Loading...
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.