HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/27/20022.
3.
4.
5.
AGENDA
MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
August 27, 2002
6:00 P.M.
Maplewood City Hall Council Chambem
t 830 County Road B East
Call to Order
Roll Call
Approval of Agenda
Approval of the August 13, 2002 Minutes
Unfinished Business:
a. Hillcmst Animal Hospital Landscape Plan - 1320 County Road D East
Design Review:
a. Hillcmst Village Design Standards
Visitor Presentations
Board Presentations:
Council Meeting
Staff Presentations:
a.
bo
Chair Ledvina's presentation of the August 26, 2002 City
Community Design Review Board Representation at the September 9,
2002 City Council Meeting
Reschedule the September 10, 2002 Community Design Review Board
Meeting Due to Primary Elections
10. Adjoum
I1.
III.
IV.
MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA
TUESDAY, AUGUST 27, 2002
CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Ledvina called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Matt Ledvina
Craig Jorgenson
Diana Longrie-Kline
Linda Olson
Ananth Shankar
Staff Present:
Present
Absent
Present at 6:07 p.m.
Present
Present
Shann Finwall, Associate Planner
Lisa Kroll, Recording Secretary
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Board member Olson moved to approve the agenda.
Board member Shankar seconded.
The motion passed.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Approval of the CDRB minutes for August 13, 2002.
Ayes - Ledvina, Olson, Shankar
Board member Olson had a correction on page 4, the third paragraph from the bottom.
Delete the word of at the end of the sentence.
Board member Shankar moved approval of the minutes as amended for August 13,
2002.
Board member Olson seconded. Ayes ---Ledvina, Olson, Shankar
The motion passed.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 8-27-2002
V. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
a. Hillcrest Animal Hospital Landscape Plan - 1320 County Road D East
Ms. Finwall said the contractor has completed the retaining wall and final grade for the
project. The building is currently under construction. The retaining wall appears to be 12
feet high at its highest point.
Ms. Finwall said the three existing oak trees help to soften the appearance of the wall
from Highway 61. To further soften its appearance, the applicant is proposing to plant
five 6-foot-high Colorado green spruce and two 2Y2 caliper inch deborah maple trees.
Because there is an additional downward slope from the retaining wall to the property
line, and the intent of the landscaping is to visually soften the look of the large wall, staff
recommends that the Colorado green spruce be increased in height from six feet to eight
feet.
Ms. Finwall said to help screen the dog run on the north side of the building from County
Road D, the applicant is proposing three 6-foot-high balsam fir trees and eight lilac
bushes.
City code requires that the applicant screen the parking lot from the home to the west by
a 6-foot-high, 80 percent opaque screen. The applicant can accomplish this by berming,
fencing, plantings, or a combination of these.
The applicant is proposing two alternatives to accomplish the required screening. Both
alternatives include five river birch trees and seven 6-foot-high blue spruce. The first
alternative clumps the spruce trees together on the southwest side of the site with the
birch trees planted along the driveway. The second alternative places the spruce trees
along the west property line and the birch along the driveway. Staff recommends the
second alternative because it creates more screening along the west property line.
Ms. Finwall said the applicant is not proposing any changes to the originally submitted
building foundation landscape plan. This landscaping includes 53 shrubs of two varieties
including spiraea little princess and dwarf Korean lilac.
Chairperson Ledvina asked staff if the retaining wall as constructed is different than what
was proposed.
Board member Olson said she thought the retaining wall seemed smaller than what was
proposed.
Ms. Finwall said she can't be certain but she thinks it was built to the original plans.
Board member Longrie-Kline wondered why staff chose plan B over plan A as a
screening alternative on the west property line. Ms. Longrie-Kline said she preferred plan
A because the blue spruce would provide more screening year round. The river birch
trees will drop their leaves and won't screen the headlights in the winter months when it
gets dark earlier.
Community Design Review Board 3
Minutes 8-27-2002
Ms. Finwall said plan B offered the required screening from the drive aisle to the
residential property to the west. The contractor felt that plan A and the clumping of those
trees may help screen the headlights from the parking lot.
Dr. Jennifer Bouthilet, 1320 East County Road D, Hillcrest Animal Hospital addressed the
board. Dr. Bouthilet said the bioretention area is marked on the plans. The bioretention
area is to filter the water on the site that drains off the parking lot. River birch trees were
proposed there because those trees prefer wet soil. The reason there are two plans is
because the architect wanted to form a barrier to the homes by clumping the trees
together.
