HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/12/2002AGENDA
MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
February 12, 2002
6:00 P.M.
Maplewood City Hall Council Chambers
1830 County Road B East
2.
3.
4.
5.
10.
Call to Order
Roll Call
Approval of Agenda
Approval of the December 11, 2001 Minutes
Unfinished Business
a. Outdoor Lighting Ordinance
Design Review
a. Maplewood Toyota Addition - 2873 Highway 61
b. Carriage Homes of Maple Hills - Parkway Drive (Maple Hills Golf Course)
Visitor Presentations
Board Presentations
a. Election of Chair and Vice Chair for 2002
Staff Presentations
a. 2001 Community Design Review Board Annual Report
b. Community Design Review Board Representation for February 25, 2002
c. Schedule Interviews for Community Design Review Board Vacancy
Adjourn
MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA
FEBRUARY 12, 2002
I1.
III.
IV.
CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Ledvina called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Matt Ledvina
Craig Jorgenson
Linda Olson
Ananth Shankar
Staff Present:
Recording Secretary:
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Present
Present
Present
Absent
Shann Finwall,
Associate Planner
Lisa Kroll
Chairperson Ledvina suggested moving Unfinished Business after the Design
Review items.
Board member Olson moved to approve the agenda with changes.
Board member Jorgenson seconded. Ayes- Jorgenson, Ledvina, Olson
The motion passed.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Approval of the December 11, 2001, minutes.
Chairperson Ledvina said to change the word plans to panels on page 8 in the
first paragraph.
Board member Olson moved to approve the minutes with changes.
Board member Jorgenson seconded. Ayes- Jorgenson, Ledvina, Olson
The motion passed.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 02-12-2002
2
V. DESIGN REVIEW
a=
Maplewood Toyota Addition
2873 Highway 61
Steve McDaniel's is proposing to build a 4,972-square-foot addition onto the
south side of Maplewood Toyota. This additional space would be used to
enlarge the service garage. The exterior of the proposed addition would be rock
face concrete block like the existing building and painted to match. The applicant
is also proposing to replace concrete curbing on the south and southeast sides of
the lot, remove a curbed parking island south of the building and patch the
asphalt at this island area. He would also install a new bituminous overlay on the
south parking lot.
On October 8, 2001, the city council approved Mr. McDaniel's plans to expand
Maplewood Toyota. In addition to a new parking lot north of Beam Avenue, the
council approved a conditional use permit (CUP) revision for three small
additions on the dealership building. One was a 375-square-foot lunchroom
addition on the northwest corner of the building (the applicant no longer proposes
to build this addition), a 1,144-square-foot service-write-up area on the north side
of the building and a 3,040-square-foot showroom addition on the southeast
corner of the building. These additions will be constructed at the same time as
the applicant's current proposal for a seven-bay auto service addition to be
constructed to the west of the new showroom.
Mr. McDaniers is requesting:
A conditional use permit (CUP) revision. The code requires a CUP
revision to enlarge the service area and to enlarge a nonconforming use.
The use is nonconforming because service garages must now be at least
350 feet from a residential lot line. The proposed addition would be 211
feet from the property line of the home to the west, the same as the
existing building.
2. Approval of plans.
There are two sheds in the northwest corner of the site with miscellaneous
materials outside the sheds. The northerly shed also has a broken/splintered
fascia board facing the street. The chain link fence on the west and south sides
of the site has also been damaged from the plowing of the applicant's parking lot.
As a condition of this approval, the applicant should remove the debris and
stored materials near the sheds, repair the northerly shed and repair all damaged
fence sections.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 02-12-2002
The current Maplewood Toyota site does not meet the water runoff standards for
quantity or quality control within the shoreland boundary of Kohlman Lake. The
submitted site proposal makes no effort to begin moving toward meeting these
standards. For this reason, the city engineer, Chuck Ahl has proposed that a
new grading and engineering plan be submitted that shows the proposed new
curbing, the removal of curb islands, added green areas, infiltration areas, and
rainwater gardens, etc. The city engineer does believe that the submittal of
these plans will help bring this facility up to a better standard but would not meet
the current requirements at this time.
The planning commission will review this conditional use permit on February 20,
2002. Staff is recommending that the board approve item 2. on pages 4 and 5
with the condition of signed customer parking as well as a revised grading and
drainage plan be submitted to the city engineer.
Board member Olson asked staff if there is an existing fence between the site
and Kohlman Lake?
