HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/11/2006
AGENDA
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
Tuesday, April 11 , 2006
6:00 P.M.
Council Chambers - Maplewood City Hall
1830 County Road BEast
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Approval of Agenda
4. Approval of Minutes: March 28, 2006
5. Unfinished Business: None Scheduled
6. Design Review:
a. Gladstone Redevelopment Concept Plan - Recommendation to the City Council
7. Visitor Presentations:
8. Board Presentations:
9. Staff Presentations:
10. Adjourn
MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA
TUESDAY, APRIL 11, 2006
I. CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Olson called the meeting to order at 6:06 p.m.
II. ROLL CALL
Board member John Hinzman
Vice-Chairperson Matt Ledvina
Chairperson Linda Olson
Board member Ananth Shankar
Board member Joel Schurke
Present
Absent
Present
Present
Present
Staff Present:
Shann Finwall, Planner
Lisa Kroll, Recording Secretary
III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Board member Hinzman moved to approve the agenda.
Board member Shankar seconded.
Ayes - Hinzman, Olson, Shankar, Schurke
The motion passed.
IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Approval of the CDRB minutes for March 28, 2006.
Board member Hinzman moved approval of the minutes of March 28, 2006.
Board member Schurke seconded.
Ayes --- Hinzman, Shankar, Schurke
Abstentions - Olson
The motion passed.
V. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
None.
VI. DESIGN REVIEW
a. Gladstone Redevelopment Concept Plan - Recommendation to the City Council
Ms. Finwall said on March 28, 2006, the CRDB along with the HRA in a joint meeting heard a
staff presentation about Plan B for the redevelopment of the Gladstone neighborhood. This
plan had about 490 housing units in the Gladstone Redevelopment Area. The master plan had
800 housing units.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 4-11-2006
2
The city council is meeting Tuesday, April 18, 2006, at the Maplewood Community Center at
7:00 p.m. Staff is looking for a CDRB representative to give the Gladstone recommendation
from the board to the city council.
Chairperson Olson said she has served as a Gladstone Task force member for the past 18
months.
Board member Matt Ledvina could not be present for tonight's meeting but provided comments
for staff to read and present to the CDRB members for the record. It read: Matt Ledvina
supports the 800 unit development plan concept that was presented in the master plan. The
area has significant amenities that support and justify planning at a higher density. These
include the Gladstone Savanna open space, access to recreational facilities such as parks and
trails, excellent transportation connections, and existing city improvements associated with the
roundabout. The master plan concept provides greater leverage for obtaining significantly
higher property values with a relatively marginal increase in cost. He believes if the lower
density plan (490 units) is chosen, in 10 years the conclusion will be that the city should have
done better with this opportunity.
Board member Shankar asked how many board and/or commiSSions are making a
recommendation regarding the Gladstone plan to the city council?
Ms. Finwall said the Gladstone Task Force, Planning Commission, Community Design Review
Board, Housing Redevelopment Authority, Park and Open Space Commission, and Historical
Commission will be giving their recommendations to the city council on Tuesday, April 18,
2006.
Board member Shankar said in the past the city council has looked to the CDRB for
recommendations regarding design issues. Density issues are normally looked at by the
Planning Commission. He wondered how the recommendation from the CDRB in terms of
density would carry with the city council?
Ms. finwall said the planning commission normally deals with land use and density issues. In
this particular instance staff feels the density correlates with the design elements of the overall
plan. Approving one plan over the other based on the fact that it might offer added amenities
would be within the bounds of the CDRB's duties.
Board member Schurke asked if staff had a recommendation regarding this plan. And if shy a
recommendation from staff, what is the sentiment in terms of density?
Ms. Finwall said the consultants are putting a staff report together which will outline our
recommendations. The planning commission has recommended the master plan, the HRA will
be discussing this tonight, the historical commission recommended the master plan, however,
had concerns about development with one particular historical house in the area. The Parks
and Open Space commission recommended the master plan because of the added amenities
that would be involved on the Savanna. City staff has been working towards a redevelopment
project that would set the bar for future redevelopment high. This is the first large proactive
redevelopment in the city, and the city wants to make sure this is something special and that
will attract quality development.
Community Oesign Review Board
Minutes 4-11-2006
3
Board member Schurke asked if that recommendation would be made by staff to the city
council prior to the meeting on April 18, 2006?
