Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/28/1998 AGENDA MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD July 28, 1998 6:00 P.M. City Council Chambers Maplewood City Hall 1830 East County Road B 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes - July 14, 1998 4. Approval of Agenda 5. Unfinished Business a. Maplewood Plaza Sign Plan, Southlawn Drive- Welsh Companies b. St. John's Hospital Sign Plan, 1575 Beam Avenue - Visual Communications c. Best Buy Building Addition, 1885 E. County Road D- Best Buy Company 6. Design Review a. Maplewood Eye Care, West of 1975 11th Avenue - Mulcahy, Inc. b. Gervais Court Apartments, Gervais Court - Tri Hess Development Company 7. Visitor Presentations 8. Board Presentations 9. Staff Presentations a. CDRB Representative Needed for August 24 Council Meeting Reminder - Ananth is August 10 Representative b. Next CDRB Meeting is August 11 c. Annual Summer Tour- August 17 10. Adjourn p:com-dvpt~cdrb.agd II. MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA JULY 28, 1998 CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Erickson called the meeting to order at 6 p.m. ROLL CALL Marvin Erickson Present Marie Robinson Present Ananth Shankar Present Tim Johnson Present Matt Ledvina Present III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES July 14, 1998 Boardmember Shankar moved approval of the minutes of July 14, 1998, as submitted. Boardmember Robinson seconded. Ayes--Erickson, Robinson, Shankar, Johnson Abstain--Ledvina The motion passed. IV. APPROVAL OFAGENDA Boardmember Johnson moved approval of the agenda as submitted. Boardmember Shankar seconded. Ayes--all The motion passed. V. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Maplewood Plaza Sign Plan, Southlawn Drive - Welsh Companies John Johannson of Welsh Companies, the developer, was present. Mr. Johannson said he had read the staff recommendations and had no problem with them. Mr. Johannson asked for clarification on who they would bring in elevations to on the future building, staff or the community design review board. Staff said this would be an issue for the community design review board to approve. Boardmember Ledvina asked why the applicant wouldn't wait until they have all the signage and then bring it to the board. Boardmember Ledvina also asked how large the lettering was the current store where it says, Just for Feet. Mr. Johannson said that the largest letter on the sign was six feet. Staff said the plans showed that the sign on the building was six feet tall and 32 feet long. Community Design Review Board Minutes of 07-28-98 -2- Boardmember Robinson asked the applicant why the pylon poles were installed prior to the board's approval. Mr. Johannson said the sign company came out with their boom truck and put the poles in while the landscaping was being done rather than do it later and end up tearing up the landscaping and curbing with the truck. The applicant would move the poles if they have to be moved. The pole near County Road D, however, was put where it was so that when a car or truck turned out of the parking lot nothing hanging from the vehicle would hit the sign. Mr. Johannson said they were granting an easement to the city there for future expansion of County Road D. Staff said the city had originally wanted ten feet of right-of-way dedication along the County Road D frontage. As a result of meetings with Mr. Johannson, city staff, and their respective attorneys, the city accepted an easement for right-of-way instead of actual land taking. Staff said the sign has to be set back far enough to be off of the ten foot right-of-way easement. Mr. Johannson said that, in answer to Boardmember Ledvina's question about why wait, the future building is flexible and could accommodate one tenant of 40,000 to 42,000 feet or it could be two tenants or it could be smaller tenants and the larger tenants would get a bigger sign and the smaller tenants would get a smaller sign. They said they didn't know what tenants they were going to have in the building and felt they should wait on the signs and come back later. Boardmember Erickson asked if they had any immediate plans to build on the site to the north. Mr. Johannson said they would like to build right now and are negotiating with a national retailer, and if they get a commitment they will try to break ground as soon as possible. Boardmember Erickson asked if that would change the signage for the north part of the building that says Just for Feet on it because it would be blocked by the future building. Mr. Johannson said he thought the sign should be moved to the south side but Just for Feet wanted it there because it is the access point from County Road D. Boardmember Robinson asked the applicant if the future building would be a shopping center. Mr. Johannson said it would either be one tenant or it might be a singular building with multiple tenants. They would like one large tenant. The city code allows a parking lot of about 42,000 feet and the undeveloped pad could accommodate this. Boardmember Robinson asked staff if there were any restrictions if this becomes a shopping center. Staff