Loading...
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.