HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/28/2000AGENDA
MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
November 28, 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
September 19, 2000 and November 14, 2000
a. Beaver Lake Estates Office/Shelter Building - 2425 Maryland Avenue
b. Emerald Estates Townhomes - County Road D
Visitor Presentations
Board Presentations
Staff Presentations
a. Reminder: CDRB representative for December 11 city council meeting is Tim
Johnson.
b. Meeting cancellation: December 26, 2000 CDRB meeting.
10. Adjourn
p:com-dvpt~cdrb, agd
MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN AND REVIEW BOARD
1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 28, 2000
II.
III,
IV.
Mo
CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Ledvina called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Matt Ledvina Present
Ananth Shankar Present
Tim Johnson Present
Jan LaCasse Present
Craig Jorgenson Present (Arrived at 6:08)
Staff Present:
Recording Secretary:
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Tom Ekstrand, Associate Planner
Lori Hansen
Board member Jorgenson moved approval of the agenda, as submitted.
Board member LaCasse seconded. Ayes-All
The motion passed.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
September 19th and November 14th minutes:
Board member Shankar moved approval of the minutes of September 19th and November 14th
as amended.
Board member Jorgenson seconded the motion.
The motion passed.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
There was no unfinished business.
Ayes-All
CDRB -2-
11-28-2000
VI.
DESIGN REVIEW
A. Beaver Lake Estates--Office Shelter Building (2425 Maryland Avenue).
Mr. Tom Ekstrand, Associate Planner, gave the staff report for the city. NAI Architects is
proposing to replace the existing office shelter building at the Beaver Lake Mobile Home Park.
The proposed building would have an exterior of brick and E.I.F.S. (exterior insulation finish
system), a stucco like material. The roof would be pitched with asphalt shingles for a residential
look. The proposed building will be one-story tall and have a foundation area of 3,573 square
feet, much larger than the existing building with 1,525 square feet. Staff feels the proposed
building would be very attractive and an improvement over the existing one. The proposed design
of materials would compliment Beaver Lake Estates as well as the Rosewood Estates across
Maryland Avenue.
The present parking lot has no concrete curbing. The applicant will improve the site by adding a
nine space striped and curbed parking lot. This new layout would meet parking code
requirements. The shelter area would not require parking. There would be a new site light
proposed on the north side of the parking lot and the applicant has submitted a photometric plan
in their documents. This plan shows a shoebox type fixture which is the desired type of fixture for
down lighting which eliminates a lot of overspill and would not adversely affect the residents.
As for landscaping, the applicant would provide additional plantings around the site and building.
The new plantings would be an attractive enhancement to the property. Staff suggests it would
also be appealing to plant three evergreen trees in the lawn south of the building on the street
side. The evergreen trees would provide a good balance to the ones across Maryland Avenue at
Rosewood Estates. Staff is recommending approval subject to the conditions outlined in the staff
report.
Mr. Ekstrand responded to questions from the boardmembers. A small portion of the existing
building's basement will remain, the rest of the building will be removed. In the remaining portion
there is a large water pump that serves the entire mobile home park.
Kenneth Nordby, president of NAI architects was present for the applicant. The new proposed
building is required by all mobile home parks in the state of Minnesota to meet F.E.M.A.'s
specifications for a storm shelter. The shelter will be concrete block with a precast reinforced roof
over it and a wood gable roof on top. The west side of the building will be the new office area.
The storm shelter will also be a community room available for residents use that should hold
about 40-50 people.
The storm shelter is completely on the first level to comply with the handicapped accessible
requirement. Mr. Shankar was concerned that the doorway may not be the correct width for
handicap specifications. Mr. Nordby assured the board the entrance through the vestibule area
by the office and the protected door opening were handicapped acceptable.
Chairperson Ledvina felt the building was attractive and a nice structure for this site and did not
have any concerns about the building design.
Board member Shankar thought perhaps the big brick wall on the south elevation that protrudes
towards Maryland appears as though it is showing its back towards Maryland Avenue. He was
hoping there would be a way to break up the brick wall by a band of alternative material. The
applicant stated if there was not a brick minimum requirement, they would like to carry the
wainscot through to that side. Mr. Ledvina felt if the detailing was carried through it would
enhance the appearance. Staff felt the wainscot would break up the brick with the E.I.F.S. above
it, and confirmed there is no code requirement for the amount of brick. Brick is generally a design
element the board tends to prefer.
CDRB -3-
11-28-2000
Board member Shankar moved the board to approve the office and storm shelter for Beaver Lake
Estates Mobile Home Park, 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.