Ms. Finwall stated there is a chain-linked fence on the west property line. Snow
has been plowed into the chain-linked fence causing it to collapse. Staff does
propose this fence be repaired or taken out completely.
Chairperson Ledvina said considering the approvals that were given in October
of 2001, for the additions to the building, would the board have looked at this
proposal any differently if those two proposals were combined?
Ms. Finwall said currently the area where the new addition is proposed is a
paved area so they are taking an impervious surface and putting another
impervious surface on top of that. However, because of the removal and
replacement of curbing, the city engineer recommends that improvements be
made to the quality of the water runoff.
Board member Olson said it is her understanding that the improvements that
were approved in October included two additions to the north and now they are
only going to do one addition?
Ms. Finwall said correct.
Chairperson Ledvina said the staff report indicates that there are two sheds in
the northwest corner of the site. He also noted that there is a third shed very
near the addition, are there any issues with these sheds? He understands that
one is in need of repair and that there is an assortment of materials stored
around the sheds.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 02-12-2002
Ms. Finwall said there does seem to be an excessive amount of sheds. Perhaps
with the additions there may be room interior to store some of the materials.
Chairperson Ledvina said he will ask the applicant about that possibility.
Chairperson Ledvina said he understands the parking ordinance is not a topic
of discussion for the CDRB. The applicant is opening up their (CUP). Is it
correct that they are not allowed to park vehicles on grassed areas on the site?
Ms. Finwall said that is correct. She asked Mr. Ledvina if he has found that to be
an ongoing problem?
Chairperson Ledvina said in October when the applicant had a proposal before
the board they had a vehicle parked in the northeast corner of the site on the
grass. He mentioned it then, and again he drove by to look at the site before the
meeting and he noticed another vehicle parked there again. It seemed to him if
an applicant is coming before the board to request approvals that they would
take the city ordinances seriously. He will make a note for staff to perhaps check
into that situation.
Ms. Finwall stated that indeed it is against city ordinance to park on the grass.
Staff will look into the parking situation.
Chairperson Ledvina said he understands that it is a very tight site and the
applicant wants to maximize all the space they have and they want to sell
vehicles. He thinks this applicant's situation deserves a little more attention
given the fact that they are within shoreland district and there are strict
requirements for impervious surface. It is an important site and an important
issue that they maintain compliance.
Board member Olson had a question on the drainage. It seems to her that the
site slopes southwest, and in looking at the grading plan, she is not seeing where
that water is going to go if the curb and gutter are installed?
Ms. Finwall stated the city engineer has required a revised grading and drainage
plan that should address that issue.
Board member Olson said she is not seeing any catch basins and she is
concerned where that water is going to go.
Board member Olson said when the board approved expanded parking on
the north side of Beam, it was her understanding that it was going to address the
employee parking and overflow customer-parking issues. She has seen it used,
but it was not at full capacity. Is the applicant intending to allow employees to
park on the south side or are they going to ask the employees to park on the
north side of Beam Avenue?
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 02-12-2002
Chairperson Ledvina asked staff if the lighting ordinance applies in this instance?
Should the board require a photometric plan for compliance with the lighting code
given the proximity to the residential property?
Ms. Finwall said the current lighting ordinance would require that no light exceed
a .4-foot candle at that residential property line.
Chairperson Ledvina said in the staff report it mentions the directional details on
the lighting, but is the applicant obligated by code to provide a photometric
lighting plan?
Ms. Finwall stated two wall-pack lights are proposed on the west side of the
addition. These lights must comply with the city's lighting ordinance and should
therefore have a photometric plan prior to issuance of a building permit. The
condition should be changed to reflect this.
Fred Richter of Steiner Development, architect and builder representing
Maplewood Toyota, addressed the board.
Mr. Richter said this project is a sequel to the October 8, 2001, approval. This
addition extends the facade of the building to the southwest corner of the
building. In terms of drainage, this is exactly what was approved before, so the
water runoff issue was looked at. The drainage basically drains into a rural
section along Highway 61. There are no catch basins in the existing project. Mr.
McDaniel's wants to remove the fence on the west because it is dysfunctional for
snow removal off the property. Mr. Richter believes the employees will be
parking across the street in the overflow parking lot.
Chairperson Ledvina asked Mr. Richter if he had any specific problems with the
conditions outlined in the staff report?
Mr. Richter said the only issue is that they are not expecting to do a storm sewer
redo, although they will work With staff.
Board member Olson asked Mr. Richter if the two new additions to the south are
going to replace parking of vehicles?
