Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/11/2001AGENDA MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD December 11, 2001 6:00 P.M. City Council Chambers, Maplewood City Hall 1830 County Road B East 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes: November 27, 2001 4. Approval of Agenda 5. Unfinished Business Design Review a. Carefree Cottages Villas (Phase IV) - Behind 1733 Gervais Avenue b. Code Amendment- Outdoor Lighting Ordinance 7. Visitor Presentations 8. Board Presentations Staff Presentations a. Reminder: December 25 meeting cancelled. Next meeting January 8, 2002. b. CDRB member volunteer for December 17 city council meeting. 10. Adjourn p:com-dvpt~cdrb.agd MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA DECEMBER 11, 2001 II. III. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Ledvina called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Matt Ledvina Craig Jorgenson Linda Olson Ananth Shankar Present Absent Present Present Staff Present: Tom Ekstrand, Assistant Community Development Director Recording Secretary: Lisa Kroll APPROVAL OF MINUTES November 27, 2001 Chairperson Ledvina suggested changes to the minutes on page 4. Paragraph seven should read the site plan shows a bump in the curb along west parking lot boundary for a vehicle turn-around in that area. Chairperson Ledvina would also like to make changes on page 8 in the 1St paragraph. The minutes shall state that board member Shankar asked Mr. Amundson, if the plan is showing some metal plans above the dock doors, is that correct? Board member Shankar and Chairperson Ledvina needed on on page 8 in the 2nd and 6th paragraph. cooling. also noted a correction It should say coiling not Board member Shankar moved approval of the minutes as amended of November 27, 2001. Board member Olson seconded. Ayes---Ledvina, Olson, Shankar The motion carried. Community Design Review Board Minutes 12-11-2001 IV. APPROVALOFAGENDA 2 Board member Shankar moved to approve the agenda. Board member Olson seconded. Ayes ---Ledvina, Olson, Shankar The motion carried. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. VI. DESIGN REVIEW Carefree Cottages Villas (Phase IV) Behind 1733 Gervais Avenue Mr. Ekstrand said that Bruce Mogren, representing the Carefree Cottages Villas, is proposing to build 12 units of senior housing and 2 single dwellings. He is proposing to build this project on the north side of Gervais Avenue between the Carefree Cottages of Maplewood and the property at 1733 Gervais Avenue. The development would have two areas. As shown on the proposed site plan (page 20 of the staff report), there would be two one-story buildings with a total of 12 town home units north of Gervais Avenue, next to the driveway for the existing Carefree Cottages. The other part of the project would be along Gervais Avenue and would include 3 single dwellings (the existing house at 1733 Gervais and 2 new houses on either side of the existing house). The 15 total units would be on a 1.9-acre site for an average of 7.9 units per acre. The site would have 12 open parking spaces - one in front of each garage stall. (The proposed plan does not show any guest parking spaces). The buildings would have exteriors of vinyl horizontal-lap siding, gray asphalt shingles and vinyl trim and fascia boards. To build the development, Mr. Mogren is requesting that the city approve the following: A change in the city's land use plan. This change would be from R-1 (single dwellings) to R-3H (residential high density) for the 12 town house units. A conditional use permit (CUP) for a planned unit development (PUD) for a 15-unit housing development. This PUD would have 12 units of rental senior housing and three single dwellings. The applicant is requesting the CUP because the proposed development has a mix of housing types, lot sizes and densities. In addition, having a PUD gives the city and developer a chance to be more flexible with site design and development details than the standard zoning requirements would Community Design Review Board Minutes 12-11-2001 normally allow. For example, the new proposed lots on Gervais Avenue would be 9,375 and 9,384 square feet in area. (See the property line/zoning map on page 17, the proposed lot split map on page 19 and the proposed site plan on page 20.) A lot division to divide the property into four lots - 3 lots for the single dwellings along Gervais Avenue and one lot for the 12 townhouse units. (See the map on page 19 of the staff report.) 4. The design plans for the site, landscaping and buildings. Mr. Ekstrand said the city is recommending that the developer extend the sidewalk that is in place along the north side of Gervais Avenue to the westerly boundary. Mr. Ekstrand said staff is concerned about the parking spaces. The applicant is meeting code with providing one outside space and one garage space. There are not any other visitor parking spaces on this site. The city tries to make sure parking for guests is provided. There is not any room for curbside parking; therefore staff wants the review board to consider the need for some additional visitor parking spaces. Mr. Ekstrand said staff is recommending that the landscaping plan be more developed to provide additional screening behind the home at 1725 Gervais Avenue. Additional landscaping is also being recommended along the south of the driveway to help provide screening for the existing and future homes on Gervais Avenue. Staff is recommending the approval of recommendation D on page 7 of the staff report. Recommendations A-C will be acted on by the Planning Commission. Mr. Ekstrand added item 2. e. on page 9 require: