HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/08/2003AGENDA
MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
July 8, 2003
6:00 P.M.
City Council Chambers - Maplewood City Hall
1830 County Road B East
2.
3.
4.
5.
o
10.
Call to Order
Roll Call
Approval of Agenda
Approval of the June 24, 2003 Minutes
Unfinished Business
Mendota Homes Town Houses (County Road D)
Design Review:
Hillcrest Redevelopment Area - Mixed-Use Zoning Discussion
(Dimensional Standards)
Visitor Presentations
Board Presentations
Staff Presentations:
a. Rescheduled July 28, 2003, City Council Meeting to July 22, 2003
b. Relocate July 22, 2003, Community Design Review Board Meeting to the
Maplewood Room. Scheduled Design Review Items: Inprint Enterprises
(New Warehouse Building on Gervais Avenue); Maplewood Office Park
(New Office Park on County Road D).
Adjourn
II.
III.
IV.
MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA
TUESDAY, JULY 8, 2003
CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Ledvina called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Matt Ledvina
Diana Longrie-Kline
Linda Olson
Ananth Shankar
Present
Present at 6:23 p.m.
Present
Present
Staff Present:
Shann Finwall, Associate Planner
Lisa Kroll, Recording Secretary
APPROVAL OFAGENDA
Board member Shankar moved to approve the agenda.
Board member Olson seconded.
Ayes - Ledvina, Olson, Shankar
The motion passed.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Approval of the CDRB minutes for June 24, 2003.
Chairperson Ledvina had corrections to page 4 and 5. In the sixth paragraph, the third line
should read He said the board will recommend approval of this plan and the board will have to
assume it will be constructed the way it is on the plans they are reviewing and the board has to
be very careful with how everything is laid out. In the last paragraph delete the word initial
from the last sentence.
On page 5, in the seventh paragraph, the last sentence should read He wondered if the
applicant did any further investigating for reducing the expansiveness of the garage or any
additional alternatives?
Board member Olson moved approval of the minutes of June 24, 2003, with the proposed
changes.
Board member Ledvina seconded.
Ayes ---Ledvina, Olson,
Abstention - Shankar
The motion passed.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 7-08-2003
2
V. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
a. Mendota Homes Town Houses (County Road D)
Ms. Finwall said Ms. Erin Mathern, of Mendota Homes, Inc., is proposing to build a 26-unit
twin-home development on a 5.2-acre parcel between County Road D and Woodlynn Avenue.
The proposed development would have 10 buildings fronting on a private roadway running
south from County Road D to the Xcel power line easement. There would also be three twin
homes fronting on Woodlynn Avenue south of the Xcel easement.
Ms. Finwall said on June 25, 2003, the CDRB tabled their review of the proposal and directed
the applicant to revise the design plans. The applicant made three of the six changes
requested by the CDRB. Staff does recommend approval of the revised plans date-stamped
July 1,2003.
Board member Shankar asked how they determine which color would go on each set of twin
homes?
Ms. Finwall said the applicant could address that question.
Chairperson Ledvina asked the applicant to address the board.
Ms. Erin Mathern, Mendota Homes, Forest Lake, addressed the board. She said they added a
single dormer window for the units that are 28 to 30 feet wide and a double dormer window for
the 40-foot wide units to further enhance the entry area. They also added a more prominent
entryway that is shown on the plans in two different styles. She said the siding colors would be
cream, taupe, and gray. The house numbers will be placed above the garage door and the
house numbers will be six inches in size. They did not provide additional brick on the front
elevations. She said the retaining wall requires an engineered plan, which does not get done
until they are in the site work phase of the development so it was too early to show the
engineered retaining wall. The retaining wall will be constructed of an open face block in either
gray or limestone color. They will use a geo-grid system, which is a system that goes back
from the retaining wall into the hill locking it in place so there are no erosion problems. She
said because the city requires a separate permit for the retaining wall it will be checked again
by the engineering department before the permit is issued. She said they split the driveways
with a landscaping median with annual and perennial plantings on all units, except for the units
with three car garages. She can't assure the board which units would be which colors, but
assures the board that no two-twin homes the same color would be next to each other or
across the street from each other. She said she hopes this addresses the concerns of the
board.