said that was why they wanted to hold off on approving any signage for an unknown building because they don't know how many users there will be in the building. Staff said that when Mr. Johannson comes to the community design review board with the design plans, the sign plans could be looked at as well. Staff said the applicant is asking for approval of the pre-pylon signs with the Just for Feet sign on the adjacent property so what we are going to end up with is off premises signs. They'll each have their own message on the neighbor's property. Boardmember Robinson asked if we were creating another problem depending on another tenant that may come forward. Staff said the only problem that they could foresee is when there is a change in tenants and they want something bigger or different than what we are looking at here. Staff said the concept of having the Just for Feet sign, for example, on the northerly parcel is fine but how are we going to deal with changes that are likely to occur. Boardmember Johnson asked what the reasoning was for the interior sign to the southeast corner. Mr. Johannson said that was the sign that faces the new Dayton's building. The mall ring road there has some pretty good traffic on it and their goal was to have a prominence and a presence to other retail shoppers. Toys R Us and Circuit City both have signs there. Just for Feet felt this sign would pull in more business from shoppers on the ring road. Community Design Review Board Minutes of 07-28-98 -3- Boardmember Robinson moved to approve the following comprehensive sign plan requirements for Maplewood Plaza (Just for Feet and the future building to the north) at the southeast corner of County Road D and Southlawn Drive: Future building signage: The criteria for wall signs on the future building are not approved. The criteria for these wall signs shall be submitted to the community design review board after the board has approved the architectural plans for that building. 2. Enter/exit signs: These signs shall be designed and located to comply with city code. The design of these signs shall be submitted to staff for approval. Just for Feet Building: Just for Feet, or any future user or tenant, shall be allowed the two wall mounted signs that are presently installed as shown in the sign criteria submittal date- stamped July 17, 1998. Staff may approve changes to the signage on this building as long as it meets code and they do not exceed a total of two signs. The "Just for Feet" and "Worlds Largest Athletic Shoe Store" signs on the north elevation are considered as one sign. Pylon Signs: Three pylon signs shall be allowed as proposed on the plans date-stamped July 17, 1998, subject to meeting all city code requirements, with the exception that the Southlawn Drive pylon sign may have a six-foot setback from the right-of-way line instead of ten feet. As a point of clarification, the Southlawn Drive pylon sign is west of Just for Feet, not southwest of the building as shown on the site plan. Boardmember Johnson seconded. Ayeswall B. St. John's Hospital Sign Plan, 1575 Beam Avenue - Visual Communications Cheryl Long O'Donnell, of Visual Communications, was present. Ms. O'Donnell said that Visual Communications was hired by St. John's Healtheast to put together the comprehensive sign program. Ms. O'Donnell showed the boardmembers a map identifying the type of signs and where the signs are placed. Ms. O'Donnell also talked about the colors of the different signs and the material used for the signs. Ms. O'Donnell then answered questions from the boardmembers. Ms. O'Donnell said there was one change from the master plan, in that, the signs were initially to be illuminated and now they are going to use reflective vinyl on them instead. Boardmember Robinson asked staff if there were any equivalent signs in Maplewood as she was wondering about the maintenance and upkeep of these signs. Staff said they weren't aware of any. Ms. O'Donnell said that the aluminum signs have a type of paint on them that has a nine year warranty on fading, etc. Boardmember Erickson asked if the Dedicated to Caring sign was going to be put up on the building and if this was part of the sign plan. Ms. O'Donnell said this was something they were thinking about doing in the future and that it was in the master plan. Boardmember Ledvina said he felt that the Dedicated to Caring sign seemed out of place with its close proximity to the large centerpiece sign of the complex and he was uncertain how it would work with the greenery and block wall there. Ms. O'Donnell said they looked at this area and how it was Community Design Review Board Minutes of 07-28-98 -4- landscaped and being there is a flowing feeling along the back retaining wall, they felt that if they just put a sign there that it wouldn't tie in with everything else that is going on at that corner. Boardmember Ledvina asked Ms. O'Donnell what the size of the letters were for the Dedicated to Caring sign. Ms. O'Donnell said the letters were 18" high as a capital D, which she said are fairly small. Boardmember Ledvina moved to approve the sign proposal date-stamped July 20, 1998 for St. John's Hospital, 1575 Beam Avenue, subject to the following conditions: 1. The design of signs not shown on the plans shall be submitted to staff for approval. 