HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/25/2003AGENDA
MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
March 25, 2003
6:00 P.M.
Maplewood City Hall Council Chambers
1830 County Road B East
2.
3.
4.
o
8.
9.
10.
Call to Order
Roll Call
Approval of Agenda
Approval of Minutes
a. February 25, 2003
b. March 11, 2003
Unfinished Business: None Scheduled
Design Review:
a. Van Dyke Village Townhomes - West Side of Van Dyke Street, North of
County Road B
b. Hillcmst Village Redevelopment Area (Mixed-Use Zoning District)
Visitor Presentations: None Scheduled
Board Presentations
Staff Presentations: Representation at the April 14, 2003 City Council Meeting
Adjourn
I1.
III.
IV.
MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA
TUESDAY, MARCH 25, 2003
CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Ledvina called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Matt Ledvina
Craig Jorgenson
Diana Longrie-Kline
Linda Olson
Ananth Shankar
Staff Present:
Present
Absent
Present
Present
Absent
Shann Finwall, Associate Planner
Lisa Kroll, Recording Secretary
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Board member Olson moved to approve the agenda.
Board member Longrie-Kline seconded.
Ayes - Ledvina, Longrie-Kline,
Olson
Chairperson Ledvina had changes to the minutes on pages 4, 13, and 18 of the March 11,
2003, minutes.
On page 4, in the first paragraph, it should read the bea~ city council action should not sway
them either way. On page 13, in the eighth paragraph, it should read, the parapet walls to
benefit from the screening frcm of the walls. On page 18, item e. (2) it should read, as close
to the parapet walls ...... ~"'- '-* *~"- ~'~,-~'~,--* .-' .... *~,',..
.... ~. ................ ~ ................ or as appropriate to provide the
best screening possible.
Ayes---Ledvina, Olson
Abstention - Longrie-Kline
Approval of the CDRB minutes for March 11, 2003.
The motion passed.
The motion passed.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Approval of the CDRB minutes for February 25, 2003.
Board member Olson moved approval of the minutes of February 25, 2003.
Board member Ledvina seconded.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 3-25-2003
2
Board member Longrie-Kline moved to approve the minutes for March 11,2003, with changes.
Chairperson Ledvina seconded.
Ayes - Ledvina, Longrie-Kline
Abstention - Olson
The motion passed.
V, UNFINISHED BUSINESS
None.
VI. DESIGN REVIEW
Van Dyke Village Townhomes - West Side of Van Dyke Street, North of County
Road B.
Ms. Finwall said Mr. Bruce Mogren is proposing to build a 24-unit town house development on
the vacant property on the west side of Van Dyke Street, north of County Road B. This
development, called Van Dyke Village, would be primarily for work force housing for Iow and
moderate-income families. There would be on-site management to help monitor and run the
property.
Ms. Finwall said the proposal would have four, six-unit townhouse buildings. Each town house
would have an attached garage and a patio area. There also would be 30 open parking
spaces. The buildings would have exteriors of horizontal-lap steel siding with cedar trim
boards and vinyl-clad windows, and the roof would have asphalt shingles. The developer has
not yet proposed colors for the buildings. Staff recommended that the colors of the buildings
be primarily earth-toned rusts and creams (red, brown and tan) to closely match those of
Emma's Place.
Staff is recommending approval of the design review of the Van Dyke Village Townhomes with
several conditions.
Board member Olson asked staff if the board would be wasting time in reviewing this design if
the planning commission denied this proposal?
Ms. Finwall said no, the planning commission helps guide the city council's decision and the
planning commission has recommended denial with concerns regarding the density. The city
council will take the planning commission's and all other recommendations into consideration
when they make their final decision.
Chairperson Ledvina said the charge of the CDRB is to review the proposal despite what other
commissions have recommended or denied. He asked staff about the existing trees on the
site. He knows it's a condition to save as many trees as possible. He asked if staff knew
where the grading limits were and where the construction fence would be placed to ensure that
the most trees are saved? He also said the landscape plan shows the placement of new
vegetated material where existing trees are located in the northwest corner of the site.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 3-25-2003
Ms. Finwall said in the revised landscape and grading plan, staff should require that the
developer indicate the exact area of vegetation to remain and install the required fencing to
ensure no grading is done in that area.
