Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/08/1998 AGENDA MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD December 8, 1998 6:00 P.M. City Council Chambers Maplewood City Hall 1830 East County Road B 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes - November 9, 1998 4. Approval of Agenda 5. Unfinished Business 6. Design Review a. Archer Heights Apartments Building and Site Improvements, 1816-1854 Beebe Road, The D JR Group 7. Visitor Presentations 8. Board Presentations 9. Staff Presentations a. Next CDRB Meeting is December 22 10. Adjoum p:com-dvpt~cdrb.agd MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA DECEMBER 8, 1998 CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Erickson called the meeting to order at 6 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Marvin Erickson Present Marie Robinson Present Ananth Shankar Present Tim Johnson Present Matt Ledvina Present III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES November 9, 1998 IV. VI. Boardmember Ledvina moved approval of the minutes of November 9, 1998, amended to have paragraph 5 on page 2 read Vice Chairperson Robinson instead of Erickson. Boardmember Robinson seconded. Ayesgall The motion passed. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Boardmember Johnson moved approval of the agenda as submitted. Boardmember Shankar seconded. Ayesgall The motion passed. UNFINISHED BUSINESS There was no unfinished business. DESIGN REVIEW Archer Heights Apartments Building and Site Improvements, 1816-1854 Beebe Road, The D JR Group Scoff England, an architect with D JR Architecture, Inc., and Patty St. Pierre, of The Cornerstone Group (representing the purchaser of the buildings), were present. Mr. England said he reviewed the recommendations and felt staff basically had approved what the applicant proposed. Secretary Ekstrand said he wanted to make one addition. At a previous meeting, a Maplewood planning commissioner suggested that a sidewalk be required along Beebe Road. Mr. Ekstrand pointed out that the townhomes to the south were directed to put in sidewalk. The commissioner felt that, because of the amount of bus activity and the number of cars parking in the area, sidewalk would make this area must safer for the residents. Community Design Review Board Minutes of 12-08-98 -2- Mr. England said the sidewalk is an item they would not be prepared to do since they are presently over budget. Chairperson Erickson felt it made sense to continue the sidewalk but he questioned the short notice. Secretary Ekstrand said the board could recommend the sidewalk as a design element. The city council then could either support the recommendation or reject it. The board also has an option to just not recommend it. Ms. St. Pierre noted that there are retaining walls and berming on the southern portion of the property that would make if difficult to place a sidewalk without doing some extensive grading. Chairperson Erickson questioned the intent of "piecemealing" the sidewalk. He proposed that, if the city was concerned about a sidewalk, the city should provide one. Mr. Ekstrand explained that the city did not have a strong sidewalk policy. He said the city had been requiring it on a "piecemeal" basis for years. Boardmember Ledvina asked if it would be possible to consider requiring sidewalk on an extended term. He suggested possibly giving the applicant three years to install the walk so they could budget accordingly. Mr. Ekstrand said the applicant was proposing "such nice improvements to the site which needs them." He had mixed feelings about doing anything that would slow down these alterations. Ms. St. Pierre said they have already received approval for their funding and adding the sidewalk would necessitate taking away some other amenity. She thought it was difficult to discuss a period of time because she had no idea what a sidewalk would cost. According to Ms. St. Pierre, because these apartment are "affordable housing," they are limited to what they can charge for rent." She said their goal is to make sure it stays affordable and yet provide good services to the people who live there. One of the board members estimated that the cost of the sidewalk would be approximately $10,000. Ms. St. Pierre said there are money reserves, because of HUD financing, that could probably used to pay for the sidewalk. She also mentioned a contingency in the project that might eventually be used to pay for this. Mr. England emphasized that they first had to proceed with the construction and "find out all those unforseen items that we will encounter with the new construction." Boardmember Ledvina asked if it would be helpful to expand the time frame to allow three years to build the sidewalk. Ms. St. Pierre said she would have to check with HUD to see if the sidewalk is an expense they would approve and could it be withdrawn from the reserve over a period of time. Mr. England asked about the overall intent of the sidewalk. Secretary Ekstrand thought it was to help serve the residents of the apartment complex, as well as to provide off-street walking to vehicles. Boardmember Robinson said, if a sidewalk is to be added, it should be on the west side and continuous. She suggested a recommendation to research how feasible it would be to install a sidewalk. Mr. Ekstrand said this item would not be going to the planning commission, so the review board could act on the conditional use permit at this meeting. Chairperson Erickson felt that more research needed to be done. He was of the opinion that, if the city really wanted developers to put in a sidewalk, they should identify a sidewalk criteria to follow. He was