Ms. Finwall said staff may be looking towards the consultants for that recommendation but
staff would be supporting the consultant's recommendation.
Board member Shankar said he got the impression at the last meeting that Chuck Ahl was
thinking of somewhere between 490 and 800 units and it wasn't clear to him why Chuck Ahl
was not supporting one plan over the other.
Chairperson Olson said she can't speak to Mr. Ahl's comments but in the packet the CORB
received the list of comments from the last Gladstone public meeting where 30 people wanted
option A, and 38 people wanted option B. As the second choice, 16 people wanted option A
and 22 people wanted option B. In the first choice there was one person who had another
response which was a compromise somewhere in between the 490 and 800 units (that person
was Chairperson Olson) and she believes that is what Chuck Ahl was referring to. The master
plan was not a "universal" choice. Almost everybody had some criticism of something in the
master plan, however at the end it was a compromise of the "best choices available" and she
thinks it's important to recognize that fact. Plan B is the least possible impact development
plan. As such, almost everyone from the task force had something negative to say about plan
B because it was too minimalist and that there needs to be some enhancement. As a board we
have the opportunity to heal some wounds and take some steps in the direction that is going to
unify the situation for many people that have been very uncomfortable with the idea of the
Gladstone Redevelopment plan. In the CDRB packet staff made reference that the CDRB
could recommend either plan A or plan B or come up with a combination to recommend to the
city council. She would like to see if the board could come up with some recommendations that
would be acceptable to everyone on the board.
Board member Hinzman said people can see certain things they like in both plans and what
they think would work better. This area is served well by the separation of the residential
property from the commercial property by Gateway trail and the Bruce Vento trail systems.
Everything to the south and to the west of the trail system is pretty well buffered and has
minimal impact on the surrounding neighborhoods. However, when you go east of the Bruce
Vento trail you are getting into the neighborhoods that are already established as single family
homes. It seems the plan puts townhomes and densities in areas that come in close conflict to
one another, so he questions that part of the plan. The density along Frost Avenue and English
is essential. He is disappointed in plan B with the intersection at Frost Avenue and English
because it does not have any commercial property. It appears to have mid-density town homes
right up to the intersection and he thinks that's a tremendous loss to not have density at that
intersection. You can put in more density and buffer it with the trail systems and take
advantage of that.
Chairperson Olson said the trail system and the walkability for this project have been key
components to this plan and any recommendation the board makes to the city council needs to
reflect that. The issue of preservation of the existing businesses is a very substantial issue.
She was approached by business owners and in plan B there is no provision for the existing
businesses. There is a laundromat, a hair dresser, a dog groomer, and there are multiple small
businesses that are not included with this plan.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 4-11-2006
4
Chairperson Olson said the Maplewood Bowl is a profitable enterprise and it has a long term
lease and the developer would very much like to develop this, however, with a long term lease
and the opposition from the lease holders, this is not an issue the CDRB can deal with. The
city needs to consider that the Maplewood Bowl is a viable entity and it's going to be there for
awhile. Chairperson Olson said the funeral home has decided to remain, the Moose Lodge
wants to remain, the Boatworks is ready to leave, Gladstone Doors and Windows is looking at
relocating along Highway 61 and there is a tremendous amount of change that is going to
happen regardless of the situation. The pedestrian issues and commercial property retention
and attraction are major issues that have been discussed endlessly and need to be addressed
by the overall design.
Board member Shankar said his opinion is that the CDRB should recommend whatever they
feel is appropriate and not necessarily look at how the community may respond as a
compromise. The community is looking at the board for their best professional opinion as the
CDRB and he does not particularly see a need for a compromise.
Chairperson Olson asked if the board members are alright addressing the issues as individual
items and coming up with a recommendation to the city council?
Board member Schurke said he would concur with what board member Shankar said. He
thinks it is important that as a board member he would personally value staffs
recommendation because he would like to see Maplewood stand on their own two legs from a
staffing standpoint to have staff make recommendations that are not necessarily driven by
either a vote of community members or a consensus building approach. He thinks there are
directions that this community needs to look at that establish a new quality standard for
Maplewood as a community. He spent a lot of time driving through the neighborhood and has
biked the trails extensively over the past 10 years while living in the City of Maplewood. The
clean up that is necessary around the area is unacceptable and has been tolerated for far too
long. The last few years the backside of properties that adjoin the trail have been cleaned up a
little bit but even still there are properties that are unacceptable in his opinion.
