HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/27/2006
AGENDA
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
Tuesday, June 27, 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: June 13, 2006
5. Unfinished Business: None Scheduled
6. Design Review:
a. Legacy Village Townhomes - County Road D and Kennard Street (Legacy
Village Development)
b. 5-8 Tavern and Grill Parking Lot Expansion - 2289 Minnehaha Avenue
c. Mounds Park Academy Comprehensive Sign Plan - 2051 Larpenteur Avenue
7. Visitor Presentations:
8. Board Presentations:
9. Staff Presentations:
a. Planning Commission and CDRB Duties
b. Community Development Tour - July 31, 2006
c. Sign Code Update
d. Community Design Review Board Special Projects
e. CDRB Representation at the July 10, 2006, City Council Meeting - Design
Review Items to be Discussed Include Legacy Village Townhomes and the 5-8
Tavern and Grill
10. Adjourn
MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA
TUESDAY, JUNE 27, 2006
I. CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Olson called the meeting to order at 6:04 p.m.
II. ROLL CALL
Board member John Hinzman
Vice-Chairperson Matt Ledvina
Chairperson Linda Olson
Board member Joel Schurke
Board member Ananth Shankar
Present
Present at 6:04 p.m.
Present
Present at 6:18 p.m.
Absent
Staff Present:
David Fisher, Interim Community Development Director/Bldg Official
Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner
Shann Finwall, Planner
Lisa Kroll, Recording Secretary
III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Board member Ledvina moved to approve the agenda.
Board member Hinzman seconded.
Ayes - Hinzman, Ledvina, Olson
The motion passed.
IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Approval of the CDRB minutes for June 13, 2006.
Chairperson Olson had corrections to the minutes on pages 6 and 9. On page 6, in the
seventh paragraph, second line, add the word those in front of the word located. On page 9,
third paragraph, third line, change autumn glaze to Autumn Blaze.
Board member Ledvina moved approval of the minutes of June 13, 2006, as amended.
Board member Hinzman seconded.
Ayes --- Hinzman, Ledvina, Olson
The motion passed.
Ms. Finwall introduced David Fisher, Interim Community Development Director/Building
Official. Mr. Fisher was present to familiarize himself with the board members and observe
what occurs during a Community Design Review Board meeting.
The board members welcomed Mr. Fisher and wished him good luck in his role as Interim
Community Development Director/Building Official.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 6-27-2006
2
V. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
None.
VI. DESIGN REVIEW
a. Legacy Village Townhomes - County Road D and Kennard Street (Legacy Village
Development)
Mr. Ekstrand said the Hartford Group; the master developer of Legacy Village is proposing to
develop the final segment of town homes at Legacy Village. The application is for 119
town homes which would be located on the south side of County Road D between Hazelwood
and Kennard Streets.
This portion of the Legacy Village PUD (planned unit development) was previously approved
for 96 town house units and an office building on a Hr.-acre site at the southwest corner of
Kennard Street and County Road D. The applicant is now asking for an amendment to the
approved PUD (planned unit development) to build town homes on this office site as part of
their town house development.
June 19, 2006, the planning commission recommended approval of the land use plan change,
PUD amendment and preliminary plat. They also suggested that the CDRB require designated
crosswalks across Village Trail East to access the pedestrian trail to the south.
Board member Ledvina asked about the colors of the townhome units.
Mr. Ekstrand said the Hartford Group is proposing the town home units to be in the color palette
as shown on the plans.
Board member Hinzman asked if each of the town home buildings would have different color
schemes or would they follow the same color pattern as shown on the plans?
Mr. Ekstrand said the Hartford Group didn't propose any other range of colors so staff is
assuming the only colors being used were the ones shown on the plans.
Chairperson Olson asked if they are going to be able to save any of the trees on the site?
Mr. Ekstrand said the Hartford Group is not going to be able to save many of the trees, only
the trees along the wetland area and along the pond.
Board member Hinzman said the retaining wall on the east side of the pond appears to range
from 5 to 14 feet in height. He asked what product they would be using for the retaining wall?
He asked if it would be possible to terrace the retaining walls to break up the wall and then
plant landscaping?
Mr. Ekstrand said that could be made a requirement, however, the applicant has not proposed
that. Often times the city prefers to see a fence or railing on top of the retaining wall for safety,
if that is not shown as a condition in the staff report, it should be.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 6-27-2006
3
Board member Hinzman asked if the retaining wall would be made of keystone block?
Mr. Ekstrand said that typically has been what the retaining walls have been made of in the
Legacy Development area.
Board member Hinzman said he noticed the garages are rear loaded and there are no
additional parking spaces outside of the garage doors to park.
Mr. Ekstrand said correct. It's very tight between those buildings. Other phases of town homes
within this project have a similar parking situation. The parking was something the CDRB
reviewed with the other Legacy townhome developments and the board was told there would
be covenants telling the homeowner that people cannot park outside the garage doors and that
it would be up to the association to maintain that covenant. Staff is not aware of any parking
concerns in the Legacy developments currently but the sites aren't fully built yet either.
