Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/22/2006 AGENDA CITY OF MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD Tuesday,August22,2006 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: August 8, 2006 5. Unfinished Business: a. Lexus Maintenance Building (County Road D) - Review of Lighting Plan 6. Design Review: a. Regent of Legacy Village - Senior Apartments 7. Visitor Presentations: 8. Board Presentations: a. August 14, 2006, City Council Meeting - Member Shankar b. Compliance Enforcement Options 9. Staff Presentations: a. September CDRB Meetings - Reminder that the September 12 and the September 26 CDRB meetings have both been canceled and rescheduled into one meeting, which will be held on September 19, 2006. at 6 p.m. 10. Adjourn MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD 1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, AUGUST 22, 2006 I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Olson called the meeting to order at 6:02 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 Absent Present Absent Present Staff Present: Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner Lisa Kroll, Recording Secretary III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Board member Shankar moved to approve the agenda. Board member Hinzman seconded. Ayes- Hinzman, Olson, Shankar The motion passed. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of the CDRB minutes for August 8, 2006. Chairperson Olson moved approval of the minutes of August 8, 2006. Board member Shankar seconded. Ayes ---Olson, Shankar Abstention - Hinzman The motion passed. V. UNFINISHED BUSINESS a. Lexus Maintenance Building (County Road D) Review of Lighting Plan Mr. Ekstrand said on June 13, 2005, the city council approved the conditional use permit and design plans for the Lexus Service Building at 1245 County Road D. The council adopted the community design review board's (CDRB) recommendation which reads as follows: The lighting plan is not included in this proposal. A new lighting plan must be submitted for review by the community design review board. The plan must ensure no negative lighting impacts to the residential properties located to the west by such means as reducing the light pole heights, reducing the number of lights, using a downcast lighting fixture, etc. All building-mounted and ground-mounted lights must be don-lit to prevent light spread beyond the site boundaries. Lighting fixtures must be designed so the lens and bulbs are not visible from any surrounding homes. The board did not have any questions for staff. Chairperson Olson asked the applicant to address the board. Ms. Julie Halvorson, representing Ryan Companies, addressed the board. Chairperson Olson asked what color the light fixture would be? Ms. Halvorson said it would be a darker brown color and would match the light fixture color across the street at the current Lexus. Board member Shankar asked if the light poles would all be 25-feet tall? Ms. Halvorson said it varies. If it is on the interior of the lot and if there is any type of a pole base the overall height would be 25-feet tall. The pole itself would be more like 22 feet. If the pole was mounted outside of the general parking area they generally use a 6 inch base in which case the pole would be more like 24 feet in height so it would not exceed the 25 feet in height. Chairperson Olson asked if the applicant could describe the building mounted light fixtures? Ms. Halvorson said the light fixtures would match the light fixtures mounted on the light poles the only difference would be the lights would be mounted on the building rather than on the light pole itself. The lights on the building would be 250 watts and the lights on the poles would be two 400 watt fixtures with two heads that are down lit. Chairperson Olson said she noticed the light fixtures were spaced equally around the site and she asked if that was for practicality reasons? Ms. Halvorson said they have to have so many lights over an exterior egress door for code. Basically the lights will be installed to code. The lighting plan may change slightly because when the plan was designed they did not know exactly where all the exterior door locations would be. The lighting level would not be increased but they may be repositioned slightly to meet the code. The board did not have any more questions. Board member Hinzman moved to approve the site-lighting plan date-stamped July 11, 2006, for the Lexus Auto Service building located at 1245 County Road D. Board member Shankar seconded. Ayes- Hinzman, Olson, Shankar The motion passed. VI. DESIGN REVIEW a. Regent of Legacy Village Senior Apartments Mr. Ekstrand said Frank Janes, of the Hartford Group, is requesting approval of design plans for the Regent at Legacy Village, their seniors.-apartment project. The Regent will be a 116-unit, four-story building located at the southeast corner of the Kennard Street/Legacy Parkway roundabout intersection. The proposed building would have an exterior of brick, rock-face concrete block foundation with precast stone sills, horizontal- lap cementious siding and architectural-texture asphalt shingles on a gable roof. There would be 142 underground parking spaces and 38 on-grade parking spaces. The board did not have any questions for staff. Chairperson Olson asked the applicant to address the board. Mr. Frank Janes, Hartford Group, 1300 Wells Fargo Plaza, 7900 Xerxes Avenue South, Bloomington, addressed the board. The trash will be enclosed in the underground parking garage and taken out on garbage day so the garbage storage will not be visible. The electrical meters will also be in the underground parking, the gas meters will be on the building exterior and be located underneath the decks. Chairperson Olson asked if these would be condominiums, apartments and would they be for sale units or rental units? Mr. Janes said these units will start off as for rent apartment units for seniors. They are looking at the possibility of converting these to for sale units at a future date because the condominium market is not doing very well at this time but the rental market is still viable. Chairperson Olson asked if the reason they need to have shared parking with the sculpture garden because they do not have enough on-site parking and there is a