Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/25/2003AGENDA MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD February 25, 2003 6:00 P.M. Maplewood City Hall Council Chambers 1830 County Road B East 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. o 10. Call to Order Roll Call Approval of Agenda Approval of the February 11, 2003 Minutes Unfinished Business: None Scheduled Design Review: Sibley Cove Apartment Building - South Side of County Road D, East of White Bear Avenue and West of Adel Street Visitor Presentations: Sustainable Building Design - John Carmody, Director of the Center for Sustainable Building Research Board Presentations Mr. Ananth Shankar - February 24, 2003 City Council Meeting Staff Presentations a. Representation at the March 10, 2003, City Council Meeting b. Community Design Review Board Meeting Revised Cablecast Replay Dates and Times Adjourn I1. III. IV. VI. MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 2003 CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Ledvina called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Matt Ledvina Craig Jorgenson Diana Longrie-Kline Linda Olson Ananth Shankar Staff Present: Present Present Absent Present Absent Shann Finwall, Associate Planner Lisa Kroll, Recording Secretary APPROVAL OF AGENDA Ms. Finwall requested that item VI. Design Review for Sibley Cove Apartments and VII. Visitor Presentations for Sustainable Building Design reversed. Board member Olson moved to approve the agenda with changes. Board member Jorgenson seconded. Ayes - Jorgenson, Ledvina, Olson The motion passed. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of the CDRB minutes for February 11,2003. Board member Olson moved approval of the minutes of February 11,2003. Chairperson Ledvina seconded. Ayes ---Ledvina, Olson Abstention - Jorgenson UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS Sustainable Building Design - John Carmody, Director of the Center for Sustainable Building Research Mr. John Carmody, the Director of the Center for Sustainable Building Research, 1425 University Avenue SE, Suite 220, Minneapolis, addressed the board. Community Design Review Board Minutes 2-25-2003 Mr. Carmody gave a presentation to the board on sustainable building, the mission and guidelines used, and examples of sustainable building. A handout was given along with the e- mail address www.csbr.umn.edu@tc.umn.edu for more information. Chairperson Ledvina thanked Mr. Carmody for his time and stated that the community design review board is interested in the sustainable building guidelines to help create quality developments within the City of Maplewood. VII. DESIGN REVIEW a. Sibley Cove Apartments Mr. David Steele, representing MWF Properties, is proposing to build a 100-unit apartment building. He is proposing this project on a 7.1-acre site on the south side of County Road D between White Bear Avenue and Ariel Street. The project would be a 3-story apartment building with underground parking for 100 cars. In addition, the plans show 100 surface parking spaces and 18 future parking spaces on the site. Ms. Finwall said the building would have a mix of 86 two-bedroom units and 14 three-bedroom units and a storm shelter in the garage area of the building. Ms. Finwall said since the original staff report dated February 11,2003, the planning commission and the developers of the Birch Glen apartments have expressed concerns regarding the design of the building for Sibley Cove. The developers of Birch Glen Apartments want the city to require the same level of detail and design in this building as was required of them. Upon further review it appears the builder could do more with the exterior of the building. In the staff report dated February 21, 2003, staff indicated seven items of change which include changing some of the windows to patio doors and or to bay or bow windows, adding more brick, particularly to the County Road D side, adding gables and or different materials which would include shakes or shingles to the gable ends and adding a band strip between the second and third floor windows. Also adding windows and other details to the north end of the building facing County Road D, staggering or breaking the long runs of the building on the west and the south sides to change the plains of the facades and adding other vertical elements. These design elements were shared with Mr. Steele who expressed concerns over three items, including changing some of the windows to patio doors and or to bow or bay windows, adding gables and staggering or breaking the long runs of the building. Staff recommends approval of the design review with the additional building design elements. The landscaping plan does not show any landscaping or ground treatment for the ponding area or any rainwater gardens. Chairperson Ledvina asked staff about the trash enclosures. Ms. Finwall said the applicant indicated that the trash enclosures would be located within the underground parking garage. Chairperson Ledvina asked staff to respond to the 80 units to be built in Phase I and the additional 20 units to be built in Phase I1. He said it appears the building elevations do not show the additional 20 units. Community Design Review Board Minutes 2-25-2003 Mr. David Steele, representing MWF Properties, 4807 Slater Court in Eagan, addressed the board. Mr. Steele said they would not be building the additional 20 units unless the 80 units are 95% rented out. Phase II could be built in two years, five years or it may never happen at all, depending on how the building is rented out. He said in the easement area on the south side of the development they couldn't have any trees or put any fencing up because of the power lines. He plans on putting a vegetable garden in that area for the residents to use. They will try to do everything they can to save the trees. Some of the trees are too close to the proximity due to the building. They do not want to plant bushes or trees too close