Mr. Richter said the additions would require the removal of 24 spaces.
Ms. Finwall said that Chuck Ahl, city engineer, has reviewed the plan and he
stated that the applicant should work toward improving the shoreland
requirements. Other than that Mr. Ahl did not get into specifics. Apparently the
city engineer has not had the opportunity to discuss this with the developer.
Although item 2. b. states that it would be a revised grading and erosion control
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 02-12-2002
plan and would be required prior to issuing a building permit subject to city
engineer approval.
Chairperson Ledvina said it is an item that is going to have to be worked out
between the city engineer and the applicant, and he would hope that the
applicant is willing to take these additional steps as suggested by the city
engineer.
Mr. Richter said without having Mr. Ahl at this meeting and getting into a detailed
discussion, he was able to comment on the city requirement for a revised grading
and drainage plan. However, it is his understanding that his civil engineer said
the rainwater garden is not a huge area of concern and can be worked out. He d
doesn't see that the applicant and the city are too far apart in an agreement. He
does want to speak on behalf of the applicant, and that this was passed in
October of 2001 and is basically what they had planned on doing other than a
few modifications. But a major redo of catch basins and storm water
management is not what they had anticipated.
Chairperson Ledvina said at that time the board was focusing on the issues with
the northern piece of property and the ponding required there. The applicant did
work with the city in obtaining the additional parcels of land to meet the
requirements for impervious surface. Now focusing on the southern part again,
whether Mr. Richter thinks it is unfair or not, this is where the board and the city
are at. Perhaps if this proposal had been incorporated into the approvals that
had been given in October of 2001, the board may not have required that.
Mr. Richter said for clarity, this proposal had the 3,200-square foot showroom
addition, the northern addition, changed the parking lot, and everything else is
the same.
Chairperson Ledvina said but the applicant is asking for an additional 5,000
square feet of impervious surface.
Mr. Richter said 5,000 square feet of the same surface that is there. So in
principal it is the same storm water loads to runoff and so on. He is not saying
they will not work with staff, but he is pointing out that this is not anything
different than before.
Board member Olson said she believes it is a small flag waving that the applicant
is putting a vehicle automotive service center over an impervious surface that is
going to drain right into the Kohlman collection area. It does not take much
antifreeze to cause problems. She realizes that these are new cars and they
don't leak or drip or anything but it is a potential happening. This is just
something that has her concerned.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 02-12-2002
Board member Olson asked Mr. Richter if both of the southern additions are
going to be maintenance facilities?
Mr. Richter said the addition to the southeast is showroom, the addition to the
north is the entrance into the service aisle for writing tickets up and the new
addition to the southwest is a maintenance facility.
Chairperson Ledvina asked if the applicant is going to eliminate any of the
storage sheds? Mr. Richter said he cannot say for sure what Maplewood
Toyota's plans are.
Chairperson Ledvina said he has no problem with the building design, the
materials and the elevation.
Board member Olson said she agrees, the signage looks good, and the
architectural design looks pleasing. She particularly likes the small windows on
the south side, and overall she has no objections to this plan.
Board member Jorgenson said this plan is an extension of what was looked at in
October 2001 and he was fine with the design then.
Chairperson Ledvina stated just to point out that the board is not approving any
signage at this time.
Ms. Finwall said that is correct. Any proposed signage must comply with the
city's sign code and would require a sign permit.
Board member Jorgenson moved to approve the plans date-stamped January
23, 2002, for a 4,972-square-foot service area addition on the south side of
Maplewood Toyota. This approval is based on the findings required by the city
code. The approval shall be subject to the applicant or owner meeting the
following conditions (CDRB's changes underlined):
Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit
for this project.
bo
Before the city issues a building permit, the applicant shall submit a
grading, drainage, utility and erosion control plan to the city engineer for
approval. All curb removal, curb replacement and paving overlay shall be
subject to the requirements of the city engineer.
Before the city issues a building permit, the applicant shall submit a
revised site plan for staff approval showing enough customer parking
spaces on the main Toyota Dealership site north of the building. This
parking shall be signed for "customer parking." The applicant shall
provide written justification for staff verifying that there will be sufficient
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 02-12-2002
customer parking provided. The revised site plan shall provide for all of
the handicap parking spaces to be placed adjacent to the building. There
shall be enough spaces to meet ADA (Americans with Disability Act)
requirements. These spaces shall be striped according to ADA
requirements.
