HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/28/2007
MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA
TUESDAY, August 28,2007
I. CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Olson called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
II. ROLL CALL
Board member John Demko
Vice-Chairperson Matt Ledvina
Chairperson Linda Olson
Board member Ananth Shankar
Board member Matt Wise
Present
Absent
Present
Absent
Present
Staff Present:
Tom Ekstrand. City Planner
III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Board member Wise moved to approve the agenda.
Board member Demko seconded.
Ayes - Demko, Olson, Wise
The motion passed.
IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Approval of the CDRB minutes for July 24, 2007.
Board member Olson moved to table approval of the minutes of July 24, 2007 until the next
meeting.
Board member Demko seconded.
Ayes - Demko, Olson, Wise
The motion passed.
V. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
None scheduled
VI. DESIGN REVIEW
a. Regents Senior Housing (Legacy Village - Kennard Street and Legacy Parkway)
Tom Ekstrand, City Planner, introduced the proposal. The proposal is a revision to an already
approved PUD. The applicant, the Hartford Group, is requesting that the city approve the
proposed increase in the number of units from 120 to 150 units. The applicant also requested
a reduction in the unit size of the memory care and intensive care units from 580 to 400 square
feet. The Planning Commission approved a reduction in the units to 490 square feet. The
applicant is proposing changes to the architecture of the building and the landscaping. Mr.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 08-28-2007
2
Ekstrand went over the proposed changes. City Staff recommends approval of the revisions to
the architecture of the proposal and the landscaping.
Chairperson Olson asked how this project compared with The Shores on Frost Avenue, which
was approved at the August 13 city council meeting.
Mr. Ekstrand stated that this proposal is smaller than The Shores, which has 180 units. This
proposal provides similar services but has different ratios of those services. The Regents
proposal also has a larger parking ratio.
Chairperson Olson asked if there are similar common areas and amenities provided as
proposed for The Shores facility.
Mr. Ekstrand stated that The Regents provides some similar amenities and common areas, but
not as many.
Chairperson Olson asked if this project was originally proposed as three story building, not as
a four story building as it is now.
Mr. Ekstrand stated that The Regents has always been presented as a four story building.
Board member Wise stated that after a discussion with Mr. Ekstrand prior to this meeting, he
agrees that senior housing units do not necessarily need as many parking spaces as a multi-
family complex. However, with the possibility of having parking spaces reserved for the
adjacent Sculpture Garden, he is concerned that there may not be enough parking.
Board member Wise requested clarification on the access points of the site for the residents,
compared to the previous proposal.
Mr. Ekstrand stated the access points are the same as previously proposed.
Board member Demko questioned which spaces would be reserved for the park and if the park
has any other parking available.
Mr. Ekstrand showed on a map where the spaces would probably be. The Sculpture Garden
only has street parking.
Chairperson Olson asked what the city's position is on managing the Sculpture Garden and if it
is still a possibility.
Mr. Ekstrand stated that it is already in existence and the city is waiting on more funding to add
more sculptures.
Chairperson Olson stated she is concerned about the pervious surface. She is also
disappointed in the lack of accessible housing for healthy seniors and amenities in terms of
park space or play space for this area.
Board member Wise asked if this building would obstruct the adjacent residents' current view
of anything significant to the east.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 08-28-2007
3
Mr. Ekstrand stated the residents to the west of the site will lose their view of the sculpture
garden. However, this building was approved as part of the plan for the area and has always
been approved as a four story building.
The board members discussed the sidewalk connections in the Legacy Village area.
Frank Janes of the Hartford Group addressed the board. Mr. Janes went over the different
types of common areas and amenities of the proposed building. Mr. Janes discussed the
parking concerns. From experience with the Regents Senior Facility currently existing in
Burnsville, the proposed number of parking spaces will be more than sufficient for the
proposed facility in Maplewood. The parking ratio in Burnsville is .6 of the number of units;
where as the ratio for The Regents in Maplewood is .9. There is an agreement with the city,
which will be finalized and recorded, which will provide 6 parking spaces for the use of the
Sculpture Garden. Proper signage for this parking will be installed to notify the public that
these parking spaces are available. The library is also on the other side of the park, which may
provide parking areas as well. Also, 30 of the proposed units will be intensive care and
memory care units, which will house residents that cannot drive.
Chairperson Olson asked how many staff will be working at any time.
Mr. Janes stated that there may be 4-5 staff members working overnight, 11-15 staff members
during the daytime hours, and around 30 staff members on duty for a short period of time
during shift changes.
Chairperson Olson stated some concern that 4-5 staff members overnight may not be
sufficie nt.
Mr. Janes stated that the independent and the assisted living may not need as much
assistance overnight. The memory care and intensive care units will need more staff attention.
Mr. Janes addressed concerns about the density of the site. He asked that the board keep in
mind that Legacy Village was designed as a whole and that there is a 9 acre park next to the
site.
Chairperson Olson requested to look at the samples of the materials proposed for this facility.
Mr. Janes provided the samples to the board and went over them.
