Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/25/2004AGENDA MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD Tuesday, May 25, 2004 6:00 P.M. Council Chambers - Maplewood City Hall 1830 County Road B East 2. 3. 4. 5. Call to Order Roll Call Approval of Agenda Approval of the May 13, 2004, Minutes Design Review: a. Heritage Square Townhouse Development - Legacy Village Visitor Presentations: None Scheduled Board Presentations Staff Presentations: a. New Member Orientation b. CDRB Representation at the June 14, 2004, City Council Meeting Adjourn I1. III. IV. MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, MAY 25, 2004 CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Longrie-Kline called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Chairperson Diana Longrie-Kline Vice-Chairperson Ledvina Board member Judith Driscoll Board member Linda Olson Board member Ananth Shankar Staff Present: APPROVAL OF AGENDA Present Absent Present Present Present Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner Lisa Kroll, Recording Secretary Board member Shankar moved to approve the agenda. Board member Olson seconded. Ayes - Driscoll, Longrie-Kline, Olson Shankar The motion passed. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of the CDRB minutes for May 13, 2004. Board member Olson had a change to the minutes on page 2 in the first paragraph, 2nd line. Please strike the words the city in the middle of the sentence. Board member Olson moved approval of the minutes of May 13, 2004, as amended. Board member Shankar seconded. Ayes---Longrie-Kline, Olson, Shankar, Abstention - Driscoll The motion passed. DESIGN REVIEW a. Heritage Square Town House Development - Legacy Village Mr. Ekstrand said Town and Country Homes is proposing to build for-sale townhomes on the portion of the Legacy Village PUD (planned unit development) that was previously approved for rental townhomes and an executive office site. The office site was proposed on 1.5 acres of this 20-acre site. The applicant is proposing to build 178 townhomes. f Community Design Review Board Minutes 5-25-2004 2 Mr. Ekstrand said this site was previously approved for 198 townhomes and the office building. This proposed change requires the following approves from the city council: A revision of the Legacy Village PUD for the change in ownership/rental status as well as revision of the commercial site to residential use. A comprehensive plan amendment to build townhomes where the executive offices were previously approved. This would be a change from BC (business commercial) to R-3H (high density residential). 3. A revised preliminary plat for the new lot line configuration. 4. A revised flat plat. 5. Site, building and landscape plan approvals. The planning commission will review the first four requests. Staff will review these in a separate report. At this time, the applicant is requesting that the community design review board review the site, building and landscape plans. Chairperson Longrie-Kline said she couldn't tell by looking at the color renderings if there was any brick used on the building elevations so she asked if staff knew the answer? Mr. Ekstrand said the applicant could answer that when they have the opportunity to speak. The applicant brought a materials board for the board to see. Chairperson Longrie-Kline asked staff if they knew how many proposals the board has required brick to be used in some form on the building elevations? Mr. Ekstrand said the city has had a record of requiring brick to be used at least as an accent material and often times used as a wainscot below to replace concrete block elements. The city requires brick to be used on the building elevation to a certain degree. Mr. Ekstrand said it wouldn't be out of line to require brick to be used in some form on the buildings. He didn't mention it in his report because he thought the buildings have a lot of design and character already. Board member Olson asked if these units would be rented or sold? Mr. Ekstrand said these units would be for sale. Board member Olson asked if Phase 1 for Legacy Village was for sale or rent? Mr. Ekstrand said those units are for sale as well. Board member Olson asked how much of the Legacy Village development is handicap accessible because it appears that the plans the board has reviewed so far have all been multi-level homes. Community Design Review Board Minutes 5-25-2004 3 Board member Olson said she didn't bring that issue up in Phase I because she thought Phase II would have accessible housing units but now she doesn't see any in this proposal either and this concerns her. Mr. Ekstrand said perhaps the applicant could address that. Board member Olson asked if there was a minimum percentage of handicap accessible housing that the city code requires for new developments? Mr. Ekstrand said no typically there isn't, It's something that can be considered but there is no code requirement stating there needs to be so many handicap accessible units. Board member Olson said that concerns her. She expected to see some handicap accessible housing somewhere in this Legacy Village development. Board member Shankar asked how the traffic would flow through the area. He asked if the traffic would go to Kennard Street or to County Road D and Highway 61 ? Mr. Ekstrand said the extension to Highway 61 for County Road D is under construction. Phase I for the Legacy development has begun and the roadway should be drivable by the end of this year. By the time the developer has a number of units to warrant traffic circulation the roadwork will be completed. Chairperson Longrie-Kline asked what the square footage of this development would be? Mr. Ekstrand said he would ask the developer to answer that question. Chairperson Longrie-Kline asked the applicant to address the board. Mr. Kevin Clark, Director of Land Development, Town & Country Homes, 7615 Smetana Lane, Suite 180, Eden Prairie, addressed the board. He said the grading has begun for Heritage Square and is close to completion. The County Road D grading should start at the end of June to early July and should be done by the end of the construction season. As soon as the