Loading...
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.