2. All signs shall follow the approved design and color scheme. 3. Sign placements shall comply with those shown on the approved site plan. 4. Staff may approve minor changes to this sign plan. Major changes may only be approved by the community design review board. Boardmember Shankar seconded. Ayesmall C. Best Buy Building Addition, 1885 E. County Road D - Best Buy Company David Jamieson, of Best Buy Company, was present. Mr. Jamieson said he had read the staff recommendation and had no problems with it. Mr. Jamieson said a lot of the items were landlord things that need to be done and, at this time, Best Buy's corporate counsel has spoken to the landowner's corporate counsel and there are no problems with it. Boardmember Erickson wanted to know about the retaining wall that is or isn't proposed. Mr. Jamieson said there is a retaining wall proposed in the back area, which is only going to be about a foot high. Mr. Jamieson said there wouldn't be a retaining wall needed if the transmission site's grading next door sloped toward Best Buy. The transmission site's grade is sloped from both sides to the center. There is a swale there, and because there is a berm effect at the property line, there needs to be a small retaining wall. It is too steep to do any type of landscaping. Mr. Jamieson said it was going to be rockfaced block masonry painted the same as the building. Mr. Jamieson said there would be landscape around it. Boardmember Erickson asked if the trash compactor was going to be moved. Mr. Jamieson said the compactor was going to be moved all the way in the corner next to the west side of the building. Boardmember Erickson stated that the applicant has one dock area there now. Mr. Jamieson said there is an existing single truck dock there and they are proposing to put a second door in next to where they are putting the trash compactor. Mr. Jamieson said the trash compactor would be moving more towards the southwest into the corner of the building. Mr. Jamieson said the other dock would be their main dock and the second dock would be used more for UPS deliveries and at Christmas time. Boardmember Erickson said that this plan has been before the board before and wanted to know what has changed. Mr. Jamieson said it was tabled before because there wasn't enough information and the applicant went back and got the civil engineer into it. It was their understanding that the site was 100 feet wide and found out it was only 82 feet wide, which is why it has taken so long to come back. They have decided to do a 6,000 square foot addition instead of a 10,000 square foot addition. Community Design Review Board Minutes of 07-28-98 -5- Boardmember Erickson asked if the pylon signs were going to be relocated. Mr. Jamieson said that the existing pylon sign is behind the center and they would like to put it up into the area of the new construction on a new pylon base. When they tear down the Egghead building they will be tearing down two pylon signs. On one of the existing pylon signs is a Big and Tall sign and there is no problem with them taking it down. It is up to Big and Tall if they want it relocated back. Mr. Jamieson talked to city staff about Big and Tall using their existing pylon post when they relocate their sign up to the new area and staff said that would not be acceptable. Boardmember Robinson asked staff where the new proposed sign would sit on the site. Staff said it would be at the northeast corner of the property. Boardmember Robinson was concerned that the compactor be moved and stay moved and that the area behind the buildings along the freeway be cleaned up. Mr. Jamieson said he agreed that it needed to be cleaned up and that it will be cleaned up. Boardmember Ledvina said there were some concerns about the wide expanse of the wall to the east of the entrance. The plan shows a number of different colors and there is another band of tiles indicated. Mr. Jamieson said there were three colors of bands, a beige, a tan, and a light brown border between the colors. Because the way the tile is on this store and trying to bring it into the new prototype look, they are going to be painting the existing block to give the stripes in there and the chocolate brown is just to break up the two different other colors. The light shrouds that cover the wall lighting will be metal and painted with an open top and bottom. Boardmember Robinson said that when she looked at the brown accent banding her concern was that what is there now appears to be more gray than brown and her thought was that they were bringing in another color on the existing building. Mr. Jamieson said the shops next to them have been painted a mauve. There are two colors on the building on the back and the new colors would be close. Mr. Jamieson said they will be painting the entire building, meaning the Best Buy store. Staff considered any slight color changes and, being that Frank's Nursery is also different from the rest of the center, staff felt that it was okay for Best Buy to have different colors. Boardmember Shankar asked what the black stuff was underneath the blue on the building. Mr. Jamieson said the black was rockface block painted a flat black below the blue EIFS. Boardmember Robinson asked if the applicant had any buildings with this new look here in Minnesota. Mr. Jamieson said he had given city staff pictures of their Richfield store on 494 and Lyndale, and they are looking at putting a prototypical store with the wedge and everything in Maple Grove. Boardmember Ledvina asked staff if item A.2.c.