Mr. Ekstrand said he wanted to recommend two additional conditions. 1. All street lights shall
match the design already in use at Legacy Village. 2. Install wetland protection buffer signs as
spacing of eveI}' 100 feet around the outer edge of the wetland buffer. These signs shall
comply with the city's approved design for such signs and shall say wetland buffer area do not
mow, cut, dump, disturb beyond this point - City of Maplewood.
Board member Schurke said he noticed in the staff report that the original concept plan for
Legacy Village had a park in the master plan.
Mr. Ekstrand said there have been two major changes in the original plan. The Ramsey
County Library, which is on a seven acre parcel, could have been three commercial sites with
possible restaurants built there. The park elements have not changed and the sculpture park is
built. The tot-lot south of this site is still proposed to be built by the city. Everything else is
going according to plan. There has also been a small reduction in density then what there
could have been.
Board member Schurke asked if the wetlands are being reduced?
Mr. Ekstrand said the applicant is complying with the original plan. There is a misconception
with some of the neighbors who feel this wooded lot should remain wooded and that is noted in
the staff report. The 120 units of senior housing will be built in this area as well but the
application has yet to come in to the city.
Chairperson Olson asked if the senior housing to be proposed would be independent senior
housing or assisted living? She also asked if the senior housing would have elevators and be
accessible?
Mr. Ekstrand said he believed it's planned as independent senior housing at this point and the
building would have elevators and be accessible.
Chairperson Olson asked the applicant to address the board.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 6-27-2006
4
Mr. Frank Janes, Hartford Group, 7900 Xerxes Avenue South, Suite 1300, Bloomington,
addressed the board. The Hartford Group intends to landscape around the wetland area and
make the area look natural. The senior building is planned for a four-story building with 116
independent senior housing units that would be accessible.
Board member Hinzman asked if the color variations of the building would be repeated on
every building or would the color palette be inter-mixed?
Mr. Shaun Knoth, Architect, Hartford Group, 7900 Xerxes Avenue South, Suite 1300,
Bloomington, addressed the board. He said the colors selected were chosen based on similar
colors that are on the adjoining properties. There are four different building types, five units, six
units, and two different seven unit building types and the colors would be repeated in some
manner.
Board member Ledvina asked if they had determined what colors would be used on each
individual unit and for each five, six, and seven unit building?
Mr. Knoth showed the board the seven unit buildings that would have the same color
renderings that were shown on the plan. The units will be in the same color scheme but mixed
in a different combination interchanging different gables and other design elements, so no two
sets of buildings would look the same or be next to each other.
Board member Ledvina said there are substantial retaining walls shown on the plan along the
wetland. In past projects the CDRB has asked applicants to break the expanse of the retaining
wall up or step the walls over a certain height. He asked if that would be something they could
do here? He asked what type of material would be used for the retaining wall?
Mr. Patrick Sarver, ASLA, Director of Development and Principal Landscape Architect for the
project with Hartford Group, 7900 Xerxes Avenue South, Suite 1300, Bloomington, addressed
the board. He said they can terrace the retaining walls and still maintain the function of the
walls. The retaining wall product they are using is called an Anchor Landmark Series retaining
wall and in his opinion it's one of the more attractive walls out there. The block comes with in a
multiple sized retaining wall block with a tumbled appearance which really softens the way the
wall presents itself and speaks of great quality.
Board member Schurke asked what they would plant in the terracing of the retaining walls?
Mr. Sarver said they would plant low maintenance plantings, shrubs along with mulch.
Board member Ledvina said earlier there was some discussion regarding fencing along the top
of retaining walls. He asked if this was something they planned on doing?
Mr. Sarver said generally fences are needed along retaining walls that are immediately
adjacent a wall higher than 30 inches. In his opinion it's better to be on the safe side to keep
an accident from happening. He said they would use a similar metal railing system as was
used for the Wyngate project.
Board member Ledvina asked what staffs opinion was regarding railings on top of retaining
walls?
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 6-27-2006
5
Mr. Ekstrand said any retaining wall over 4 feet in height requires a railing.
Chairperson Olson said it appears the retaining walls are going to be right up to the sidewalk.
Mr. Sarver said that's correct because of the proximity of the buildings relative to the buffer.
Board member Schurke said he suggested the applicant use a darker color palette rather than
the lighter color palette because of the size of these buildings. The nice thing about using the
cream color palette is that it creates a separation of the units but the down side is that the dark
color seems to recede more. The venting on the roofs are never shown on the plans so people
don't think of what it's going to look like until they see the finished product but he would
challenge the applicant to find other ways to do venting through the wall. He said he has
successfully done that in projects and it looks a lot nicer.
Chairperson Olson asked if the applicant is agreeable to the conditions listed in the staff
report?
Mr. Janes said yes. They still own the area on the plans labeled park which is 2 acres and they
will be dedicating that to the city. They will be using soil from that area for this site. The
sculpture park and walking trails are already built as part of the development. The Ramsey
County Library is already under construction and the application for the senior housing will be
coming into the city soon.