Before the city issues a building permit, the applicant shall submit a
photometric plan for all new exterior lighting proposed on the site.
Before the city issues a building permit, the applicant shall submit a
photometric plan for the new exterior lighting proposed on the site.
f. Complete the following before occupying the addition:
1)
Any new roof-mounted mechanical equipment on the addition shall
be painted to match the building. Any roof top equipment visible
from nearby homes must be screened according to ordinance.
2)
Install fire protection and alarm systems as required by the fire
marshal.
3)
Repair all damaged sections of the chain link fence, repaidreplace
the broken fascia on the northerly shed and remove any debris and
stored materials that are in the open. At the applicant's discretion,
instead of repairing or replacin.q the dama.qed sections of chain link
fence, the chain link fence located on the west side of the lot can be
removed entirely.
4)
Patch the parking lot not planned for bituminous overlay, restripe all
customer-parking areas, overlay the south parking lot and install all
proposed new curbing.
5)
Redirect the two wall-mounted lights on the west side of the
building to face directly downward as well as any new west-facing
lights on the addition. The applicant shall comply with the city's
lighting ordinance.
6)
The replacement curb shall be continuous concrete curbing, subject
to the design requirements of the city engineer.
go
If any required work is not done, the city may allow temporary occupancy
if:
1)
The city determines that the work is not essential to the public
health, safety or welfare.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 02-12-2002
2)
The city receives cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit for
the required work. The amount shall be 150 percent of the cost of
the unfinished work. Any unfinished landscaping shall be
completed by June 1 if the building is occupied in the fall or winter,
or within six weeks of occupancy if the building is occupied in the
spring or summer.
3)
The city receives an agreement that will allow the city to complete
any unfinished work.
All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community
development may approve minor changes.
The city encourages the applicant to remove one or more of the three
sheds on the property.
Board member Olson seconded.
Ayes-Jorgenson, Ledvina, Olson
The motion is passed.
b. Carriage Homes of Maple Hills
Parkway Drive (Maple Hills Golf Course)
Mr. Steve Nelson, representing Bridgeland Development Company and Centex
Homes, is proposing to develop a 100-unit planned unit development (PUD) called
the Carriage Homes of Maple Hills. It will be located on a 20.5-acre site on the north
side of Parkway Drive, on the site of Maple Hills Golf Course.
To build this project, Mr. Nelson is requesting several city approvals including:
A conditional use permit (CUP) for a planned unit development (PUD) for a 100-unit
housing development. The applicant is requesting the CUP because Section 36-
566(a) of the city code (the shoreland district regulations) requires a PUD for
developments with buildings with more than four units when the site is in the
shoreland district of a lake. In this case, the site is in the shoreland zone of Round
Lake and would have 100 for-sale townhouse units in 12 buildings. The 12 buildings
would have a mix of four units, eight units and 10 units. In addition, having a PUD
gives the city and developer a chance to be more flexible with site design and
development details (such as setbacks and street right-of-way and pavement widths)
than the standard city requirements would normally allow.
A variation from the city code to reduce the required street right-of-way width. The
developer is asking to reduce the width of the public street right-of-way from 60 feet
to 50 feet.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 02-12-2002
l0
A variation from the city code to reduce the required street pavement width. The
developer is asking to reduce the width of the street from 32 feet to 24 feet from
gutter to gutter.
A preliminary plat to create the lots in the development. (See the enclosed maps
from the Carriage Homes of Maple Hills application materials and the enclosed
project plans.)
5. Design approval of the project plans, including architectural and landscape plans.
The planning commission did recommend approval of the first four items at the
February 4, 2002, planning commission meeting with added conditions. The
community design review board will be looking at item 5 of these conditions for
approval.
The proposed development will have a two-way public road that will wrap around the
existing wetland. The developer is proposing an 8-foot wide trail from the north end
of the new street up to the Gateway Trail. In addition there will be a 6- foot wide
concrete sidewalk that will be located between the wetland and the new street. All
units will have two-car garages with a small private 10 X 12 foot patio and entrance.
The parking on the site meets the city's parking code with a total 224 parking spaces
that includes a two-car garage for each unit. The driveways will be a minimum of 24
feet in length. The exterior materials used in these town homes include horizontal
vinyl siding with a wood-grain finish. There will be four to five different colors for the
12 buildings all in neutral tones. It will also include vinyl trim and shutters, brick
wainscot on all elevations and asphalt shingle roofs.
The price range for this development ranges from $130,000 to $190,000. It will also
preserve many of the natural features on the site. For these reasons staff is
recommending approval of this project.
