friendly amendment including the landscape plan the
CDRB received 9-21-04 during the meeting along with the proposed elevations and to show
the gazebo is screened and providing the building materials samples as provided at the 9-21-
04 CDRB meeting.
Board member Shankar moved that the north elevation as submitted be revised to reflect the
change of the driveway location.
The motion passed.
This item goes to the city council on September 27, 2004.
The CDRB makes this recommendation to the city council based on the findings to approve
plans because:
,
The design and location of the proposed development and its relationship to
neighboring, existing or proposed developments, and traffic is such that it will not impair
the desirability of investment or occupation in the neighborhood; that it will not
unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring, existing or proposed
developments; and that it will not create traffic hazards or congestion.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 9-21-2004
l0
,
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.
.
The design and location of the proposed development would provide a desirable
environment for its occupants, as well as for its neighbors, and that it is aesthetically of
good composition, materials, textures and colors.
The board took a 5-minute recess.
b. Ramsey County Suburban Courthouse - 2050 White Bear Avenue
Ms. Finwall said David Chase of Kraus-Anderson Construction and Ramsey County, is
proposing to build a 15,150 square-foot suburban courts building on the vacant city-owned
property at 2050 White Bear Avenue. As proposed, the exterior of the courts building would
have colored jumbo brick, prefinished cement fiber board panels (with a look similar to EIFS),
colored rock face block, metal panel siding and a standing seam metal roof. In addition, it
would have two courtrooms, office space, meeting rooms and associated space for the
suburban courts operation. City staff recommends approval of the design review for the
proposed court building.
Board member Ledvina asked if staff's recommendation to change the building design
elements as stated in the staff report was ever discussed with the applicant.
Ms. Finwall said Mr. Roberts who wrote this report may have had contact with the applicant
regarding these changes but she was not aware of anything. Perhaps the applicant can
answer that.
Chairperson Longrie-Kline asked the applicant to address the board.
Mr. Randy Wagner, DSGO, 548 Apollo Drive, Suite 10, Lino Lakes, addressed the board. The
changes recommended by city staff have been made to the plan since the CUP was
submitted. He went over the building materials that were used on the City Hall and Community
Center buildings that they were working to maintain some kind of context with. They want to
maintain consistency with the existing building colors and materials so they will be using rock
face block, brick, metal siding and have a fiat roof. He said the owner will provide benches
outside for the employees to use.
Chairperson Longrie-Kline said regarding the benches outside for people to use, had anyone
thought of installing a drinking fountain? Because of the proximity of the walking and biking trail
people would appreciate having a drinking fountain outside for their use? The benches would
be nice; however, they would be used by the employees as well as people using the trails that
will stop to rest.
Mr. Wagner said a drinking fountain is something to be considered and would require
additional maintenance.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 9-21-2004
Chairperson Longrie-Kline said at the current courthouse site there are 100 reserved parking
spaces now. Since she is an attorney she has first hand experience with the parking shortage
that occurs at the courthouse. She asked how the parking shortage is going to be handled
with the shared parking agreement with the community center.
Mr. Wagner said they are planning on potential additional parking spaces if the parking
situation doesn't work out.
Chairperson Longrie-Kline said the community center is trying to rent parking space out to
other organizations to improve their bottom line and she wondered if there was ever a
discussion regarding how to resolve the parking situation?
Mr. Steve Lanak, DSGO, 548 Apollo Drive, Suite 10, Lino Lakes, addressed the board. He
said there has been discussion regarding the parking situation. If there was an event at the
community center that would cause a parking conflict, and the courthouse knew about the
conflict early enough, the courts could adjust the schedule to help the parking situation.
Board member Shankar asked to see the building material samples.
Mr. Lanak presented the board with building material samples.
Elliott Stendel, DSGO, 548 Apollo Drive, Suite 10, Lino Lakes, addressed the board. He
described the different building products and where they would be used on the building
exterior.
Board member Olson asked why there were no windows shown on the east elevation?
Mr. Lanak said that was the preference of the courts not to have windows on the east elevation
due to distraction, security, and privacy purposes.
Chairperson Longrie-Kline stressed her parking concern. She would like to see the Ramsey
County Courthouse put the parking agreement in writing. This document would be good for
the City of Maplewood and the Maplewood Community Center. The court calendars are very
full and people don't want to be delayed with their arraignments and the other issues that they
go to court for because of lack of parking due to an event taking place at the community
center. She would like to see the drinking fountain installed as she stated earlier since this
building is being used by the community. As far as the building proposal, the building
materials and landscaping appear to be fine.