e. A photometric plan as required by city code. Mr. Ekstrand said he spoke with the building official, David Fisher, and he said the setbacks for the proposed garages should have a three-foot setback from the north lot line. Currently they are directly abutting the lot line. Also on the east side the units abut the easterly bounds of the property. The building code would require a five-foot setback there. This will require some shifting within the site to accommodate these setbacks. Chairperson Ledvina asked if staff recommends an additional condition to state that? Mr. Ekstrand said yes. Chairperson Ledvina asked if that could perhaps be put under number 6. on page 107 Mr. Ekstrand said yes. Community Design Review Board Minutes 12-11-2001 Board member Olson asked if the building on the west could easily be shifted south to accommodate the three-foot-setback from the driveway side. The east-west shift looks possible to accommodate, but the north-south shift looks tight. Mr. Ekstrand said the only leeway he can find is in the depth in the three single-family lots. Board member OIson said the lots would have to be adjusted in size. Mr. Ekstrand said if they took three feet off the depth of those lots they could make it fit. Board member Olson asked that would cause a problem. Mr. Ekstrand said no, two of the undeveloped lots are just under the 10,000 square foot minimum. Being a planned unit development it would be possible to do that. They have the right within the ordinance to make those adjustments without requiring it a variance. Board member Olson said better to make those changes earlier than later. Chairperson Ledvina asked staff if they could just require "modifications acceptable to staff." Mr. Ekstrand said that would be fine. Chairperson Ledvina said more input can be given from the applicant on this issue. Board member Olson asked staff about the lighting ordinance. Staff has asked for a lighting plan, how do the existing cottage lighting plans fit in with the current lighting ordinance. Do you for-see any problems? Mr. Ekstrand said when Mr. Mogren has the chance to speak he can explain the lighting at the existing cottages. The present code says, when adjacent to residential, the applicant needs to provide a lighting plan. That is just to make sure that staff is seeing that the fixtures used are not going to create glare and that they are attractive. Board member OIson asked staff if they had noticed any violations in the existing plans? Mr. Ekstrand said no, and he would hope that the lighting fixtures proposed on these buildings are going to be compatible with what is being used in the existing cottages development. Board member Shankar asked staff if there is anything in the code that requires one of these twelve units to be a handicapped accessible unit? Mr. Ekstrand said maybe Mr. Mogren could answer that. It is possible that that is a building code requirement that a certain number of units are handicapped accessible but Mr. Ekstrand is not aware that any of these twelve units are handicap accessible. Community Design Review Board Minutes 12-11-2001 Chairperson Ledvina asked staff about the density in this development that is 7.9 units per gross acre. What is the existing density for the cottages? Mr. Ekstrand said he does not know for sure what the existing density is, he does not have the background data. But the code does allow up to twelve units per R-3H. Chairperson Ledvina asked staff about the current use of this area, it seems to be a Iow -lying area and he noticed it was all graded out. Is it functioning as a holding pond right now? Mr. Ekstrand said he did not think it had been. His recollection is that it was a treed area and he does not think any water was being held there. The applicant could address that. Mr. Ekstrand said it does drop six feet or so. It is lower than the land to the north and to the west. Chairperson Ledvina questioned if the grading complies with the grading/drainage plan. Mr. Ekstrand said Mr. Mogren is working with the city to make sure he is meeting the cities needs. He also needs a watershed district permit for grading. Chairperson Ledvina asked staff if these units are owner-occupied? Mr. Ekstrand said they would be rental units. Mr. Ledvina asked Bruce Mogren, the applicant to address the board. Mr. Mogren said that he is willing to work with the city on a lighting plan. He wants to provide safety and security and does not want to disturb the neighbors with light glare: Currently they have one handicapped unit. They typically setup the units with the wider doors to accommodate wheelchairs to make it accessible. They want their residents to be able to stay there as long as possible. Typically, in the town homes, the tenants are a bit younger and in the villas they are for a bit older. Mr. Mogren spoke to Jim Elias in Public Works about the grading and fill. Jim Elias was okay with the grading plan. Chairperson Ledvina asked Mr. Mogren if he knows what the density is for the town homes? Mr. Mogren said they started out with 10 acres and they have 248 units. Community Design Review Board Minutes 12-11-2001 Chairperson Ledvina asked Mr. Mogren if this area collects water right now, is this area used for ponding in any way? Mr. Mogren said no it is not, the previous owners had a daycare out there. He knows the area is lower, he is letting his engineers take care of the technical end of it. There is no vegetation to suggest any wetlands. Chairperson Ledvina asked Mr. Mogren if the issue with the building setbacks on the north line and the east line, how do you see that affecting your proposal? Mr. Mogren said from a practical