Chairperson Ledvina said the revised front entries look very nice and he asked if it was the
homeowner's decision as to which front entry they prefer?
Ms. Mathern said yes, both front entry plans appear to be equally desirable but it would be up
to the homeowner. She said the floor plan would also change based on which front entry is
chosen.
Board member Olson asked if all roofs on the twin homes would be the same color?
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 7-08-2003
Ms. Mathern said yes.
Chairperson Ledvina asked the applicant if she objected to the staff recommendation to have
brick on the side facade of the units along County Road D?
Ms. Mathern said no.
Chairperson Ledvina asked if the applicant objected to the recommendation to have more brick
on the front fa(;ade?
Ms. Mathern said yes.
Board member Olson asked if the dormers are merely decorative or are they functional?
Ms. Mathern said they are not functional.
Board member Olson asked if maintenance to these windows on the dormers is the
responsibility of the town home association?
Ms. Mathern stated if it was an exterior issue it would be taken care of by the homeowner'
association, if it were an interior issue that becomes a homeowner issue.
Chairperson Ledvina asked if the dormers would have panes of glass?
Ms. Mathern said yes, the dormers appear to be a working window except there won't be
anything behind it but an unfinished attic.
Chairperson Ledvina asked if you could see the unfinished attic from the street?
Ms. Mathern said no, the dormers are situated so you can only see the wood behind the
window but you can't see insulation or anything.
Board member Olson said the applicant has gone out of her way to try and meet all the
requests made by the board. She said she is pleased with everything that has been
presented. She would like to request that the board withdraw their request to have the
landscape island medians between the driveways. She spoke with some people that have
these landscape medians in between their driveways and they have said they are unnecessary
and problematic. She said if the landscape medians are filled with rocks the rocks spill out
onto the driveway, if you have people parking in the driveway and they exit their vehicle they
step on the medians and can lose their footing, car doors hit the bushes in the landscaping
medians, the plantings are hard to maintain, they cause problems for snow removal, the
landscaping dies and is costly to replace, and she said they are more of a nuisance than a
benefit.
Chairperson Ledvina said he agrees the landscaping medians would require more
maintenance, however because of the high impervious surface on the site the landscaping
medians are necessary to break up the expansiveness of the asphalt in front of the twin
homes.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 7-08-2003
Board member Longrie-Kline said her comments from the last CDRB meeting still hold true.
She does not think the landscaping median is necessary and they cause more problems than
providing a benefit. She said the salt used on the driveways in the winter cause the
landscaping to die when the driveway gets plowed and to replace the landscaping increases
the association dues for the homeowners. Board member Longrie-Kline said the dormers
were a wonderful addition to the design. She thinks the idea of the landscaping medians look
nice on paper but they are not practical in her opinion.
Chairperson Ledvina said he would like to commend the applicant on the design additions to
the plans.
Board member Shankar asked how large these landscaping medians would be? He asked if
they are going to be flush with the asphalt or have a curb?
Chairperson Ledvina said that level of specificity was not required. He envisioned the
landscaping medians as a six-foot wide strip planted with annuals and perennials and he
doesn't anticipate the landscape medians to have a curb.
Board member Olson said adding those medians would not add much green space.
Chairperson Ledvina said he would agree that it doesn't add much green space but it breaks
up the expansiveness of asphalt and improves the appearance of the development.
Board member Longrie-Kline moved to approve the architectural and site plans date-stamped
July 1, 2003, and the landscape plans date-stamped May 20, 2003, for the Woodlynn Ponds
Twin Homes. Approval is subject to the developer complying with the following
conditions:(CDRB Additions to the originally recommended conditions are in bold and
underlined, deletions have a strike through them)
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 grading permit:
Have the city engineer approve final engineering plans, subject to compliance
with the Maplewood Engineering Plan Review dated June 6, 2003, from the staff
report. This data shall be considered an addendum to these conditions.
bo
Dedicate a 25-foot (average width) wetland-protection buffer easement to the
City of Maplewood around the proposed wetland. This buffer may narrow to 20
feet.