Pat Sarver, the director of Architecture from the Hartford Group addressed the board. He
stated that the original proposal had the whole building be four stories across. The revised
proposal attempts to incorporate four separate family type wings and is two stories. The
architecture reflects this and the center entrance separates those four wings. Instead of
appearing as one large building, it appears as a series of buildings. He then went over
architectural details.
Board member Wise asked why there is such a strong comparison to the facility in Burnsville,
as it is only three years old. Does the developer have other experience with this type of
facility?
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 08-28-2007
4
Mr. Sarver stated The Regents in Maplewood is so strongly compared to the Regents in
Burnsville because they are almost identical, in terms of provided services. Hartford Group has
also developed other similar facilities that add to their experience.
Board member Wise asked what industry standards dictate for parking needs for these types
of facilities.
Mr. Sarver stated that an independent unit includes 1 meal a day, which is included in the rent,
and the availability of services of nursing care, cleaning, cooking, etc. This is a step up from a
conventional senior apartment complex. Assisted living provides a higher level of care. This
type of facility provides much more specialized services than a traditional senior apartment
complex. The developer relies on consultants to provide them with information on what the
current market needs are and what services will best fit their needs. The developer and the
consultants are confident that there will be more than enough parking spaces provided.
Board member Wise stated that the city needs to gather information on what industry
standards are and needs to be satisfied in these types of developments.
Mr. Sarver stated that at the last planning commission meeting the commission advised the
city council to direct staff to start researching senior housing facilities to possibly write city
ordinances that address unit size and parking needs.
Chairperson Olson asked how many 2 bedroom units will be available.
Mr. Sarver stated there are of the 120 assisted and independent units, there is a 70% to 30%
split.
Chairperson Olson asked for clarification on the types of amenities available.
Mr. Sarver stated that the amenities include a dining room, a lounge in each wing on each
floor, TV lounge, chapel, a billiards room, a card room, a gift shop with basic items, a movie
room, a salon and spa space, etc.
Chairperson Olson stated that other similar developments have been approved recently with
similar parking ratios. She is comfortable with parking reduction. Chairperson Olson stated that
the vinyl siding should be replaced with hardy board.
Patrick Sarver, the landscape architect with Hartford Group, addressed the board. Mr.
Sarver went over the landscape plan.
Chairperson Olson discussed the proposed locations of the rain gardens in comparison to the
previous proposal.
Mr. Sarver stated that the new proposal exceeds the rainwater garden requirements.
Chairperson Olson asked if any utilities would be exposed on the exterior of the building.
Mr. Sarver said there would not be any utilities exposed.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 08-28-2007
5
Chairperson Olson questioned deliveries made to the proposed facility and where the truck
access would be located.
Mr. Sarver explained where the truck deliveries would be made. This are would accommodate
moving trucks, delivery trucks, etc. There is also direct access to the freight elevator and the
commercial kitchen area from this entrance.
The board questioned what types of lighting fixtures are proposed and how the lighting will
affect the surrounding homes.
Mr. Sarver stated that the lighting fixtures are similar to the other developments in the Legacy
Village area.
Chairperson Olson motioned to approve the revised plans date-stamped June 15 August 20,
2007 for the Regent at Legacy Village. Approval is subject to the applicant doing the following:
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 parking spaces for
the use of the city's abutting sculpture park. This agreement shall be prepared by the
city attorney and shall require that the developer of the senior complex be responsible
for driveway maintenance and snowplowing. This agreement shall be subject to the
requirements of the director of public works.
. 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 July 5, 2007.
. 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 tall or taller shall have a protective fence or guardrail on top.
. Provide a site and design plan for the screening of any trash and recycling containers if
they would be kept outside. Should a trash enclosure area be proposed in the future, it
shall not be placed in any parking space.
. Provide a screening plan for any exterior utility meters, iflhere would be outside meters,
subject to the requirements of the community design review board.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 08-28-2007
6
. Provide sidewalks to the existing trails and public sidewalks as required by the original
PUD approval. The location of these sidewalks is dependent upon the location of exits
from the building.
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.
. Install wetland-protection buffer signs around the west side of the abutting wetland area.
4. The community design review board shall review major changes to these plans. Minor
changes may be approved by staff.
5. The vinvl sidinq shall be substituted with Hardv Board cementitious sidinq.
6. The six Sculpture Park parkinq spaces shall be siqned accordinqlv subiect to staff
approval.
Board member Wise seconded the motion.
Ayes - Demko, Olson, Wise
The motion passed.
b. Lexus Parking Lot Expansion (1245 County Road D)
Mr. Ekstrand introduced the proposal. The applicant, the Ryan Companies, is requesting
approval of plans to enlarge the parking lot of the recently completed Lexus Service Center
currently located on 1245 County Road D. The proposed parking lot expansion would be
located between the Lexus building and the new Maplewood Market Place retail center to the
south. The proposed parking lot is a permitted use since it would only be used as a parking lot
for customer cars and inventory parking.
City staff recommends approval of this proposal with revisions to the landscaping.
Dan Elenbas, the civil engineer with Ryan Companies, address the board. He stated that
the project's landscape architect was unable to attend this meeting.