stand point Mogren Development owns all the surrounding property. He wants this proposal to fit in as well as possible with the existing 248 units. It would be nice not to have to move those pine trees, it creates a nice buffer zone. They have hired Frattalone excavating and he thinks they would like to keep that area possible. Board member Olson asked Mr. Mogren about the parking problem, is there any way you can squeeze any additional parking onto this site? Mr. Mogren said it was just brought to his attention this week. He would be willing to look into adding some parking spaces. He would meet with his engineer to see where they could add visitor parking. He understands that people might need additional parking for guests and celebrations. Chairperson Ledvina asked Mr. Mogren if he looked at adding some architectural elements to the villas like some brick, wainscoting on the facade, etc. to dress it up? Mr. Mogren said they wanted these villas to fit in with the other units. They have changed some of the patterns on the siding. This will only be visible to the project itself, if you were driving by, you would not notice them from the street. Chairperson Ledvina asked Mr. Mogren about the sidewalk plan. He is confused about the sidewalk plan and the theme that is used. Board member Olson said she appreciates the sidewalk plan, they have a shared sidewalk that will provide less for the maintenance person to shovel, that also allows more green space and less covered surface. Chairperson Ledvina disagrees with that statement. He thinks some sidewalk could be eliminated and still keep the green space. He does not see the value of the T in the sidewalk plan. Mr. Mogren asked if that could be put in the report that he can work it out with staff regarding the sidewalk issues. Community Design Review Board Minutes 12-11-2001 Chairperson Ledvina said one of the things he is struggling with in terms of this design is overall the site plan that creates double-fronted residential lots. He realizes that this is not a public street, but it is a roadway. The two residential lots on eastern part of the development are essentially double fronted. Mr. Mogren said the cottages are built in quads of four, and that is how they ended up with the plan. He understands what Mr. Ledvina is saying but that road is not really a road, essentially it is a driveway to service just those homes. He has seen a lot of single -family subdivisions over the past 25 years and he understands the concern. Board member Olson asked staff about the landscape plan. Would you recommend four additional trees be planted to the east to extend that buffer in an east west pattern? Mr. Ekstrand said yes, he cannot say the exact amount of trees that should be there. He also noticed in the report that it should say 6-foot tall trees instead of 8-foot trees. Chairperson Ledvina asked if that was the required tree height at the time of planting? Mr. Ekstrand said yes. Mr. Mogren said he wants to make sure the landscaping is done in such a manner that it is a buffer and not have to been removed when someone decides to build homes on those sites. Mr. Ekstrand said staff would have to make sure a grading plan is approved to make sure the landscaping is not taken out. Mr. Mogren said almost everyone that builds a house loves trees and they would do what ever it takes to keep those trees. Maybe it could be made to work out something with staff regarding this issue with the trees. Mr. Mogren said that his excavator Frattalone Excavating suggested that there is a berm along the west line of the existing cottages development. Maybe they could continue that bern to the south and this could provide the people to the west a better buffer. If they did, maybe they could tuck a few parking spaces in that area. Mr. Ekstrand said the berm sounds like a good idea. Board member Olson said she liked that suggestion. Mr. Mogren said they want to be good neighbors. There are still some trees remaining and he would not want to disturb those trees. Mr. Ekstrand said staff does take into consideration existing vegetation. They would just like to see that area enhanced. Community Design Review Board Minutes 12-11-2001 Mr. Mogren said he spoke with the Fenton's who are some of the neighbors and they wanted to keep some of the trees in the area. He said the area is pretty well screened. The other comment is regarding the sidewalk on the property by the street. There are several trees that are right along the street. It would be pretty hard to snake a sidewalk through that area. It may be more disruptive doing that than being more helpful. Mr. Ekstrand said it was the city engineer that suggested putting a sidewalk in. He can appreciate Mr. Mogren's comments, you would hate to lose some trees. Right now there is a dead end sidewalk that ends at the cottages property line. Chairperson Ledvina asked Mr. Ekstrand who would that sidewalk serve? Board member Olson asked what the other sidewalk conditions in this section of Gervais Avenue? Are there existing sidewalks or would this be the first piece? Mr. Ekstrand said the sidewalks would go easterly towards Rainbow Foods but they do not go any further to the west. Mr. Mogren said for the record, he does not want to put any sidewalks in along the street for fear of losing any of the mature trees.. Chairperson Ledvina said he went out to the site and he did not think a sidewalk could be done. Mr. Mogren said he didn't think it could either but he would like board members to go and walk the site to see for themselves. Chairperson Ledvina said he understands the design concept of matching the existing exterior