Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/24/2003AGENDA MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD June 24, 2003 6:00 P.M. City Council Chambers - Maplewood City Hall 1830 County Road B East 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 10. Call to Order Roll Call Approval of Agenda Approval of the May 27, 2003 Minutes Unfinished Business Design Review: Mendota Homes Town Houses (County Road D) Visitor Presentations Board Presentations Staff Presentations: Community Design Review Board Representation for the July 14, 2003, City Council Meeting Adjourn I1. III. IV. VI. MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, JUNE 24, 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 Present Absent Staff Present: Tom Ekstrand, Assistant Community Development Director Lisa Kroll, Recording Secretary APPROVAL OF AGENDA Board member Longrie-Kline moved to approve the agenda. Board member Olson seconded. Ayes - Ledvina, Longrie-Kline, Olson The motion passed. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of the CDRB minutes for May 27, 2003. Board member Longrie-Kline moved approval of the minutes of May 27, 2003. Board member Olson seconded. Ayes ---Ledvina, Longrie-Kline, Olson The motion passed. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. DESIGN REVIEW a. Mendota Homes Town Houses (County Road D) Mr. Ekstrand 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 Woodlyn 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 Woodlyn Avenue south of the Xcel easement. The proposed twin homes would each have two-car, front-facing garages. Community Design Review Board Minutes 6-24-2003 Mr. Ekstrand said the twin homes would be sided with no-maintenance vinyl horizontal-lap siding, vinyl shake detailing beneath the gable peaks and brick wainscot on the front of the garages. The applicant has included three optional front-elevation designs as well. Board member Olson asked if the planning commission approved this proposal? Mr. Ekstrand said yes. Board member Olson asked where the retaining wall would be? Mr. Ekstrand said the proposed retaining wall is to be built along the east lot line. Board member Olson asked if staff foresees the city expanding the width of Woodlyn Avenue to meet the fire marshal's 20-foot minimum width? Mr. Ekstrand said no. The 20-foot minimum width is regarding the internal driveway. Chairperson Ledvina asked if there was a percentage requirement for the impermeable surface requirement for this development? Mr. Ekstrand said that requirement is only necessary with the shoreland ordinance. Chairperson Ledvina asked what the requirement would be if it were within the shoreland ordinance? Mr. Ekstrand said the typical land coverage requirement is 50%. When near a water body, based on bonuses that may apply, you could start at 30% and increase it to 50%. Chairperson Ledvina asked the applicant to address the board. Ms. Erin Mathern, Mendota Homes, Inc., 2345 Rice Street, Roseville, addressed the board. She brought color samples and a photo board of the proposed development with the three optional front elevation designs. Because of the topography on the site, in order to build a road on this site many of the existing trees will have to be replaced. Chairperson Ledvina asked if the applicant had any concerns regarding the staff report and the conditions as they are laid out in the report? Ms. Mathern said no. Board member Olson asked if there is only one bedroom in these twin homes? Ms. Mathern said the twin homes can be built in several different ways depending on the width of the unit and there are three different widths to choose from. The largest is a 40-foot wide unit, the intermediate size is a 30-foot wide unit, and the smallest is a 28-foot wide unit. In each of those three plans you could easily have enough for two bedrooms. She said someone may want to have a large bedroom suite and extra living space and there is also an unfinished basement with either a walkout basement or lookout windows and the space could be finished with an additional bedroom if needed. Community Design Review Board Minutes 6-24-2003 3 Ms. Mathern said the 40-foot wide unit has about 1,600 square feet on the main level and the 30-foot wide unit and 28-foot wide unit have roughly 1,200 plus square feet. Board member Longrie-Kline wondered how the transition between the new trees and the landscaping would be between the property and the city-owned open space? Ms. Mathern said the city-owned open space is planted like a prairie and is not maintained. The homeowners association would maintain the twin home backyards, which abut the city- owned open space so there is a definite transition. Board member Olson asked if there would be a trail around the pond? Ms. Mathern said there is no trail planned at this point. She knows they are required to post signs that say that they can't maintain that area and it needs to be planted with a wetland mixture. She said having a trail would clearly disturb the wetland area. Mr. Ekstrand said the city would prefer that there be no trails within the buffer. The applicant will be providing a 25-foot wide wetland buffer around the wetland the applicant is creating. Board member Olson asked if there could be a trail around the exterior of the buffer? Mr. Ekstrand said yes. Board member Olson said she would like to see a trail around the exterior of the buffer area. Ms. Mathern said she was not sure they had enough room on the south side of the buffer area because they are right in the backyards of the townhouses that exist but there may be room along the north side. Board member Olson asked if there was a monument sign proposed outside this development on County Road D? Ms. Mathern said there is not a sign proposed, however, she would welcome feedback regarding what the city staff would prefer as far as signs go. Mr. Ekstrand said the city does not have a requirement