2. Before getting a building permit the applicant shall submit:
a. A grading, drainage, utility and erosion control plan to the city engineer for
approval.
b. A revised landscape plan showing three evergreens south of the building in
addition to the plantings proposed.
3. Complete the following before occupying the building:
a. Restore and sod damaged boulevards.
b. Plant all required plantings.
c. All parking lot improvements.
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 city receives a cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit for the required
work. The amount shall be one and one half times the cost of the unfinished
work. Any unfinished landscaping shall be completed by June 1 if the building is
occupied in the fall or winter or within six weeks if the building is occupied in the
spring or summer.
5. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may
approve minor changes
6. The brick, wainscot, and E.F.I.S. banding shall continue on the south side of the building
including the seven foot projection wall and both sides of the stairwell door.
Board member LaCasse seconded.
Ayes-All
Motion carries.
Preliminary Plat and Design Review-Emerald Estates Townhomes--(County Road D).
Mr. Tom Ekstrand gave the staff report for the city. Mr. Kimm Tramm, of Tramm Builders &
Realtors, is proposing to build a 12-unit townhome development on County Road D west of the
Maple Ridge Apartments. The proposed buildings would have light green horizontal-lap vinyl
siding with brick wainscot and white trim as an accent. The applicant submitted documentation
stating the building exterior colors were subject to change. Staff feels that the buildings would be
attractive and fit in well with the neighborhood in which they are being proposed.
CDRB
11-28-2000
-4-
One staff concern was with the location of the driveway closing. There are currently two curb cuts
on the property, a smaller one on the east side of the site and a larger one on the west. Staff is
recommending that the easterly driveway be closed at the street curb and curbing extended
across that opening. Staff is requesting that the applicant sod all green areas with exception to
the hillside to the north towards the freeway this area may be seeded if that is a preference of the
applicant. Code requires all landscaping have in ground lawn irrigation provided. Staff informed
the applicant about the requirement to apply for a permit with the Ramsey-Washington Metro
Watershed due to their lot size exceeding one acre.
Staff is recommending approval to the proposal subject to the conditions noted in the staff report.
Mr. Ekstrand explained that, prior to tonights meeting, Planning Commissioner Milo Thompson
expressed concern about the location of the proposed driveway. There is a seven foot drop to the
property abutting the westerly driveway and was concerned this could be quite hazardous if the
road surface became slippery in poor weather conditions. Mr. Tramm felt after completion and
grading of this development, the change in grade may not be as severe. It is also a very slow
traffic situation in that area and any sliding of cars should be stopped by the curbing. If the
driveway was relocated to the east there could be more extreme traffic problems with the abutting
curb cut for the Maple Ridge Apartments. In summary, all parties involved felt it was appropriate
to leave the driveway at the westerly location.
Mr. Tramm explained there will not be a centrally located trash enclosure since each owner will
have their trash collected by a service. The gas fireplaces will be vented out directly through the
wall of each unit. The narrow open space between the units will be sodded; because it is a very
narrow space the applicant feels "less is more".
The tentative color scheme for the building will be a dusty champagne (slightly green) with a linen
trim. The final color scheme has not been determined at this point but feel the tentative scheme
would definitely compliment the project to the east. Staff is not concerned with the color scheme
at this point but, at the least, would like the final decision to be based on staff approval.
Mr. Shankar asked about building separation. Staff explained there is a 12 foot space between
the patios and 28 feet from building wall to building wall. Mr. Tramm wanted to be able to look at
the finished product before deciding if screening between the patios would be a benefit without
creating the appearance of a smaller space. Mr. Ledvina agreed with Mr. Shankar that the lack
of separation and/or screening between the patios could pose a conflict. The board discussed the
possible benefits of trees or berm screening between the patios.
Mr. Tramm wanted to point out that with the project they are proposing, they have met all of the
standards under the zoning and are not asking for any variances. The privacy on the patios are
more private than in an apartment situation in Mr. Tramms eyes. He does not perceive patios in
the view of other patios as a problem. He feels incorporating landscaping in those locations may
create more of a problem by adding to the maintenance and upkeep needs.
Board member Jorgenson was concerned that the sidewalks were not apparent on the site plans.
Mr. Tramm stated their would be a concrete sidewalk from the driveway to the front door with an
area between the building and sidewalk for landscaping. Mr. Ledvina asked for a condition in the
staff report stating that the applicant shall provide a plan for the sidewalk to be approved by staff.