Board member Olson said she has questions about the traffic flow. Cars are going
to come in and drive around this ponding area and access the garages from the
center radiating out. Is that correct?
Ms. Finwall said that is correct.
Chairperson Ledvina asked if staff had seen the elevation drawings for the various
4,8, and lO-unit buildings?
Ms. Finwall said staff has not seen all building elevations.
Chairperson Ledvina said they have not been submitted up to this point?
Ms. Finwall said no.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 02-12-2002
Chairperson Ledvina said staff mentioned brick wainscoting on all four elevations of
each of the buildings completely around the building is that correct?
Ms. Finwall said perhaps the applicant could answer that question. She was under
the impression it was proposed on all four sides of the buildings.
Chairperson Ledvina clarified that the board is looking at item E. on page 13 through
16 for approval?
Ms. Finwall said correct.
Peter Knable of Terra Engineering, 6001 Glenwood Avenue, Minneapolis, is
representing the developer and the builders.
Mr. Knable stated the pond is an open man-made pond. In addition, as part of the
landscape revisions it was recommended to incorporate rainwater gardens that they
will do. They will be added between the buildings and the street and additional
areas that the topography will allow them. Those will be incorporated before the city
council meeting. The proposed Carriage Homes development is at about half the
density of the Bennington Woods. Carriage homes will be 5-units-per acre verses
Bennington Woods 10-units-per acre. The impervious surface comparison is at 31%
for Carriage Homes and 56% for Bennington Woods. Mr. Knable said they are
proposing narrower streets, minimizing the impervious area and will have closer
setbacks to shorten the driveways.
Board member Olson said she did notice a comment regarding off street parking.
Has the applicant addressed that issue?
Mr. Knable said they tried to minimize the number of spots based on Centex's
experience with similar developments and the number of guest parking stalls.
However, there are some guest spaces shown on the site plan with additional
spaces shown as proof of parking.
Steve Volbrecht with Centex homes at 12400 Whitewater Drive, Hopkins, MN 55343
addressed the commission. Mr. Volbrecht showed the board photo boards of the
proposed development. The board discussed the proposed elevations with Mr.
Knable.
Mr. Knable said the development is zoned for high density residential and the
applicant is proposing medium density residential. The largest 10-unit building is
10,000-square feet in footprint. The units in Bennington Woods are about 8,000-
square feet in footprint.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 02-12-2002
Chairperson Ledvina said he noticed there are meters on the front of the proposed
buildings. He knows that this is a concern because the meters become unsightly
and they tend to stick out.
Mr. Volbrecht said typical construction for these units is the electrical meter bank is
on one end in between the two patios. That is also the entrance point for the cable
TV. and telephone. The opposite end is where the water and sewer come in. The
individual gas meters are located in front where the garages are.
Board member Jorgenson said he likes the look of the development and he is glad
they kept the ponding area. He also likes the path connecting to the Gateway Trail
and the benches. His only concern is the traffic and the access to the development.
He drives that area every day and he is aware of the congestion and traffic situation.
Board member Olson asked if a fire truck could get into the development? It looks
very tight.
Chairperson Ledvina said for the benefit of the board members that item was
discussed at the planning commission meeting regarding emergency vehicles
access to the property. The city's fire marshal has reviewed the development and
approved the plans.
Chairperson Ledvina said he thinks the units will look nice. They are one of the
nicer elevations for a development the board has seen in a while. In terms of
building design he likes the building colors, and that they are neutral colors. He also
likes that there will be some variation in colors amongst the proposed development
as opposed to having all one color in the whole development. Chairperson Ledvina
asked staff if there was an opinion regarding the monument design that was
presented. From what he saw, he liked the design, it has some limestone and
masonry and he doesn't have any issues. He is not sure if they would approve
signage with this proposal.
Ms. Finwall said the sign code would allow one freestanding sign. Therefore, the
monuments should be included in the planned unit development (PUD). Her only
concern would be the traffic visibility, sign easement and maintenance of these
monuments.
Board member Olson commented that the stone monuments, with the printed panel,
and the stone cap would be keeping with the look of the parkway area. It will be a
very attractive feature.
Chairperson Ledvina said he would like to see brick wainscoting on all four
elevations. He thinks that is appropriate for this especially as it relates to the
elevations along Maple Hills Drive. For appearance and consistency it would be
important to have that. He would make it a condition subject to staff approval and he
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 02-12-2002
doesn't think it would take too much to add that brick wainscoting to all four sides of
the buildings.
