HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/22/20012.
3.
4.
5.
a.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
AGENDA
MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
May 22, 2001
6:00 P.M.
City Council Chambers
Maplewood City Hall
1830 East County Road B
Call to Order
Roll Call
Approval of Minutes:
Approval of Agenda
Unfinished Business
March 27, 2001
The Gardens Townhouses - Masterpiece Homes, McMenemy Street
Design Review
Visitor Presentations
Board Presentations
Staff Presentations
a. CDRB representation needed for the June 1'1 city council meeting. (At this
time it appears there is no need for a member to attend the May 29 meeting.)
b. Resolution of Appreciation for Jon LaCasse.
c. New Member Orientation
Adjourn
p:com-dvp~cdrb.agd
MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA
MAY 22, 2001
CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Ledvina called the meeting to order at 6:03 p.m.
Staff Present: Tom Ekstrand, Assistant Community Development Director
Recording Secretary: JoAnn Morin
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
March 13, 2001
Board member Olson moved approval of the minutes of March 13, 2001.
Board member Shankar seconded. Ayes--all
The motion passed.
IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Board member Shankar moved approval of the agenda as submitted.
Board member Olson seconded. Ayes--ail
The motion passed.
V, UNFINISHED BUSINESS
a. The Gardens Townhouse Development- (east side of McMenemy Street, South of
Roselawn Avenue).
Mr. Ekstrand, Assistant Community Development Director, presented the staff report for this
project. He stated that Mr. Gordie Howe is proposing to develop a 22-unit townhouse
development. It is on a five-acre site on a private cul-de-sac off of McMenemy Street. Each
building will have horizontal-lap vinyl siding, aluminum soffits and fascia and brick veneer on
Matt Ledvina Present
Ananth Shankar Present
Tim Johnson Absent
Craig Jorgenson Absent
Linda Olson Present
II. ROLL CALL
the fronts. There will be a mix of two and three unit buildings. Mr. Ekstrand stated that the
Planning Commission reviewed the Conditional Use Permit and the Preliminary Plat for this
development and recommended approval.
Mr. Ekstrand stated that there is a large holding pond proposed on the north and central part of
the site. The pond is necessary because there is no storm sewer in this area. There will also be
rainwater gardens that are scattered along the south side of the private drive providing aesthetic
appeal as well as water retention. The Ramsey Washington Watershed District has reviewed the
plans and did not have any concerns about the proposal. They will be reviewing this proposal
again when the applicant seeks their permit.
Mr. Ekstrand stated that the site is heavily wooded. There are only six large trees that are noted
as significant by our ordinance. The rest of the trees are scrub growth, Boxelders, and
Cottonwoods. The applicant is proposing to put in 71 trees as part of the landscape plan. This is
above the requirements of the tree replacement ordinance and provides a nice array of
landscaping. Staff is also recommending that the applicant relocate some of the trees from the
cluster of trees on the north side of the pond to the south and east side of the pond to increase
the foliage around the pond. Mr. Ekstrand stated that Chris Cavett, the Assistant City Engineer, is
also asking that the applicant propose some plantings within the pond area. This would be in an
attempt to help put foliage onto the slope to provide some aesthetic appeal to that ponding area
when viewed by the residents.
Mr. Ekstrand stated that the Director of Parks and Recreation, Bruce Anderson, has
recommended that the applicant provide a trail link from the neighborhood to the south through a
property the applicant owns. The trail would pass between two two-unit buildings and then
through the applicants lot to Ripley Avenue. Because there is no road link connecting the two
neighborhoods, the Director of Parks and Recreation felt there should be a trail to help give
pedestrians a link to go back and forth between the two neighborhoods.
Regarding building design, Mr. Ekstrand stated that he felt the buildings are attractive. He stated
that Mr. Howe has brought photographs of the units he is proposing to build. The materials are
Iow or no maintenance. He stated that the Board had expressed some concerns in a previous
development of Mr. Howe's regarding the garage fronts being the prominent design element. Mr.
Ekstrand stated staff is not recommending against this, it is a small neighborhood and it is private
drive. Staff did state that there are some things that can be done to enhance the front, such as a
different garage doors or decorative lighting fixtures or covered front porches.