Chairperson Ledvina asked Dr. Bouthilet if the retaining wall was built as designed.
Dr. Bouthilet said she believes the builders made a slight change to the curvature of the
southeast side because it was too sharp of a corner.
Board member Olson asked Dr. Bouthilet if the retaining wall was built smaller than what
was approved.
Dr. Bouthilet said she assumes it was built as specified, otherwise the contractor
probably would have asked for more money. She recalls in the documentation a
requirement for an in-ground sprinkler system. They are going to have outside spigots on
the building and she wonders if she can appeal the in-ground sprinkler system so she
could hand water.
Ms. Finwall said city code requires all new construction to have in-ground irrigation
installed. All landscaped areas would require sprinkler systems. She understands
however, that it would be difficult to do irrigation below the retaining wall.
Dr. Bouthilet said it would be difficult to have irrigation by the bioretention area.
Ms. Finwall said in the past the city has waived the requirement for in-ground irrigation if
the applicant signs an agreement that they will hand water. The property owner is
required to replace any landscaping that dies. That is something the board could
address.
Chairperson Ledvina asked Dr. Bouthilet if she is requesting that no irrigation system be
installed.
Dr. Bouthilet said the areas that would make sense to have an irrigation system would be
in front of the building. She would however, prefer to hand water those areas because
she does not want water to spray on the stucco building. The other aspect is financial.
She said she was not expecting to put in the bioretention area and the bids have come in
for $16,000 to $18,000. This was after the bank loan was approved and now she is
looking for places she can cut back financially.
Chairperson Ledvina asked staff if that seemed reasonable. He asked staff if this was a
rainwater garden or a bioretention area and what was the difference between them.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 8-27-2002
4
Dr. Bouthilet said it is a bioretention area. The bioretention area will be dug down 4 feet
and lined with rock, a drain tile pipe installed, then a mixture of top soil and compost is
added and covered with three inches of mulch and any required plantings. It is to collect
water on site before it goes into the storm sewer.
Chairperson Ledvina asked staff if a bioretention area was used in lieu of a storm water
pond.
Ms. Finwall said it is common practice in the City of Maplewood to follow these practices
as directed by the Metropolitan Council best management practices for water runoff.
With that the city does not require irrigation within the bioretention area. She said most
commercial buildings do not have outside spigots on the building.
Board member Olson said she understood a rainwater garden was originally presented
with this proposal, not a bioretention area. She asked Dr. Bouthilet if she intended to use
a soaker hose to water the areas.
Dr. Bouthilet said yes that is what she had intended to do.
Ms. Finwall said them should also be a condition added that the landscaping in the
bioretention area be submitted for approval as well. She said it's normally an engineering
requirement but it would be good to address that condition here as well.
Chairperson Ledvina said he prefers plan A. Board member Longrie-Kline said she
prefers plan A. Board member Shankar said because the trees are going to be removed
he prefers plan A, and Board member Olson said she could approve either plan.
Board member Olson said she noticed a photometric plan incorporated in the
landscaping plan. She asked Dr. Bouthilet if she is proposing three freestanding light
fixtures in the parking lot.
Dr. Bouthilet said if that is what is on the photometric plan then that is what is proposed.
She could not remember off the top of her head.
Board member Longrie-Kline moved to approve the retaining wall and dog run landscape
plan date-stamped August 21, 2002; the residential screening landscape plan A date-
stamped August 21, 2002; including the bioretention area as shown and the building
foundation landscape plan date-stamped February 12, 2002, for the Hillcrest Animal
Hospital at 1320 County Road D with the following condition: Submit a revised retaining
wall landscape plan for city staff approval that shows five, 8-foot-high Colorado green
spruce instead of the proposed 6-foot-high trees.
In addition Ms. Longrie-Kline recommended to waive the irrigation system,
provided the applicant signs the necessary agreements to keep the plantings
watered and replace any plantings that may die. (Changes are in bold.)
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 8-27-2002
Board member Olson seconded.
Ayes - Ledvina, Longrie-Kline, Olson, Shankar
Chairperson Ledvina made a friendly amendment that the applicant submit a
landscaping plan for the bioretention area for approval.
The motion passed.
VI. DESIGN REVIEW
a. Hillcrest Village Design Standards
Ms. Finwall said on August 13, 2002, the Community Design Review Board (CDRB)
recommended approval of the Hillcrest Village Redevelopment Plan. The CDRB also
requested that the city council enable the CDRB to provide input into the architectural
and site design standards for the plan. The city council has yet to formally review and
adopt the Hillcrest Village Redevelopment Plan. Staff hopes to bring the plan to the city
council in the near future.