Chairperson Ledvina asked staff where the dumpsters will be located on the property?
Ms. Finwall said she would have to defer that question to the applicant.
Board member Olson asked staff if the site drainage is going to be diverted into the city storm
sewer? She does not see any ponds established on the site and it seemed it is a wet site.
Ms. Finwall said she would refer board member Olson to the engineering report on page 32 of
the staff report. She knows there are rainwater gardens proposed on the site, but without the
benefit of having an engineer to answer the question she would refer to the engineering report
for more information.
Board member Olson said there was a question from the engineering staff on page 32 of the
staff report regarding the drainage from the Goodwill site and she believes that is something
that needs to be addressed.
Ms. Finwall said prior to issuance of a grading or building permit a revised grading plan would
have to be submitted and approved by the engineering department.
Chairperson Ledvina asked staff about the fence that is proposed along the north and west
property boundaries. He asked what staff's opinion was regarding the use of a six-foot fence
compared to using a berm and planted material for screening?
Ms. Finwall said staff would be concerned with a berm on the west side of the property
because of the trees they are trying to save. However, a berm on the north property line is
something the applicant could explore. She said fencing is something you have to maintain,
where as a berm and landscaping is something that once it's established, it would reqiore less
maintenance.
Board member Olson said she feels a six-foot fence is more appropriate for the site. There will
be on-site management there to take care of the property including the fence.
Chairperson Ledvina asked the applicant to address the board.
Mr. Bruce Mogren, Mogren Development Company at 1801 Gervais Avenue, Maplewood
addressed the board. Mr. Mogren said the planning commission recommended denial for this
proposal because of the concerns with the proposed density. Mr. Mogren said he understood
that the major reason the planning commission denied this proposal was because he
requested 24 units' verses 22 units. However, the staff recommended the site plan with 24
units.
Chairperson Ledvina asked Mr. Mogren if he has any problems with the staff conditions that
have been outlined?
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 3-25-2003
4
Mr. Mogren said many of the conditions are fine. No final decisions regarding the color
scheme have been made. He said although the project is on the same street as Emma's
Place, it is a totally different project. He would like to distinguish this project from Emma's
Place. He said he likes to go with quality, durable products. This building will have children
and will endure more wear and tear. They are looking at using steel on the bottom half of the
building and vinyl on the top half of the building, but nothing has been finalized yet. He and his
architect will come up with a product board consisting of all the products and colors used for
this project.
Board member Olson asked Mr. Mogren if he would be coming back to the CDRB with his final
products that are chosen?
Mr. Mogren said it may be easier to work with staff on the final products.
Chairperson Ledvina asked staff to comment on a condition that may exist regarding building
colors and materials for staff approval?
Ms. Finwall said on page 12 of the staff report, it mentions a revised building plan. The board
could add to the condition that the colors and building materials be approved by staff prior to
issuance of a building permit. Another option would be to table this proposal until it was
finalized and bring it back to the CDRB.
Chairperson Ledvina asked Mr. Mogren to describe how the trash will be enclosed?
Mr. Mogren said originally they planned for a trash enclosure and then they decided each unit
would have their own garbage container.
Chairperson Ledvina asked Mr. Mogren if he had any comments regarding the staff's proposal
for fencing?
Mr. Mogren said they have looked at the fencing condition and they are not sure what
materials they would use at this time. His development includes mainly senior housing where
he has used berms and landscaping for screening instead of fencing. In this proposal he
thinks the fencing is probably necessary for safety and security issues.
Board member Longrie-Kline asked Mr. Mogren if he had to construct 24 units in order to get
his MHFA financing?
Mr. Mogren said having 24 units helps them bring on-site management. He said dedicating
on-site management to 22 units is very uncommon for something that size.
