Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/14/2005 AGENDA CITY OF MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD Tuesday, June 14, 2005 6:00 P.M. Council Chambers. Maplewood City Hall 1830 County Road BEast 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Agenda 4. Approval of Minutes: May 24, 2005 Minutes 5. Unfinished Business: None Scheduled 6. Design Review: a. Maplewood Marketplace - Northwest Corner of County Road D and Highway 61 b. Pondview Townhomes - Northwest Corner of Larpenteur Ave. and Adolphus Sl. 7. Visitor Presentations: 8. Board Presentations: a. June 13, 2005, City Council Meeting 9. Staff Presentations: a. Annual Tour Update b. Reschedule September 13 and November 8, 2005, CDRB meetings due to elections. Proposed dates - September 14 and November 9,2005. c. CDRB Representation at June 27, 2005, City Council Meeting 10. Adjourn MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD 1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, JUNE 14, 2005 I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Longrie called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Board member John Hinzman Board member Matt Ledvina Chairperson Diana Longrie Vice chairperson Linda Olson Board member Ananth Shankar Present Present Present Present Absent Staff Present: Shann Finwall, Planner Lisa Kroll, Recording Secretary III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Board member Hinzman moved to approve the agenda. Board member Olson seconded. Ayes - Hinzman, Ledvina, Longrie, Olson, The motion passed. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of the CDRB minutes for May 24, 2005. Board member Olson moved approval of the minutes of May 24, 2005. Board member Ledvina seconded. Ayes --- Ledvina, Longrie, Olson Abstention - Hinzman The motion passed. V. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. VI. DESIGN REVIEW a. Maplewood Marketplace - Northwest Corner of County Road D and Highway 61 (6:05 -7:18 p.m.) Ms. Finwall said Oppidan, Inc., is proposing to develop a 2-acre vacant parcel located within the new Trout Land plat on the northwest corner of County Road D and Highway 61, across the street from the new Venburg Tire Building. Community Design Review Board Minutes 6-14-2005 2 Ms. Finwall said the development will include a 12,600 square foot multi-tenant retail building. Five thousand square feet of the building will be leased to a bank with a drive-through banking service. Oppidan, Inc., is requesting that the community design review board (CDRB) approve the design elements for the new retail/bank building as well as a comprehensive sign plan as required by city code for a multi-tenant building with five or more tenants. Board member Olson asked why staff recommended not approving the electronic reader board sign. Ms. Finwall said the city sign code prohibits flashing and blinking signs except for time and temperature type signs. The issue staff has is the reader board sign may be approved for time and temperature now and then one year from now the bank is advertising interest rates and special announcements on the electronic reader board sign. Staff feels this type of sign is detracting to the traffic along Highway 61 and finds that type of sign incompatible to this type of building. Board member Olson said the Premier Bank on White Bear Avenue and Lydia Avenue has this type of electronic reader board sign and she asked why that bank is allowed that type of sign but this proposal would not be allowed that type of sign? Ms. Finwall said Premier Bank has a smaller electronic sign. Board member Olson said Premier Bank conveys scrolled messages on their electronic sign. Ms. Finwall thought Premier Bank was scrolling the time and temperature only. Board member Olson said she has seen messages run along the LED electronic sign and wondered what the difference would be between Premier Bank and this proposal. Ms. Finwall said Premier Bank's electronic board reader sign was permitted as time and temperature only to serve as a public service sign and over time is now displaying interest rates and other items on the sign. Board member Olson asked if Premier Bank's reader board sign was grandfathered in then? Ms. Finwall said she did not know the specifics of the particular sign at Premier Bank. It is staff's concern that the electronic reader board sign is approved for Maplewood Marketplace, with time and temperature as a public service if over time the messages could become advertisements. Board member Olson said she is afraid of an unfair playing field allowing a message board in one part of the city but not in another. Ms. Finwall said this is a comprehensive sign plan and the CDRB has the authority to make changes to create a more comprehensive plan. Staff feels it's best to remove the LED sign from the plans to be more compatible. The sign for the Premier Bank wasn't approved with a comprehensive sign plan. Community Design Review Board Minutes 6-14-2005 3 Board member Ledvina asked what the rational was for changing the retaining wall