HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/08/2000AGENDA
MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
August 8, 2000
6:00 P.M.
City Council Chambers
Maplewood City Hall
1830 East County Road B
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Approval of Minutes:
4. Approval of Agenda
5. Unfinished Business
6. Design Review
June 27,2000
a. RoSoto Seniors Apartments, Roselawn Avenue and DeSoto Street-
RoSoto LLP
Visitor Presentations
Board Presentations
Staff Presentations
a. CDRB volunteer Needed for City Council Meeting on August 28, 2000.
b. Meeting Rescheduling: September 26, 2000- Tom out of town.
10. Adjourn
p:com-dvpt\cdrb.agd
MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA
AUGUST 8, 2000
CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Ledvina called the meeting to order at 6 p.m.
I1. ROLL CALL
Matt Ledvina Present
Ananth Shankar Absent
Tim Johnson Present
Jon LaCasse Present
Craig Jorgenson Present
Staff Present:
Melinda Coleman, Community Development Director
Tom Ekstrand, Associate Planner
Recording Secretary: JoAnn Morin
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Boardmember LaCasse moved approval of the minutes of June 27, 2000, as submitted.
Boardmember Johnson seconded.
The motion passed.
Ayes--all
IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
V=
Boardmember Johnson moved approval of the agenda with an added item 5A "Staff Presentation".
Boardmember LaCasse seconded. Ayes--all
The motion passed.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Presentation from the Community Development Director, Melinda Coleman.
Ms. Coleman introduced JoAnn Morin who will be the Design Review Board recording secretary
temporarily due to staffing changes in the Community Development Department. Two staff
members will be leaving the department for other positions within the City of Maplewood.
Additionally, the work load volume has increased in the Community Development Department and
an additional position has been created. The new position is a part-time clerk typist who will be
coming to the CDRB meetings and recording and preparing the minutes for review and approval.
Ms. Morin will be recording the minutes for the Board on an interim basis until we hire a permanent
employee for this position. This process is underway. Ms. Coleman requested that when the
Board receives the minutes, that if there is any formatting issues, or other comments, please direct
your feedback to her or Mr. Ekstrand. Ms. Coleman suggested that if there were any formatting
changes that the Board wishes to address, that during this transition period would be an
appropriate time.
The second item Ms. Coleman discussed was in regards to the Community Development Tour.
She thanked the CDRB members for their 100% attendance on the tour. She requested that the
VI.
A.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes of 08-08-00
-2-
CDRB think of ways that they can become more involved in the Tour for next year. She gave an
example of Milo Thompson, Planning Commission Member, talking about the projects going on in
his neighborhood. Ms. Coleman felt that the perspective Mr. Milo offered, as a member of the
neighborhood, was very interesting. Ms, Coleman is looking for ideas for future tours on how the
Board could incorporate more information about the work CDRB does and how it goes about doing
it. One idea she suggested was to do more extensive descriptions of some of the projects and
issues the Board has dealt with. Such issues might be, building materials, more difficult projects
throughout the year, what you might like to change or have done better, or a project that the Board
is particularly proud of. Please pass on any thoughts you have on this to Ms. Coleman or Mr.
Ekstrand between now and the next Community Development Tour. If you have any other
comments, criticisms or suggestions, please share those with Ms. Coleman or Mr. Ekstrand.
Chairperson Ledvina commented that on the Tour he noted the changes that the CDRB had made
to applications in terms of adding different architectural elements and how that ultimately worked
out in approving the site aesthetics. He suggested that for next years Tour the Board could
identify projects and how they were modified or enhanced due to the Boards interaction and
suggestions to the applicant.
Ms. Coleman suggested that this could be an agenda item for a future meeting and the Board
could put together some projects to point out on the Tour, or flag the projects throughout the year
and forward them to Mr. Ekstrand.
Ms. Coleman excused herself from the CDRB meeting at this point.
