Loading...
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.