Board member Ledvina said the building composition seems nice and the applicant has done a
good job of matching the surrounding building materials that have already been used. He
hoped the courthouse would have an understanding of what their parking needs are.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 9-21-2004
12
Board member Olson moved to approve the project plans date-stamped September 10, 2004
and the revised landscape plan date-stamped September 21, 2004, for the Ramsey County
Suburban Courts building at 2050 White Bear Avenue, subject to the findings required by the
city code. The county or the developer shall do the following: (changes made during the 9-
2'1-04 CDRB meeting are underlined if added and stricken if deleted.)
.
Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this
project.
2. Complete the following before the city issues a grading permit or a building permit:
Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These
plans shall include: grading, utility, drainage, erosion control, tree, sidewalk and
driveway and parking lot plans. The plans shall meet the following conditions:
(1) The erosion control plan shall be consistent with city code.
(2) The grading plan shall:
(a)
Include building, floor elevation, water elevation and contour information.
These shall include the normal water elevation and 100-year high water
elevation.
(b) Include contour information for the land that the construction will disturb.
(c)
Show sedimentation basins or ponds as required by the watershed
board or by the city engineer. The ponds or basins shall meet the city's
design standards and shall include best management practices and
rainwater gardens wherever practical.
(d)
Show all proposed slopes steeper than 3:1 on the proposed construction
plans. The city engineer shall approve the plans, specifications and
management practices for any slopes steeper than 3:1. This shall
include covering these slopes with wood-fiber blankets and seeding
them with a "no mow" vegetation rather than using sod or grass.
(e)
Show all retaining walls on the plans. Any retaining walls more than four
feet tall require a building permit from the city.
(f)
Show as little disturbance as possible on the north and south sides of
the site to minimize the loss or removal of natural vegetation.
(3)*
All the parking areas and driveways shall have continuous concrete curb and
gutter, except where the city engineer decides it is not necessary for drainage
purposes.
(4)
A storm water management plan, including drainage and ponding calculations,
for the proposal.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 9-21-2004
13
(5) Make all the changes and meet all the conditions noted by the city engineer in
the memo dated September 13, 2004.
b. Submit a lawn-irrigation plan to staff showing the location of sprinkler heads.
c. Submit a certificate of survey for all new construction.
d. Submit a revised landscape plan for city staff approval showing'
(1) The planting of native grasses, flowering plants and Iow-level shrubs
around any storm water pond(s). These materials shall extend at least
four feet from the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) of each pond.
(2) The planting details (including flowering plants and shrubs) for any
rainwater gardens on the site.
~1 ' '"'"" '""-'""'"'1"'" '~ '"'""'~ ,~,.~.,,.,,,. t.,,,.,j,.,~,, ,.,,,v l-,,,.~,, ,.,,,,-, ,.,, ,,-,-,,, ,~ ,-,,~,
~.,~1 It..411~.,~.~ I~,.~.~.,~111111~,.,~1 11,.,4~.,~I~4 I~,~] ~.11~,.,~ ~.,~lt..,~ ~.,~11~111~.~%.~1111~ I~41,,.,~..41 ~.111%.~11~,.
e. Get the necessary approvals and permits from the watershed district.
f. Submit a detailed photometric plan for all proposed outdoor lighting for city staff
approval. This plan shall show how the lighting on the building would add to the site
lighting. This plan also shall show details about the proposed light fixtures to ensure
they are a design that hides the bulb and lens from view to avoid nuisances. The
light fixtures must have concealed lenses and bulbs to properly shield glare from the
adjacent street right-of-ways and from adjacent properties.
g. The applicant shall record the following with Ramsey County:
(1) The deeds creating the new lot for the courthouse.
(2) A thirty-foot-wide permanent easement for the public trail across the east
part of the lot.
(3) The ingress and egress easement agreements between the two
properties.
h. Have the Saint Paul Regional Water Services (SPRWS) review and approve the
proposed utility plans.
