Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/19/2000MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN AND REVIEW BOARD 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, DECEMBER '19, 2000 II. III. IV. Mo CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Ledvina called the meeting to order at 6:08 p.m. ROLL CALL Matt Ledvina Ananth Shankar Tim Johnson Jon LaCasse Craig Jorgenson Staff Present: Recording Secretary: APPROVAL OF AGENDA Present Present Absent Present Absent Tom Ekstrand, Associate Planner Lori Hansen Board member LaCasse moved approval of the agenda, as submitted. Board member Shankar seconded. Ayes-All The motion carries. APPROVAL OF MINUTES November 28th, 2000: Mr. Ledvina asked that the statement made by Planning Commissioner Milo Thompson have an introduction such as ":in a telephone conversation with Mr. Thompson" otherwise it reads as though he was present at the meeting. Board member LaCasse moved approval of the revised minutes of November 28th, as amended. Board member Shankar seconded the motion. Ayes-All The motion carries. UNFINISHED BUSINESS There was no unfinished business. CDRB -2- Minutes of 12-19-2000 VI. DESIGN REVIEW A. Mounds Park Academy Addition--(2051 Larpenteur Avenue). Mr. Tom Ekstrand, Associate Planner, gave the staff report for the city. Mounds Park Academy is proposing to build an addition between their school and the former school district building to the north. The proposed addition would have seven classrooms, a student commons room and a senior lounge. The proposed addition would be 12,600 square feet in area. It would be predominantly a one-story structure with a 1½-story-tall roof line over the senior lounge. The addition would have an exterior of brick and windows. The brick, window glazing and window frames would match the existing buildings. The shingled roof over the lounge matches the blue shingles on the existing school. The concern from the neighbors was regarding street traffic on Ruth Street to the west of the school and also on Larpenteur Avenue. In talking to the Maplewood Police officer that works this street, there appears to be any unusual problems. The student and teachers' population will not increase with the addition. Staff sees the proposed addition as a good enhancement to the school, and should not affect any neighbors adversely. Jack Buxell, from Buxell Architects, was present for the applicant. The exterior they are proposing is a continuation of the current brick and exterior products used in the current building. It should appear to be a seamless continuation of the existing building. The energy code does require a thicker roof so there will appear to be another line of glazing. There will be some landscaping added around the base of the building. The parent's association of the school has taken over the landscaping and is working on the project progressively with one of the horticulture instructors from the school. Mr. Ledvina asked what the plan was regarding the request for screening along the east property line in relation to the existing homes. There is new fencing that had been added in the fall in this area. Staff noted there is a row of evergreens on the hill on the east end of the property. The north end of the property could use additional screening possibly evergreens would be beneficial to block the view of the addition from the neighbors. Mr. Shankar questioned if the elevator addition would match the remainder of the exterior. Mr. Buxell explained they know the mix of the brick and do not foresee any problems matching the same exterior brick color. Mr. Ledvina would like to see the conditions include a landscaping and the screening plan based on approval by staff. He also felt some type of temporary landscaping is needed me the parking lot islands until more permanent landscaping is implemented with the overall school landscaping project that is underway. Mr. Buxell asked if staff would walk the site with the applicant and discuss landscaping plans. Mr. Ledvina felt consultation with staff would be appropriate and has proven to Work will in the past with other applicants. Mr. Shankar questioned the property lines on the zoning map. Staff responded in saying that they are requesting that the applicant combines both lots into one legal description (B2). Mr. LaCasse made motion for the community design review board to approve the plans date stamped approve the plans date-stamped November 17, 2000 for the proposed addition to Mounds Park Academy, based on the findings required by the code. The property owner shall do the following: Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. 