to the people's windows for security reasons. This was a recommendation from the Ramsey County Sheriff's Department. Board member Olson asked Mr. Steele about the parking. Mr. Steele said in Phase I, there would be 82 underground parking spaces, and another 20 parking spaces added in Phase II underground, plus there will be 100 parking spaces outside. Chairperson Ledvina asked Mr. Steele if he had any color renderings or samples of materials to show the board? Mr. Steele said he does not have any samples with him but there is a photo in the staff report showing the colors they are using. Board member Olson said the colors in the report differ from the colors he submitted tonight, one looked pink and the other looked orange. Mr. Steele said the colors differ because of the coloration problems with copying. He asked the architect to come forward and talk about the colors that would be used on the building. Mr. James McCellan, architect, residing at 1632 Meadowlark Drive, Stillwater, addressed the board. The colors would be earth-toned colors of rust and cream. Chairperson Ledvina asked how the 20 units to be added in Phase II will look? Mr. McCellan said you would not be able to tell there was an addition added because they would not be changing the exterior materials at all. Board member Jorgenson said he wondered what percentage the building had to be rented out before the next phase would begin. You have the tenants who would have to be living next to the building being added onto. Mr. Steele said he realizes you have to make some concessions to those tenants for the noise and inconvenience during construction. There is no way they would want to start construction until they are filled at least at 95%. Chairperson Ledvina has questions for the applicant regarding the exterior of the building. Community Design Review Board Minutes 2-25-2003 4 Mr. Steele said he could not change the windows to patio doors and' put any decks on this building. The reason is it could add over $1000 per unit to the project. This is work force housing and adding these design elements could price him right out of this project. They have already added the storm shelter and underground parking which has added $500,000 to the project. The planning commission requested that this building be held to the same or similar design standards as the Birch Glen Apartments. There are elements in the Birch Glen Apartment design that he would not want on his building. He agrees the ends of the building need to be dressed up. He does not like their deck design and he does not think it is attractive at all. Decks are a hazard for kids, people have a tendency to break the law and grill on decks, Birch Glen Apartments have a deck design with a glass enclosure, he feels it is a bad design for Minnesota because the decks fill up with snow. If you use wood construction for decks the wood gets rotten. Building off sets could create problems with the parking and the garage design and the expense is huge. Board member Olson asked Mr. Steele if there is anything he can do to add to the vertical enhancements to the exterior of the building to break it up more? Mr. Steele said Birch Glen Apartments added vertical elements by installing decks and he does not want to do that. Mr. McCellan said they could put a horizontal stripe between the second and third floor. He said in terms of the placement of the windows they could put them in a random pattern but he prefers them to be in a symmetrical pattern. Maybe the cement board could be continued in a vertical pattern in some areas but he does not know if that would enhance the appearance too much. They felt the gables on the roof and the different treatments of the horizontal siding make this an attractive product to begin with. Maybe they could do something with the north end on County Road D. Board member Jorgenson said in lieu of decks maybe larger windows could be added to increase ventilation for the tenants? Maybe by having a larger window in the living room area it would give a bit more architectural look to the building. Mr. Steele said that would be a good idea but the issue is the cost. He has to go back to the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency (MHFA) for $500,000 for the extra expense for the garage. They have talked about putting in patio doors with a french balcony. The french balcony is not a deck but has a 6-inch projection with tight verticals on the rails so children cannot stick their heads through it. Safety is a large issue in apartments with children. He said these may have to be custom built and they don't know the cost for something like this. He does not want to be held to anything right now. Board member Olson asked if these are functioning windows? Mr. Steele said yes. Board member Olson said she does not think having a larger window would make it look nicer; she likes the size of the windows with the muttons on them. It will reduce the size of the interior wall with a larger window size. Chairperson Ledvina asked where the gas and electrical meters would be located? Community Design Review Board Minutes 2-25-2003 5 Mr. McCellan said the meters would be located in the underground garage. Mr. Steele asked if he could bring the changes to the east and north ends of the building to the city council? Chairperson Ledvina said it is difficult for the board to make a recommendation without all the details and specifics. He feels very uncomfortable about this. He said it is a possibility but not the standard way of operation. Mr. Steele said he does not mean to make this a gray situation for the board. Chairperson Ledvina asked Mr. Steele if it was possible to make the changes, bring in samples of materials and have a more complete presentation for the board to make a recommendation to the city council for the next CDRB meeting? Mr. Steele asked when the next CDRB meeting is? Chairperson Ledvina said Tuesday, March 11,2003. Mr. Steele said no, because the city council meeting