ground dries up more they will start putting in the underground elements. They are going by the plans previously approved by the Hartford Group regarding accessibility. This is the first community they would be building the Majestic Collection product in. The approval of the site was not slatted for a one level building project, which is the reason they haven't proposed a one level building product for this project area. Board member Olson said she understands it's not his fault but she would like to severely scold whomever it is that dropped the ball on this. She can't see a development of this size without one-level handicapped accessible housing. Chairperson Longrie-Kline said the design review board doesn't have control over this particular aspect of development but they can voice their concerns. Board member Shankar said he believed the city code would require a certain amount of handicap accessible units for each development and before the building permit can be released the building official would require a certain number of units to be accessible. Community Design Review Board Minutes 5-25-2004 4 Board member OIson said the board hasn't had an opportunity to review these plans and she knows this is not his fault. She said to have this issue come up at this late of date really bothers her. Mr. Ekstrand said this is a valid point and the city should have been looking at the handicapped accessible housing issue over a year ago. The issue over a year ago was with housing affordability and the number of affordable units to have in the development. The first project they had to provide at least 50 affordable housing units and another development will have to provide 50 additional affordable housing units. Board member Olson asked if all affordable housing homeowners have to be able to walk stairs? Mr. Ekstrand said the CDRB minutes would reflect these concerns and staff would pass these on. He said he wasn't aware of a building code requirement for a certain number of handicapped accessible units. Board member OIson asked if there was any way the city could go back to Phase I and require handicapped accessible units? Mr. Ekstrand said no it's too late. Board member Olson said there is no Phase III so apparently it's too late to require handicapped accessible housing for this large development. Mr. Clark said there is additional housing to be built in Legacy Village, which would have handicapped accessibility as an element. Mr. Ekstrand said there is an apartment that is part of the Hartford's proposal that is 50 units that east of this project. If the apartment building is a multi-story building it would have an elevator, which gives accessibility to the floors. Board member Olson said she was thinking of high quality retirement housing. If there are stairs in every single multi-level unit, retired people would have a problem, which is a concern of hers. Mr. Clark said regarding the question about brick, they are introducing stone elements on the building, which is a split-faced block along the lower four feet of the building. Because of technology the color renderings didn't make it evident that split-faced block would be on the exterior. They had proposed to use a gray split-faced block but found the color gray washed into the siding color too much and prefer the appearance of the dark tan block instead. Chairperson Longrie-Kline said because of the color copies the colors tend not be the same as the actual building sample colors. That is another reason why the board really appreciates building samples as part of the review process. Mr. Clark said the question was asked earlier regarding square footage for these units. The units are going to be 1,800 square feet to 2,500 square feet with the basement finished. The price range for the Majestic Collection is proposed at a range of $225,000 to $245,000. Community Design Review Board Minutes 5-25-2004 Board member Shankar asked what landscaping would be used under the decks? Mr. Clark said they wouldn't be laying sod; they may use mulch of some sort and possibly some plantings. Chairperson Longrie-Kline said she is assuming there would be an association for this development. Mr. Clark said they would use the same homeowner's association for both developments in Legacy Village. Chairperson Longrie-Kline asked if the applicant could discuss the room on the end of the units that would hold the utility meters? Mr. Clark introduced Mitch Littfin who would speak more on the utility rooms. Mr. Mitch Littfin, Regional Architect with Town and Country Homes, addressed the board. He said these buildings would have a fire suppression system in them so they need to put the system someplace where it can be accessible to the fire department. The can carry that stone element out and use landscaping and/or fencing to shield the gas meter, telephone and junction boxes. They can't put the gas meters in an enclosed area because there isn't enough ventilation. They are working on those dynamics with the fire life safety but understand the need to shield those meters. They will either extend the stone like a retaining wall off the edge or put a fence around that area to shield it. Chairperson Longrie-Kline said from her perspective the board wants to make sure the meters are enclosed some how and using the block elements seem consistent with what they are doing with the other enclosures. Board member Olson said she is concerned about the safety of these security boxes and how many keys would be out in the public. If a corner area is built she wants to ensure children would not hide there. Screening the meters is a priority so the meters wouldn't be visible from the street because that could attract vandalism. Mr. Clark said the fire marshal is the only person with the key for the fire suppression system. They are looking at the options of what boxes they can have on the interior and which ones have to be on the exterior. Such as cable boxes and telephone boxes so there is less stuff on the outside wall. There are certain space and distance requirements by both Xcel and the fire department so power and water is separated. The proximities of the electricity and water