Mr. Elenbas clarified the slope of the area adjacent to County Road D, proposed as "no
disturbed".
Chairperson Olson stated that staffs recommendation of adding trees to this slope would add
to the site. Other vegetation would make a nice addition as well. The weeds need to be
removed in order to prevent spreading.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 08-28-2007
7
Mr. Elebas stated that any area that is disturbed during the process of paving will be replanted
with sod; therefore, no seeding will take place with any weeds in the mix.
Chairperson Olson requested to see the grading plan with contour lines.
Mr. Elebas stated that the area of question cannot be safely mowed because of the steepness
of the slope.
Chairperson Olson confirmed that the parking surface would be impervious. She asked for
clarification on the how the drainage would be maintained.
Mr. Elenbas stated that the percent of impervious surface is less what was originally proposed
when the regional pond was designed for this development.
Chairperson Olson asked if impervious surfaces were considered.
Mr. Elenbas said that impervious parking surfaces were considered but it is cost prohibitive
because of the freeze-thaw cycle.
Chairperson Olson gave examples of a successful lot that does have a pervious parking
surface.
Mr. Ekstrand stated there is an existing pond that was designed as a regional pond to catch
the runoff of the area as well as this site.
Chairperson Olson requested that the applicant reconsider the use of pervious surfaces.
Mr. Elenbas stated that they are working with public works staff and devised a plan to provide
infiltration through the perforated storm system, which would essentially act the same as a
pervious surface.
Board member Demko questioned the lighting hours of the parking lot.
Mr. Elenbas stated that the lighting photometrics for this proposal are designed for security
lighting only. The fixtures are designed not to spill light into the neighboring area.
Board member Wise stated that he agrees that additional trees or other vegetation needs to be
added to the un-maintained area adjacent to County Road D in order to prevent the spread of
weeds and to be more aesthetically pleasing.
The board discussed the possibility of a need to screen the parking lot with trees and
vegetation because of the residential housing across County Road D.
Board member Wise stated that the vegetation on this site should mirror the types of
vegetation on the other side of County Road D.
Mr. Ekstrand added that the boulevard area should be maintained, however, it is not expected
to mow the slope.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 08-28-2007
8
The board discussed the use of specific types of vegetation.
Mr. Ekstrand suggested that the wording be phrased as, "The weeds on the steep slope on the
side of County Road D shall be removed and this slope replanted with prairie gracc or an
acceptable cuctainable type of gracc an alternative material acceptable to staff."
Board member Wise motioned to approve the plans date-stamped July 27, 2007 for the
expansion of the parking lot for the Lexus Auto Service Building located at 1245 County Road
D. Approval is subject to the applicant complying with the following conditions:
1. Repeating this review if construction on the proposed parking lot has not begun within two
years of this approval.
2. Submittal of a revised landscaping plan for staff approval prior to obtaining a permit which
includes the following:
. The weeds on the steep slope on the side of County Road D shall be removed and this
slope replanted with prairie gracc or an acceptable cuctainable type of gracc an
alternative material acceptable to staff. The seed mix shall be subject to the approval of
the city's naturalist at staffs discretion. The plantinqs alonq Countv Road D shall
include trees and shrubs in plans to be submitted and approved bv citv staff. The
applicant shall sod and keep the boulevard mowed along the County Road D frontage,
though the slope with a sustainable grass may be un-mowed.
. The top of this slope along the street edge shall be planted with a row of trees like those
the Lexus Service Center has at the top of the hill along County Road D. These trees
shall be placed at the same spacing from the Lexus Service Center site to the driveway
entrance to the proposed parking lot.
. The river-rock edges along the entrance drive should be planted with trees placed at 30
feet on center to enhance this driveway into the Lexus Service Center site.
3. Before getting a permit to build this parking lot, the applicant must provide staff with cash
escrow to guarantee the installation of landscaping and other site elements. The amount of
this escrow shall be 1 % times the cost of doing this work.
4. Compliance with the requirements in the city's engineering report by Erin Laberee dated
August 13, 2007.
5. The parking lot shall have continuous concrete curbing and be striped according to the site
plan.
Board member Demko seconded the motion.
Ayes - Demko, Olson, Wise
The motion passed.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 08-28-2007
9
VII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS
No visitors presentation.
VIII. BOARD PRESENTATIONS
a. August 13, 2007, City Council Report
Chairperson Olson did attend the city council meeting. The items discussed included The
Shores development on Frost Avenue, which was approved.
IX. STAFF PRESENTATIONS
a. Reschedule September 11, 2007, CDRB Meeting due to Primary Elections
This meeting is scheduled for the same day as Primary Elections. The meeting is rescheduled
for September 13, 2007.
b. Representation at the September 10, 2007, City Council Meeting - item to be
discussed include Regents Senior Housing.
Board member Wise stated he will be able to attend the city council meeting on September 10,
2007. The items to be discussed include The Regents in Legacy Village.
X. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 8:02 p.m.
For complete coverage of the meeting, one can purchase
a DVD copy of the meeting from City Hall for $5.