Chairperson Olson asked if they are comfortable with the visitor parking space without taking
up too much of the permeable space?
Mr. Janes said as they mentioned at the planning commission meeting they can alter the
visitor parking to comply with the city requirements.
Board member Hinzman said he noticed the development has tuck under garages and there is
no additional parking space in the driveway. He asked if the applicant had encountered that
being a problem at all?
Mr. Janes said these units have tuck under garages and visitors will have to park in the visitor
parking spaces. There would also be on-street parking in certain marked areas. He personally
has not spoken to anybody at Town & Country regarding any complaints about the parking.
The design of the units are not meant to have cars parked in the driveway.
Board member Ledvina said he believes people know what they are buying into when they
purchase these units and understand the parking situation ahead of time.
Board member Hinzman said people will park where it is the most convenient and sometimes
that can cause a problem. He wants to make sure there are enough visitor parking spaces and
that they are not too far away or they won't be utilized correctly.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 6-27-2006
6
Board member Ledvina moved to approve the plans date-stamped May 11, 2006, for the
Legacy Townhomes at Legacy Village. Approval is subject to the developer complying with the
following conditions: (changes made by the community design review board are
underlined if added and crossed out if deleted):
1. Obtain city council approval of a comprehensive land use plan revIsion from BC
(business commercial) to R3H (high density residential) to build town homes on the
previously-approved office site.
2. Obtain city council approval of a revision to the previously-approved planned unit
development for this project.
3. Obtain city council approval of the preliminary plat for this project.
4. All requirements of the fire marshal and building official must be met.
5. The applicant shall obtain all required permits from the Ramsey-Washington Metro
Watershed District.
6. All driveways and parking lots shall have continuous concrete curbing.
7. All requirements of the city engineer, or his consultants working for the city, shall be met
regarding grading, drainage, eroSion control, utilities and the dedication of any
easements found to be needed. All conditions of the Maplewood engineering report
dated June 1, 2006, must be compiled with.
8. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project
by that time.
9. Any identification signs for the project must meet the requirements of the city sign
ordinance and the PUD approval.
10. The setbacks are approved as proPQsed.
11. The applicant shall:
. Install reflectorized stop signs at all driveway connections to Hazelwood Street
and Kennard Street. '
. Install and maintain an in-ground lawn irrigation system for all landscaped areas.
. Install all required trails, sidewalks and carriage walks.
. Install any traffic signage within the site that may be required by staff.
. Revise the site plan for staff approval providing for all visitor parking stalls to be
at least 9% feet wide.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 6-27-2006
7
. Provide a revised landscaping plan for staff approval providing considerable
landscaping in and around the rainwater gardens and around ponds.
. Provide a screening plan to staff for approval for any visible utility meters on the
outside of the building. No end units facing County Road D shall have meters.
. Provide a detailed soils analysis to the building official and city engineer prior to
applying for building permits to ensure that there is proper soil stability for
construction.
12. The applicant shall take care to make sure that site lights do not exceed a .4-foot-candle
spillover onto homes when lighting the private street and drives.
13. The applicant shall submit an address and traffic signage plan for staff approval.
14. The applicant shall provide the city with cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit for
the exterior landscaping and site improvements prior to getting a building permit for the
development. Staff shall determine the dollar amount of the escrow.
15. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may
approve minor changes.
16. A temporary sales office shall be allowed until the time a model unit is available for use.
Such a temporary building shall be subject to the requirements of the building official.
17. The applicant shall work with staff to provide three crosswalks across Village Trail East
to access the power line trail to the south. The applicant shall also provide three paved
trail connections to the power line trail. This plan must be established before a building
permit is issued.
18. The applicant shall submit buildino colors of the units for staff approval.
19. The applicant shall install wetland orotection buffer sions as spacino of everv 100 feet
around the outer edoe of the wetland buffer. These sions shall complv with the citv's
approved desion for such sions and shall sav wetland buffer area do not mow. cut.
dump. disturb beyond this point - City of Maplewood.
20. Retainino walls shall be staooered or terraced if the retainino walls are more than 6 feet
in heioht and are subiect to approval bY staff. There shall be railinos built on the top of
the retainino walls that exceed 4 feet in heioht and approved bv staff.
21. All street liohts shall match the desior alreadv in use at Leoacy Villaoe.
22. The applicant maximize the use of throuoh wall ventino to reduce neoative aesthetics of
multiple roof penetrations.
Board member Schurke seconded.
Ayes - Hinzman, Ledvina, Olson, Schurke
The motion passed.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 6-27-2006
8
This item goes to the city council on July 1 Q, 2006.
b. 5-8 Tavern and Grill Parking Lot Eixpansion - 2289 Minnehaha Avenue East
Ms. Finwall said the owners of the 5-8 Tavern and Grill located at 2289 Minnehaha Avenue
have purchased the single family house located to the east of their existing property (2303
Minnehaha Avenue). Jill Skogheim of the 5-8 Tavern and Grill is proposing to demolish the
single family house for the expansion of the restaurant's parking lot. On June 19, 2006, the
planning commission recommended approval of the comprehensive plan change, rezoning
and conditional use permit.