for neighborhood signs. He said if the applicant wanted a sign, the maximum residential sign requirement is 32-square feet. The Woodlyn Heights townhomes down the street from this area do not have a sign outside their development. If the applicant chose to have a monument sign it would have to be maintained by the homeowners association. Ms. Mathern said they want the development blend in with the neighborhood and in her opinion, having a sign outside the development would make it stand out rather than blend in. Board member Olson said her preference is not to have a monument sign outside this development. Chairperson Ledvina said he made a comment at the planning commission meeting regarding the use of the retaining wall and he wondered if the applicant had reviewed that any further. Community Design Review Board Minutes 6-24-2003 4 Ms. Mathern said it is a very distinct transition in elevation and in planting from the city-owned open space property to the twin home development property. She said at the far northern edge of the twin home on the east boundary there is between a four and six-foot elevation change between the city-owned property and their property. She said the retaining wall is being used to provide a distinction between the two properties and to provide a flat backyard area for the property owners. Chairperson Ledvina said another concern raised at the planning commission meeting was the closeness of the buildings on the north part of the property and he wondered if the applicant made any changes to provide more green space between the buildings and in the overall development? Ms. Mathern said the plans have not changed since the planning commission meeting. She said they are losing a significant portion of the property due to the wetland and the easement. That doesn't give them the authority to build a denser project but they are already under the allowed density plus they have 20-foot side yards and significant front yard setbacks. Chairperson Ledvina said regarding the north portion of the property from the Xcel easement north to County Road D, he calculated 50% impervious area for this property. He said it totals 2.74 acres and 1.38 acres is impervious area. He said if you look at the density of the 2.74 acres there are 20 units, which comes to 8 or 9 units per acre. That is higher than the community design review board would like to see. He said the city set the number of 6 units per acre so there would be livable space for people. He understands the applicant's calculations are on the gross acreage, which incorporates the easement. He said there is a deduction in the price of the property because of the easement and because it is not a usable area, yet the applicant is able to use that area for the calculations. As he looks at the space north of the easement, and the number of units, he sees a lot of impervious surface, which concerns him. Units 9 & 10 on the south end of the development are two larger units and there is a 32-foot wide driveway to accommodate parking two cars in each driveway and he wondered how that is designed? Ms. Mathern said when the site plan is drawn out and the engineer draws their portion the driveway is drawn within a few feet of the edge of the townhouse. She said if that is a concern, the driveway could be narrowed at the street. Although the driveway is going to be 32-feet wide the garage doors are typically each 16-feet wide. Chairperson Ledvina said he had hoped the applicant would have addressed the concern for the lack of green space and the closeness of the units that were addressed at the planning commission meeting June 2, 2003, however, he doesn't see any changes in the plan. 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. Ms. Mathern said the driveways can be narrower and she has no problem reflecting the change to show the size driveway for a two-car garage door. Regarding the overall green space in the development, if the board reviewed any large piece of property wholesale your expectations would be to want a larger amount of green space. She said there is a hardship on this property and there is a significant easement and the wetlands have to be replaced. Community Design Review Board Minutes 6-24-2003 Ms. Mathern said Mendota Homes has been through plan after plan and has not found a better design that also addresses the density. Ms. Mathern said maybe this site would be better with five single-family homes built on it and there would be more green space, but that is not how the city has this property guided. Ms. Mathern said Mendota Homes had a plan for a three unit building, which allowed for more green space. This property is not guided for three units it is guided for twin homes. Trying to respond to the zoning that is in place and creating an attractive development is very hard and this is what they have come up with. They have built this design in at least one other location with similar side and rear yards and similar size twin homes. The people that live there find it a very attractive place to live. She said when people move into an association maintained development they don't expect a lot of green space. Homeowners expect a small well- landscaped, attractive green space area in a development that is maintained by an association. Chairperson Ledvina asked if it would be possible to break up the double driveways by putting a center island between the double driveways, which would provide more green space with plantings between the driveways? Ms. Mathern said the problem they have had in the past is the green space between the driveways is between two and four feet wide and it ends up being an area that is virtually impossible to maintain. If you use landscape rock in that area people complain that the rock gets kicked out and goes onto their driveway, or they say it is unattractive and they would rather have it all driveway so they have more parking