DESIGN REVIEW
RoSoto Senior Apartments, Roselawn Avenue and DeSoto Street, RoSoto LLP
Mr. Ekstrand, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. He stated that RoSoto LLP is
proposing to build a 70-unit apartment building for seniors on the southwest corner of Roselawn
Avenue and DeSoto Street. The project will be a three-story apartment building with underground
parking for 70 cars and a mix of 19 one-bedroom units and 51 two-bedroom units. In addition, near
the center of the building, there would be a sitting area, lounge, office, storage lockers, and an
exercise room. There would also be a storm shelter in the garage area. The applicant is asking for
design approval of the building and the site layout.
On January 24th of this year the City Council gave several approvals regarding this project. One
was the change in the City's Land Use Plan, from R1 Single Family, to RH High Density
Residential. The City Council approved a Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development to
allow the project. And, they reduced the required number of parking spaces from 140 to 102.
Staff has reviewed the building design and worked with the applicant for the past several weeks
and find that the proposal before you is attractive. They have proposed an exterior of a
combination of brick, colored rock base concrete block, shingle siding on gabled peaks and
horizontal vinyl siding utilizing several colors for accent in the brown, tan, gray categories. Staff is
happy with the design.
Regarding wetland and drainage, Mr. Ekstrand states that the plan shows wetland in the southeast
corner of the site. The Ramsey-VVashington Metro Watershed District classified this wetland as a
Class Five, which is lowest course quality wetland. The Code does not require a buffer around a
Class Five wetland, although staff recommends the applicant dedicate drainage and utility
Community Design Review Board
Minutes of 08-08-00
-3-
easements over the proposed pond and wetland areas. This project will also need a permit from
the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District.
Staff recommends a couple of minor changes to the proposed landscaping for this project. Staff is
recommending some additional trees, which is noted in the recommendation. This would enhance
the view from the residence windows when the trees mature. Additional plantings near the street
was also recommended to fill in that area somewhat. Mr. Ekstrand feels that these are minor
changes and basically the landscaping is acceptable in consideretion of the large amount of
existing vegetation to be retained.
Staff commented that a Site Lighting Plan would be submitted for staff approval later due to the
adjacent residential property.
There were a few conditions applied by the City Council through the CUP process. 1. The developer provide an on-site storm shelter in the apartment building.
2. The developer shall secure a trensfer of development rights from the adjacent parcel
property to the west, which is St. Jerome's Church, to obtain the density they require for
this project.
3. The developer shall not disturb the boulevard and slope along the south side of Roselawn
Avenue between the proposed sidewalk on the site to the east line of the first driveway on
the church property to the west of the site. If this area would be disturbed, the condition
would be that the developer install a five-foot wide sidewalk after stabilizing the slope.
Staff is recommending approval for this project subject to the conditions set forth by the City
Council.
Boardmember LaCasse questioned if there were any replacement requirements for the trees
coming out. Mr. Ekstrend stated that there was not due to the bulk of the trees in that area is not
considered "quality trees" by Code. If the area was filled with Maples and Oaks, etc. they would
have to be replaced on a one-to-one basis up to a density of ten trees per acre. Chairperson
Ledvina questioned if we know what trees are in that area because we do not have a tree survey.
Mr. Ekstrand explained that the submission of a tree plan is a condition of approval. Chairperson
Ledvina questioned if the tree survey could affect the numbers of trees that would have to be
provided in the area. Mr. Ekstrand explained that there are very few "quality trees" there. But if the
tree survey shows that there are, the plan may have to be adjusted.
Chairperson Ledvina requested clarification of the landscaping plan in relation to the pedestrian
bridge on the north side of the facility. He felt that it was unclear as to where it actually became a
bridge and where it landed. Mr. Ekstrend pointed out the proposed bridge is from the building,
cutting through the trees providing access to St. Jerome's Church for building residents. The
bridge would extend to the Roselawn shoulder. Boardmember LaCasse questioned if there was
any connecting sidewalk to the bridge. Mr. Ekstrand informed the Board that there is not presently
any connecting sidewalk but it does go right to Roselawn Avenue. The Board discussed the
elevation of the bridge and determined that the access to the bridge would be on the second floor.