need for overflow parking for the sculpture garden or is it for the sculpture garden to have access to your on-site parking? Mr. Janes said the access is on this piece of property and when the sculpture garden was going to be put in, he, Tom Ekstrand, and the city attorney, worked on an agreement and they are giving the city easement for access so people can drive their car to Legacy Parkway and be closer for access to the area. There will be six parking spaces closest to Legacy Parkway that would be reserved for people to use the facilities. Those would have built anyway and it was extra parking so they did not see a problem doing it. He was not sure if the city would be putting sculpture garden parking or not but these parking spaces are the furthest away from the senior building so they would be the least likely to be used. Board member Shankar said he was concerned about the traffic pattern. He wondered if the traffic engineer looked at that for any stacking issues? Mr. Janes said he was not sure if the city traffic engineer looked at that. The landscaping would be such that the field of vision would be kept open as wide as possible to avoid any traffic problems with that turn in there. Board member Shankar said the space from Legacy Parkway to that drive down to the parking garage is very short like 30 feet or something so any car that is stacked there and any other car wanting to make a right hand turn would have to be on Legacy Parkway? Mr. Janes said Patrick Sarver is the Principal Landscape Architect for the site and he designed the site so he can speak regarding this issue. Mr. Patrick Sarver, Hartford Group, 1300 Wells Fargo Plaza, 7900 Xerxes Avenue South, Bloomington, addressed the board. He said the proximity from the end of the radius to the other piece would be more like 40 feet so two cars could comfortably be stacked without obstructing traffic in the travel lanes on Legacy Parkway. The traffic use and the times that people will come and go would be such that this will not conflict with the traffic patterns on Legacy Parkway. The throat of the drive that goes down to the entry is at a minor grade because of the distance there would not be a reason why someone would need to stop before waiting for exiting traffic out of the site. It is a 24 foot wide drive which is very comfortably traveled in two directions by passing cars. Board member Hinzman asked if the radius looks ok for someone making that kind of U- turn movement from Legacy Parkway into the parking garage without turning too far over to the east to the north/south drive? Mr. Sarver said it appears to be a 15-foot radius. Because this is a senior project there would not be normal traffic patterns as you would normally see, we expect that the traffic would be more spread out throughout the day. Board member Shankar said what if somebody was driving up from the garage ramp and sees somebody trying to get to the property, is that going to be a problem? Mr. Sarver said on a daily basis we drive 6% to 7% grade throughout the metro area which is a very comfortable grade. Chairperson Olson asked how many building entrance and exit points are there for this complex? Mr. Tom Wasmoen, AlA, Director of Architecture with the Hartford Group, 1300 Wells Fargo Plaza, 7900 Xerxes Avenue South, Bloomington, addressed the board. He said there are three entrances to the building and then there is the entrance/exit to the parking garage. Chairperson Olson asked if this is a secured building? Mr. Wasmoen said the tenants would need to use a key card or card reader to get into the building. Chairperson Olson asked how many elevators there would be if this is a four story facility with 116 units in it? Mr. Wasmoen said there would be two elevators. You enter the building and walk halfway down the hall to get to the elevator in both directions. This is an attractive and fairly common style of building for a senior complex. Mr. Leon Grothe, AlA, Hartford Group, 1300 Wells Fargo Plaza, 7900 Xerxes Avenue South, Bloomington, addressed the board. He reviewed the building samples with the board members. Board member Shankar asked what the shingles would look like? Mr. Grothe said they would be brown wood shingles with a weathered look to them. The color renderings appear to have a greenish tint but they would be in shades of brown. Board member Hinzman said the building is going to be 10 feet from the right-of-way line and will be close to the sidewalk so the pedestrians would be walking right next to the building. Board member Hinzman said it was helpful to see pedestrians represented on the renderings but some of those bottom elevations of the rock face block extend up quite a bit and vary in levels extending from 6 to 10 feet in height with a 300 to 400 foot wall there 10 to 15 feet back from Kennard Street and he asked if there could be additional landscaping added. The building looks great but as a pedestrian when you are walking right on top of the building you really get the full effect of the height of the elevations. Mr. Janes said there would be a few trees planted along the entrance as well as other areas of landscaping that aren't represented well on the plan. Board member Hinzman said the landscaping plan shows great landscaping detail around the entrances and the corner and there is 100 feet in between that would have no landscaping with the block wall and he wondered if additional landscaping could be added to dress things up. Mr. Janes said they would take a look at that to see what they could do. He understands Board member Hinzman would like us to do whatever is possible to break up the long fa<;:ade of the wall. Board member Hinzman said the view from across the street is great but because it is located so close to Kennard Street and pedestrians would be walking close to the building it will only accentuate the bottom elevation of the building. Mr. Janes said they will take another look at the landscaping details to see what they can do. He said they are excited about completing this senior building and think it will be a nice compliment to the sculpture garden, the park and the new Ramsey County Library which will have a coffee shop and we are sure the seniors who would live here will enjoy walking here. Board member Shankar asked if the Fire Chief had any comments