(6) of the staff report should read as follows: "Repairing broken trash enclosures and providing more screening for all trash dumpsters that are behind the building". Staff agreed. Boardmember Robinson asked if, on the landscaping, the applicant was in agreement with 2- 1/2 inch caliper trees along the east lot line, spaced 30 feet apart. The applicant said they did not have a problem with this. Boardmember Robinson asked if there was a problem with installing and replacing the seven dead boulevard trees. Mr. Jamieson said that this was a landlord issue and, again, they will make sure it gets taken care of. Community Design Review Board Minutes of 07-28-98 Boardmember Shankar moved to: -6- Approve the plans date-stamped July 10, 1998, for the proposed Best Buy addition at the Maplewood Town Center shopping center. Approval is subject to the applicant: 1. Repeating this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. 2. Providing the following for staff approval before getting a building permit: a. A landscape plan for the east lot line of the old Egghead Software site showing which shrubs would be removed and which ones would be saved. This plan should also show ten, 2 ~ inch caliper trees along the east lot line spaced 30 feet apart. b. A design plan for the retaining wall proposed along the east lot line. c. Provide cash escrow in the amount of 200% of the cost of: (1) Installing all landscaping and replacing the seven dead boulevard trees with 2 ~ inch caliper, balled and burlapped ash trees. (2) Relocating the trash compactor to the west side of the building and outside of the drive aisle. (3) Repairing or removing the roof-top mechanical equipment screens. If the screens are removed, the mechanical units must be painted a cream color to match the building. (4) Restriping the parking lot in all areas where parking space stripes and fire lane cross hatching is worn. (5) Reinstalling a stop sign at the westerly exit. (6) Repairing broken trash enclosures and providing more screening for all trash dumpsters that are behind the building. (7) Picking up and disposing of all litter on the site. Escrow will not be required for any of these items that are resolved before the building permit is issued. d. Revise the grading plan to omit the gravel from the easterly driveway. The city engineer shall approve this change. e. Record a deed combining the Egghead Software site with the Town Center property to form one legally-described lot. Community Design Review Board Minutes of 07-28-98 -7- 3. The applicant shall complete the following before occupying the building: a. Paint any new roof-top mechanical equipment on the addition to match the building. b. Provide all required landscaping. Install continuous concrete curbing along the edges of all new parking lots and drives. d. Remove the two pylon signs from the old Egghead Software property. 4. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. B. Approval of the proposed sign changes for the Maplewood Town Center Shopping Center as shown on the plans date-stamped July 10, 1998, subject to the following conditions: 1. The Best Buy pylon sign may be moved to the northeast corner of the site with the new sign face as shown on the plans. This sign shall meet setback requirements. 2. The two pylon signs on the Egghead Software site shall be removed. Relocation to the Town Center site is prohibited. 3. The Best Buy wall sign on the rear of the building addition is approved. 4. Staff may approve minor modifications to the sign plans. Boardmember Ledvina seconded. Ayes--all The motion passed. VI. DESIGN REVIEW A. Maplewood Eye Care, West of 1975 11th Avenue - Mulcahy, Inc. Hank Breems, of Mulcahy, Inc., was present. Mr. Breems said that they agreed with the staff report. Mr. Breems said that, in reference to item B.2.b.(3), they have redesigned this. The applicant has moved the trash enclosure to the northwest corner of the parking lot in the back of the building so it is out of the right-of-way. They show a turnaround right up to the easement on the back side. Boardmember Erickson asked if there was going to be any screening for the glare from the two parking lots on either side of their building which has windows on both the east side and west side. Mr. Breems said there is some natural screening to the west but they would like to take that out and put some other landscaping along there if they can. Boardmember Erickson asked staff if they had any concerns about the parking lot on either side as far as lighting. Staff said that if it was a residential situation they would but in this