Board member Schurke said personally he would like to see certain things happen in this area.
He would like to make sure the city does not make a significant public investment in acquiring
viable existing businesses. The properties that are east of English Street have a chance to
sustain themselves on their own and can remain and if you can attract a developer who is
willing to work with those businesses then that is what should happen. Maybe there is some
way to support some visible improvements like streetscape improvements to the existing
businesses and keep them there. He agrees with board member Hinzman's comments
regarding the housing densities east of the Bruce Vento trail. More importantly to him is the
cost that the city incurs to buyout viable businesses that could sustain themselves and in time,
as the market evolves, let those businesses decide what they want to do. He would also like to
see the city secure outside financial resources to pay for other improvements. Maybe there is a
way to do that in lieu of increasing densities to pay for public improvements. He asked what
other grants or resources there are at the federal, state or county level. If this is the first
proactive redevelopment in the City of Maplewood we need to respect the investment made
and the process that the task force and city staff has gone through to get this far.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 4-11-2006
5
Board member Schurke said he looked at the results that HKGI has achieved and aside from
"minor" criticisms he thinks it's a tremendous planning effort. If we don't respect and recognize
this plan it could set a bad tone for other people who could be involved in future planning
efforts of this magnitude if they should ever come up in Maplewood. Board member Schurke
said we also need to respect the time and energy that people have invested with this plan as
well as their insights. This is really a great plan.
Chairperson Olson said she has personally invested well over 100 hours and over two years of
time on this process which has been a real challenge. The issue she has with plan B is that
there is really only two housing formats that are being proposed. One is a multi-family unit
where there are shared walls and the other is rowhouses. One comment that came up at one
of the task force meetings is that there are too many rowhouses and that it would be a mini
Legacy Village. She commented that with all those rowhouses there cannot be accessibility
because there are interior and exterior stairs to the units. Remember there are no handicap
accessible housing units in the Legacy Village development. Gladstone as a community needs
to look at providing accessible housing, which is not necessarily senior housing and is not
necessarily low income housing. The Gladstone plan should provide senior housing because
this is a community with a lot of seniors living here. HKGI, the consulting firm has identified that
fact. People who have retired would like to move back into the community. There are
snowbirds that live in southern states and want to live here in the off season and take
advantage of the recreational facilities and other options. It's an aging community and the
elementary school has been converted to a senior center.
Chairperson Olson said this area needs affordable housing built here as well, which does not
necessarily mean "low income" housing. This would provide affordable housing and they
would be able to access additional funding for the environmental clean up on the tourist cabin
site which is significant. The existing residents who live in the tourist cabins could apply for
housing in this development once it is built. There are currently about 80 homes on the site
which would be replaced with around 150 housing units. The residents who live in the tourist
cabins are mostly 65 years of age and older and on a limited fixed income, however, there are
some families that still live there. There is no proposal at this time, it's only a concept, but if the
Gladstone Redevelopment plan is accepted CCHT may be applying to the city very soon. At
this time she is in favor of this concept plan by CCHT and she feels this development would be
a great asset to this community.
Chairperson Olson said she feels current business owners should be allowed to remain in the
area, subject to the city codes and ordinances. She feels there should not be any forced
displacements on the site. The city needs to restore and retain what little historical quality
that's left on this site. In the original plan that HKGI put together there was an area close to
Lake Phalen that featured the oldest park in Maplewood and is called Lookout Point but was
eliminated from the master plan because as the master plan evolved, the density was reduced.
There is nothing there right now representing Lookout Point. Some of the residents wanted to
see a bench and sign or a small gazebo representing the historical quality of the park. She
would like to see that idea put back into the plan. The Savanna has some serious
environmental issues and there needs to be funding for the clean up of that site and there
needs to be walking paths through there. She has heard a multitude of stories about small
petty crimes, kids stealing bikes and losing them in the tall weeds, etc.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 4-11-2006
6
Chairperson Olson said the Savanna is not accessible, it's not friendly, it's threatening and
some of the residents have said there is a change in tone in the neighborhood after dark. So
lighting and streetscape issues are important there. Flicek Park was a hot topic; there was a lot
of passion for the ball field which is very active in the summer. The park is being used by other
communities and the parks department is in effect subsidizing other teams from other city's
who do not have their own ball fields. Everyone felt that if there was any way to preserve the
ball fields that would be their preference. In the end, the issue of storm water retention took
precedence over that. At one of the meetings Chuck Ahl said for many years the city felt the
best thing was to get rid of the surface water and the plan was to move it into Lake Phalen.