space. If you put sod in that area you can't get an underground irrigation system into that area without watering the houses. What ends up happening is the sod and/or the landscaped areas die and because they end up looking so bad the association ends up removing them and paving the area. She said it's a good thought but in practice it does not end up working. Mr. Ekstrand said he thinks it's a good idea to put the dividers between the double driveways and it would provide a nice divider to break up the pavement. He thinks the dividers would be large enough to put plantings in and the size should end up larger than two to four feet. Chairperson Ledvina said you see this type of landscaping done with parking islands all the time and they get maintained, so he does not see that as an issue. His concern is the amount of asphalt and that the applicant has to do everything possible to break that area up. Ms. Mathern said if that's what the board would request them to do then they would abide by it. Chairperson Ledvina said he would recommend the applicant move the sidewalk away from the twin home entrance allowing for more room for plantings along the wall of the twin home. This makes the entrance to each twin home softer and a more welcoming experience. He would also recommend taking the angles out of the sidewalk and make it a more meandering path leading to the front door. He said another issue at the planning commission meeting was the prominent feature of the garage door. He wondered if the applicant did any further investigating for reducing the expansiveness of the garage or any additional alternatives? Community Design Review Board Minutes 6-24-2003 Chairperson Ledvina said he understands the applicant has the three alternatives to the front facades but was there anything else that was identified such as more architectural detailing, gabling, or dormers that could have been added? Ms. Mathern said she did not have an architect draw a new elevation because her understanding from the planning commission meeting was that the garage door itself was the issue and not the design of the roof around the garage door. Chairperson Ledvina said these concerns were brought up at the planning commission. One concern was with the design because from the street you can't see an entrance door going into the twin home, only the expanse of the large garage door. He said the commission also wanted the applicant to provide additional architectural detailing to dress up the fa(;:ade. Board member Olson asked if it would be possible to vary the garage doors. For example, some garage doors could have windows or have a different scale to the paneling or different colors? Ms. Mathern said any of that is possible. With regard to having windows usually you want to have all garage doors with windows or all without windows. It tends to look random otherwise. That tends to be the case when you have different size panels on the garage doors as well. They are using a metal garage door and not wood garage doors, and wood doors allow more variation in terms of panel size. They would add some windowing on the garage doors if that would be more attractive, but she would not suggest doing every other garage door with a window. Board member Olson said chairperson Ledvina brought up the issue of the front entry, she wondered if the applicant came up with anything to make the entrance more visible from the street? Ms. Mathern said with the floor plans and the size of the buildings, the angled front entry shown on the floor plan is the best design, which makes for the most use of the interior space. Board member Olson asked how the applicant planned on hanging address numbers on each unit? Ms. Mathern said the house numbers are hung either above the garage door or next to the garage door running vertically. They normally take direction from city staff otherwise they are hung above the garage door. Mr. Ekstrand said the fire marshal might have a preference on that. The addresses would have to meet the code and be readable from the street for emergency vehicles. One thing staff likes to see for emergency vehicles to find addresses faster is at the driveway off of County Road D that there be identification that says addresses ranging from this number to this number go to the left and the same on a sign going to the right. Board member Olson asked if the setback between these homes meets the minimum city requirements? Community Design Review Board Minutes 6-24-2003 7 Mr. Ekstrand said the setback requirement is 20 feet and that is the same for the building code. He said they have 10 feet to the lot line running down the middle of them. Board member Longrie-Kline said regarding the center island between the driveways if the center island is four feet wide then that is too narrow. If it gets to be six feet wide or more then it is too great and it is important for people to have a wide enough driveway to drive their vehicles on. Board member Longrie-Kline said many people have large vehicles and they need the extra space to park and get in and out of their vehicles. She said the medians could cause people to have accidents and lose their step. Medians can also cause problems for the snow removal vehicles. Board member Longrie-Kline said in the winter months when snow gets plowed the landscaping gets damaged from the salt and the heavy snow and how often does that landscaping get replaced? Regarding the plants along the side of the house by the sidewalk along the garage wall, it sounds beautiful and if you could have hosta plants they may grow there. She said her experience is that the plantings don't get enough water or enough sun and the winter months damage the plantings when the sidewalk gets shoveled. She said she does not have an opinion whether you can see the front door from the road or not because you know the door is around the corner somewhere. The garage doors seem like