Chairperson Ledvina commented that this might be of some concern.
Chairperson Ledvina asked staff in comparison to Cardinal Point, how does this project measure
up. Staff informed the Board that Cardinal Point has 108 units and in terms appearence, Cardinal
Point is a vinyl sided building with the look of shakes and the accent material is manufactured
stonework around some gabled parts of the building. The applicant in this case has put in a brick
detailing around the entry area, and around the bottom is rock-faced block similar to Cardinal Point.
Mr. Ekstrand pointed out that this project has the shake styled vinyl siding under the gable peaks,
Community Design Review Board
Minutes of 08-08-00
-4-
which is somewhat what we suggested after looking at New Century. The applicant has chosen to
use two different colors of siding to give additional accent.
Chairperson Ledvina questioned one of the conditions regarding drainage and utility easement. He
requested clarification of the 886 contour. Mr. Ekstrand informed the Committee that the 886
contour was chosen just as a means to describe as clearly as possible that everything south of the
proposed line be described as easement. The city engineer picked the 886 because it was far
enough up the hill to get the predominant part of the lowland.
The applicant, Tom Schuette, RoSoto Associates, LLP addressed the Board. He clarified the
earlier question regarding the street in relation to the proposed bridge. Currently, Roselawn
Avenue is constructed as a curbed, striped, paved, with a six-foot shoulder, which would be an
adequate walkway. Chairperson Ledvina requested a description of the pedestrian bridge and how
it will be built. Mr. Schuette requested that the Board direct those questions to Mr. Doug Moe.
Chairperson Ledvina asked Mr. Schuette if the plan was for the pedestrians coming off the bridge
would go out onto Roselawn Avenue to reach the church. Mr. Schuette confirmed that that was the
plan.
Chairperson Ledvina requested a description of the building itself. Mr. Doug Moe, D.A. Moe
Architects, addressed the Board in regards to the bridge situation. He explained that there is
approximately six feet reaching between the first floor of the project and the street itself. The
proposed bridge will eliminate the need for someone coming out of the building and having to go up
the steep slope and allow pedestrians access to Roselawn Avenue without having to diverse that
hill. There will be a combination of ramp and bddge that will exit from the second floor of the
project to the Roselawn walk area. The bridge will have handrails but will not be covered and will
serve as an access in nice weather to the church. Chairperson Ledvina questioned if the bridge
would be a suspension bddge or would there be supports. Mr. Moe indicated that it would be pre-
cast with a couple of steps. Chairperson Ledvina questioned if the bridge would be handicap
accessible. Mr. Moe indicated that due to the steps, it would not be completely accessible to
accommodate handicap pedestrians. Chairperson Ledvina requested information regarding the
difference of elevation between the second floor and the bridge. Mr. Moe explained that there are
four feet from the second floor to the street elevation, and thirty feet of distance. He explained that
a ramp of 120 would be required for a handicap accessible bridge, so the steps will be required in
this project. Boardmember Jorgenson voiced concern regarding the accessibility for handicap
pedestrians. He stated that having access to the church via the bridge is an amenity. However,
Minnesota weather may inhibit the use of the bridge. He also voiced concern regarding the
handicap accessibility aspect of the bridge in regards to the steps. Mr. Moe said that the bridge is
an attempt to provide access for the majority of the residents in good weather.
Chairperson Ledvina asked Mr. Moe if samples of building materials were available. Mr. Moe
indicated he did not have any with him. Mr. Moe apologized for not being able to supply them to
the Board at this meeting.