regarding the turning radius on the site? Mr. Ekstrand said the Fire Chief said the fire protection system in the building is required to be done per code, fire alarm done per code, 20 feet for fire department access is required and a fire key box is required. Staff said the fire chief would have spoken up if they noticed an issue with the access. Chairperson Olson asked what common amenities this facility would have? Are there entertainment options for the residents that would live here? Mr. Grothe said this building would have a lobby with a seating area, community room, media room, library, billiard room, virtual golf room, business center, club room, game room, exercise room, and newsstand, so there are many entertainment and common areas. Board member Shankar asked if there would be any food service vehicles coming to this site? Mr. Janes said no, this is not like an assisted living facility. There would be no commercial kitchen on site or any food cooked or prepared on the site. These would be individual apartment units for independent senior living. Chairperson Olson asked what seniors would do when they purchase their groceries and have to haul the grocery bags up to their apartment. She asked if there would be anyone on site to assist these residents getting their groceries delivered to their apartment? What do you plan to do if the residents have their groceries delivered like from Simon Delivers, how would the delivery person deliver the groceries to the customer in a secure building like this? Mr. Janes said that would be a good question. He guesses this would be handled on a case by-case basis. They can't give access to the underground parking garage. The management company would have to handle that situation. There really will not be anyone on staff that would be able to help with that matter. He guessed this is something the management company would have to deal with down the road. There will be one or two employees working in the rental office but this will not be a staffed facility so to speak. Board member Hinzman moved to approve the plans date-stamped July 21, 2006, for the proposed Regent at Legacy Village, a senior's apartment building at Legacy Village. Approval is subject to the applicant doing the following: (Additions are in bold and underlined.) 1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. 2. Before getting a building permit, the applicant shall revise the plans or do the following for staff approval: . Enter into a cross-easement agreement with the city for the shared access driveway and shared parking spaces on the city's park property. This agreement shall be prepared by the city attorney and shall require that the developer of the seniors complex be responsible for driveway maintenance and snow plowing. This agreement shall be subject to the requirements of the parks director. . Provide the city with cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit for the exterior landscaping and site improvements. . Meet all requirements of the engineering report by Jon Jarosch dated August 7, 2006. . Meet all requirements of the fire marshal and building official. . Provide engineered plans to the building official for all retaining walls that exceed four feet in height as measured from the bottom of the footing. All retaining walls that are four feet or taller shall have a protective fence or guard rail on top. . Provide a screening plan for any exterior utility meters, subject to the requirements of the community design review board. 3. Before getting a certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall: . Comply with or complete all aspects of these plans or any required revisions. . Provide in-ground lawn irrigation as shown on the plans. . Install traffic and address signs, subject to staff approval. 4. The community design review board shall review major changes to these plans. Minor changes may be approved by staff. 5. The applicant shall add additional landscaping along Kennard Street to help break up the concrete block building fa~ade at ground level. This revised landscaping plan shall be approved by staff. Chairperson Olson seconded. Ayes - Hinzman, Olson, Shankar The motion passed. VII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS No visitors present. VIII. BOARD PRESENTATIONS a. Board member Shankar was the CDRB representative at the August 14, 2006, City Council Meeting. The only CDRB item to discuss was Carpet Court at 1685 Arcade Street. During the CDRB meeting the vote was 2 for the proposal and 2 against the proposal. The rezoning of the property was approved by the city council and the setback was denied. Therefore, the proposal was denied. b. Compliance Enforcement Options Chairperson Olson requested this issue be discussed. She had received a phone call from a resident regarding the landscaping installed as buffering behind the Maple Leaf Ridge Business Center. The resident felt that the screening installed was not proceeding the way the neighbor anticipated it would. Chairperson Olson asked staff what the proper procedure was regarding how to handle situations like this. Mr. Ekstrand said this is something staff should handle on a case-by-case basis. It would be staffs responsibility to follow up with the situation and determine what should be done. This is not the responsibility of the board and those concerns should be passed on to city staff. The city holds escrow money to ensure the project and landscaping is done correctly. Chairperson Olson said as the board we should be aware that we are volunteers and are strictly an advisory board. Their responsibility is not to enforce things, but solely to review proposals and make recommendations to the city council. Problems or concerns should be passed along to the city staff to decide how to handle the situation. IX. STAFF PRESENTATIONS a. September CDRB Meetings. Reminder that the Tuesday, September 12, 2006, and September 26, 2006, CDRB meetings have been canceled and rescheduled into one meeting which will be held on Tuesday, September 19, 2006, at 6 p.m. Mr. Ekstrand said a large project that was proposed is now pending for CarMax on Beam Avenue and Highway 61 but staff recently heard the project has been put on hold due to additional utility costs. X. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 6:58 p.m.