is Monday, March 10, 2003, and he said he is under penalty of death to make that city council meeting. Ms. Finwall said it appeared the Phase II portion was not addressed too well in the staff report. She said this apartment building will be approved by the city council as a PUD and any change to the site plan will require a revision. The additional 20 units will have to come back to the CDRB if and when that would happen. The CDRB is just approving the 80 units tonight. The applicant submitted a revised landscaping plan and staff has not had an opportunity to review those plans so she would recommend the board refer to the plans date stamped January 14, 2003. Regarding the additional design elements for the building, the applicant said that he would be willing to make the following changes: patio doors with a French balcony, depending on cost, additional brick, different materials such as shingles to the gables, and vertical design elements, adding windows to the north end of the building. The CDRB could recommend approval with these additional design elements and if the applicant is still unwilling to implement these recommendations he could appeal the decision to the city council. Chairperson Ledvina asked if anyone from the public would like to speak regarding Sibley Cove Apartments? Mr. Bob Bankers, representing Birch Glen Apartments, addressed the board. He said they are not happy with the design of Sibley Cove. They went through this exact thing two years ago for Birch Glen Apartments. The concern two years ago was Birch Glen was going to be three stories tall sitting in an area with single story buildings. He said Sibley Cove is proposing to do what the city would not let Birch Glen build. Community Design Review Board Minutes 2-25-2003 They broke the building into two pieces, with hip roofs on both sides, they added decks and they spent a lot of money, because the city told them they had to. Their building is very nice now and they are opposed to the Sibley cove owners building a lesser quality building. He said it would have been nice if they could have built their building as it was for less money, but they couldn't and Sibley Cove should not be able to then either. Board member Olson said she thinks Birch Glen Apartments are very attractive and she wishes Sibley Cove had proposed as nice of an apartment building. Mr. Bankers said Sibley Cove has a building that looks like a warehouse and it has no character to it. Board member Olson asked Mr. Bankers if he thinks they have a higher quality tenant because of the added design features on their building? Mr. Bankers said yes, and he thinks they are appreciative for such an attractive looking building. He said them was a lot of concern expressed by the city when they proposed 60 units at Birch Glen and this proposal is going to have 100 units. He said the building has no bump outs, it is flat and straight and it will dominate the whole neighborhood. The architectural details they put on their building accomplished the goal and it makes it less intrusive in the neighborhood. He is sorry if the developers of Sibley Cove have to spend more money, but they had to spend mom money for Birch Glen to get a nicer building and it was worth it in the end. He said they want a level playing ground and they don't want a building lesser in quality then the building they built. Board member Jorgenson said he is not comfortable making a decision on this proposal without knowing more details. There are too many questions in this proposal. If there were time he would like to have more information instead of going ahead and making a quick approval. There is no information on the rainwater gardens. He said it is a large building and it needs more design details added to it. He is happy to see the developer is building underground garages and that will be a huge attraction for people. Board member Olson said she would second that statement. She said there was no discussion about the storm water pond which appears to have moved around on the plans, she would like a better feel for the gardens for the residents, the fencing on the perimeter of the property between the auto mall on the west side is very practical, as opposed to trying to put trees in there. She would like the shingles added and the brick banding added. She is not that crazy about adding another horizontal stripe, it isn't going to solve any vertical problems. She wasn't really thinking of the scope of the building but in looking at the plans, the trees depicted on the illustration make the building look smaller then it will really be. She said the tree size is deceiving, but after seeing the size of Birch Glen, Sibley Cove will have more units. This will be a large building and it really needs the elements added. She said the colors of the building are confusing from the illustration copies and she wishes the applicant would have brought samples of the materials that are being used. There is a lot to be considered before the CDRB can make an approval and she does not feel comfortable making a recommendation to the city council not knowing complete information. Chairperson Ledvina said he feels the same way. This project is not complete and it could use more work. There are a lot of issues that are not finalized. Community Design Review Board Minutes 2-25-2003 Chairperson Ledvina said Birch Glen Apartments feels Sibley Cove should be held to the same standards and feels this is not a level playing field. He is concerned about the 20 additional units to be added in Phase II and how that works with the 80 units for Phase I. He would like to see plans for that addition or just not approve the 20 additional units. He feels very uncomfortable approving the staff recommendation of the 100 units when they propose 80 units now and 20 later. He does not necessarily like fencing and he thinks berms and plantings can be done in place of fencing. Mr. Steele said he has an extreme time crunch but the board asked if