but he does not agree with the rationale that this area is not that visible. He thinks the quality of the design shouldn't be compromised. It should be quality construction for the benefit of the people that live there. He certainly understands Mr. Mogren's point in terms of matching the architecture. The landscaping will dress up the area. Board member Shankar asked Mr. Mogren what kind of windows are you proposing to use? Mr. Mogren said he believes they are double hung windows. Chairperson Ledvina asked Mr. Mogren if there will be clear panels in the garage doors? Mr. Mogren he believes they would. Board member Shankar asked Mr. Mogren who will be replacing the light bulbs outside? Community Design Review Board Minutes 12-11-2001 Mr. Mogren said there are four people on staff that take care of the tenants. Board member OIson moved to approve the plans (site and landscaping) dated November 26, 2001, and the building elevations (dated November 26, 2001,) for the Carefree Villas of Maplewood. The city bases this approval on the findings required by the code. The developer or contractor shall do the following: 1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. 2. Complete the following before the city issues a building permit: Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall include the 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 final grading plan shall include: (a) Building, floor elevation, driveway and contour information. (b) The street, driveway and sidewalk grades as allowed by the city engineer. (c) No grading beyond the boundaries of the development without temporary grading easements from the affected property owner(s). (d) Emergency overflow swales as required by the city engineer or by the watershed district. The city engineer shall approve the design of the overflow swales. (e) Submit a lighting plan. (3) There shall be no parking on either side of the new private driveway. The developer or contractor shall post the driveways with no parking signs. (4) The tree plan shall: (a) Show where the developer or contractor will remove, save or replace large trees. Community Design Review Board Minutes 12-11-2001 10 (b) Show the size, species and location of the replacement and screening trees. The new screening trees shall be grouped together. These planting areas shall be along the south and east sides of the site to help screen the development from the existing and proposed houses to the south. The deciduous trees shall be at least two and one half (2 1/2) inches in diameter and shall be a mix of red and white oaks, ash, lindens, sugar maples or other native species. The coniferous trees shall be at least six (6) feet tall and shall be a mix of Austrian pine and other species. (c) Show the planting or transplanting of at least 20 trees after the site grading is done. (d) Show no tree removal beyond the approved grading and tree limits. (e) Include for city staff a detailed tree planting plan and material list. (5) All the parking areas and driveways shall have continuous concrete curb and gutter. (6) The design of the rainwater garden and its outlet shall be subject to the approval of the city engineer. The outlet shall be protected to prevent erosion. The developer shall give the city an easement for this drainage area and shall be responsible for getting any needed off- site pond and drainage easements. (7) Provide a minimum of six-inch-thick sidewalk section at each driveway. (8) The site, driveway, sidewalk and utility plans shall show: (a) A six-foot-wide concrete sidewalk along the north side of Gervais Avenue between the west end of the existing sidewalk and the west property line of the site. The public works director shall approve the location and design of the sidewalk. (b) A water service to each unit. (c) Repair of Gervais Avenue (street and boulevard) after the developer connects to the public utilities and builds the private driveway. Community Design Review Board Minutes 12-11-2001 ]! (d) The coordination of the water main locations, alignments and sizing with the standards and requirements of the Saint Paul Regional Water Services (SPRWS). Fire-flow requirements and hydrant locations shall be verified with the Maplewood Fire Department. (e) The plan and profiles of the proposed utilities. Submit a certificate of survey for all new construction and have each building staked by a registered land surveyor. c. Revise the landscape plan for city staff approval showing: (1) Foundation plantings of perennials and shrubs (with mulch) for the areas between the sidewalks and the proposed buildings. (2) The planting of additional native evergreens on the site to provide additional screening. These additional trees should include Colorado blue spruce, eastern red cedar and eastern arborvitae. These additional trees should be located as follows: (a) Along the north property line of 1725 Gervais Avenue. (b) Along the south side of the new driveway (along the south property line of the proposed Parcel A). (c) Along the west side of the new driveway (along the east property line of Parcel B.) The trees in these locations shall be at least 6 feet tall, in staggered rows (if possible) and are to provide screening that is at least 80 percent opaque. (3) All lawn areas shall be sodded. The city engineer shall approve the vegetation within the rainwater garden. (4) Having in-ground irrigation for all landscape areas (code requirement). Show city staff that Ramsey County has recorded the deeds, cross easements and all homeowners association documents for this development before the city will issue a certificate of occupancy for the first town house unit. e. A