Now there are a lot of issues with storm water retention and the pathing of that water.
Chairperson Olson said many people thought it was a good idea to retain the pond on the
Savanna. There were a lot of mixed reactions regarding the pond draining under Frost Avenue
and into Flicek Park for an additional storm drain, collector and treatment area. That will have
to be a parks issue. HKGI and Kimley-Horn, the consulting firms, presented two different
design plans for a bebo which is the larger more expensive version and a box culvert which is
much smaller and less expensive. She said she spoke to many people who were opposed to a
box culvert because it's too small, feels claustrophobic, could be a place where more petty
crimes occur and because of the width of the space probably would not be handicapped
accessible. The bebo is definitely preferred by the people she spoke with, but is the more
expensive route.
Chairperson Olson said she spoke to the business owners and the issue of connecting the
trails and creating sidewalks is a major issue to them. Most of this area does not have curb
and gutter or sidewalks. Sidewalks are something the city and the CDRB have been pushing
for and recommending for some time now and remains crucial for people to use. She would
like to see parking areas with pervious pavers, similar to what Schmelz Countryside did in their
parking lot. There are a lot of resources for this, it's more expensive to construct, but she feels
this would solve a lot of drainage problems and the CDRB could make a recommendation on
this in the near future. Initially in the conversations with residents there was a definite limit of
no taller than 3 story buildings but as the task force toured areas in the twin cities they saw a
lot of ways to make very nice developments that are three, four or five stories tall and are very
attractive. This would require elevators and make the housing accessible. Higher stacking
results in a smaller footprint, and a smaller footprint allows for more green space or open
space around it. If there were taller structures in the Gladstone neighborhood that would
provide wonderful views of Keller Lake, Lake Phalen, and the Savanna and those units could
definitely be priced in a higher bracket and provide some assets to the community. So the
issue of density and taller buildings is something she thinks the CDRB can address and she
thinks some high stacked structures are necessary for this area. The buildings could be set
back and do not have to be near Frost Avenue. Setbacks are another issue that she would like
the CDRB to make a recommendation on. In the master plan you will see the structures are
pushed right up to the right of way.
Chairperson Olson said during the tours the task force liked the Excelsior Development on
Grand and Excelsior. There was an extremely wide sidewalk with a large setback which
allowed for cafe tables and space for wheelchairs to access and space for parking, trash
containers and bollards on the sidewalk to protect pedestrians from traffic.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 4-11-2006
7
Chairperson Olson said on the north side of Frost Avenue she would like to see the larger
setback and maybe even on English Street but particularly with the commercial areas. We
could cut costs on the landscape medians. She would personally prefer not to see the
landscaped median between the area north of the Savanna and the development because she
thinks it forms a barrier and she would rather see the Savanna environmentally accessible.
Chairperson Olson said she thinks it serves as a traffic calming device. She would like to see a
landscape barrier at the top of the hill on Frost Avenue by White Bear Avenue rather than
down by the Savanna where things are already green and heavily treed. She wants to see
streetscape, pedestrian lights, lights, sidewalks, and accessible ramps on the streets, and
colored concrete pedestrian crosswalks. These are all cost items and they are important to the
community but she is afraid those are items that will be sacrificed. There needs to be some
recreational development on the Savanna. Everyone thought there should be no residential
development on the Savanna. There need to be trails on the Savanna. The Savanna could
have a fountain on it and the Historical Committee discovered there is a very deep historical
well in the center of the Savanna which would be great to have a fountain there.
Ms. Finwall thanked Chairperson Olson for all her time and effort on the Gladstone Task Force
and thanked the CDRB for their comments and recommendation. The Gladstone master plan
is a concept for possible redevelopment in the area. This is similar to the Hillcrest area where
the City of Maplewood adopted the Hillcrest Redevelopment plan in 2004. This was based on
the Metropolitan Councils studies of the smart growth site. Gladstone is the first proactive
"redevelopment" site and the redevelopment of the Hillcrest area was guided by the
Metropolitan Council. This is step one which is a vision and a concept plan, step two is
creating the land use, zoning and design standards, step three is the implementation and how
the city council proposes to implement that. This is the first step of about 12 steps. All the
comments made by Chairperson Olson and the rest of the CDRB members are important and
valid and will be looked at closely during the design standards portion of the process.
