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.