Mr. Gordie Howe, the applicant and Mr. Steve Peters of Masterpiece Homes, addressed the
Board. Mr. Howe stated that he was not aware of the proposed trail from the new development to
Ripley until the City had notified him on Friday. He stated that he would like to keep the cul-de-
sac private because it is geared towards empty nesters. The price range of the townhomes is
between $200,000 and $250,000. Mr. Howe stated that he has nothing against having the
walkway, but since Ripley is a public street and Summer Lane will be a private street, he
questioned who would maintain the trail and who would be liable for any accidents that may
happen on it. The common area around the townhouses is all community owned by the
townhome association. Mr. Howe stated that he felt that some of the people on Ripley do not
want to see the trail go in. He cited comments in the city staff report from a resident at 379 Ripley
stating that he would like to see the area stay as private as possible. Mr. Howe stated that he
had taken the board's recommendation from the last meeting regarding the front loading
buildings. He showed the Board photographs of a development he had done in Roseville with a
front loaded building with a front porch. He also pointed out that there will be considerable
landscaping around the townhomes. Board member Olson pointed out that the plans that they
had do not show any front porches. Mr. Howe displayed his plans with the porches on each unit
and stated this is the proposed style of the townhomes. Mr. Peters stated that the three unit
buildings will be slightly different. He then pointed out to the Board the various styles and
features of the two and three unit buildings.
Community Design Review Board -3-
Minutes of 05-22-01
Board member Ledvina requested the applicant to describe the color scheme and materials for
the development. Mr. Peters stated that they would be using vinyl exterior products, the windows
are lifetime warranty windows, and the shingles are a Hearthstead Serpentine. He stated that
there would be nothing on the exterior of the building to be painted except the front door.
Board member OIson questioned the 20-foot front setback and whether there would be sufficient
parking in the driveway. Mr. Peters stated that there would be parking for two cars in the garage
and two cars on the driveway. Board member Olson asked if there would be any sidewalks. Mr.
Peters stated that no, there would not be any sidewalks.
Board member Shankar asked the applicant about trash collection in the new development. Mr.
Peters stated that the residents will be required to keep the trash receptacles in the garage and it
would be brought out on the day of trash collection. He also stated that the mailboxes will be
spaced out in the project with nice mailbox stands with the newspaper slot built right into it. He
said that they have not addressed the specific location of the mailbox stands the with the post
office yet, but they anticipate the stands will hold four mailboxes and be spaced out through the
project.
Board member Ledvina pointed out that the required side yard setback for single family homes is
10' - putting the buildings 20' apart. He pointed out that in this proposal the buildings are at 20'
and 30' in terms of the side yard separation.
Board member Olson commented that if this were not a private drive she would like to see
sidewalks. Mr. Ekstrand stated that if this were not a private street the front setback would not
meet code. In this case, there is a greater setback on the rear lot lines to help cushion from the
existing homes.
Board member Olson asked what the Planning Commissions decisions was on the fencing of the
pond. Mr. Peters stated that the pond would be fenced in. They are proposing that the fence be
placed down below, out of eyesight, with landscaping around it.
Board member Olson asked what the driveways would be constructed of. Mr. Peters stated that
they would be asphalt.
Board member Olson asked what the Planning Commissions recommendations were on the
proposed trail. Board member Ledvina stated that there were concerns regarding the
requirement to connect a public trail to a private street. He also stated that the residents of Ripley
Court had not been surveyed to find out what their options were regarding the trail. Board
member Ledvina stated that he strongly favors the trail connection. It helps to link neighborhoods
and provides a safe method for individuals in this new community to access the Gateway Trail.
He felt that over time the trail would also serve to strengthen our communities and join our
neighborhoods. He stated that the Planning Commission's motion was to not necessarily
recommend it, they wanted staff and City Council to explore the implications of the legalities of the
public/private connection. Board member Ledvina stated that generally he felt that Planning
Commissioners were in favor of a trail connection.
Board member OIson asked about the traffic patterns in this area and if this development would
have any impact on it. Mr. Ekstrand stated that yes, there would be additional vehicles, but it
would not be very substantial.
Board member Ledvina stated concerns regarding the spacial design of the pond. He stated that
he was not in favor of a rectangular pond. He feels that a varied shaped pond would improve the
aesthetics along with additional plantings associated with the pond.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes of 05-22-01
-4-
Mr. Ekstrand liked the suggestion and stated that the pond is a prominent feature of the area. He
felt that to give some creativity to the shape of it would be very appealing to the residents. Board
member Ledvina stated that it could be made into a park like structure making it more appealing
and he also noted that it was reflected in the Planning Commission motion. He indicated that he
would like to strengthen that recommendation if the Board members are agreeable. Board
member Olson agreed that softening the edges of the pond would be a positive improvement.
She also asked if the Watershed had reviewed this proposed pond and if the soils had good
absorption. Board member Ledvina stated that the subsurface soils are sandy in nature and do a
good job infiltrating the water into the subsurface.
Board member Ledvina stated that he felt that the prominent feature of the garages on the
structure has been greatly improved with the modified plans. He stated that they definitely
needed to revise the Board's recommendation on that feature and that he supported the
applicants proposal as displayed on the revised plans.