in favor of considering a bus stop for the residents. Boardmember Johnson said ideally a sidewalk should go all the way from Larpenteur Avenue to Holloway Avenue. Boardmember Ledvina would be more inclined to support the sidewalk, even if it was piecemeal, if a specific location was indicated on the plan by staff. Even though he thought it was a good idea to separate the cars and pedestrians, but he didn't think it was "necessarily fair in this instance" to require a sidewalk. Boardmember Shankar did not "see a need to enforce this additional requirement." He commented on the many improvements being made to the site itself. Community Design Review Board Minutes of 12-08-98 -3- Chairperson Erickson was concerned about a roof-top unit on the north building. Mr. England said it was a small HVAC unit for the new addition. He said, when drafting the plans, he was not sure of the size but the mechanical engineers assured him "it was not a large unit at all." Mr. Erickson felt this unit was too large to qualify for painting because of its location. He suggested placing it somewhere else on the building to hide it. Mr. England did not favor the location but stated that a roof-top unit is less expensive that one located within the building. The ducting required to put this unit on the upper roof would reduce efficiency such that it would not be a viable option. He also said there was no ground left where it could be located. There is also one unit in the center of the upper-level roof. Boardmember Ledvina asked if it was possible to incorporate the roof-top unit into a design element. Mr. Shankar thought the problem would be less if the unit was wider rather than as tall as it is shown. He described it as looking like a "chimney stack." Mr. Erickson agreed that it was a good idea to disguise the unit as an architectural feature. Secretary Ekstrand felt there was no benefit in adding additional screening because there are no neighbors north of the proposed garages. He said there is a stand of woods. Mr. England said the replacement fence has not been designed but will probably be cedar. Boardmember Robinson commented that the city council is usually concerned about the design and material of required fences. Mr. England said the trash enclosure will be toned, rock-face concrete block on the outside with a metal cap on the top. He said there will not be doors because of maintenance concerns. There was a discussion about the features of the current garages. Mr. England described the work on these existing garages as maintenance. The two new garages of five stalls each will not be divided because they are not large enough for this requirement. One of the new garages will be slightly wider to allow for handicap-accessibility. According to Mr. England, the materials have not been selected yet but he would prefer a "saxon- size brick, larger than a modular but not as big as an oversize." Brick will also be added at two of the community rooms and the remainder of the building will be stucco. Meters will be concealed by landscaping. Boardmember Robinson moved the Community Design Review Board recommend: Adoption of the resolution which approves a conditional use permit revision for the Archer Heights Apartments planned unit development (to be renamed the Maple Pond Homes Apartments) at 1816 to 1854 Beebe Road. This approval is based on the findings required by code and subject to the following conditions: 1. All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city. The director of community development may approve minor changes. The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the permit shall become null and void. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 3. The city council shall review this permit in one year. Community Design Review Board Minutes of 12-08-98 -4- Bo Approval of the plans (stamped November 23, 1998) for the building and site changes to Archer Heights Apartments (to be renamed Maple Pond Homes Apartments) based on the findings required by the code. The property owner shall do the following: 1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. Paint the proposed roof-top mechanical unit on the building-entrance addition to match the roof color and, if possible, the applicant shall apply architectural elements to reduce any visual impact. Replace the wooden screening fence with a six-foot-tall, decorative wood fence along the north lot line between the two rows of garage buildings. This fence shall be at least 80% opaque. The design for the fencing must be submitted for staff approval. 4. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 5. The plan shall show two five-unit garage buildings, for a total of ten garages, on the north side of the site. Boardmember Ledvina seconded. Ayes--all The motion passed. VII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS There were no visitor presentations. VIII, BOARD PRESENTATIONS November 23 City Council Meeting: Boardmember Robinson reported on this meeting. IX. STAFF PRESENTATIONS December 22 CDRB Meeting: The proposed Ramsey County Family Service Center, an Acorn Mini Storage proposed for the old Maple Leaf Drive-In Theatre site, and a second-story office and small rear storage addition to the Maplewood Auto Service on Minnehaha and Century Avenue (Ray Muckala) are potential items for this agenda. Boardmember Robinson requested that the board ask Mr. Muckala to coordinate the colors on his building. Secretary Ekstrand said the architect was receptive to this suggestion. December 28 City Council Meeting: Chairperson Erickson will attend this meeting. X. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 7 p.m.