Board member Longrie-Kline asked Mr. Mogren if he thought he would qualify for the MHFA
financing regardless if it is 24 units or 22 units?
Mr. Mogren said he would have to check with his finance attorney on that.
Board member Longrie-Kline said the reason she is asking is if there were 22 units instead of
24 units the building elevations would change. She is trying to get a broader view of the
project.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 3-25-2003
Board member Longrie-Kline said if Mr. Mogren doesn't qualify for financing for the 22 units
verses the 24 units he may have to change the proposal.
Mr. Mogren said this proposal lays into the site pretty well. His assistant lives in a building with
this exact plan in Stillwater. He said it is a very attractive building and is built as four, six-unit
buildings. He said he could've proposed building four bedroom units but he chose to build two
and three bedroom units for more room. Regarding the financing question he would have to
defer that to the finance attorney.
Board member Longrie-Kline said she would like to know more about the materials and colors
he plans to use, a more developed landscaping plan, and a more developed design and feel
for the project. She feels that if this proposal gets passed onto the staff for the final decision,
the CDRB will not get to see the finalized plans. She said staff does a good job making the
final decision on things but staff can't always take the responsibility of doing it all. She feels
that if the board allows proposals to come before them with half of the project formulated it is
requesting too much of city staff to follow up on all of the conditions.
Board member Olson asked Mr. Mogren if he feels he did a good job of addressing the
neighbors' concerns?
Mr. Mogren said yes. He had a neighborhood meeting and addressed many of the neighbors'
concerns. He said most of the concerns are regarding Emma's Place. Emma's Place is a
different type of housing than Van Dyke Village. He is sure that any concerns that the
neighbors still had would be voiced at the city council meeting when the final decision is made.
Board member Olson asked Mr. Mogren if it would be practical to reduce the number of units
to 22?
Mr. Mogren said he would have to defer the question of reducing the number of units to the
finance attorney to see what kind of affect that would have on the financing.
Board member Longrie-Kline said she thinks what board member Olson is trying to say is if the
number of units were reduced that would change the elevations the board is reviewing.
Mr. Mogren said he would have to defer question that to the architect. He is not sure how the
reduction in units would affect the elevations.
Chairperson Ledvina suggested a recommendation be added that states if the elevations are
changed due to the reduction in the number of units that the proposal should come back to the
CDRB for review.
Board member Olson said she thinks the CDRB should table this proposal. She said the
board would be recommending approval on the condition that a revised site plan, a revised
landscape plan, a revised lighting plan, and a revised grading plan be submitted. She feels
nothing is "final" in this proposal. She stated there are eight pages of staff recommendations in
the report.
Chairperson Ledvina said his opinion is staff has done a good job in detailing the conditions in
the staff report. If the applicant follows the conditions, it should meet the board's needs.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 3-25-2003
Chairperson Ledvina said he does not have any issues with the staff conditions and he is
comfortable moving this proposal forward by allowing staff to make the final decision.
Chairperson Ledvina said a condition could be added that if the applicant changes the number
of units from 24 to 22 units that it will be required to come back to the CDRB for review.
Board member Longrie-Kline said if there were small changes that needed to be finalized, she
would be comfortable having staff make those. She feels there is a large amount of revisions
being recommended. There are no final building materials or colors, there are lighting
questions, the soil is very poor and there are a number of grading questions and issues to be
discussed as well.
Board member Olson said she would like to add a few minor changes. She recommends a
solid fence be built around the whole property. She believes the neighbors would appreciate
that. She would recommend that the building colors not match Emma's Place. She would like
to see more of a distinction between Emma's Place and the Van Dyke Village development
because these are two different projects. She thinks if the building colors are too similar to
Emma's Place, the stigma that already exists for Emma's Place is going to be carried over into
this development, she would prefer not to see that happen. She would like to see the revised
grading plan and the engineer's comments because of the soil conditions and grading
problems as well as the revised lighting plan.
Mr. Mogren said they have taken four major soil borings plus twenty other borings on the site.