will dictate where the locations end up. Board member Olson said in the color handouts they received this evening there were four different color schemes to look at but she only sees three color schemes on the building materials board. Mr. Clark said there are only three colors to be used for the building materials. They aren't using the blue color scheme. The building materials board they brought this evening show the different combinations of color schemes that would be used on the buildings. Community Design Review Board Minutes 5-25-2004 Board member Shankar asked if there would be exterior lighting on the building? Mr. Clark said yes there would be entryway lighting and sensor lighting that would come on at dusk and shut off at dawn on the garage exterior. The units that have porches will also have an exterior light. Board member Driscoll asked for a clarification regarding the materials and color schemes to be used. It was hard to distinguish from the color renderings. She said it appears to be three different finishes but they show two in the color photos so she is confused. Mr. Lifftin pointed out for the front elevation the teal green color is used for the siding and is the base color and the tan color is the shake product and will offset the green. It is separated by a white band board and on some gable ends as well. Because of the shadowing effect it appears to be three finishes but really is two finishes. Board member Driscoll asked what the purpose of the retaining wall south of wetland F was and how high the wall would be? Mr. Clark said the purpose of the retaining wall is for the topography and grade of the site. Based on where the water from the site goes dictates how deep the pipes have to be. If they are able to dig the pipes deep enough will depend on the placement of the elevations. They have to work with the city engineering department on this. They also have to have the sidewalk at a certain elevation. As you move further away from the building the grade drops so the walls are holding the grade up in order to have the sidewalk in that location. In some cases they are creating the elevation and also trying to accommodate the elevation. Board member Driscoll asked if they had determined what the walls would be made of? Mr. Clark said they will use a modular retaining wall system because those types of walls allow engineering to tell you where the wall should go, what backfill is needed, and how long the fabric is that ties into the wall that holds them in. Boulder walls are not engineered. Chairperson Longrie-Kline said the rear of the property by the garage the building exterior appears to be all one-color siding. In the past the board has requested that the applicant extend the brick building material around the end of the building for added durability. Mr. Lifftin understood what the board was referring to. On the rear elevation they broke up the exterior by bringing the windows out, adding the gables, and boxing out the windows on the end units and awnings over the garages. They chose to use more architectural features to break up the back of the building rather than changing the texture or the color. To break up the middle units they chose to use a different window trim. They believe it's a nice combination of architectural details with fewer embellishments on the rear. Chairperson Longrie-Kline said in many of the developments approved by the board they have recommended that brick is added to the side and rear elevations for added durability. Community Design Review Board Minutes 5-25-2004 Board member Shankar said in previous developments the reason the board has recommended extending the brick was because they were using one color of siding and there wasn't much architectural detail on the building. In his opinion this development has more architectural enhancements and there is no need to require the extension of the block. Board member Olson said she thinks the applicant did an exceptional job with this development and it doesn't bother her that there isn't the stone element on the rear elevation. She likes the porches, overhangs and the attention to detail given to the front of the units and she is very happy with the presentation. Chairperson Longrie-Kline said she thinks the enhancements are very nice as well. Board member Driscoll said she likes the architectural details and felt this was a nice plan. Mr. Ekstrand said the front elevations are nicely enhanced, he likes that the back elevation is hidden, the end elevations are highly visible and appear to be very plain. This is a concern of his because there are a lot of end units that are exposed to both County Road D and Hazelwood. Maybe some thought could be given to what can be done to solve this problem. Board member Olson said the board has approved less appealing end units than this proposal. She is very comfortable approving this development if there is appropriate landscape provided. Mr. Littfin said the appearance of the end units is also dependent on the location of the meter rooms. The meters could be located on either the end unit A or end unit C depending on where the utilities come through. Chairperson Longrie-Kline said she is concerned with the view people will have driving by this development and it's the board's responsibility to make sure this development is as appealing as possible. Board member Shankar moved to approve the plans date-stamped April 30, 2004, for the Heritage Square Second Addition, the second phase of Heritage Square Townhomes at Legacy Village. Approval is subject to the developer complying with the following conditions: (changes to the original motion are in bold,) Obtaining city council approval of a comprehensive land use plan revision from BC (business commercial) to R-3H (high density residential) to build townhomes on the previously approved office site. Obtaining city council approval of a revision to the previously approved planned unit development for this project. 