a great expanse and she is not sure how feasible it is to tie in the brick wainscoting above the top of the garage door to dress it up a bit to break up the expanse and the color but that is another idea. Board member Olson said she does not think the brick on top of the garage door is appropriate. She thinks the header board; the treatment in the dormer area, and the trim color is going to provide sufficient contrast and balance. She is on the fence regarding the center island because she agrees snowplows can destroy the medians. On the other hand, four feet of space is not an unreasonable amount of space and having an island would provide some privacy to the other residents because it would separate the driveway space evenly. Sometimes homeowners park their cars in the driveway taking more room up and leaving less space for their neighbor to park cars in their driveway. Chairperson Ledvina said he has a problem with the closeness of the development and the lack of green space. The number of units would have to be reduced to provide more green space. Board member Olson said she agrees with chairperson Ledvina that this development is very dense but she wonders if asking the applicant to reduce the amount of units is in the scope of the board? Chairperson Ledvina said this is a site plan and if the board evaluates the landscaping and overall site and says it is too tight the board has the right to state that to the applicant. He would have liked to see more architectural detailing to the front of these units. He would like to have seen more attention given to the impervious surface problem. He does not feel comfortable approving this development as it is proposed and he is not sure if the applicant would consider making changes. He may be willing to live with the number of buildings currently proposed but there would have to be something else that would need to be done to enhance it. Enhancements that could be done could be architectural and additional landscaping to offset the real closeness of the buildings. This development has 50% impervious space, which is a lot of roof and asphalt. Community Design Review Board Minutes 6-24-2003 Board member Olson said Mr. Ekstrand had outlined in the staff report several areas where there are exemptions, variances, and encroachments. She asked if one set of twin homes were eliminated to reduce the density, would that solve those encroachment issues? Mr. Ekstrand said the only encroachment issue was with the homes to the south of the easement that front Woodlyn Avenue because their decks would encroach into the Xcel easement. Board member Olson asked if the setback from County Road D is appropriate for these houses. Mr. Ekstrand said the minimum setback is 30 feet from the County Road D right-of-way. Board member Olson asked if there would be a sidewalk on County Road D? Mr. Ekstrand said there already is a sidewalk, that is the bituminous trail that swings close to the road which city staff wants brought closer to the property. In terms of the bituminous surface, the applicant is meeting the city ordinance. City staff can't recommend or support the board going against this because the applicant is meeting the ordinance. Chairperson Ledvina asked the applicant if she would allow the board to table this proposal and look at making modifications to the plan? Ms. Mathern said they would not consider a reduction in the density. With regard to the design issues, she understands what the board is asking. She said if she leaves with this proposal being tabled she does not know what to request the architect to draw. The board said they wanted the front of the buildings enhanced but she was not clear what they wanted to see. Mendota Homes feels the buildings are already appropriately enhanced with the three different design elevations. When she drove down Woodlyn Avenue and she saw the townhouses, and there was no variation in that development. Mendota Homes is providing more variety than what already exists in the neighborhood. Chairperson Ledvina said he is not an architect but he showed some detailing that could be added to the plan. His ideas included adding a gable over the dwelling part of the building, providing a false dormer, and adding some more detailing in the gable area. The concern has been raised and despite the variation provided here, the style of this building needs even more work than what has been provided. There are all kinds of things that can be changed but it is not up to him to design the changes for the applicant. Ms. Mathern said her concern is that this proposal gets tabled, she comes back, and the board is still not happy with the changes and then she doesn't know how to proceed after that. She would be happy to consult with the architect and find out if he can think of some better ways to enhance the front and side of the buildings. It behooves them to build a more beautiful product. She is not in favor of tabling this proposal to go back and make the changes because she doesn't know what it will end up looking like. Board member Olson asked if the front entry is open or is there a shelter over it? Community Design Review Board Minutes 6-24-2003 Ms. Mathern said there is a roof overhang over the entry so there is a front porch area to step up onto before entering the home. Board member Olson asked if that could be gabled and enhanced to extend to the end of the structure so that it would provide more of a visual setback from the street? That way there would be three layers visible as opposed to two layers? Ms. Mathern said yes, a smaller gable could be put over that entry area. Chairperson Ledvina said the board has had other proposals where a peak or turret over the entryway has been built to designate that entry area. Chairperson Ledvina said his concern is that the issues and concerns that were identified early on by the planning commission and the applicant did not come