Mr. Ekstrand stated that he felt that the Board was in favor of the trail and he pointed out to the
applicant that this proposal is going to the City Council, and that they could discuss any issues
that they may disagree with with the City Council. The Board is typically the deciding body in
cases where there is no other zoning issues, but since this issue is still going to the city council
the applicant still has an opportunity to discuss it at city council.
The Board continued discussion regarding the front layouts of the townhomes and also the
placement of the house numbers. Board member Shankar asked if there were another location
for the house numbers. Mr. Peters said that they could possibly be placed above the garage
door. However, it is preferred that the numbers are located where they can be lit. Mr. Peters also
stated that by code the house numbers must be within four feet of the front door and must be 3
¼" high.
Board member Shankar moved that the Community Design Review Board recommend approval
of the plans date stamped May 3, 2001, for the proposed 22 townhomes called The Gardens,
subject to the following conditions:
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:
a.* 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 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 and contour information.
(b) Include contour information for the land that the construction will disturb.
(c) Show sedimentation basins or ponds as may be required by the watershed
board or by the city engineer.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes of 05-22-01
-5-
o
(3) All the parking areas and the Summer Lane shall have continuous concrete
curb and gutter except where the city engineer decides it is not needed.
(4) There shall be no parking on the south side of the 28-foot-wide Summer Lane.
The developer or contractor shall post Summer Lane and the driveways with no
parking signs to meet the above-listed standard.
b. Submit a certificate of survey for all new construction and have each building staked
by a registered land surveyor.
c. Submit a revised landscape plan to staff for approval which incorporates the
following details:
(1) All lawn areas shall be sodded. The city engineer shall determine the vegetation
within the ponding area and the rain water gardens.
(2) Shifting some of the trees proposed for the north side of the pond and the cul-de-
sac to the south and east sides of the pond.
(3) The developer shall install landscaping in the ponding area to break the
appearance of the deep hole and to promote infiltration. Such landscaping shall
be approved by the city engineer and shall be shown on the project landscape
plans.
(4) Having in-ground irrigation for all landscape areas (code requirement).
(5) The plantings proposed around the front of the units shown on the landscape
plan date-stamped May 3, 2001, shall remain on the plan.
(6) A concrete walk from the driveway to the door of each unit.
d. Show that Ramsey County has recorded the final plat for this development.
Complete the following before occupying each building:
a. Replace property irons that are removed because of this construction.
b. Restore and sod damaged boulevards and sod all turf areas.
c. Complete all landscaping and turf irrigation for that building and its rain water
garden(s).
d. Install the required concrete curb and gutter.
e. Put addresses on each building for each unit.
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.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes of 05-22-01
-6-
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.
c. The city receives an agreement that will allow the city to complete any unfinished
work.
5. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may
approve minor changes.
Board member Ledvina noted that the board has received plans from the applicant on May 22,
2001 regarding changes to the two unit design plan which indicate that the entrances be located
on the front of the building.
Board member Olson seconded the motion.
Motion carries.
Ayes - All
This proposal goes before the city council on June 11, 2001.
VI. DESIGN REVIEW
None.
VII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS
VIII.
There were no visitors present.
BOARD PRESENTATIONS
Board member Ledvina discussed the redesign of the Menards to remedy their problems with
the building design that did not meet their approved conditions that were put forth by the review
board. The concern was regarding the stripe on the building. The board agreed with the staff
that the sign should be incorporated into the stripe. The city council had agreed with Menards
and had approved the plan with the stripe below the sign. Board member Olson asked if there
were any ramifications for the applicant for not meeting the approved conditions.
Mr. Ekstrand stated that due to the changes that were made without authorization, they were
required to do substantial additional landscaping. Menards' failure to comply with the plan
resulted in the council requiring that they provide considerable landscaping.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes of 05-22-01
-7-
IX. STAFF PRESENTATIONS
a. Mr. Ekstrand requested a CDRB volunteer for the City Council Meeting on June 11, 2001.
He stated that The Garden's project would be on that agenda. Board member Ledvina
requested that the applicant have updated plans and elevations for the City Council to review
at that meeting. Board member Olson volunteered to attend the June 11, 2001 City Council
meeting.
b. Mr. Ekstrand presented a Resolution of Appreciation for Jon LaCasse whom served on the
Community Design Review Board for nearly two years.
Board member Shankar moved to approve the Resolution of Appreciation for Jon LaCasse.
Board member Olson seconded.
Ayes - All
The motion passed.
c. Mr. Ekstrand gave a brief New Member Orientation to the Community Design Review Board.
X. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 7:35 p.m.