3. Obtaining city council approval of the preliminary and final plat for this project. Meeting the following site requirements from the Legacy Village PUD approval (these are subject to staff approval): There shall be an east-west sidewalk provided between Hazelwood Street and Kennard Street on the north/northwest side of the main east-west drive. Community Design Review Board Minutes 5-25-2004 There must be a sufficient number of convenient sidewalk connections from the buildings to the power line trail and from the buildings to the County Road D sidewalk. The north-south driveway between the easterly edge of this site and the adjacent commercial property and apartments must be constructed in their entirety with the townhomes. Parking spaces should be provided at the ends of driveways between buildings wherever possible. The infiltration trenches should be placed in accordance with the city engineer's approval, taking into account proper placement to accommodate trails and sidewalks and the function of the trenches. There must be a sidewalk to the south side of County Road D running from Hazelwood Street to the Southlawn Drive. · All trails must meet ADA requirements. Over-stow trees along Street A, Street B and the west side of Street C (as shown on the previous rental-housing plan) must be planted at an average of 30 feet to 40 feet on center. As an exception to this spacing requirement, the boulevard trees along Kennard Street shall be planted according to the approved planting plan. The curve in the middle of Street A should be flattened as much as possible in an attempt to lessen headlight glare. Building setbacks are allowed to be no less than 15 feet from a street right-of- way to enhance the urban character of this development. There must be enough visitor parking spaces provided in groups of at least five that are no more than 200 feet form the front doors of all units. The main private driveways within this development must be at least 26 feet wide. Visitor parking areas must be installed in accordance with the city engineer's requirements of grading and drainage needs. An easement over the power-line trail must be provided to the city for access and maintenance. 5. All requirements of the fire marshal and building official must be met. The applicant shall obtain all required permits from the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District. f Community Design Review Board Minutes 5-25-2004 7. 8. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18, 19. All driveways and parking lots shall have continuous concrete curbing. All requirements of the city engineer, or his consultants working for the city, shall be met regarding, grading, drainage, erosion control, utilities and the dedication of any easements found to be needed. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project by that time. Any identification signs for the project meet the requirements of the city sign ordinance. The setbacks are approved as proposed. The applicant shall: · Install reflectorized stop signs at all driveway connections to Hazelwood Street, County Road D and Kennard Street. · Install and maintain an in-ground lawn irrigation system for all landscaped areas. · Install all required trails, sidewalks and carriage walks. · Install any traffic signage within the site that may be required by staff. The applicant shall submit a lighting plan for staff approval before getting the first building permit. The applicant shall submit an address and traffic signage plan for staff approval. The applicant shall provide the city with cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit for the exterior landscaping and site improvements prior to getting a building permit for the development. Staff shall determine the dollar amount of the escrow. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. A temporary sales office shall be allowed until the time a model unit is available for use. Such a temporary building shall be subject to the requirements of the building official. The applicant shall work with the city staff to shield the gas and electric meters and those units adjacent to Hazelwood Street and County Road D will not have the "meter room" attached to the side of the building facing Hazelwood Street and County Road D, The board approved the use of the tan rock face stone in place of the originally specified gray color, Community Design Review Board Minutes 5-25-2004 ]0 20. The Board is concerned about the lack of handicapped accessible units as part of the 178 units. The applicant shall provide accessible units if required by the building code. Board member Driscoll seconded. Ayes - Driscoll, Longrie-Kline, Olson, Shankar The motion passed. This item goes to the planning commission on June 7, 2004, and to the city council on June 14, 2004. VI. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS No visitors present. VII. BOARD PRESENTATIONS Chairperson Longrie-Kline was the CDRB representative at the city council meeting on Monday, May 24, 2004. The expansion for Mounds Park Academy was approved ayes all with a lot of discussion regarding the access in and out of the school and how the change in the parking would alleviate the problems the school has had. The Chesapeake Retail Center passed ayes all. The city council decided that the sign setback should have a one-foot setback as opposed to the zero setback recommended by the board. Both the board and staff recommended the fence around the patio area at Buffalo Wild Wings should be four feet tall but the police department recommended it should be six feet high. In the end they decided to wait until the liquor license is applied for before a decision was made. VII. STAFF PRESENTATIONS a. New Member Orientation Mr. Ekstrand welcomed our newest board member Judy Driscoll and discussed the new member orientation and the policies and procedures for serving as a board member for the CDRB. Board member Shankar will be the CDRB representative at the June 14, 2004, City Council Meeting. Board member Shankar will attend the city council meeting at 7:00 p.m. and board member Driscoll will observe the process so she understands her role as a board member at future city council meetings. The only board item to discuss is the Heritage Square Townhome Development for Legacy Village. X. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 7:44 p.m.