this could be tabled and have it come back for the next meeting. Mr. Steele asked the board to respectfully not table this item. The rainwater gardens are a new concept and they will need guidance on this, they are working with Chris Cavett, Assistant City Engineer. Fencing and tree placement have endless opportunities and that can be discussed. They are willing to make the architectural changes and bring it back to the city council on March 10, 2003. Ms. Finwall said the city is required to act on this proposal within 60 days and the deadline for this proposal is March 24, 2003. If this was tabled, it could come back to the CDRB on March 11,2003, and then go to the city council on March 24, 2003. Chairperson Ledvina stated then it is possible to table this based on the city's time line. Ms. Finwall said yes. Mr. Steele said if the CDRB tables this proposal it will delay his project by at least one month. He said the earliest they can start this project is April 15, 2003. The MHFA has certain windows of time for their board meetings and waiting for them could hold this project up until May 15. It takes about seven months to build the building and a month delay can make them lose the window of opportunity for paving in the fall. Under the current schedule they want to start building April 15, 2003, and have it completed and paved by the end of November. This way the building would be leased by the beginning of December. He said to table this project would cost this development hundreds of thousands of dollars. Chairperson Ledvina said the board is uncomfortable with the level of detail that has been provided and the amount of work that needs to be done. At the same time the applicant has time schedules to follow. He said this is where the board is with this proposal. Board member Olson said this is a large development and the impact will be substantial and this building will be here a long time: She said the board feels that because of all the issues that have not been resolved they need more than 20 minutes to review this, especially with all of the design elements that have not been finalized. Ms. Finwall said this proposal requires a land use change as well as a CUP for the planned unit development and the design review. If the land use plan and the CUP are in place the design review board has the authority to approve the design elements without being reviewed by city council. She said the only time city council would be involved with the design review is if there was an appeal from the applicant on the design review was brought to the city council as part of a land use proposal. Therefore, staff could bring the land use plan and CUP to the city council on March 10, 2003, and bring back the design review to the CDRB March 11, 2003. Community Design Review Board Minutes 2-25-2003 Ms. Finwall said this way the applicant can meet his timeline and the CDRB's concerns can be worked through. The only issue is, if the applicant wanted to appeal the CDRB's recommendation to the city council it would not be heard until March 24, 2003. Board member Jorgenson moved to table this item until further information is provided to the board for the meeting on Tuesday, March 11,2003. Commissioner Olson seconded. Ayes- Jorgenson, Ledvina, Olson The motion is tabled. This item goes to the city council on March 10, 2003, and it will come back to the CDRB with changes on March 11,2003. Chairperson Ledvina said the board would like the applicant to work with staff in addressing the issues identified in the staff report dated February 21,2003. Recognizing the applicant has a concern with breaking up the facade, and the issues of patio doors and or bay or bow windows. The board wants to identify that they are looking at 80 units only unless the applicant provides details for the whole 100 units. More detail is needed for preserving the vegetation on the east side of the site near the daycare center. He said they should look at the possibility of varying the size of the windows but maintaining the detail of the windows. Looking at the possibility of french balconies and the applicant should provide samples of materials with color schemes of the materials to show the board. Chairperson Ledvina said he has a concern with the main entrance of the building where the drop off area is. He said there could be an additional architectural element added there like Birch Glen Apartments has done showing a prominent main entrance. Board member Olson wants the applicant to look at the issue of shingles on the gables and staggering the long horizontal runs. Regarding the fencing issue, where is it going to be and what is it going to look like? She said the lighting plan needs to be resubmitted for the driveway and the tot lot, which are for safety. This development needs sidewalks and she would like the sidewalks made clear on the plans. Board member Jorgenson said he wants to see the final landscaping plan, define where the storm water ponding area will be, have a clear plan for the vegetable garden area and the entrance needs to be more prominent. He would also like to know where the entrance to the tot lot will be. VIII. BOARD PRESENTATIONS ao Board member Shankar was the representative for the CDRB at the February 24, 2003, city council meeting. Mr. Shankar was absent from the meeting so staff gave a brief report. Ms. Finwall said the only CDRB item was the approval of Ohlson Landscaping and the metal storage building. Community Design Review Board Minutes 2-25-2003 p IX. STAFF PRESENTATIONS There is no representation needed by the CDRB at the March 10, 2003, city council meeting. b. Community Design Review Board Meeting Revised Cablecast Replay Dates and Times. Ms. Finwall said the CDRB meetings would be broadcast live at 6:00 p.m. on the 2nd and the 4th Tuesdays of the month. It will be rebroadcast on Tuesdays at 2:00 p.m. and 8:00 p.m., Thursday at 2:00 p.m. and Saturdays at noon, X. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m.