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.