case they do not. Mr. Breems said there was a recommendation that they plant some trees along the easterly lot line and they concur with that. Community Design Review Board -8- Minutes of 07-28-98 Boardmember Ledvina asked what the color of the brick was. Mr. Breems said they were in the process of picking out the color. They do not have the full package put together yet but the building is going to be comparable to what they have on Heather Ridge. The color may not be the same but the construction is quite comparable and the brick on the building will be of that scale, not necessarily that color. Boardmember Ledvina asked if the brick went all the way to the eave in the front. Mr. Breems said they want the block that is exposed around the back of the building to be a colored rockface block and they may want to work that into the design of the brick on the front. Boardmember Ledvina asked what the construction of the retaining walls was going to be. Mr. Breems said it would be landscape block. Boardmember Ledvina thought this should be clarified because it is visible on both sides. Boardmember Robinson asked if item B.2.b.(3) of the staff report should be deleted and if item B.3.c. should be changed to add the following: "Construct a trash dumpster enclosure on the northwest corner of the property that is compatible with or matches the building design and colors. The trash enclosure shall have a closeable gate that extends to the ground". Boardmember Robinson moved to approve the site plan date-stamped July 14, 1998 and the building elevations and landscape plans date-stamped June 25, 1998 for an eye-care clinic building west of 1975 11th Avenue based on the following: 1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. 2. Provide the following before the city issues a building permit: a. A grading, drainage, utility and erosion control plan to the city engineer for approval. b. A revised site and landscape plan showing: (1) The preservation of the existing tree cover in front of the adjacent parking lot. The city staff may require replacement of trees if any need to be removed. (2) At least four trees along the east lot line. c. Proof of the recording of reciprocal cross easements between the proposed site and the property to the west for ingress and egress. 3. Complete the following before occupying the building: a. Install a reflectorized stop sign at the exit onto 11th Avenue and handicap-parking signs for each handicap-parking space. b. Provide continuous concrete curbing around the parking lot and drives. c. Construct a trash dumpster enclosure in the northwest corner of the parking lot, not in the northeast corner as proposed, due to its encroachment in the drainage easement. The enclosure shall be compatible with or match the building's design and colors. The trash enclosure shall have a closeable gate that extends to the ground. d. Install an in-ground sprinkler system for all landscaped areas. Community Design Review Board Minutes of 07-28-98 -9- e. Sod all green areas including the boulevard. Restoration of the drainage easement in back shall be subject to the city engineer's and watershed district's approval. 4. If any required work is not done, the city may allow temporary occupancy if: a. The city determines that the work is not essential to the public health, safety or welfare. The city receives cash escrow for the required work. The amount shall be 200 percent of the cost of the unfinished work. Any unfinished landscaping shall be completed by June 1 if the building is occupied in the fall or winter, or within six weeks of occupancy if the building is occupied in the spring or summer. c. The city receives an agreement that will allow the city to complete any unfinished work. 5. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. Boardmember Johnson seconded. Boardmember Ledvina asked that item B.3.c. read the northwest corner of the parking lot instead of the northwest corner of the property. Boardmember Robinson said she would correct that. Ayes--all The motion passed. B. Gervais Court Apartments, Gervais Court - Tri Hess Development Company Mr. Dick Krumm, of RVK Architects, the architect for this project, and Mr. David Hesley, representing Tri-Hess Development Company, the applicant, were present. Mr. Krumm said he had brought drawings with him showing the color schemes. Mr. Krumm said that there will be no trash enclosure, that all trash will be enclosed within the underground parking garage, as well as building storage and maintenance. Mr. Krumm said they had no issue with any of the points that were raised in the staff report. Mr. Krumm said that, relative to the landscape plan, they don't have solutions for all of them yet, but they would work with staff as far as readjusting where they put some of the trees and the introduction of a berm along the south property line on Gervais Court side. Mr. Krumm had a question with respect to existing material and trying to save as much of that as possible on the southeast portion of the property. Mr. Krumm said the property was overgrown with volunteer growth and they would rather replant with new material and