He said they are studying this problem intensely. There were comments about the Goodwill
site draining water onto this site. The Goodwill has to either solve that problem or work with
him regarding the drainage. He thought the grading plan was presented to the board in their
report as part of the submittal.
Ms. Finwall said there was a grading plan submitted and the city engineering department
looked at that and submitted a report with some revisions.
Board member Olson said none of the grading information is in her staff report.
Chairperson Ledvina said he agreed with the earlier comments from the board that the colors
should not match Emma's Place. They are two totally different areas and should not look
similar. He did not see a strong need to cantilever the building out one foot. He would like to
see some brick elements added to this building. The brick wainscoting could be added up to
the window height. The applicant said there would be children living there so product durability
is a concern. He recommends Mr. Mogren consider using brick. It is a very durable material
and it adds aesthetics to the project.
Board member Longrie-Kline said she agrees.
Board member Olson asked where the house numbers would be placed, where the mailboxes
would be located and where the utility meters would be located? She asked if the residents
have to keep their garbage containers inside their one-car garage? She asked if there would
be enough space for the storage of the garbage can with a car in there? She stated none of
this is indicated on the plans.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 3-25-2003
Board member Olson moved to table this proposal until there are more comprehensive plans
for the board to review.
Board member Longrie-Kline seconded.
Ayes - Longrie-Kline, Olson
Nay- Ledvina
The motion is tabled until further information is provided to the board.
This item will go to the city council on April 14, 2003, and will come back to the CDRB on
Tuesday, April 22, 2003.
Chairperson Ledvina said he voted nay because he felt there was enough information to make
a recommendation on. He understands the board's concerns but felt comfortable allowing staff
to make the final decisions.
b. Hillcrest Village Redevelopment Area (Mixed-Use Zoning District)
Ms. Finwall said last October the Maplewood city council extended a development moratorium
for the Hillcrest Village redevelopment area so that staff could draft zoning and design
standards based on smart-growth development principles.
Ms. Finwall said staff's goal is to have an ordinance submitted to the city council for their
acceptance before the moratorium ends on October 28, 2003. To accomplish this, staff
proposes a series of meetings with the planning commission and to receive comments and
guidance from each committee in the preparation of these standards.
Ms. Finwall said the Metropolitan Council and the cities of Maplewood and St. Paul created the
Hillcrest Village Redevelopment Plan in order to implement smart-growth principles within the
Hillcrest Shopping Center area. The goal is to help guide changes within the area in order to
create a village center with an active street life that mixes shops, workplaces, housing passive
recreation and civic uses.
Ms. Finwall said the Hillcrest Village Redevelopment Plan consists of 98 townhouse units, 291
apartment units, 10 single dwellings, 36,400 square feet of office space, and 151,300 square
feet of commercial space. In Maplewood there would be 15 townhouse units, 129 apartment
units, 36,400 square feet of office space and 76,000 square feet of commercial space. Ms.
Finwall said an alternative is to create an entirely new zoning district. This district would allow
for a mixture of land uses and would promote the development/redevelopment of an urban
center with compact, pedestrian-oriented commercial and residential developments. The city
could implement the new zoning district in the Hillcrest Village redevelopment area and other
areas of the city, such as the Gladstone neighborhood, where there is a need for
redevelopment to create a revitalized, urban village.
Ms. Finwall said staff favors the creation of a new zoning district that could be tailored to meet
the special land use and design standards of Hillcrest Village and other future urban village
areas within the city. The objective of the new zoning district would be to create a zoning
district that allows a broader range of land uses than the existing zoning districts, while
establishing physical design standards for these uses.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 3-25-2003
Ms. Finwall said the new zoning district will cover the permitted, conditional, accessory and
non-conforming uses; lot area and lot width; setbacks; signage; landscaping; and minimum
design guidelines.