from a two tiered retaining wall to a one tiered wall. Ms. Finwall said she would prefer that the applicant speak regarding the retaining wall issue. Board member Ledvina said the applicant has indicated they prefer to use 9-feet wide and 20- feet long parking spaces in their parking lot. Staff recommends 9Y:z feet wide and 18-feet long. Would the applicant have to apply for a variance if they chose not to change their parking lot plan to accommodate staff's recommendation? Ms. Finwall said she hasn't heard if the applicant proposes a parking lot variance, or if they are choosing to revise their parking lot site plan. Board member Ledvina asked if he understood correctly that this proposal would not need to be heard by the city council and the recommendations made by the CDRB would be worked out with the applicant and staff? He asked if the CDRB were to recommend a variance would the whole proposal have to be heard by the city councilor just the variance for the parking lot? Ms. Finwall said this proposal would only have to go before the city council if the applicant requested a variance. Board member Ledvina said the surface water drainage is draining to a storm sewer main and he asked if that was draining into a community ponding area. He was surprised the city did not have a ponding requirement for this site. Ms. Finwall said the drainage for the entire plat was taken into consideration at the time of designing the new County Road D and platting of Trout Land. There is a drainage pond to the north of this site which is on the overall plat for the Trout Land property. Board member Ledvina said at the last CDRB meeting the board discussed the Lexus dealership proposal to the north. He said it would have been nice to see this proposal at the same time to ensure landscaping and other issues were compatible. Chairperson Longrie asked the applicant to address the board. Mr. Paul Tucci, Oppidan Inc., 5125 County Road 101, Suite 101, Minnetonka, addressed the board. He said they could alter the parking spaces from 9 feet to 9Y:z feet wide but the spaces would start to look jammed so they would prefer to keep the green space and would like to request a parking lot variance. Typically their shopping centers have had 9 feet wide by 20-feet long parking spaces, which seem to be working fine. Regarding the retaining wall changing from a two tiered wall to a single tiered retaining wall the reason for the change is because there is a storm sewer line in that area and the city engineer did not want to have the sewer line underneath the retaining wall in case there was ever a need to repair the line. There is ponding set up on site as well as off site as part of the whole redevelopment of this area around the new County Road D. They would like to plant trees in front of the retaining wall along Highway 61, which would help break up the expanse of the wall. The lighting plan incorrectly shows the height of the light poles however, they do meet the lighting height requirements of 25 feet. Community Design Review Board Minutes 6-14-2005 4 Mr. Tucci said the architect would note the corrections on the revised lighting plan. They plan on using the same building materials to construct the dumpster enclosure and will provide a new site plan showing the exact location and the capacity of the dumpster. If they had a restaurant as a tenant in this strip mall they could run into dumpster problems as well as parking problems. However, at this time there is no restaurant or coffee shop proposed as tenants in this strip mall. They have no problem with staff's recommendation for the sign plan. They could include in the lease that the electronic reader board for the bank could only display the time and temperature. However, he has experienced the same thing staff mentioned regarding the electronic reader board starts off showing the time and temperature and then increases the messages which then becomes an issue of enforcement. He recommended the board make a decision on how to handle the sign situation. Mr. Tucci reviewed the building materials with the board and showed the building material sample board with the canvas awning color, brick color, and EIFS colors, etc. Board member Ledvina said in his experience the electrical transformers are located farther away from the buildings but in this case the transformer is shown on the northwest corner of the building. He asked if the electrical transformer could be relocated farther away from the building? Mr. Tucci said they provide the pad for the transformer for Xcel Energy and Xcel Energy prefers the transformer to be located close to the buildings for maintenance and access reasons. Board member Ledvina said he has seen these transformers closer to the right of way. Mr. Tucci said if you put them farther away from the building and plant landscaping around them, Xcel Energy runs into problems if they need to work on the transformer. Board member Ledvina asked how tall the electrical transformer would be? Mr. Tucci guessed around three to four feet in height. Board member