Boardmember LaCasse voiced concern regarding parking in the garage area. The two spaces
furthest to the south seem to have no adequate way of backing out of those spaces with only 24
foot aisle, since it is only in one direction. He questioned if this was reasonable to have those
spaces there or if it were an accident waiting to happen. Mr. Moe assumes management of the
project would aSsign those spaces to compact cars, alleviating the problem somewhat.
Boardmember LaCasse stated that on other site plans there is at least a five-foot area designated
for backing up. He suggested this issue be looked at. Mr. Moe will work with staff to see if there is
a way to pick up some space in that area. Chairperson Ledvina commented that if the space were
not usable, that would need to be considered in the overall calculation. He suggested that it could
Community Design Review Board
Minutes of 08-08-00
-5-
be handled as a condition or as a staff review item. Boardmember Johnson asked staff if there
was adequate parking for this project. Mr. Ekstrand stated that waivers have been granted to other
similar facilities. He stated that the Council is already locked into this number.
Chairperson Ledvina stated concern regarding the heavily wooded south portion of the site. It
appears that the vegetation in that area will be removed to build a pond. His concern was that
there is a wetland that is essentially a stormwater pond as it is, which is the lowest classification
wetland. He questions what the tradeoff would be if the pond were to be eliminated or reduce it's
size, and maintain the existing vegetation. Mr. Ekstrand indicated that the City Engineer and Mr.
Roberts has discussed this issue at length. Chairperson Ledvina invited the applicant to approach
the podium and address this issue. Mr. Dick Schreir, RoSoto Associates, LLP explained to the
Board that the ponding area is so large due to the fact that this site carries the drainage for 17
acres. The area it services is to the west, mostly St. Jerome's and also the area to the south down
DeSoto. Boardmember Johnson questioned how much area was the proposed site. Mr. Schreir
indicated that there were 3.7 acres. However, the drainage taken on is three to four times the size
of the site. He indicated that the trees in this area are mostly brush. There was an active garden
in most of the site and a brushy knoll. Chairperson Ledvina stated that this information provided an
explanation for the drainage and utility easement that was discussed regarding the 886 contour and
clarified that this would encompass a larger plan as it relates to overall storm water management
for the City and the Watershed.
Chairperson Ledvina agreed with staff's opinion on the building design and feels the building will be
attractive. He noted that the gables were interesting and the footprint of the building is varied to
provide break-up of wall masses. He again reiterated that he is satisfied with the aesthetics of the
design. Boardmember Johnson agreed, the design is very attractive and also appreciates the
coloration of the building.
Chairperson Ledvina again voiced concern regarding the pedestrian bridge on the north side of the
development. He feels for it to be practical there should be some sort of walkway off Roselawn
Avenue to St. Jerome's. Perhaps it could be constructed just on the other side of the curb. He
realizes there is conflict there as it relates to the existing vegetation and the need to maintain that
vegetation due to slope. He indicated that he was not comfortable having a walkway terminate
onto a read. Boardmember Jorgenson agreed with Chairperson Ledvina's comments. He voiced
concern that the walkway would terminate right onto Roselawn Avenue, even though there is
adequate space. His concern was in regards to the inclement weather in the winter, and the
effects of plowing blocking the access. He has concern of pedestrians walking on the road. He
questioned if there was any discussion with St. Jerome's with respect of putting in a walkway off to
the backside to the west. He also commented that the bridge is not handicap accessible and will
limit use. Discussion continued in regards to possible solutions to the handicap accessible issue.
Mr. Schuette addressed the Board stating that the access point for this site was a benefit, in spite
of the fact that it is not perfect. He stated that people are not required to use it. He stated that it is
not difficult to build the bridge this way as a benefit to residence, even if it is only used for several
months of the year. The bridge is not their means of getting in and out of the building safely, nor to
their shopping, it is a benefit that will probably not be used intensely at all. Mr. Schuette indicated
that to him it did not make sense to delete the bridge all together because it is not handicap
accessible. He agreed that it would be nice if there was a sidewalk or walkway all the way to St.