2. Before obtaining a building permit for the addition, the property owner shall: Provide staff with evidence that their two properties have been combined into one legally-described lot. CDRB -3- Minutes of 12-19-2000 Review with staff the need for additional screening on the east side of the northerly building and of the proposed addition. The applicant shall provide screening as may be required by staff. Complete the following before occupying the building addition: Repair or replace any broken or missing parts of the wooden screening fence. Restore all ground that is disturbed by the proposed construction. Comply with previous landscaping-plan requirements. Provide screening on the east side of the site if required by staff. If any required work is not done, the city may allow temporary occupancy if: 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 1 ½ 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. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. Mr. Shankar seconded. Ayes-All Motion carries. B. Design Approval--Highpoint Ridge--(Highridge Court, south of County Road D). Mr. Ekstrand gave the staff report for the city. Mr. Gordie Howe, representing Masterpiece Homes, is proposing to develop 18 twinhomes (36 units), in the Highpoint Ridge Development. Each building would have horizontal-lap vinyl siding, aluminum soffits and fascia and brick veneer on the front. In addition, each unit would have a two-car garage. Parking shall be allowed on one side of the street to allow for visitor parking. The landscaping plan should be revised to specifically show all tree size. The proposed buildings would be attractive and would fit in with the design of the existing homes in the area. Chairperson Ledvina asked if these exact plans have been built elsewhere by the applicant. Staff confirmed that they had. Mr. Ledvina also noted in reviewing the two pages of elevations, one page displayed horizontal lap siding on the front elevation above the garage doors and the other shows it as a faux shake. Staff explained the applicant wanted the option of two different styles of materials based on the preference of the buyer. Gordie Howe, of Masterpiece homes, the applicant was present. He explained that he will determine the siding used on the project, and is leaning toward the faux shake. He also stated 36 trees will be added, one for each unit. Mr. Shankar questioned the radius of the cul-de-sac. Mr. Howe explained the radius is 55 degrees, and has been reviewed by the city engineer to ensure trucks are able to turn around. Mr. Ledvina felt the base plantings were are very a nice feature, and was impressed it actually wraps around the entire building. In response to Mr. Shankars question about the porch, Mr. Howe explained the side elevations on the plans do not show a porch because it will be a feature that can be added as an option for the buyer. All of the lots were platted for decks. CDRB -4- Minutes of 12-19-2000 Mr. Ledvina asked if the developer is seeing a trend in homes with the garage sitting in front and the home behind, so all you basically see is the garage from the road? Mr. Ledvina also wondered if the owner has considered other types of building styles which would be more esthetic where the entrance to the building is more prominent as opposed to the garages? Mr. Howe explained one of his other developments have side loaded garages with windows on the side of the garage. The lots is this particular project do not allow enough space to have a building plan with this type of layout. Mr. Shankar made a motion for the community design review board to approve the plans date- stamped November 29, 2000 (site plan, landscape plan, grading and drainage plans and building elevations) for the Highpoint Ridge Twin homes. The city bases this approval on the findings required by the code. The developer or contractor shall do the following: Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. 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, drainage, erosion control, tree and driveway and street plans. The plans shall meet the following conditions: (1) The erosion control plan shall be consistent with city code. (2). (3) (4) The grading, drainage and erosion control plan for each building shall include building, floor elevation and contour information. All the parking areas and the street (Highridge Court) shall have continuous concrete curb and gutter except where the city engineer decides that it is not needed. There shall be no parking on one side of the 28-foot-wide street (Highridge Court). The developer or contractor shall post one side of the street with no parking signs. Submit a revised landscape plan to staff for approval which incorporates the following details: (2) All trees would be consistent with city standards for size, location and species. The deciduous trees shall be at least two and one half (2 ½) inches in diameter, balled and burlapped and shall be a mix of red and white oaks and sugar maples. (3) The plantings proposed around the front of the units shown on the landscape plan date-stamped November 29, 2000, shall remain on the plan. (4) In addition to the above, all front, side and rear yard areas shall be sodded (except for mulched and edged planting beds). (5) No landscaping shall take place in the County Road D boulevard and the boulevard shall be restored with sod. Submit a certificate of survey for all new construction and have each building staked by a registered land surveyor. CDRB -5- Minutes of 12-19-2000 Show that Ramsey County has recorded the final plat for this part of the development. 