back with any alternatives to change or alter the plans and now the board is bringing up some of the same issues. This concerns him and he feels the plans need refining and the proposal should be tabled. Ms. Mathern said she heard the planning commission discuss the issue about the garage doors but there was not much she could do to change the garage doors. She did not hear the specific concerns about the gables and building design. The idea to add a small gable over the entry is quite similar to what chairperson Ledvina drew on his plan only on a smaller scale and she is willing to check into that and see if there is anything else the architect can propose. Board member Olson said other than the density, which the board can't get the applicant to change, if the three different views of the front elevations are colored differently and products are mixed, and if the enhancement gets added to the front entryway, she would not be opposed to the proposal. Board member Longrie-Kline said she drove through a development in Coon Rapids and all the units were the same color and she did not care for that. She would recommend mixing colors and building products if possible. Ms. Mathern said their intention was to use products in the earth tones. They will add the color gray and add a different color brick too for an additional element. Chairperson Ledvina said because of the concerns relating to the driveways, the impervious surface, and the landscaping issue it is necessary to table this proposal. He asked if the applicant would be willing to table this proposal until the next meeting? Ms. Mathern said her concern is that she wants to stay on the agenda for the city council meeting July 14, 2003. Mr. Ekstrand said there is another CDRB meeting on July 8, 2003, allowing this proposal to come back in time for the July 14, 2003, city council meeting. Board member Olson said she would like to see the three different elevations with the three different color renderings. Ms. Mathern asked if the board has a preference of breaking the driveway expansion up with the center island adding green space or not. She said it really is a maintenance issue. Community Design Review Board Minutes 6-24-2003 lO Chairperson Ledvina said he understands the maintenance issue and he is sensitive to that, but given the layout, the density, and the amount of asphalt, the applicant needs to do everything they can to provide green space and that supersedes the issue of maintenance. In his opinion, the applicant chose to layout the proposal this way and these things need to be done. Board member Olson asked if the mailbox could be put in the center island between the driveways? Ms. Mathern said that would depend on what the post office tells them they could do. Sometimes in these developments the postal service likes a central mailbox. Board member Olson asked where the utilities and meters are going to be placed? Ms. Mathern said they usually install them along the side of the house on the down slope so they are not on the side of the garage when you are walking up the sidewalk and not next to the front door. Board member Olson asked if the meters would be visible from the new street? Ms. Mathern said typically the plantings go around the meters, but a lot of it depends on where the utility companies are willing to place the meters. Ms. Mathern said she would: 2. 3. 4. Work on the enhancement of the front entries. Show the three different elevations with the three different color renderings. Show the house numbers on the elevations. Show the retaining wall and the corner of the property where the grading is going to be most substantial and how they plan to address that. Provide more brick on the front of the units and garages. Split the driveways by a landscaped median to separate each unit's driveways. Board member Olson moved to table this proposal until the applicant comes back with changes to the proposal at the Tuesday, July 8, 2003, CDRB meeting. Board member Ledvina seconded. Ayes - Ledvina, Olson Abstention - Longrie-Kline Board member Longrie-Kline stated the reason she abstained is because she doesn't have any issues with the proposal. The motion to table carries. This item will return to the CDRB July 8, 2003, and then it will go to the city council on July 14, 2003. Community Design Review Board Minutes 6-24-2003 VII. VIII. IX. ]! Mr. Ekstrand added that he has been writing the reports and he has been the only one working with this proposal and would be on vacation until July 7, so there may not be anything in the next CDRB packet. Board member Olson asked if Shann Finwall could take over while he was out of the office? Mr. Ekstrand said he is the only person who has had contact with the applicant and has been involved with this project. But he said staff would do their best. He asked Ms. Mathern when the changes to the plans might be ready? Ms. Mathern said she would get the changes to staff by July 1. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS No visitors present. BOARD PRESENTATIONS Board member Longrie-Kline gave a brief review about the Maxfield Research Study Report that was discussed at the city council workshop at 6:00 p.m. on Monday, June 23, 2003. Board member Olson attended both the workshop and the regular city council meeting on June 23, 2003. Items that were discussed included the (SPRWS) St. Paul Regional Water Services CUP for McCarron's Water Treatment, which was approved and the Tax Increment Financing (TIF) for Sibley Cove Apartments, which was also approved. STAFF PRESENTATIONS Board member Longrie-Kline will represent the CDRB at the July 14, 2003, city council meeting. Items to be discussed will be the Mendota Homes twin homes and Legacy Village. Mr. Ekstrand said the city council meeting scheduled for Monday, July 28, 2003, has been changed to Tuesday, Ju!¥ 22, 2003. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 7:26 p.m.