Jerome's. Chairperson Ledvina stated that St. Jerome's cannot be directed to build a $20,000
sidewalk to connect it the rest of the way.
Mr. Ekstrand indicated that the intention was to let the shoulder of the road serve as the walkway to
the church from the bridge. He stated that the original site plan that the Council considered in
January of 2000 indicated that there was a proposed sidewalk snaking behind the building to the
Community Design Review Board
Minutes of 08-08-00
-6-
road shoulder. It appears that the sidewalk has changed into the bridge. He further stated that if
the trees and the slope got disturbed, the developer would be required to install a five-foot wide
sidewalk after stabilizing the slope. Chairman Ledvina stated he would not expect pedestrians to
walk on the shoulder of the road. However, to build a sidewalk along the north side of the RoSoto
development, it would stop at the property line at St. Jerome's because they cannot be forced to
continue the sidewalk onto their property. He stated he could understand the rational of terminating
the walkway at Roselawn Avenue and designing the bridge with steps to limit the size of the
structure and recognized that building would be handicap accessible through other means, and that
would be sufficient and meet requirements. In his opinion, he agrees with the proposed bridge as it
is on the plan. He continued discussion of the possible need for sidewalks in the area. Mr.
Ekstrand explained that this is an older residential area and heavily wooded along DeSoto Street.
He indicated the City has no sidewalk policy. He indicated that this is not a high traffic area and
really does not warrant sidewalks. Chairman Ledvina questioned if any other sidewalks exist
surrounding or abutting this project that could be tied into. Mr. Ekstrand indicated no there was not.
Chairperson Ledvina questioned whether the CDRB should be concerned about the CUP's set forth
by the Council in terms of the site review. Mr. Ekstrand indicated that they have been made
conditions by the Council but do not warrant any further discussion by the CDRB.
Chairperson Ledvina questioned if the color rendition dated July 25 will be incorporated into
approval. Mr. Ekstrand indicated that it is referenced as building elevation date stamped July 25,
therefore it is incorporated.
Boardmember LaCasse moved the Community Design Review Board approve the landscape plans
and building elevations date-stamped July 25, 2000, and the site plan, grading and drainage plans
date-stamped June 26, 2000, for the RoSoto senior housing development with an additional item
being added to 2A, "The city engineer will review the two parking spaces on the south end of the
underground parking garage for reasonable access.' The city bases this approval on the findings
required by the code. The developer or contractor shall do the following:
1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project.
2. Complete the following before the city issues a building permit:
Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall
include: grading, utility, drainage, erosion control, tree, sidewalk and driveway and parking
lot plans. The city en,qineer will review the two parkin.q spaces on the south end of the
under.ciround parkin.q .qara.qe for reasonable access. The plans shall meet the following
conditions:
(1) The erosion control plan shall be consistent with city code.
(2) The grading plan shall:
(a)
Include building, floor elevation, water elevation and contour information. These
shall include the normal water elevation, the 10-year highwater elevation, the
100-year highwater elevation, the 2-100 year water elevation and the emergency
overflow elevation.
(b) Include contour information for the land that the construction will disturb.
(c) Show sedimentation basins or ponds as required by the watershed board or by
Community Design Review Board
Minutes of 08-08-00
-7-
the city engineer.
(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 4 feet tall
require a building permit from the city.
(3)* The tree plan shall:
(a) Be approved by the city engineer before site grading or tree removal.
(b) Show where the developer will remove, save or replace large trees. This plan
shall include an inventory of all existing large trees on the site.
(c)
Show the size, species and location of the replacement trees. The deciduous
trees shall be at least two and one half (2 1/2) inches in diameter and shall be a
mix of red and white oaks and sugar maples. The coniferous trees shall be at
least six (6) feet tall and shall be a mix of Austrian pine, eastern red cedar and
other species to replace some of the proposed Colorado Spruce.
(d) Show no tree removal beyond the approved grading and tree limits.