Board member Olson said she would agree that looking at the illustration it looks
funny to her where the brick wainscoting doesn't make it around the corner.
Chairperson Ledvina is concerned about the utilities, the gas meters, and the air
conditioning units. You look at these elevations and they look great with the
landscaping. Then the pipes and gray boxes are added, and it doesn't look very
attractive. Then he would like the applicant to work with staff to reduce visual impact
of such things as meters.
Board member Olson moved to approve the development plans (date-stamped
January 22 and January 23, 2002) for the Carriage Homes of Maple Hills. The city
bases this approval on the findings required by the code. The developer or
contractor shall do the following (CDRB changes are underlined):
1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this
project.
2. Complete the following before the city issues a building permit:
Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans.
These plans shall include the grading, utility, drainage, erosion control,
tree, sidewalk and driveway and parking lot plans. The plans shall meet
the following conditions and requirements of the assistant city engineer
outlined in his memo dated 1-29-02 and the following:
(1) There shall be no parking on either side of Maple Hills Drive or on the
private driveways. The developer or contractor shall post the street
and the driveways with no parking signs.
(2) The tree plan shall:
(a) Show where the developer or contractor will remove, save or
replace large trees.
(b)
Show the size, species and location of the replacement and
screening trees. The new screening trees shall be grouped
together. These planting areas shall be along the south and east
sides of the site to help screen the development from the existing
properties to the south and east. The deciduous trees shall be at
least two and one half (2 1/2) inches in diameter and shall be a
mix of red and white oaks, ash, lindens, sugar maples or other
native species. The coniferous trees shall be at least eight (8)
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 02-12-2002
14
feet tall and shall be a mix of Austrian Pine, Black Hills Spruce
and other species.
(c) Show the planting or transplanting of at least 74 trees after the
site grading is done.
(d) Show no tree removal beyond the approved grading and tree
limits.
(e) Include for city staff a detailed tree planting plan and material list.
(f) Group the new trees together. These planting areas shall be:
(1) near the ponding areas
(2) on the slopes
(3) along the trail
(4) along the north and east sides of Maple Hills Drive to help
screen the proposed buildings from the neighbors
(5) along the south side of the site to screen the development
from the existing town houses to the south
(3) All the parking areas and driveways shall have continuous concrete
curb and gutter.
(4) The site, street, driveway, sidewalk and utility plans shall show:
(a)
A six-foot-wide concrete sidewalk between Maple Hills drive and
the pond in the center of the site. The public works director shall
approve the location and design of the sidewalk.
(b) A water service to each unit.
(c)
The repair of Parkway Drive (street and boulevard) and the
driveways in Bennington Woods after the developer connects to
the public utilities and builds the private driveways and public
street.
(d)
The coordination of the water main locations, alignments and
sizing with the standards and requirements of the Saint Paul
Regional Water Services (SPRWS). Fire-flow requirements and
hydrant locations shall be verified with the Maplewood Fire
Department.
(e) The plan and profiles of the proposed utilities.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 02-12-2002
15
(f)
The entry road into the site (Maple Hills Drive where it meets
Parkway Drive) as far south on Parkway Drive as possible with a
left-turn and a right-turn exit lane.
Submit a certificate of survey for all new construction and have each
building staked by a registered land surveyor.
c. Revise the landscape plan for city staff approval showing:
(1)
The planting of additional native evergreens and shrubbery on the site
to provide additional screening and privacy between the proposed
town houses and the existing single dwellings and town houses. The
additional trees should include Austrian Pine, Black Hills Spruce,
Eastern Red Cedar and Eastern Arborvitae. These additional trees
should be located as follows:
(a)
(b)
(c)
Along the north property line of Bennington Woods.
In Outlot D, on the north and east sides of Maple Hills Drive.
Along the south side of Lot 12, east of the driveway to the
new building.
The trees in these locations shall be at least six feet tall, in
staggered rows (if possible) and are to provide screening that is at
least 80 percent opaque.
(2)
Also show the areas noted in (1) above planted with a variety of shrubs
(including Alpine Current, Yew, Glossy Black Choke Berry, American
Cranberry (short cultivar), Purple Leaf Sand Cherry and Dogwood) to
provide a variety of colors and textures.