i. Submit plans for city staff approval for any outdoor trash or recycling enclosure, if
the county is going to have an outdoor dumpster. These shall include a revised site
plan to show the location and elevations o~ all ~our sides o~ the enclosure. The gates
shall be 100 percent opaque and the materials and colors of the enclosure shall be
compatible with those of the new courts building. This plan shall be subject to city
staff approval.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 9-21-2004
,
]4
I~)/':lll[~'~/l~/~l I'll l[Irlinn ,-,I,',:~,':finnc, fh-'~f ehn::~ fh,', i1~ /'~f I'll'J/'~j/ ~']~
the nr,'-,rlnmin,':nf h, lilrllnn
j. i ~V V I ~..~V~.,4 ii.,? q,,.,4 I I ~,11 I I ~ V I V V ~,.4 L I ~.,? I I N.,~ ~.11 q[.4 ~. ~,..l'l I V V l ~.1 IV '4,.,4 N.,~ ~,.~ ~,.~1 k.,,~ I I ~,.? I '~ ~..~ ~.,~ I~.,? i V~,..4 V I I I I I I ~.,4 I I L
m~te~ri~l ~nr4 rnnr~, r~l_r-nlnr~t r~nnr-rr~f,~ hlnr~l~ ,~nrl littl~ if on:, rne~t~l eirlinn
i i lily,Vi i~l~l ~11 i~ i i i~1 ~ i ~.~ ~./gl~./i v~l Vgl i~./i ~.~ i~/1~.11~ ~1 i~ ill,iv, il ~1 i], i i i~.~.~1 ~./1~11 i~.
k. Meeting all the conditions of the city engineering department as outlined in the
memo dated September 13, 2004.
I. A letter of credit or cash escrow for all required exterior improvements. The amount
shall be 150 percent of the cost of the work.
Complete the following before occupying the building:
a. Install new property irons to designate the corners of the new lot.
b. Restore and sod damaged boulevards.
c. Install reflectorized stop signs at each exit, a handicap-parking sign for each
handicap-parking space and an address on the building. In addition, the
applicant shall install "no parking" signs within the site, as required by staff.
d. Paint any rooftop mechanical equipment to match the uppermost part of the
building. Screening all roof-mounted equipment visible from White Bear Avenue.
(city code requirement)
e. Construct trash dumpster and recycling enclosures as city code requires for any
dumpsters or storage containers that the owner or building manager would keep
outside the building. Any such enclosures must be 100 percent opaque, match
the materials and colors of the building and have a closeable gate that extends to
the ground or driveway.
f. Install all required landscaping.
g. Install and maintain an in-ground sprinkler system for all landscaped areas.
h. Install continuous concrete curb and gutter along all interior driveways and
around all open parking stalls.
i. 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.
j. Install an outdoor drinkin.q fountain near the outdoor public seatinq area.
k. The developer or contractor shall:
(1)
Complete all grading for the site drainage, complete all public
improvements and meet all city requirements.
(2)* Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 9-21-2004
(3) Remove any debris or junk from the site.
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 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. This approval does not include the signs. All signs need permits from the city.
,
All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may
approve minor changes.
,
This approval does not include any future additions on the east end of the building. The
developer or builder shall submit all necessary plans to the CDRB and the city council
for their approval before the city may issue a building permit for such an addition.
,
This approval does include the proof or parking area shown on the site plan. The city
engineer must approve the construction plans for this parking before the county starts
constructing the additional parking.
Chairperson Longrie-Kline seconded.
Ayes- Ledvina, Longrie-Kline, Olson, Shankar
The motion passed.
This item goes to the city council on September 27, 2004.
The CDRB makes this recommendation to the city council based on the findings to approve
plans because'
,
The design and location of the proposed development and its relationship to
neighboring, existing or proposed developments, and traffic is such that it will not impair
the desirability of investment or occupation in the neighborhood; that it will not
unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring, existing or proposed
developments; and that it will not create traffic hazards or congestion.
,
The design and location of the proposed development is in keeping with the character of
the surrounding neighborhood and is not detrimental to the harmonious, orderly and
attractive development contemplated by this article and the city's comprehensive
municipal plan.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 9-21-2004
,
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.
VII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS
No visitors present.
VIII. BOARD PRESENTATIONS
am
September 13, 2004, City Council Meeting - Cottages at Legacy Village
Board member Olson was the CDRB representative and said the city council reviewed
the Cottages at Legacy Village, which was approved by the city council.
IX. STAFF PRESENTATIONS
al
Community Design Review Board Representation at the September 27, 2004, City
Council Meeting (Summerhill of Maplewood and Ramsey County Courthouse)
Chairperson Longrie-Kline will represent the CDRB at the September 27, 2004, city
council meeting at 7:00 p.m.
bi
Cancellation of the September 28, 2004, Community Design Review Board
Meeting
The next CDRB meeting will be Tuesday, October 12, 2004.
c. Gladstone Strategic Planning Update
Ms. Finwall invited the CDRB to the workshop regarding the revitalization of the
Gladstone area at the Maplewood Community Center in the banquet room from 6:30 to
8:00 p.m., on Thursday, September 23, 2004.
X. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 8:47 p.m.