Ms. Finwall said St. Paul's city council has not formally adopted the Hillcrest Village
Redevelopment Plan. Because St. Paul is including their section of the Hillcrest Village
redevelopment area in their Riverview Corridor Busway Plan, St. Paul city staff indicated that it
might not be reviewed by their city council until next August. In order to develop consistent
design standards for both sections of the Hillcrest Village redevelopment area (Maplewood and
St. Paul), the City of Maplewood should work closely with the City of St. Paul in developing
these standards.
Ms. Finwall said to implement the plan; the city of St. Paul adopted two overlay districts.
These overlay districts specify uses allowed in the area, in addition to uses allowed in the
underlying zoning district, and go into some design elements for the area.
Ms. Finwall said once the St. Paul City Council adopts the Hillcrest Village Redevelopment
Plan, or a version of the plan, the city will likely drop the overlay districts and rezone the area
entirely. She said the most likely scenario is the adoption of a recently drafted mixed-use
zoning ordinance. The City of St. Paul and their consultants drafted this ordinance last year,
after a yearlong planning project. The project was funded by the Metropolitan Council and was
undertaken to support urban village redevelopment, such as the Hillcrest Village
redevelopment area.
Ms. Finwall said the St. Paul City Council has not formally adopted the new ordinance, but St.
Paul city staff foresees the adoption of this ordinance this spring, before the city adopts the
Hillcrest Village Redevelopment Plan.
Ms. Finwall said St. Paul's proposed zoning district is titled Traditional Neighborhood (TN) and
is broken down into three different levels of intensity: TN1 would function mainly as a transition
zone between higher-intensity commercial and residential; TN2 would be used at pedestrian -
and transit-oriented nodes where a diversity of land uses and some intensification of use would
be appropriate; and TN3 is the most intense district intended primarily for the larger urban
village redevelopment sites.
St. Paul city staff has indicated that they will recommend that the St. Paul portion of the
Hillcrest Village redevelopment area be rezoned to the new TN2 zoning district once adopted.
Therefore, St. Paul's TN2 zoning district should be used by the City of Maplewood as a guide
in developing our new zoning ordinance.
Ms. Finwall said the first area of review proposed with the CDRB is signage. The City of
Maplewood's sign code specifies permitted business signs within each zoning district.
Because we are proposing a new zoning district, sign requirements for the Mixed-Use zoning
district must be addressed. In addition to business signs, the city's sign code specifies the
temporary, political, real estate and other miscellaneous signs allowed throughout the city.
The new Mixed-Use zoning district would also be bound by these requirements. As such,
these types of signs will not be addressed in this discussion. It's staff's intent to discuss the
signage issue during one or two CDRB meetings in order to obtain guidance in drafting the
new Mixed-Use zoning district and associated sign requirements.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 3-25-2003
Ms. Finwall said signs are important for any business. However, since signs influence the
overall character and appearance of the streetscape, the city should ensure that they are
designed to complement the architecture of the Hillcrest Village redevelopment area and other
mixed-use developments. She said setting high standards for signs within the Mixed-Use
zoning district would set a good precedent when the city revises the city's existing outdated
sign code.
Ms. Finwall said staff recommends that the CDRB offer comments and guidance on signage
proposed within the Hillcrest Village redevelopment area. Staff will use this feedback to draft
sign requirements for the new Mixed-Use zoning district.
Board member Olson asked staff if they considered awning signs?
Ms. Finwall indicated she thought it should be considered part of a businesses wall sign.
However, awning signs have maintenance issues.
Board member Olson said she likes awnings but personally she would not like to see printing
on the awnings.
Board member Longrie-Kline said awnings can look quaint and add character but on the other
hand if they are not maintained they become an eyesore. She wouldn't like to see printing on
the awning. She asked staff if they would allow reader boards either electronically or the kind
you can place letters and numbers on?
Board member Longrie-Kline said in her opinion she is not a fan of reader boards. The
purpose of the reader board is to advertise the sales of the week or the products and not the
business itself.
Ms. Finwall said many cities allow permanent reader boards as a certain percentage of a sign
or they can be prohibited entirely.
Board member Olson asked staff how she felt about prohibiting permanent reader boards in
the new zoning district.