(3)
All lawn areas shall be sodded. The city engineer shall approve the
vegetation within the ponding area and on the steep slopes. On slopes
steeper than 3:1, the developer shall prepare and implement a
stabilization and planting plan. These slopes shall be protected with a
wood fiber blanket, be seeded with a no-maintenance vegetation and
be stabilized before the city approves the final plat.
(4) Having in-ground irrigation for all landscape areas (code requirement).
Show city staff that Ramsey County has recorded the deeds and all
homeowner's association documents for this development before the city
will issue a certificate of occupancy for the first town house unit.
e. Submit a photometric plan for staff approval as required by the city code.
f. Submit revised elevations for staff approval showinq the following:
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 02-12-2002
16
(1.) The brick wainscoting on all four elevations of each building.
(2.) A screening plan for all mechanical units and meters on or near the
buildings.
The monument sign plans submitted by the developer at the February 12,
2002, CDRB meeting is conceptually approved. The applicant shall submit
final sign plans, including the location, height, and materials for staff
approval.
h. Submit samples of all building materials and the color schemes for the
buildings to the city for staff approval.
3. Complete the following before occupying the buildings:
ao
Replace property irons that are removed because of this construction and
set new property irons for the new property corners.
bo
Restore and sod damaged boulevards and sod all turf areas outside of the
ponding areas.
Install a reflectorized stop sign at the Parkway Drive exit, no parking signs
along both sides of Maple Hills Drive and the private driveways and
addresses on each building for each unit. In addition, the applicant shall
install stop signs and traffic directional signs within the site, as required by
staff.
Construct a six-foot-wide concrete public sidewalk between Maple Hills
Drive and the pond in the center of the site. The Maplewood Public Works
Director shall approve the location and design of the sidewalk.
Install the trail between Maple Hills Drive and the DNR Gateway Trail.
The Maplewood Public Works Director shall approve the location and
design of the trail.
fo
Complete the site grading and install all required landscaping (including
the foundation plantings), ponding areas and an in-ground lawn irrigation
system for all landscaped areas (code requirement).
Install continuous concrete curb and gutter along all interior driveways and
around all open parking stalls.
Install on-site lighting for security and visibility, subject to city staff
approval.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 02-12-2002
]7
4. If any required work is not done, the city may allow temporary occupancy if:
ao
The city determines that the work is not essential to the public health,
safety or welfare.
The city receives cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit for the
required work. The amount shall be 150 percent of the cost of the
unfinished work. Any unfinished landscaping shall be completed by June
1 if the building is occupied in the fall or winter, or within six weeks of
occupancy if the building is occupied in the spring or summer.
The city receives an agreement that will allow the city to complete any
unfinished work.
5. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development
may approve minor changes.
Board member Jorgenson seconded. Ayes- Jorgenson, Ledvina, Olson
The motion is passed.
VI.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
a. Outdoor Lighting Ordinance
Ms. Finwall said the board has been working on the outdoor lighting ordinance
for the past year or so. Mr. Ekstrand has outlined the final comments in the staff
report. The largest change to the ordinance is the foot-candles cannot exceed .4
of light intensity at all property lines not just at residential property lines. The
lighting ordinance also covers signs. Staff is looking for any additional comments
and once that is received, staff can bring it to the city council for the first reading
of this ordinance amendment.
Chairperson Ledvina said overall he is fine with the outdoor lighting ordinance.
Board member Jorgenson said there is room to grow with the ordinance but the
city can't take giant steps to change the lighting ordinance. But it is a good start,
Chairperson Ledvina said let's see how this ordinance works and the board will
get feedback from staff and they can see if anything needs to be added or
changed.
Board member Olson said she would assume that there are no other
metropolitan cities that have this type of lighting ordinance to compare to?
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 02-12-2002
]8
Chairperson Ledvina said he would not go that far.
Board member Olson said she would like to know if maybe Minneapolis or larger
cities have anything similar to what the City of Maplewood has adopted. Tom
Ekstrand found out about cities close to Maplewood but she would like to know
about larger areas. She would also like to know if Maplewood is the first city to
have this type of lighting ordinance. She doesn't want the city of Maplewood to
have the heaviest hammer in the whole state for a lighting ordinance.
Chairperson Ledvina said if the board approves this ordinance, he would like to
have some background information for the city council in their staff report. The
board did review other cities.
Board member Jorgenson asked if it would be possible to have staff ask Tina if
she would be available for a small discussion before the city council
meeting as a workshop. This would give the council a background on this
ordinance and maybe a packet as well.
Board member Olson said she would agree that would be an excellent idea.