Chairperson Olson said she wants high quality housing and does not want substandard
housing. She knows the issue of housing materials and housing design is way down the road
but she wanted to share her comments.
Board member Schurke hoped that the city council will read the comments that were shared by
the board members so the city council can understand some of the opinions and concerns that
were addressed here. For that reason he will make a simple CDRB recommendation to the city
council. A clear recommendation is always better.
Board member Schurke moved that the CDRB recommend the master plan (800 units) to the
city council.
Board member Hinzman seconded.
Ayes - Hinzman, Olson, Shankar, Schurke
The motion passed.
This item goes to the city council on Tuesday, April 18, 2006.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 4-11-2006
8
Ms. Finwall recommended the CDRB select a CDRB representative to give the
recommendation to the city council. Staff will not have time to recreate the minutes verbatim
for the April 18, 2006, city council meeting but staff will type discussion items up and pass
them on for the staff report by Chuck Ahl. The CDRB minutes of 4-13-06 will be in the next
packet.
Chairperson Olson said if staff could condense the discussion down to bullet points that would
be most important to provide.
Staff would be happy to do that.
Board member Shankar said even though the CDRB is recommending the master plan we
should talk about some of the issues that were brought up last time. One was the growth of the
population in the Metropolitan area which Chuck Ahl said is estimated to grow to 1 million
people over the next 20 years. The issue of stacking of homes was brought up which is more
energy efficient compared to spreading the units out. Someone asked Chuck Ahl about the
additional need for schools and staff felt this development would trigger a demand for more
classrooms because there would be more kids moving in, but he felt there would be no need
for more schools and the school system could handle the growth of more children.
Chairperson Olson said the population of school age children in this area of Maplewood is on
the decline.
Board member Schurke said he heard a comment at the last meeting regarding the trails in
proximity to the downtown areas and other work areas including Maplewood Mall, the
opportunity for this to be a live, work place and provide for alternate means of transportation
might mean the city could entertain a lower requirement of parking as a result of that for
development. Recognizing that in a formal way and saying if you were to attract people as
young professionals they could possibly give up cars and use bikes to get around.
Board member Hinzman said he strongly believes the master plan with the 800 units is going
to be a benefit for the property owners in the area. As someone who has grown up and lived in
this area his whole life and has seen this area slowly look more ragged, that is going to reflect
on the neighborhood and being able to infuse new density and different housing choices is
only going to highlight the great amenities and is going to boost the property values in the
area, especially since there is a good separation.
Board member Schurke said one thing that's really intriguing about this location is that it
provides affordability adjacent to a lake setting. Lake Phalen is one of the last affordable lakes
in the metropolitan area. For some people, that may not be affordable, but generally speaking
it is a very affordable as far as living on a lake goes.
Chairperson Olson said one of the first things that came up early in the project regarding
density is that people who used to live there want to come back and people that grew up there
want to move back, but because of the affordability factor you have to wait for someone to
either move or pass away before a home opens up in Gladstone. This would allow people to
move back into the neighborhood and should be a consideration.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 4-11-2006
9
Board member Shankar said based on Chairperson Olson's 100 hours of volunteering and her
knowledge of the Gladstone meetings, he would recommend Chairperson Olson be the most
appropriate person to represent the CDRB at the city council meeting.
Chairperson Olson agreed to be the CDRB representative to make the recommendation to the
city council. She thanked the board members for their comments.
Board member Hinzman thanked Chairperson Olson for all her hard work and efforts regarding
the Gladstone Redevelopment plan.
Board member Schurke requested that Chairperson Olson pass along to everyone involved
the CDRB's gratitude to all who participated in the lengthy planning process including the
Gladstone Task Force, city staff, consultants, members of the commissions and boards, and
the public.
VII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS
No visitors present.
VIII. BOARD PRESENTATIONS
None.
IX. STAFF PRESENTATIONS
None.
X. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 6:50 p.m.