GDRB
11-28-2000
-5-
Mr. Jorgenson was concerned with patios eleven and twelve sitting adjacent to the drive area into
the complex. Mr. Tramm felt perhaps that would be an area they would like to think about adding
a decorative fence or trees for screening. Mr. Ledvina wanted to ensure the appearance of the
screening from County Road D will be taken into consideration when deciding on the screening
material. He did not feel putting up a six foot wood fence on that elevation would be the right
solution. It appeared to him there may be about six to ten feet to push the drive to the south
towards the right of way. Mr. Tramm consulted with staff to determine if the driveway was
adjusted, would it pose a variance situation? Staff responded the driveway needed to be 15 feet
away from the right away line and Mr. Tramm felt that is were they are currently at. Mr. Ekstrand
stated "it is a very tight site, not leaving a lot of leeway around the perimeter to adjust the plans".
In responding to Mr. Ledvina's question if the buildings could be shifted to the north, staff noted
the required setback at the north is 30 feet and that is where the building is currently sitting. The
driveway on the south can not be moved any closer to County Road D because it is currently
sitting at 15 feet which is the minimum.
Mr. Shankar asked if the applicant could not put the two patios in for units eleven and twelve to
alleviate the safety and esthetic issues in question. Mr. Jorgenson asked if they couldn't eliminate
the drive through and have two driveways, one for the west residents, and one for the east
residents. Staff felt although it would not conflict with code but two seemed excessive for this
small of site and not necessary. Mr. Ledvina felt the compromise would be to eliminate the two
patios on units eleven and twelve. Mr. Tramm felt they could consider that option. He also stated
if the reasoning was for purely safety issues, he could understand the rational. If it was strictly for
esthetic reasons, he felt the option should be left up to the customer. Mr. Tramm also asked if it
would impose a code violation for leaving the patios on those units. Mr. Shankar responded in
saying it did comply with code, but their is still an esthetic and safety issue to consider.
Mr. Ledvina, in summary, stated the following conditions should be added to the
recommendation:
(1) The applicant must submit the building color scheme.
(2)
The city engineer must review and approve the location of the curb cut for the site access
from a vehicle safety perspective. Consideration shall be made for this location to the west
and the existing curb cut for the property to the east.
(3)
The applicant shall revise the site plant to show sufficient sidewalks to the guest entrance
subject to staff approval.
(4) Elimination of the patios for units eleven and twelve.
Chairperson Ledvina moved the board to recommend the city council to approve the plans (date-
stamped October 25, 2000) for Emerald Estates Townhomes, based on the findings required by
the code. The developer, Tramm Builders and Realtors, shall do the following:
Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this
project.
2. Before getting a building permit the applicant shall:
Submit a grading, drainage, utility and erosion control plan to the city engineer for
approval.
Submit the building color scheme to staff for approval if the community design
review board has not already approved the colors.
Submit a revised site plan showing the closing of the old easterly driveway
opening. This opening must be curbed over and the boulevard restored. The
proposed curb cut shall be 30 feet wide with 10-foot turning radii.
CDRB
11-28-2000
-6-
VII.
Complete the following before occupying the building:
a. Replace property irons that are removed because of this construction.
b. Restore and sod damaged boulevards. Sod all landscaped areas, except the
hillside to the north which shall be sodded or seeded.
c. Install a reflectorized stop sign at the exit.
Install an automatic in-ground irrigation system with a rain sensor for all
landscaped areas, except for the hillside to the north.
e. Install continuous concrete curbing.
Close the old easterly driveway opening. This old opening must be curbed over
and the boulevard restored.
g. Post "no parking" signs on site in locations required by the fire marshal.
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.
The city receives a 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 1 if the building is occupied in
the fall or winter or within six weeks if the building is occupied in the spring or
summer.
All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may
approve minor changes.
Building colors must be submitted to staff for approval.
The city engineer must review and approve the location of the curb cut for the site
access from a vehicle safety perspective. Consideration for the location shall be
to the west and shall take in to account the existing curb cut for the property to
the east.
The applicant shall revise the site plant show sufficient sidewalks to the guest
entrance subject to staff approval.
9. The patios for units eleven and twelve should be eliminated.
Board member LaCasse seconded.
Ayes-All
Motion carries.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS
None
CDRB
11-28-2000
-7-
VIII.
IX.
BOARD PRESENTATIONS
None
STAFF PRESENTATIONS
The community design review board representative for the December 11 th city council meeting
will be Jori LaCasse.
The community design review board meeting for December 26th is canceled.
The community design review board meeting for December 12th will be rescheduled for
December 19th.
Tim Johnson, Matt Ledvina and Jori LaCasse's community design review board term expires on
December 31,2000. Mr. Ekstrand asked the board members to please let him know if they
would like to be reappointed for another two year term.
MEETING ADJOURNED
Meeting Adjourned at 7:28.