Co
Provide a revised landscape plan for the wetland-protection buffer for approval
by the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District and the city engineer.
Provide a revised landscape plan for the medians between the driveways.
do
Provide written approval from Xcel for any deck encroachment into their
easement.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 7-08-2003
5
Provide engineering data for the retaining wall if the height would exceed four
feet.
3. Complete the following before the city issues a building permit:
a. Provide revised north buildinq elevations for the townhouses adjacent County
Road D to include a brick wainscot or other brick enhancement. This is subiect to
staff approval.
Install city supplied or city approved wetland-protection buffer signs around the wetland
buffer edge which states, "WETLAND BUFFER AREA-DO NOT MOW, CUT, DUMP,
DISTURB BEYOND THIS POINT-CITY OF MAPLEWOOD." These signs shall be
installed not more than 100 feet apart.
c. The north-south private roadway shall have continuous concrete curb and gutter. This
roadway shall be 24 feet wide and be posted for "no parking" on both sides.
d. The 18.5-foot east driveway in front of Lots 5 & 6 by Woodlyn Avenue shall be kept free
of snow and posted for "no parking".
e. Submit a lawn-irrigation plan to staff showing the location of sprinkler heads. (code
requirement)
f. Submit a certificate of survey for all new construction.
g. Get the necessary approvals and permits from the watershed district.
Provide the city with verification that the units will meet all state noise standards. This
shall be with a study, testing or other documentation. If the noise levels on this site
violate any of the state standards, then the contractor will have to construct the building
so that it can meet the noise standards. This may be done with thicker walls, heavier
windows, requiring air conditioning or other sound-deadening construction methods.
The developer shall provide the city with this documentation before the city will issue a
building permit for the building.
i. A cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit for all required exterior improvements.
The amount shall be 150 percent of the cost of the work.
4. Relocate the bituminous trail to the south to widen the boulevard and to align the trail away
from the street edge.
5. Complete the following:
a. Replace property irons that are removed because of this construction.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 7-08-2003
b. Restore and sod damaged boulevards.
c. Install a reflectorized stop sign at County Road D.
d. Install and maintain an in-ground sprinkler system for all landscaped areas.
e. Install streetlights at the County Road D roadway connection, at the end of the private
roadway by the visitor parking lot and at the Woodlyn Avenue driveway connection.
f. Remove the old barbed wire fencing around the perimeter of the site.
g. The landscape islands located between the town houses, in the driveways, on the
July 1, 2003, site plan are optional for the developer.
h. Install a sidewalk along the Woodlyn Avenue frontage as required in the assistant city
engineer's report.
6. If any required work is not done, the city may allow temporary occupancy if:
a. The city determines that the work is not essential to the public health, safety or welfare.
The above-required letter of credit or cash escrow is held by the city for all required
exterior improvements. The owner or contractor shall complete any unfinished
landscaping 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.
c. The city receives an agreement that will allow the city to complete any unfinished work.
7. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may
approve minor changes.
Board member Olson seconded.
Board member Shankar made a friendly amendment that the applicant shall submit to staff the
north elevations of the two units directly facing County Road D for approval showing the
placement of the brick on the revised elevation.
Chairperson Ledvina made a friendly amendment to strike item 2. f., because he does not see
a need for that condition. Chairperson Ledvina said because the landscaping median is
already on their plans would board member Longrie-Kline be willing to have the condition to
require the landscaping median optional?
Board member Longrie-Kline said the landscaping median was not on the original proposal but
it is acceptable to have the condition optional. She said she does not want it to be a condition
requirement.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 7-08-2003
Board member Olson accepted the amendments.
Ayes - Longrie-Kline, Olson, Shankar
Nays - Ledvina
The motion passed.
This item goes to the city council on July 14, 2003.
Chairperson Ledvina said he voted against the motion because he felt the landscaping median
was an important element to the design of the twin homes.
VI. DESIGN REVIEW
a. Hillcrest Redevelopment Area - Mixed Use Zoning Discussion
Ms. Finwall said staff recommends that the CDRB offer comments and guidance on the
dimensional standard requirements proposed within the Hillcrest Village redevelopment area.