Ms. Jill Skogheim, Director of Operations, JBJ Dining, Inc., representing the 5-8 Tavern & Grill,
2289 Minnehaha Avenue East, MaplewOod, addressed the board. She said they are in
agreement with the conditions listed in the staff report. They are amenable to working with the
neighbors regarding the fencing, landscaping and screening. The lighting proposed is between
o and .1 foot-candles.
Board member Hinzman said it appears that the light poles are 15 feet tall and located in the
center of the parking lot. He recommended they look at moving the lights further to the east
and put cut-off shields on the lights to get the light intensity across the parking lot without
spilling light over to the east property line.
Ms. Skogheim said her understanding was the lighting contractor was going to use cut off
shields so she was not sure why the light illumination was shown so high on the plans.
Chairperson Olson asked if someone could point out where the new trees would be planted
and where the landscaping enhancements would be on the site.
Ms. Skogheim clarified where the new tree$ and landscaping would be on the site plan.
Board member Schurke asked if the current parking lot was fairly level?
Ms. Skogheim said the parking lot slopes dbwnward to the south.
Board member Schurke asked if they considered relocating the rainwater garden that is on the
south edge along with the small strip of rainwater garden and relocate that to the north to
provide more of a buffer for the neighbors tb the north?
Ms. Skogheim said the primary concern of!the neighbor to the north is that there is a drainage
problem now where everything drains to th~ northeast corner of 2303 Minnehaha Avenue near
Mr. Beardsley's and Ms. Sorenson's property. By draining everything away from there they
would be decreasing the amount of water that gathers there by 75% which is viewed as a
positive thing by the engineering departmernt.
Board member Schurke said he was more. interested in knowing if there was an advantage to
having the buffer. It may make the residential area feel softer. From a lighting standpoint, he
asked what the operating hours were and if the 5-8 Club turns the parking lights off?
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 6-27-2006
9
Ms. Skogheim said they typically turn the JIlarking lights off that face the south, and the west -
facing lights stay on into the night and shut off on a photo cell. They close at 10:30 p.m. on
Sundays, all other nights they are open until midnight except on Fridays they stay open until
1 :00 a.m. The cut off shields for the lights will help with the dark sky policy.
Chairperson Olson asked if anybody in the audience wanted to speak to address the board.
Mr. James Beardsley, 2311 Minnehaha Avenue East, Maplewood, addressed the board. He
said his house is the most affected by this development. The drainage from the parking lot
runs into his property already from the winter and spring rains. He doesn't want to add to the
drainage he already gets on his property. Moving the rainwater garden would only force the
water into the direction they don't want thE! water to flow. He currently has a sump pump that
runs most of the year because of the drainage situation. It would be greatly appreciated to get
the water to run to the south. Regarding moving the fence, he hadn't heard about the fence
being relocated seven feet from the east property line. Originally they had talked about moving
the fence ten feet away. He is not opposed to the fence being seven feet away, but he wants
to make sure that whatever happens, it doesn't adversely affect his plantings that he has
worked so hard maintaining. In general he is opposed to this proposal. He personally doesn't
believe its right to allow a reasonably priced home to be bulldozed just so a parking lot can be
constructed. Mr. Beardsley said, however, knowing that this proposal is going to happen
anyway he would like to continue working with the 5-8 Club to make sure his property is not
compromised in anyway.
Chairperson Olson said Mr. Beardsley's letter stated that he is a Master Rosarian for the
American Rose Society and is one of only 250 in the United States. She asked how many
roses Mr. Beardsley has on his property?
Mr. Beardsley said he has approximately 1$0 roses in his yard.
Chairperson Olson asked how many of his plantings would be affected by this?
Mr. Beardsley said along his west propert~ line there is a 20-foot hedge of roses and many
other types of plantings. There is a water garden along with a path on his property. Dale
Trippler from the planning commission sai~ the yard looks like a jungle because there are so
many different plantings on the property. He didn't believe there was an adverse affect on
relocating the fence between seven and teh feet. Whether the fence is seven or ten feet away
that will still give his plants the light and air circulation needed and should not affect their root
systems.
Chairperson Olson said Mr. Beardsley said something in his letter regarding a fence that was
damaged on the 5-8 Club property.
Mr. Beardsley said the damage to the fence had happened in the past. He said his yard is
toured by groups of people and he would like to see that the property looks as nice as possible
so it does not adversely affect him. Tours Gf his yard are coming up in August and September
so people can enjoy the plantings he has worked so hard on.
Chairperson Olson congratulated Mr. Beardsley on his gardening efforts.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 6-27-2006
10
Board member Schurke said as a precederht the city should not be supporting the demolition of
affordable housing in Maplewood. He askSd if the city has a policy regarding the elimination of
housing for the use of parking lot?