(e) These plans shall be consistent with the approved landscape plan.
(4)
The design of the storm water pond shall be subject to the approval of the city
engineer. The developer shall be responsible for getting any needed off-site grading
or drainage easements and for recording all necessary easements.
(5) All the parking areas and driveways shall have continuous concrete curb and gutter.
(6) The entryway and ddveway in front of the building shall meet the minimum standards f
or turning and access for firefighting equipment.
(7)
The developer shall not disturb the boulevard and slope along the south side of
Roselawn Avenue between the proposed sidewalk on the site to the east line of the
first driveway on the church property to the west of the site. If this area is disturbed,
the developer shall install a five-foot-wide sidewalk after stabilizing the slope.
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. Revise the landscape plan for city staff approval showing:
(1)
That all proposed trees would be consistent with city standards for size, location and
species. In addition, this plan shall show the size, species and location of the
replacement trees. The proposed deciduous trees shall be at least two and one half
(2 1/2) inches in diameter and shall be a mix of red and white oaks and sugar maples.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes of 08-08-00
-8-
The coniferous trees shall be at least six (6) feet tall and shall be a mix of Austrian
pine, eastern red cedar and other species to replace some of the proposed Colorado
Spruce.
(2) As much of the existing vegetation (including large trees) along the northern property
line and around the wetland preserved as possible.
(3)
At least four additional new deciduous trees on the south side of the building and at
least two additional coniferous trees on the southeast corner of the parking lot near
DeSoto Street.
(4)
The manicured or mowed areas from the natural areas. This shall include planting
(instead of sodding) the disturbed areas on the south side of the apartment building
around the storm water pond with native grasses and native flowering plants. The
native grasses and flowering plants shall be those needing little or no maintenance.
This is to reduce maintenance costs and to reduce the temptation of mowers to
encroach into the pond. Specifically, the developer shall have the natural areas
seeded with an upland mixture above the 876 contour and shall use a lowland mixture
below the 876 contour.
e. Get the necessary approvals and permits from the watershed district.
Submit a site lighting plan for city staff approval showing the light spread and fixture design.
The light fixtures must have concealed lenses and bulbs to properly shield glare from the
adjacent street right-of-ways and from nearby homes.
g. The developer shall record with Ramsey County:
(1)
A transfer of development rights (TDR) agreement with Saint Jerome's church for
enough property to make the housing project's density no higher than 16 units per
gross acre.
(2)
A drainage and utility easement for the proposed ponding area and the wetland area.
This easement shall be for all property south of a line located at about the proposed
886 contour near the midpoint of the site and shall be subject to the approval of the
city engineer.
h. Have the Saint Paul Regional Water Services (SPRWS) review and approve the proposed
utility plans. The SPRWS shall do the wet tap and water main offset.
3. Complete the following before occupying the building:
a. Replace property irons that are removed because of this construction.
b. Restore and sod damaged boulevards.
Co
Install reflectorized stop signs at the exit, a handicap-parking sign for each handicap-
parking space and an address on the building. In addition, the applicant shall install
wetland buffer and no parking signs within the site, as required by staff.
d. Paint all rooftop mechanical equipment, stacks and vents to match the uppermost part of
the building. Screen all roof-mounted equipment visible from streets or adjacent
Community Design Review Board
Minutes of 08-08-00
-9-
property. (code requirement) Roof-top equipment must be screened from view from the
homes to the north and east if the roof design does not provide adequate screening.
e. Construct trash dumpster and recycling enclosures as city code requires for any
dumpsters or storage containers that the owner or building manger would keep outside
the building. Any such enclosures must match the materials and colors of the building.
f. Install and maintain an in-ground sprinkler system for all landscaped areas.
g. Install continuous concrete curb and gutter along all interior driveways and around all
open parking stalls.
h. Install a storm shelter in a central location in the apartment building. This shelter shall
be subject to the approval of the Maplewood director of emergency preparedness. It
shall have a minimum of three square feet per person for 80% of the planned population.
i. Install on-site lighting for secudty and visibility that follows the approved site lighting plan.