Chairperson Ledvina said he would agree but he wonders if the council will give
Tina 15 or 20 minutes of council's time or not.
Board member Olson said she is anticipating that somebody is going to say that
here is another layer of government and more regulations. She wants to give the
lighting ordinance some type of background or support ahead of time.
Chairperson Ledvina said he anticipates that many of the city council
members will say the city doesn't need it and it will cost money. He genuinely
feels that the changes and additions to the lighting ordinance far outweigh the
additional burden that it places on the development community and the people
that bring proposals to the city.
Ms. Finwall said she thinks the comments are good regarding the background
and ensuring that the city council understands there are other cities out there
doing similar things. She will revise the staff report and include background
information. Perhaps inviting Tina to the actual public hearing and to give a few
comments if she would like to.
Board member Jorgenson moved to approve the changes to the outdoor lighting
ordinance recommended by community design review board.
Board member Olson seconded.
Ayes- Jorgenson, Ledvina, Olson
The motion is passed.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 02-12-2002
VII.
VIII.
IX.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS
No visitors present.
BOARD PRESENTATIONS
a. Election of Chair and Vice Chair for 2002
Board member Olson moved to elect for another term the Chair as Matt
Ledvina and the Vice Chair as Ananth Shankar. This is conditional to Mr.
Shankar accepting another term because he was absent to place a vote.
Board member Jorgenson seconded. Ayes - Jorgenson, Ledvina, Olson
The motion is passed.
STAFF PRESENTATIONS
a. 2001 Community Design Review Board Annual Report
Ms. Finwall said the annual report is submitted to the city council as an
informational report, letting the council know the past actions of the community
design review board. Included in the report could be any areas of concern that
the board would like to look at in 2002.
Chairperson Ledvina said he doesn't have any issues with the report. He feels it
is accurate. Under recommendations/areas of concern the Hillcrest Village
overlay plan is mentioned in the report but he feels the city is not moving ahead
with the Hillcrest Village plan.
Ms. Finwall said as an update on the Hillcrest Village Plan, the Metropolitan
Council would be presenting the finalized Hillcrest Village Plans at a public forum
at the end of April. Prior to that staff will present to the community design review
board, planning commission, and city council an update on the Hillcrest Village
Plan. Included in that report will be design suggestions for development. Staff is
proposing to wait for the Metropolitan Councils and consultant's report and work
on an overlay district based on that report. Staff would like comments from the
board as the overlay district is created. The moratorium on development within
that area ends in November so this new ordinance will have to be completed by
then.
Chairperson Ledvina said that answered his question about the Hillcrest Village
Plan and it sounds like it is in the works and there is a plan to develop an
overlay district. He is excited about that and the possibility of providing input as it
relates to design features.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 02-12-2002
20
b=
Ms. Finwall suggested that the board review the city's sign ordinance.
Chairperson Ledvina said he would like to see that the sign ordinance gets
updated as well. He feels many of the signs in Maplewood need to be
changed, and are considered in his opinion, eye pollution.
Board members Jorgenson and Olson agree.
Chairperson Ledvina said he would be willing to modify a recommendation
in areas of concern to review potential modifications and updates to the
sign ordinance. If there is a 20 to 30 year old sign code than the city
should be looking at modifying that, and it will be a huge undertaking.
Board member Olson would like to know more about sidewalks. She
asked staff if there is a comprehensive sidewalk plan?
Ms. Finwall said as far as she is aware of there are no written procedures
for a sidewalk plan but they are reviewed in developments and as part of
the city's capital improvement plans.
Chairperson Ledvina said he knows the planning commission is very
concerned about sidewalks and how it relates to functionality of sites and
land use. It is also on the minds of community design review board
members and is something both commissions are interested in.
Board member Olson said she liked the annual report that Ms. Finwall
wrote and she wanted to know if staff could add something in the
conclusion as follows: "In 2002, the CDRB will continue its dedication to
quality design for buildings and developments and to the quality of life for
the citizens in the City of Maplewood".
Board member Jorgenson moved to approve the 2001 Community Design
Review Board Annual Report with changes.
Board member Olson seconded. Ayes -Jorgenson, Ledvina, Olson
The motion is passed.
Community Design Review Board Representation for February 25,
2002.
Matt Ledvina will be the representative at the city council meeting on
February 25, 2002.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 02-12-2002
2]
c. Schedule Interviews for Community Design Review Board Vacancy.
The interviews for the community design review board vacancy will be
held sometime in March.
X. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 8:37 p.m.