Ms. Finwall said she wasn't aware of a policy in the comprehensive plan, except the policy to
promote affordable housing. In this instante it will create a more conforming parking situation
for an existing business which is desirable.:
Board member Schurke said he can understand the value of that but would appreciate an
answer to that question. As was voiced by ithe neighbor the goal should be to retain affordable
housing and not get rid of it.
Chairperson Olson said she and her husbfmd have tried to eat at the 5-8 Club several times
and have seen vehicles parking on the grcjss, across the street, and literally on the boulevard
so she is sympathetic to the need for mpre parking for the 5-8 Club. She looks favorably
regarding relocating the driveway to the east because this intersection is partially blind and can
be tricky so any parking improvements. are a positive thing. She is sympathetic to the
landowners living close to the 5-8 Club and is glad everyone is working together to resolve the
issues and concerns.
Board member Schurke moved to approve the plans date-stamped June 19, 2006, for the 5-8
Tavern and Grill (2289 Minnehaha Avenu~) parking lot expansion. The city is approving these
plans based on the findings required by the code. The applicant shall do the following:
(changes made by the community del\ign review board are underlined if added and
crossed out if deleted):
a. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this
project.
b. Prior to issuance of a grading permit for the parking lot expansion the applicant must
submit the following for staff approval:
1) Revised grading and drainage plan showing the relocation of the driveway to the
west, in line with the first drive aisle. The grading and drainage plan must be
approved by the city engiineering department and must comply with all
requirements as specified in the June 9, 2006, engineering review.
2) Revised site plan showing the following:
a) Relocation of the fen~e seven feet from the east property line.
b) Relocation of the dri\1eway to the west, in line with the first drive aisle.
c) All new parking stalls: 18 feet deep.
d) Reduction in the nevi( drive aisles to 20 and 19.5 feet wide and posting
the drive aisles as onie-way traffic with arrows and signs.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 6-27-2006
11
e) Replacement curbing (to match existing) along Minnehaha Avenue from
the west side of the I existing driveway entrance up to west side of the
new driveway entran~e.
3) Fence elevations showing. style, height, materials, and color; and also
specifications on which portions, if any, of the existing fence will remain.
4) Revised landscape plan sho,^!ing the following:
a) Sizes of all proposed!plants.
b) A detailed plan of thfi! plantings on the west side of the fence to include
,
at least 1 tree and 18! shrubs.
c) A detailed plan of tile plantings on the east side of the fence to be
approved by the pr~perty owner of 2311 Minnehaha Avenue prior to
planting. .
d) A detailed plan of the! plantings proposed in the rainwater garden.
e) A detailed plan for ~he area north of the Stillwater Road driveway to
include hearty plants land/or decorative boulders.
f) The replacement of cjll dead or unhealthy plants previously required.
g) The location of all sprinkler heads for the required underground irrigation
system (code required).
h) In addition to the above, all common grounds shall be sodded (except for
mulched and edged planting beds).
5) A revised photometric plan s~owing the light illumination from all exterior lights
not exceed .4 foot candles at !311 property lines.
6) Obtain a permit from the Riamsey County Public Works Department for the
relocation of the Minnehaha ,/l\venue driveway.
7) Obtain a permit, if required,' from the Ramsey Washington Metro Watershed
District for the grading of the ~xpanded parking lot.
8) Submit a cash escrow or ani irrevocable letter of credit for all required exterior
improvements. The amount s~all be 150 percent of the cost of the work.
c. Prior to final inspection of the expan<lled parking lot by the city the applicant must:
1) Complete all required exterior improvements including parking lot, screening
fence, landscaping, undergro~nd irrigation, and exterior lighting.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 6-27-2006
12
2) Repair all portions of the exi*ing fence (unless a new fence is installed) that are
broken or loose. At a mini um the a licant must re lace the existin fence
located on the east ro ert I ne.
3) Stain the existing fence (unl~ss a new fence is installed) and the patio boards to
match the new fence.
4) Install the required replacemElnt curb along Minnehaha Avenue.
5) Replace any property irons relmoved because of this construction.
d. All work shall follow the approved ~Ians. The director of community development may
approve minor changes.
Board member Hinzman seconded.
Ayes - Hinzman, Ledvina, Olson, Schurke
The motion passed.
This item goes to the city council on July 1(1), 2006.
e. Mounds Park Academy Compreh~nsive Sign Plan - 2051 Larpenteur Avenue
Ms. Finwall said Dave Aune of Mounds Patk Academy is proposing to install several new signs
within the expanded school campus at 4!051 Larpenteur Avenue. Signs proposed include
identification signs along Larpenteur Av~nue and Beebe Road, identification signs on the
building, and directional signs within the campus.
The city's sign code requires a compre]enSiVe sign plan for a "business premises which
occupy the entire frontage in one or more lock fronts or for the whole of a shopping center or
similar development having five or more t nants in the project." While Mounds Park Academy
does not have five or more tenants within their campus, they do have five or more uses.