have a lawn area that could be manicured and maintained. Boardmember Erickson asked staff if they had seen the proposal to remove everything and then replant. Mr. Krumm said it would be consistent with the landscape plan they presented originally. Staff said they hadn't seen the proposal. Mr. Krumm said that one of the concerns was that they move the larger trees off the easement and keep them to the side of the property as much as possible so they wouldn't be interfering with underground utilities that are in that easement. Mr. Krumm said they had a heavy planting on that side because they wanted a screen from the parking lot. Community Design Review Board Minutes of 07-28-98 -10- Boardmember Erickson asked the applicant what they were proposing for the landscaping on the parking lot side. Mr. Krumm said it would be a combination of evergreens, with Austrian pine and black hill spruce. Boardmember Erickson said that when he looked west and north from the church parking lot there was a piece that comes off the parking lot in a wedge. Boardmember Erickson said he had a concern that, if the applicant does all the nice landscaping, the wedge is going to look pretty bad because it looks bad now. Mr. Krumm said he didn't have anything to define the church's edge and how far over some of that might have come. Boardmember Robinson asked how far the applicant's property ran. Mr. Krumm said it ran all the way to the street, that it was the entire triangle. Staff said this was the church's property and the city can't make them cut the trees. Mr. Krumm said the colors they are proposing for the building would be all identical to Carefree I, II, and Ill as they exist in terms of the colors. The only thing they would depart from would be the color of the brick itself. They are proposing jumbo brick in brown tones and burgundy accent banding. The trim on the windows would be white except for the entry and solarium which would be largely wood and glass. Boardmember Robinson asked if they had considered making another band on the top of the building because of the height and length. Mr. Krumm said he was trying to come up with a good blend of vertical and horizontal to work against the length of the building and he felt that adding another horizontal band would just add more length to the building. Mr. Krumm said that, regarding parking spaces, they have a reserve parking area of 32 hard surface spots and if the need were there, they could utilize this area to get adequate numbers. Boardmember Robinson asked what they were currently proposing for this area. Mr. Krumm said it was just open. Boardmember Ledvina said staff had a question about the turning radius of the drive and he wondered if there was going to be a problem with the Fire Marshal in that regard. Mr. Krumm said he didn't anticipate a problem because it is the same outside radius that exists at Carefree III now. Boardmember Ledvina was concerned that, if the applicant starts changing the drive, it might change the overall configuration of the site and asked if there was enough room to make adjustments as they needed. Mr. Krumm said if they had to make an adjustment it would have to come from the setback on the side but they would want to maintain as much as they could along Gervais. Boardmember Erickson asked staff if the Fire Marshal had looked at this and was okay with the radius. Staff said that the Fire Marshal did look at it and did not comment on the turnaround but commented on the sprinkler alarms and detectors. The Fire Marshal didn't indicate that he had a problem with the radius. Boardmember Ledvina asked what the applicant's opinion was regarding the original request as it relates to the zoning versus the city's thought that this should be a PUD. Mr. Krumm said the owner hasn't had conversations with the staff relative to that point yet. Boardmember Ledvina asked staff where that was going as it relates to the rezoning versus the PUD. Staff said they are recommending the PUD and denial of the rezoning. It will be going to the planning commission at the next meeting and will be dealt with there. Staff said the board would be taking action on the site plan, landscape plan, grading and drainage plans and building elevations, and possibly the issue of the parking waiver. Boardmember Robinson asked staff if the city had any problems in the past regarding parking when working with larger units such as this and accepted less parking spaces. Staff said that so far it has not been a problem. Community Design Review Board -11- Minutes of 07-28-98 Boardmember Ledvina moved to approve the following: D. 92 parking spaces (60 garage spaces and 32 open spaces), rather than the 120 spaces required by code for the Gervais Court senior housing project, because: 1. The parking space requirement is not proper for senior housing, because there are fewer cars per unit in these projects. 2. The city has approved fewer parking spaces for other senior housing, including the Village on Woodlynn, the Carefree Cottages and Cardinal Pointe. E. The plans date-stamped June 25, 1998 (site plan, landscape plan, grading and drainage plans and building elevations) for the Gervais Court senior housing development. The city bases this approval on the findings required by the code. The developer or contractor shall do the following: 1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. 