Ledvina asked if that was a standard requirement to have the drive aisles 24- feet wide? Ms. Finwall said the 24-foot wide drive aisle is the standard width for two-way traffic for drive aisles. Board member Ledvina asked with the elimination of the reader board from the freestanding sign was the applicant thinking of replacing that space with signage or something else? Ms. Finwall said she wasn't sure what the applicant would propose with the removal of the reader board. Also, Ms. Finwall recommends a design element on the top of the freestanding sign. Mr. Tucci said they would replace the reader board with additional signage. Also the sign is designed to pick up the middle cornice colors and design which run along the top of the building. Community Design Review Board Minutes 6-14-2005 5 Board member Ledvina wanted to clarify that the freestanding sign would only be 18 feet in height, not 20 feet as shown on the elevation submitted. Mr. Tucci said that was correct. Board member Olson said the building footprint shows the potential for five tenants along with the signage for the bank, she asked if the developer assumed one tenant would want double the tenant space? Mr. Tucci said as leasing goes nothing is done until the documents are signed. There could be two, three, four, or five tenants in this mall. Depending on what tenant goes into these spaces will depend on how many signs will be on the building. However, the bank will be the largest tenant and would have the largest tenant sign. Board member Hinzman said he understands the need to run the sewer line where it is proposed and the need to change the retaining wall from two tiered to one tiered. He asked if it would make sense to run the sewer line inside the parking lot and run it directly towards the corner of the end of the lot. For maintenance purposes you limit the amount of pipe that is going to be underneath the wall for long term maintenance. The preference is to have a two tiered wall for aesthetic reasons then you don't have the large expanse of the wall and with two tiers you can have plantings in between the tiers. Mr. Tucci said because of the grade changes he believes moving the sewer line would not be possible and would prevent things from flowing properly. Their engineering company is Passe Engineering and has worked very closely with the city. He believes this plan was designed for long term maintenance. Mr. Hinzman said the entrance to the site is skewed off of the main parking lot and he understands why they don't want to bring the entrance straight to the parking lot drive aisle because of its close proximity to County Road D. But with this plan there will be traffic heading from the west to exit the site that will cross in front of the traffic entrance because of the way the plan is skewed. Mr. Hinzman said he would recommend moving the entrance further to the north. Mr. Tucci said they initially had the building pushed back further but they wanted additional spacing for the parking. It isn't the ideal situation but they feel over time people will figure out the best way to create flow through the parking lot. They have to keep the curb cut far enough away from County Road D so there is not a stacking issue with the cars. Chairperson Longrie said this was also a concern of hers. She understands the applicant proposes 64 parking spaces and 63 parking spaces are required so there aren't many spaces to alter. She is concerned about the two parking spaces located at the entrance to this building. She feels this is an awkward spot for cars to park and back out. It could cause accidents to happen with the driving pattern in the parking lot. She asked if there was a possibility of those two parking spaces being relocated. Mr. Tucci said those two parking spaces could be eliminated and relocated to the rear of the building. They could also slightly change the curb cut there for a smoother driving transition. Community Design Review Board Minutes 6-14-2005 6 Mr. Tucci said to ease the stacking problem the bank is routing their customers to drive around the back of the building and exit back out onto County Road D rather than crossing back into the line of traffic in the parking lot, which would cause cars to stack up. Board members agreed that would be a good idea. Chairperson Longrie asked Mr. Tucci if he had an idea what type of tenants or uses would occupy this space? Mr. Tucci said it will be retail tenant space. Board member Hinzman asked if restaurants were permitted within this zoning district? Ms. Finwall said yes. Mr. Tucci said they would love to have a restaurant like Chipotle in this location but he didn't believe this is the type of site Chipotle would look for. The kind of restaurant they could see here would be a sandwich shop. Board member Hinzman said parking for a high turn over restaurant operation can be more of a problem than just parking for retail stores. Mr. Tucci asked staff if they could meet their parking requirements by having some proof of parking on this site? Ms. Finwall said the city council