Requiring a comprehensive sign plan for 1I(10unds Park Academy meets the intent of the code
by assuring consistent signage througho~t the campus and ensuring compatibility with the
building's architecture and the surrounding residential uses. As such, Mounds Park Academy
is requesting approval of a comprehensive !sign plan.
Chairperson Olson asked the applicant to ~ddress the board.
Mr. Kirk Van Blaircom, Pyramid Signs, 2145 Marie Avenue East, Suite 150, West St. Paul,
addressed the board. He said the planninglstage for the signs at Mounds Park Academy lasted
four months because they were very sen;;itive that this is in a residential neighborhood and
were careful with the placement of the signs. The bulk of the signage is in the center of the
campus. The monument signs will be 10cMed at each entrance to the campus and only the
lettering will glow rather than the whole sufface of the sign minimizing the amount of light. Mr.
Blaircom reviewed the signage on the ~ite and correct placement of the signage on the
campus. The signage color palette is brushed aluminum and a darker metallic with black and
blue coloring.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 6-27-2006
13
Ms. Margaret Earley, 1783 Beebe Road, Maplewood, addressed the board. She is the
,
immediate neighbor to Mounds Park Ac~demy behind the new field house. Ms. Earley's
concerns were:
1.
She has put up with all of the cons~ruction noise, trucks driving back and forth, for the
past 1 % years as have the rest of th~ residents on Beebe Road.
2.
She asked the city council to lowerlher taxes because of what she has had to endure
but they said they couldn't do that.
3.
She had to look at the two trailers jfor 1 % years and she asked if the art department
could paint a nice scene on the trai~ers because she hated to look out her window and
see the trailers.
4.
The plan shows all this nice landsc'lping and how manicured the lawn and landscaping
will end up looking like but who at t~e city goes to the site to make sure that it is done
right and keeps up with maintaining It.
5.
If Maplewood is going to have a rrajor construction project they should construct a
parking lot first for the workers to 8ark that come to the site every day so they aren't
parked on the street. That was a re~1 problem on Beebe Road, there were cars parked
on both sides of the street, city bus,s running both ways and across the street there is
an apartment building with handicapped people and they needed to get to the buses
and most of the time you couldrh even get the buses through because of the
congestion. She told people to call ~ in and complain but nobody did anything about it.
She is sure the city knows her na~r from her complaint calls. She also complained to
Mayor Cardinal and the new Mayor ~ongrie.
She would like the city to talk to Ramsey County regarding her taxes along with the
others who live on Beebe Road an~ pay taxes. Mounds Park Academy does not pay
taxes and from what she gathers th~re will have to be a new street built now because of
the construction and truck traffic. Xc~1 Energy dug up about 3 yards and said they would
resod the property and make it looklthe way it was and that is just not so. They planted
sod at her house when she was out pf town for a week. Nobody called her to make sure
she would be there to water it and then the sod died. She poured water on it for days to
see if the sod would come back. ne City of St. Paul sent her a letter stating that her
water bill is so much higher this year compared to last year. They asked if there was a
reason or did she have a leaky fauc$t. She has yet to have that situation taken care of.
She was concerned about the soil f,onditions of the site. The dirt smelled funny - like
horse manure. Was the soil contal1linated because it smelled like manure and that's a
concern, especially because of thel children. There used to be a lab there that made
medicine for horses and animals at ~ne point in time.
I
6.
7.
8.
She was sorry the rest of her neigh~ors didn't feel it was important enough to show up
at this evening's meeting to spealk regarding the issues at the school during the
construction phase. '
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 6-27-2006
14
Mr. David Fisher, Interim Community Dev~lopment Director/Building Official said as far as the
landscaping issue goes that is something the planning staff deals with. If it were regarding
construction, that would be his area of exp rtise. The Planning staff goes to the site when the
site is complete to make sure what is sh~wn on the landscaping plan was actually planted.
Through the construction process there lis a lot of traffic and noise which is "typical" of
construction projects.
Ms. Finwall said the expansion of Mounds Park Academy is not quite complete yet. It's difficult
to be a neighbor next to any type of con~ruction. Ms. Finwall said the plan reflects that the
sign is off the property line. That is a condi ion of approval that the applicant submits a revised
site plan showing that they maintain a 10-f ot setback. Regarding the smell of manure, people
have called the city during construction b~fore and have found that when old compost is dug
up there is sometimes a strange smell to tHe soil. During the construction of the 3M Leadership
Development Institute building a similar cOr/1plaint was called in regarding the smell of the soil.
Mr. Fisher said the contractor had to dig dqWn very deep on the site in order to correct the soils
to handle the additional weight of the buildipg addition.
Mr. Blaircom said he was unaware there *. as an issue regarding the property line for the sign
to be located. He is sure Mounds Park A ademy will get things cleared up with a site survey
and ensure the appropriate setback is mai tained for the sign installation. If the sign has to be
moved another 10 feet that would greatly i~pact the visibility of the sign.