Staff will use this feedback to draft a new mixed-use zoning district for the Hillcrest Village
redevelopment area, as well as other redevelopment sites within the city. Ms. Finwall said this
meeting's discussion would focus on dimensional standards, including parking space sizes,
building height, and parking lot and building setbacks.
Board member Olson said White Bear Avenue is a major connector of traffic and the thing that
she is curious about is if White Bear Avenue gets narrowed and people get pushed closer to
the street, the city is constricting flow of the residents and she is concerned about that. In her
opinion, narrowing White Bear Avenue and bringing people closer to the street would cut off a
life-flow for the people in that area. She has traffic going by her house all the time and her
bedroom is very close to the sidewalk and the road. That brings people closer to the pollution,
noise, loud music, exhaust fumes, traffic and the motorcycles that need to travel that corridor.
Traffic is heavier especially since the buses have been cut back. Her concern is with the
concept of pushing people closer in a major artery. She likes everything in the report and
especially likes the parking space size requirement but is concerned about the front yard
setback.
Ms. Finwall showed the board the regulating map for the Hillcrest Village Urban Design
Standards booklet created by Calthorpe.
Chairperson Ledvina said this type of housing and situation is not going to be for everyone and
they can chose not to live there. He asked staff who would choose the building number
placement on page 4 of the report?
Ms. Finwall said the developer would choose the number with variations by staff and the
design review board. She said if it is a zoning setback it usually is a minimum or a maximum
number. Ms. Finwall said the city has approved several planned unit developments such as
New Century where they allowed varying setbacks and the front yard setback is 25 to 50 feet
and the developer is able to choose the best location of that house. She said she would
recommend that flexibility.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 7-08-2003
Board member Longrie-Kline said she sees the setback as a range.
Chairperson Ledvina asked staff if this is how she saw the setback because he saw it as a 15-
foot minimum setback and a 25-foot maximum setback range.
Ms. Finwall said yes.
Board member Olson said the language should be clarified in the report to eliminate confusion.
She said regarding the parking space size 8.5' X 18' is something her company has been
designing for commercial parking lots. She said 8.5' feet is the minimum standard for NADA.
She said a 9' X 18' parking size is a very good compromise for the City of Maplewood.
Chairperson Ledvina said regarding the building height, building placement, and setbacks, he
has no problem with those and agrees to those standards.
VII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS
No visitors present.
VIII. BOARD PRESENTATIONS
Board member Olson said she went on the annual city tour June 30, 2003, and the comments
on the bus were very positive regarding the CDRB's work done on the Keller Golf Course
Maintenance Building. The negative thing was the Carriage Homes of Maple Hills townhomes.
Because the utility meters were placed on the ends of the townhomes the meters stick out and
look bad. The CDRB had specified that the landscaping should screen the meters. The
landscaping is extremely small and too close to the building. Someone pointed out that by the
time the landscaping gets large enough to cover the meter it will need to be trimmed back
because the meters would not be accessible in order to be read. The meters are facing the
pond and are next to the road so they are impossible to miss.
Board member Shankar said besides the size of the meters being 8' feet tall and 2' feet across
they are gray in color. Nothing else on the building is gray because the townhomes are tan
and beige therefore, they stick out severely.
Ms. Finwall asked if that was a condition required by the CDRB? Ms. Finwall said she would
look into it but if it was a condition the builder would have to come up with some sort of
screening.
Board member Olson said it was a condition but she does not see any landscaping options
that would be tall enough to screen the large gray meters.
Board member Longrie-Kline said it would be nice to film the annual tour so the residents could
see what the commission, board and council review and make decisions on all year long.
IX. STAFF PRESENTATIONS
The regular scheduled city council meeting scheduled for Monday, July 28, 2003, has
been rescheduled for Tuesday, July 22, 2003.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 7-08-2003
Relocate CDRB meeting for Tuesday, July 22, 2003, from the council chambers to the
Maplewood Room. Scheduled Design Review Items include: Imprint Enterprises (new
warehouse building on Gervais Avenue); Maplewood Office Park (new office park on
County Road D).
X. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 7:20 p.m.