2. Complete the following before the city issues a building permit: a.* Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall include: grading, utility, drainage, erosion control, tree, sidewalk and driveway and parking lot plans. The plans shall meet the following conditions: (1) The erosion control plan shall be consistent with city code. (2) The grading plan shall: (a) Include building, floor elevation and contour information. (b) Include contour information for the land that the construction will disturb. (c) Show sedimentation basins or ponds as required by the watershed board or by the city engineer. (3) The entryway and driveway in front of the building shall meet the minimum standards for turning and access for firefighting equipment. (4) All the parking areas and driveways shall have continuous concrete curb and gutter except where the city engineer decides that it is not needed for drainage purposes. b. Submit a lawn-irrigation plan to staff showing the location of sprinkler heads. c. Submit a certificate of survey for all new construction. do Revise the landscape plan for city staff approval showing: (1) That all proposed trees would be consistent with city standards for size, location and species. Community Design Review Board Minutes of 07-28-98 -12- (2) The 24 proposed large trees in the utility easement moved to within five feet of the east property line. (3) A berm and additional trees along the south side of the site near Gervais Court, subject to city staff approval. This is to provide additional screening and buffering from the businesses to the south of the site. (4) As much of the existing vegetation along the eastern property line preserved as possible. e. The fire chief shall approve the access to the building for firefighting needs. f. Submit elevations to the city for staff approval showing colors and materials for all sides of the building. Complete the following before occupying the building: a. Replace property irons that are removed because of this construction. b. Restore and sod damaged boulevards. c. Install reflectorized stop signs at the exit, a handicap-parking sign for each handicap-parking space and an address on the building. In addition, the applicant shall install stop signs and traffic directional signs within the site, as required by staff. d. Paint any roof-top mechanical equipment to match the uppermost part of the building. Screen all roof-mounted equipment visible from streets or adjacent property. (code requirement) e. Construct trash dumpster and recycling enclosures as city code requires for any dumpsters or storage containers that the owner or building manager would keep outside the building. Any such enclosures must match the materials and colors of the building. f. Install and maintain an in-ground sprinkler system for all landscaped areas. g. Install continuous concrete curb and gutter along all interior driveways and around all open parking stalls. h. Install a storm shelter in a central location in the apartment building. This shelter shall be subject to the approval of the Maplewood director of emergency preparedness. It shall have a minimum of three square feet per person for 80% of the planned population. Install on-site lighting for security and visibility, subject to city staff approval. The developer or contractor shall: (1) Complete all grading for the site drainage, complete all public improvements and meet all city requirements. Community Design Review Board Minutes of 07-28-98 -13- (2)* Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits. (3) Remove any debris or junk from the site. 4. If any required work is not done, the city may allow temporary occupancy if: a. The city determines that the work is not essential to the public health, safety or welfare. The city receives cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit for the required work. The amount shall be 200 percent of the cost of the unfinished work. Any unfinished landscaping shall be completed by June 1 if the building is occupied in the fall or winter, or within six weeks of occupancy if the building is occupied in the spring or summer. c. The city receives an agreement that will allow the city to complete any unfinished work. This approval does not include the signs. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. Boardmember Robinson seconded. The motion passed. VII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS There were no visitor presentations. VIII. BOARD PRESENTATIONS There were no board presentations. Xl, STAFF PRESENTATIONS A. Ayes--all Representative for August 10 City Council Meeting: Mr. Shankar said he would be able to attend but would have to leave the meeting at 8:30 p.m. B. Representative for August 24 City Council Meeting: Mr. Johnson will attend this meeting. C. City Tour, August 17, 1998: All the boardmembers will be attending. ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 7:50.