photometric plan as required by city code. Community Design Review Board Minutes 12-11-2001 3. Complete the following before occupying the buildings: Replace property irons that are removed because of this construction and set new property irons for the new property corners. Restore and sod damaged boulevards and sod all turf areas outside of the rainwater garden. Install a reflectorized stop sign at the Gervais Avenue exit, a handicap- parking sign for each handicap-parking space, no parking signs along the private driveway and addresses on each building for each unit. In addition, the applicant shall install stop signs and traffic directional signs within the site, as required by staff. Construct a six-foot-wide concrete public sidewalk on the north side of Gervais Avenue between the west end of the existing sidewalk and the west property line of the site. The Maplewood Public Works Director shall approve the location and design of the sidewalk. eo Provide pedestrian ramps in the sidewalk along Gervais Avenue to match the entrance driveway. Any future driveway shall match the grade of the new sidewalk. Complete the site grading and install all required landscaping, the rainwater garden and an in-ground lawn irrigation system for all landscaped areas (code requirement). Install continuous concrete curb and gutter along all interior driveways and around all open parking stalls, except where the CDRB determines that it is not necessary. Install on-site lighting for security and visibility, subject to city staff approval. Construct a six-foot-wide concrete sidewalk on the north side of Gervais Avenue from the west end of the existing sidewalk (near the easterly driveway) to the west property line of the site. 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. Community Design Review Board Minutes 12-11-2001 b. 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. 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. 6. Acceptable modifications to the setback requirements as determined by staff. 7. To work with staff to add additional parking. 8. To negotiate with staff parameters and layouts for the sidewalk on the proposed site and future site. Board member Shankar seconded the motion. The motion is passed. Ayes - Olson, Shankar Nay- Ledvina Chairperson Ledvina said he still has an issue with the overall design of this site. He does not feel the residential lot should have a double fronted view. He felt that overall the site plan could be improved to eliminate that. Perhaps it would relate to reducing the number of units. b. Code Amendment-Outdoor Lighting Ordinance Mr. Ekstrand said June 12, 2001, the community design review board reviewed the outdoor-lighting ordinance amendment. The board directed staff to survey other cities for their requirements for comparison. Specifically, the CDRB wanted staff to consider whether the code should require a maximum quantity of light on a property. Should the total amount of lumen output, of all of the lamps (light bulbs in each luminary) on a site, be required not to exceed a predetermined quantity? Chairperson Ledvina said he actually wanted to know if other cities in other states have lighting ordinances and what those ordinances are. Mr. Ekstrand said he misunderstood and he only checked with the surrounding cities like Oakdale, St. Paul, White Bear, White Bear Township, Roseville and Mounds View. Much of these cities had very sparse lighting ordinances. Community Design Review Board Minutes 12-11-2001 ]4 It was determined by the board members to table this item until further investigating has been done and changes should be made and brought back to the community design review board for members to review at a later date. Chairperson Ledvina would like to make the following changes to the Ordinance. (1) a. under the 6th line the wording should say: A purpose of the Outdoor Lighting Code is to set standards for outdoor lighting to enhance the reasonable use and enjoyment of all property within the city. b. (6) for Light Trespass: it should read: The light produced by a luminary in exceedence of the standard beyond boundaries of the property on which it is located. b. (9) for Outdoor Li(~htin_~: it should read The nighttime illumination of an outside area or object by any man.made device located outdoors that produces light by any means. This includes but is not limited to signs, fixtures, street- lights etc. Grandfatherinq of Nonconforminq Luminaries: it should read at the end of the paragraph add: If fixtures are replaced as part of construction requiring a building permit the fixture shall be upgraded to meet the requirements of this ordinance. Board member Shankar moved to table this outdoor lighting ordinance December 11, 2001. Board member Olson seconded the tabling of this item. Ayes - Ledvina, Olson, Shankar The motion carried. VII. Visitor Presentations One visitor was present who wanted to speak. Mr. Ken Chen from Maplewood had a question regarding the codes for having residential, industrial and commercial combined. Community Design Review Board Minutes 12-11-2001 ]5 VIII. Board Presentations Board member Shankar represented the community design review board at the December 10, 2001, city council meeting. The McCarron's Water Treatment plan was approved. IX. Staff Presentations a. Reminder that the CDRB meeting for December 25, 2001, is cancelled. Mr. Ledvina will represent the community design review board at the December 17, 2001, city council meeting. After the meeting there will be a 6:00 p.m. meeting to discuss the Maplewood Mall traffic area study. X. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 8:10 p.m.