Ms. Finwall said in order to ensure that the city implements design standards for Hillcrest
Village by November 13, 2002, staff proposes discussing the item with the CDRB during
a series of meetings in order to receive comment and guidance on the creation of a new
ordinance. The new ordinance will then be presented to the city council before
November 13, 2002, deadline for their approval.
Ms. Finwall said the city could implement several different tools to create design
standards for Hillcrest Village. One tool is the creation of an overlay district. An overlay
district would be imposed on top of the existing zoning districts. Development of
properties within the overlay district must comply with all regulations of the base district in
which it was originally located plus the overlay district. A second alternative, which is
being recommended by staff, is the implementation of a new zoning district. Staff
recommends that the CDRB review all information included with this staff report and offer
recommendations on the implementation of the new Mixed Use Zoning District.
Ms. Finwall asked the chair if he thought it would be appropriate to bring some of these
issues to the planning commission first to address some of the land issues before coming
back to the CDRB.
Chairperson Ledvina said yes.
Board member Longrie-Kline said she agrees. From her experience working on plans
like these on the East Coast, they had to first find out what the purpose and goal of doing
this development was, and then once you know what the goal and perspective is, what
are you going to do to achieve that. Then decide what the plan is and how you are going
to work with that plan and with the lay of the land. She said also, how does the design
implement that goal and plan. Ms. Longrie-Kline wonders what the objective is. Is the
objective to have this area look like downtown Stillwater, or to look like a homogenous
five-block area.
Community Design Review Board 6
Minutes 8-27-2002
Board member Olson said she agreed with Ms. Longrie-Kline. It is one thing to say the
City of Saint Paul and the City of Maplewood are going to make it look pedestrian
friendly. She still sees major areas that are going to have to be dealt with. She is having
difficulty seeing what the objective is. She agrees with revitalizing the area but she
cannot see wrap around brick on a building when she does not know what the brick
would wrap around.
Board member Shankar said he thinks some of the issues are for the planning
commission and maybe the CDRB should be working together with the planning
commission. He said it is not just having some issues for the CDRB and some issues for
the PC there needs to be a joint effort.
Board member Longrie-Kline said because of the moratorium ending on November 13,
2002, maybe it could be extended. She said there needs to be more time to put this
together.
Ms. Finwall said she agreed.
CDRB members commented on the handouts given to them regarding the Hillcrest
Village Design Standards. The members felt it was very informative. Board members
shared the parts of the report the board members liked with Ms. Finwall.
Board member Olson made a motion that the CDRB take no action on the Hillcrest
Village Design plan at this time,
Ms. Finwall said staff was not looking for a motion but only looking for comments or
direction from the board regarding this plan.
Chairperson Ledvina said he would like to recommend having the city manager, assistant
city manager, and other city staff, formally develop an outline for getting this done. The
goal is to have this plan clarified.
Ms. Finwail said the comments made by the CDRB members are:
2.
3.
4.
To work on this project hand in hand with the PC and CC.
To get more direction from the city manager and other city staff.
To find out what areas staff sees the CDRB commenting on and at what times.
To get the plan adopted by the city council and see where they are headed with
the concept plan.
Ms. Finwall said she appreciates the comments made by the board and she will follow up
on this.
VII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS
No visitors present.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 8-27-2002
7
VIII. BOARD PRESENTATIONS
Chairperson Ledvina was the CDRB representative at the August 26, 2002,
city council meeting.
Chairperson Ledvina reported the only CDRB item was the Keller Lake Golf Course
Maintenance Building. Ramsey County staff indicated they were influenced by the CDRB
recommendations and it passed ayes--all.
Ms. Finwall said the city council voted to have the CDRB meetings cablecast. Ms.
Finwall said she would keep CDRB members informed of when it will start. The parks
commission, because it meets at the same time that the planning commission does, will
not have their meetings taped but will give a summary of their meetings for the public.
IX. STAFF PRESENTATIONS
a=
There is no CDRB representation needed at the September 9, 2002, city
council meeting.
b. Reschedule the September 10, 2002, CDRB meeting due to Primary
Elections.
Ms. Finwall said there will be no CDRB meeting Tuesday, September 10, 2002.
Chairperson Ledvina recommended that staff combine any items until the Tuesday,
September 24, 2002, meeting.
Ms. Finwall said that is fine.
X. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 7:30 p.m.