Ms. Finwall said her only concern is signage for a convenience store with gasoline sales.
These types of uses depend on the reader board to advertise gasoline prices. She said
currently the city's ordinance does not prohibit reader board signs it is just based on the
amount of wall signs.
Chairperson Ledvina said overall he would agree with the concepts. There is way too much
signage clutter and with the more intense mixed-use scenario the current sign ordinance would
be unacceptable. He said there is a requirement for a comprehensive sign plan review and he
would like to see a sign review on all site plans, not just necessarily on the comprehensive sign
plan for a certain number of businesses in a development. He said within this new multi-use
zone he thinks it is appropriate that signs be considered architectural elements and that the
CDRB review all signage.
Board member Longrie-Kline asked if he was referring to multi-tenant buildings?
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 3-25-2003
lo
Chairperson Ledvina said he was referring to all initial signs within the zoning district.
Board member Longrie-Kline said she agreed with the chair's comments.
Ms. Finwall said her concern wi{h that is if a business is initially constructed and they don't
have their signage in place until months later, they would be required to come back to the
board for approval.
Board member Longrie-Kline said in commercial developments like shopping centers, typically
when one developer has to provide development plans or elevations to an approving site the
signage is included as part of the elements and design and is subject to approval. The
Hillcrest Area is going to be a model development so why shouldn't the signage be considered
as part of a design element. That is the way it is at commercial shopping centers all over the
nation. She said in areas where they are looking at smart growth they incorporate the signage
as part of the design element of the elevations.
Board member Olson said she agrees.
Chairperson Ledvina said he believes the initial sign should come before the board. The signs
should be addressed together with the proposal.
Board member Longrie-Kline said most of the people that come before the board are
sophisticated developers and it is not uncommon when submitting plans somewhere else that
they are cognizant of all the things they need to put together with their plan. She said it will not
be the mom and pop businesses that come before the board in the mixed-use zoning district,
but more sophisticated developers with the experience to know what to submit.
Board member Olson said even with a single-owner business signage is something that needs
to be researched as part of the whole comprehensive plan.
Ms. Finwall said as the staff person that deals with signage every day, she foresees many
problems requiring signs as part of the design review board approval. Businesses change and
require change of copy on signs. She said if these things had to come before the board it
would take a lot of time and effort. She thinks if there were strict controls in place, these
controls would have to be followed and be monitored by staff.
Board member Olson said she agreed with staff there is no reason the board has to review the
content of the sign but they should review the initial architectural elements of signs.
Chairperson Ledvina said with the comprehensive sign review, the board looks at the height of
the sign, the placement, the architectural features and the base. The board is not looking at
copy if all of those things stay the same. He said when new tenants change usually the
position of the sign and the structure itself does not change either. The board is not saying
every time the copy changes on the sign that they want to see it come before the board, it just
allows more control over the signage. He supports the staff's recommendation on the other
types of signs allowed and prohibited in the new district.
Ms. Finwall said she will take the comments into consideration and do some research on how
other cities are handling signage.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 3-25-2003
]1
VII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS
No visitors present.
VIII. BOARD PRESENTATIONS
None.
IX. STAFF PRESENTATIONS
a=
Board member Shankar will be the CDRB representative at the March 31, 2003,
city council meeting.
Board member Olson will be the CDRB representative at the April 14, 2003, city
council meeting. The Van Dyke Village proposal will be discussed.
Ms. Finwall said the Hartford Group (Legacy Village proposal) is moving ahead. She said Phil
Carlson of DSU has some great ideas on some changes he would like to see to the preliminary
plans. Because of the timeline, the CDRB will not see the initial design review of the
townhouses and the senior housing until sometime in May.
Chairperson Ledvina said he asked Tom Ekstrand if there were other areas in the metropolitan
area that the board could go and see what this new urban area would look or feel like. He said
he heard there is an area in Burnsville that he is going to get some information on. He said the
Legacy Village proposal is a huge project for the board to review. He is basically trying to find
out as much information as possible so he can understand how this project would look.
X. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 7:43 p.m.