3. Complete the following before occupying each building: Replace property irons that are removed because of this construction. Restore and sod damaged boulevards. Sod all landscaped areas except for the area within the easement which may be seeded. Install continuous concrete curb and gutter along all the driveways. Put addresses on each building for each unit. e. Complete all landscaping for that building. 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 cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit for the required work. The amount shall be 150 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 of occupancy if the building is occupied in the spring or summer. 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. Mr. LaCasse seconded. Motion carries. Ayes-All American Portable Telecom (VoiceStream Wireless)--(English Street and 1300 Gervais Avenue). American Portable Telecom (ATP) is proposing to replace an existing 165-foot tall monopole with a 175-foot tall monopole for telecommunications equipment. They would be removing the existing pole after installing the new one. They would provide prefabricated equipment cabinets and equipment buildings near the base of the monopole. APT would expand their lease area from the 80X80 area to an 80X181 area. This would entail building a new driveway to the site from Gervais Avenue. The applicant would also enclose the new lease area with an eight-foot-tall chain link fence. The tower code does allow a 175-foot tall tower in a commercial or industrial area. The additional 10-feet would allow APT more opportunity for co-locators on the tower. Staff is recommending screening on the south side to soften it from the adjacent property and highway 36, and to preserve all existing trees on the north side. Staff is recommending that the applicant submit the final color and materials to the staff for approval prior to receiving the building permit. Mr. Jim McGreevy, from Larkin, Hoffman, Daily, and Lindgren, 328 13th Avenue NE, Mpls., was present for the applicant. He explained the color of the tower would be a grey galvanized steel that would weather to a dull finish. The building exterior would be a brown exposed aggregate concrete. CDRB -6- Minutes of 12-19-2000 VII. VIII. All board members were pleased to see an applicant who was wanting to install a monopole tower that was tall enough to encourage co-locating. Boar member Shankar moved the community design review board to approve the plans date- stamped November 16, 2000, for a 175-foot-tall telecommunications monopole and equipment on the property on the southwest corner of English Street and Gervais Avenue (1300 Gervais Avenue). Approval is based on the findings required by code and subject to the applicant doing the following: Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued permits for this project. Before (a) the city issues a building permit, city staff must approve the following: A certificate of survey for the project area that shows the proposed new construction, the location of the property lines and existing site features around the proposed lease area. The proposed driveway shall have a bituminous surface and shall be at least five feet away from the side property line. (b) A landscape and screening plan that: (~) (2) Helps to hide the base area of the proposed facility. Shows the preservation of as much of the existing vegetation as possible. (3) (4) Includes the planting of 8-foot-tall coniferous trees between the south side of the lease site and the existing parking lot. Shows the clean-up and the restoration of all turf areas with sod. This shall include the boulevard along Gervais Avenue and the area between the south side of the lease area and the existing parking lot to the south. (c) A driveway, grading, drainage and erosion control plan for the project site. (d) The plans for the equipment buildings that show exteriors with designs, colors and materials that are compatible with the existing buildings in the area. 3. The monopole shall be light gray. Mr. LaCasse seconded. Ayes-All Motion carries. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS None BOARD PRESENTATIONS None CDRB Minutes of 12-19-2000 -7- IX. STAFF PRESENTATIONS Ananth Shankar will attend the January 8, 2001 city council meeting. The membership terms of the board members Ledvina, Johnson, and LaCasse end on January 1,2001. All will be renewing their terms except for Mr. LaCasse who has a new baby on the way. C. The first meeting for the new year will be Tuesday, January 9th. Mr. Shankar left the meeting at 6:55. MEETING ADJOURNED Meeting Adjourned at 7:07.