All exterior lighting shall follow the approved lighting plan that shows the light spread and
fixture design. The light fixtures must have concealed lenses and bulbs to properly
shield glare from the adjacent street right-of-ways and from nearby homes.
j. The developer or contractor shall:
(1) Complete all grading for the site drainage, complete all public improvements and
meet all city requirements.
(2)* Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits.
(3) Remove any debris or junk from the site.
(4) Post the driveway to the garage and the center island with no parking signs.
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 city receives cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit for the required work. The
amount shall be 200 percent of the cost of the unfinished work. Any unfinished
landscaping shall be completed by June I 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.
All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve
minor changes.
Ayes--all
Boardmember Johnson seconded.
The approval passed.
VII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS
Community Design Review Board
Minutes of 08-08-00
-10-
There were no visitors present.
VIII. BOARD PRESENTATIONS
Boardmember Johnson reported on the July 24, 2000 City Council meeting. He indicated there
was a lot of debate regarding the setback of the Super America project. The required setback is
30 feet, Super America was requesting a 15-foot setback and a compromise was reach with a 20-
foot setback. Boardmember Johnson also reported that the Monopole project was passed.
IX. STAFF PRESENTATIONS
Boardmember Jorgenson discussed the issue of previous makeshift car lot issue up and down 61
that was resolved. He commented that he has observed the same situation occurring near the
Cub complex. He reported that during the weekends he sees many vehicles being displayed by
the owners for sale in that area. Boardmember Johnson concurred with this statement. He
stated that Cub has placed a sign there stating that the area was for Cub shoppers only.
However, the situation has continued. Mr. Ekstrand stated that this issue has recurred throughout
Maplewood wherever there is vacant fiat land on a busy road. Mr. Ekstrand stated that staff
would look into the situation. He indicated that in the past the City has contacted the property
owner and informed them that the City cannot ticket on private property, therefore the property
owner is responsible. Discussion continued regarding the parking lot at the now closed Boston
Market also being used to display vehicles. Mr. Ekstrend informed the Board that Burger King is
actively pursuing that property and they will be bringing in some building redesigns, so this will
help with the vehicle problem situation.
Chairperson Ledvina questioned staff regarding the schedule for evaluation of the lighting
ordinance and when the report or suggested code modification would be available. Mr. Ekstrand
stated that the intention is to follow the CDRB direction to report on the lighting ordinance.
However, due to the high volume of applications this time of year, staff was directed to put the
evaluation on hold. Mr. Ekstrand stated that he hopes to get something to the Board within the
next few meetings. Chairperson Ledvina indicated that there was no rush, but wishes that the
issue does not get overlooked.
Boardmember Johnson volunteered to be available for the City Council meeting scheduled for
August 28th. Mr. Ekstrend stated that he would inform Boardmember Johnson of the agenda once
it is available.
Chairperson Ledvina questioned if there would be a Board Meeting on August 22. Mr. Ekstrend
indicated that at the present time, the applications that are currently in-house may not be
completed in time for that meeting. The current projects pending are a showroom floor expansion
for Maplewood Sod (BW Sod) and a new townhouse development across County Road B on Van
Dyke. Chairperson Ledvina indicated that he would prefer a heavier agenda warranting one long
meeting as opposed to two smaller meetings. Mr. Ekstrand indicated that he agrees, however it
also depends upon the urgency of the project.
Mr. Ekstrend indicated that he would be out of town for the September 27 meeting and would like
to reschedule. It was decided to change the meeting to September 19, combining the meetings of
September 12 and September 27. It was also decided that the October schedule will also be
changed. There will be one meeting on October 17th. All agreed on this tentative schedule.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes of 08-08-00
X. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 7:10 p.m.
-11-