Chairperson Olson asked if the sign in Iquestion would have an impact on Ms. Earley's
property? :
Mr. Blaircom said there would be no imp~ct on her property regarding light coming from the
sign. The colors are very subtle, the lett~ring is opaque and does not allow light to come
through. '
Board member Ledvina moved to appr~ve the plans date-stamped May 23, 2006, for a
comprehensive sign plan for Mounds Par~ Academy at 2051 Larpenteur Avenue. Approval is
subject to the following conditions (chan~es made by the CDRB are underlined if added
and crossed out if deleted): .
1.
Repeat this review in two years if t~e city has not issued a sign permit for the Mounds
Park Academy within this time-framt.
2.
Mounds Park Academy signage sh111 be limited to:
a. Three wall signs (one at 431square feet and two at 32 square feet). The signs
must consist of individuallett~rs and can be internally illuminated.
I
Three 8-foot-tall freestandin$ signs (identification signs). These signs must be
located along Larpenteur Avrnue, Beebe Road, and in front of the school. Only
the text can be illuminated. !
I
b.
c.
Five 5-foot-tall freestanding s~gns (interior directional signs). These signs must be
located within the interior of t~e parking lot.
i
,
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 6-27-2006
15
Fifty 1-square-foot direction~1 signs. These signs must be located within the
interior of the parking lot and (nust not be over 6 feet in height.
3. Prior to issuance of a sign permit ~he applicant must submit to staff for approval the
following: !
d.
a.
A revised site plan showing ~' at the freestanding signs located along Larpenteur
Avenue and Beebe Road m intain a 10-foot setback from all property lines and
that they do not pose visibilit obstruction for vehicles or pedestrians exiting the
parking lots. :
1.1
,
The freestanding si~ns located along Larpenteur Avenue and Beebe
Road maintain a 10- oot setback from all property lines and that tRey i!
does not pose visibili y obstruction for vehicles or pedestrians exiting the
parking lots. !
~ The freestandin si located alon Beebe Road meets a ro riate site
line reauirements.
4.
A detailed landscape plan w~ich shows landscaping around the base of the two
freestanding signs located al9ng Larpenteur Avenue and Beebe Road.
Structural engineering for all teestanding signs over 6 feet in height.
!
The applicant must obtain sign per~its from the city prior to installation or relocation of
the signs. :
c.
b.
5.
Staff may approve minor modificatiohs to the sign plan.
Board member Schurke seconded.
Ayes - Hinzman, Ledvina, Olson, Schurke
The motion passed.
VII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS
No visitors present.
VIII. BOARD PRESENTATIONS
Chairperson Olson said she attended an ~ce cream social at the Bruentrup Farm on County
Road D. Representative Chuck Wiger wa there and mentioned the $100,000 the legislature
appropriated for the irrigation system for the farm so the Bruentrup barn can hold social
events. .
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 6-27-2006
16
IX. STAFF PRESENTATIONS
Ms. Finwall gave an update to the board egarding the Gladstone Redevelopment Plan. She
said the city council held another worksh p June 26, 2006, from 5-7 p.m. to discuss the city
council's individual comments for the mas er plan. City staff is hoping to have a final decision
by the Gladstone moratorium date of Se ember 8, 2006. If there is no final decision at that
point and a development proposal was su mitted to the city, the applicant would be bound by
the existing zoning and land use on that property rather than any type of concept or future
zoning or land use.
a. Planning Commission and CDRB Duties
Ms. Finwall said the planning com ission and community design review board recently
asked staff to review the duties and responsibilities of the PC and the CDRB.
Specifically, it was pointed out th t there should be clarification as to which group
should be reviewing which parts of he development requests and providing comments
on a variety of site-related develop ent improvements.
On June 7, 2006, the PC reviewed he city ordinances which guide the PC and CDRB.
Based on the ordinances and pa t experience with development proposals it was
determined that there are areas 0 development requests which impact both group's
decision making process. In gene~I' the PC deals with all land use request such as
comprehensive land use plan cha ges, rezonings, conditional use permits, variances,
etc.: and the CDRB deals with all the exterior improvements of commercial or multi-
family housing and some variances. The PC requested that the item go to the CDRB for
comment. I
i
Staff asked that the board provid staff with direction regarding changes the CDRB
wants to see with the duties and res onsibilities of the PC and the CDRB.
Chairperson Olson felt comfortabl with the way things were being reviewed and
thought it was appropriate to have me review overlap. It's beneficial to have a second
opinion since the PC and CDRB re iew proposals for different things. Because the PC
usually reviews applications first it's very seldom that the CDRB reviews something and
then passes feedback onto the pi nning commission. She does see a problem with
parking code and thinks the CDRB could use direction from the PC regarding revising
the parking code. I
I
Ms. Finwall said she believes the CrRB should review the parking code and then bring
it to the PC for discussion and then to the city council. The parking code would include
parking space width, parking driv aisle width, visitor parking, off-site parking, and
number of parking stalls. I
i
Board member Ledvina agreed withlstaffs recommendation.
Mr. Ekstrand said no matter what] you do, there will probably always be overlap of
discussing items. It's beneficial to git views from both groups on certain subjects.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 6-27-2006
17
Mr. Ekstrand said he just reviewe the application for a Car Max proposal on Beam
Avenue and Highway 61. They had requested a PUD to have narrower parking spaces
at 9 feet wide versus the code of 9' feet wide. He thought that was appropriate and he
recommended approval of the 9 f ot width request. That is an issue that the CDRB
would probably want to weigh in on As part of a PUD that request would be discussed
by the PC and he believed the CDR would also want to review it as well.
The CDRB members agreed.
Board member Schurke said a few DRB meetings ago he brought up the question of
how the city could fund open spac in Maplewood. He wondered if the city would be
willing to allow the developer an ad antage in lieu of the developer doing something for
the city. For example, the city is wiling to give you the developer approval for 9 foot
wide parking space instead of folio ing the code at 9% feet wide but here is a list of
things you the developer can do fo the city. It would be an incentive approach to get
what the city and the applicant want by working together.
Chairperson Olson said she thOU9hJ that was what the city did by negotiating with Town
& Country for Legacy Village to p~y for the parks to be built in return for the higher
density to be allowed. I
,
Mr. Ekstrand said there was a lot going on with the whole development and negotiations
but said he couldn't answer that queftion specifically.
Board member Hinzman agreed wit the comments made and believed the CDRB and
PC look at things in a different man er. This is good to get two different views regarding
the same topic. He would like to tak a look at the proof of parking areas and the needs
of the applicant because often mes the needs are different between the city
requirements and the actual needs f the developer.
,
The CDRB decided it would be best,to work on the parking code revisions in the near
future and then engage in dialogue ith the planning commission before passing it onto
the city council for review. Staff will chedule a time for the chair of the PC to attend the
CDRB meeting and vice versa. I
I
I
Community Development Tour - ~onday, July 31, 2006, at 5:30 p.m.
Ms. Finwall reminded the CDRB t the Annual City Tour and asked that the board
RSVP to Community Development s soon as possible.
Sign Code Update .
I
Ms. Finwall said the CDRB recom ended approval of the sign code update in March
2006. Staff hopes the sign code wil be heard by the city council on August 14, 2006.
There are some code enforcement issues that need to be ironed out before the city
council reviews the sign code. More information will follow.
b.
c.
Community Design Review Board 18
Minutes 6-27-2006 ,
i
d. Community Design Review Boardl Special Projects
I
Ms. Finwall said during the May 9, 006, CDRB meeting the board discussed topics of
interest for future meetings. Since t e sign code has been completed the other areas of
interest included: recommending site and design criteria for the Gladstone
Redevelopment Area, gaining a b tter understanding of sustainable building design
concepts, exploring specific desig standards for new commercial and multi-family
developments, reviewing and u dating the city's landscaping requirements for
commercial and multi-family devel pments, and parking code requirements which will
be items to discuss in the near futu e as mentioned by the CDRB in their 2005 Annual
Report. !
i
e. CDRB Representation at the July 0, 2006, City Council Meeting
Board member Ledvina volunteer to be the CDRB representative at the July 10,
2006, city council meeting. Items t discuss include the Legacy Village Townhomes at
County Road D and Kennard Street and the 5-8 Tavern and Grill Parking Lot Expansion
at 2289 Minnehaha Avenue. !
f. Board member Joel Schurke said it as bothered him to read the articles in the St. Paul
Pioneer Press regarding the negati e press the City of Maplewood has received lately
which is unbecoming. He wanted to voice his support to the staff at the City of
Maplewood regarding a most rece t article that some staff at the city were thinking of
making a career change as a r suit of what has been going on at the City of
Maplewood. He personally wanted to go on record that he has been truly impressed
with the quality employees at the ity of Maplewood and he hopes the city staff will
weather the storm during this time 0 change.
Board member Ledvina agreed wit those comments. With his personal experience of
serving as a volunteer on the PC and CDRB for many years now he has enjoyed
dealing and working with city staff n many different issues. He said he has found they
are very professional and do hig quality work for the City of Maplewood and he
supports them. He would recomme Board member Schurke make an official motion.
Chairperson Olson agreed with the comments made. She personally made that
comment to the city council during tIe Gladstone Redevelopment process and said that
the city council should appreciate t e advice and direction that the staff at the City of
Maplewood provides.
Board member Hinzman also agre d with those comments. He said as someone who
has worked in different municipa ities and with a lot of different people in city
government, the City of Maplew od has some of the best employees around.
Unfortunately there are times from political standpoint which make it difficult for city
employees to do their job. He said h personally has experienced that and he hopes the
employees at the City of Maplewoo will stick around.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 6-27-2006
19
!
Board member Schurke recomme~ed that the employees at the City of Maplewood
weather the storm during the politic I change and continue to do professional and high
quality work as they have done in th past.
Board member Ledvina seconded. I Ayes - Hinzman, Ledvina, Olson, Schurke
I
I
x.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 8:52 p.m.