would have to approve of a parking reduction authorization in that case. In addition restaurant parking requirements are calculated differently so city staff should be aware of any proposed restaurants in this mall. Mr. Tucci said none of the potential tenants they are talking to are restaurants or coffee shops at this time. Chairperson Longrie thanked Mr. Tucci for bringing building samples to show the board so they have a better idea of what this building would look like. After seeing the Lexus proposal a few weeks ago she believes these building materials and colors will compliment the Lexus building as well which is very good. Regarding the fabric awnings, she asked what the longevity of the fabric would be. Mr. Tucci said Sunbrella is the maker of the awning they propose to use. Their canvas awnings tend to last about 10 years and don't fade as fast as the lighter colors. They have used these canvas awnings in all of their centers and they look nice. They prefer to use the darker colored awnings and canopies on their buildings. This model is easy to change out and replace in the long term. Board member Ledvina asked what product they would propose to use for the retaining wall and what color they would use. Mr. Tucci said they propose to use a keystone block for the retaining wall and will try to match a shade of either the lighter or the darker building color. Community Design Review Board Minutes 6-14-2005 7 Board member Olson asked how they proposed to screen the mechanics and rooftop units from the residential area. Mr. Tucci said they will use parapet walls and paint them to screen the units. The board members agreed this is an attractive proposal and congratulated staff on a nice job with the recommendations in the staff report. The board supported the 9-foot wide parking space compared to the city requirement of a 9Y:z-foot wide parking space and recommended the applicant apply for a variance. Board member Ledvina moved to approve the plans date-stamped May 3, 2005, and May 27, 2005, and June 14. 2005; sign criteria date-stamped May 3, 2005; and sign elevation date- stamped May 18, 2005; and colored elevations date-stamped May 27, 2005, and June 14, 2005. for the Maplewood Marketplace development to be located on the northwest corner of County Road D and Highway 61. Approval is subject to the applicant doing the following: (Changes made by the CDRB to the conditions are underlined if added and stricken if deleted,) 1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. 2. Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit, the applicant must submit to staff for approval the following items: a. Revised grading/drainage/utility plans which comply with all city engineering department requirements as specified in Erin Laberee's June 9, 2005, engineering report. b. Revised site plan showinq the two parkinq stalls on the southwest corner of the site relocated to ensure adequate and safe traffic movement in the parkinq lot. 9.5 foot '""ido by 1 g foot (or dooper) parking spaoos (v.'ith the allowod parking spaoo 'llidth and longth oxomptions as speoifiod in city codo), or apply for a parking spaoo width varianoo. c. Revised lighting and photometrics plan which shows the overall height of the freestanding lights not to exceed 25 feet, including base, and the style of light fixture proposed, to ensure compatibility with the building and compliance with city lighting requirements. d. Dumpster enclosure plans to ensure the enclosure it is at least 6 feet in height, constructed of building materials which are compatible to the building, and has a 100 percent opaque gate. In addition, the applicant must approve that the enclosure will hold all dumpsters, including garbage and recycling, for the entire development. Community Design Review Board Minutes 6-14-2005 8 e. Revised elevations including: 1 )the additional desiqn elements on the north elevation as shown on the elevations date-stamped June 14. 2005: 2)the retaininq wall block to match the buildinq masonry block material no. 2 or no. 4 as specified on the buildinq elevations. to the extent possible. 3)CDRB approval also allows the applicant to locate additional supplemental windows on the north side of the buildinq subiect to staff approval. olovation(: showing aaditional Elosign olomonts on the north (back) olovation. Suggestod design olcmonts includo additional masonry columns, addition of falso 'Nindows, or moro attractive rom door ontrics. f. Revised landscape plan showing the following: 1) Freestanding sign landscaping including shrubs and perennials to be located around the base of the sign. 2) Locate planting materials below the retaining wall located on the east side of the site to soften the vertical effect of the revised 9-foot-high retaining wall. Or as an alternative, maintain a two-tiered retaining wall system with landscaping as proposed in the date-stamped May 3, 2005, landscape plan. 3) An underground irrigation plan to ensure all landscaping on the site is watered as required by city code. g. Revised sign criteria plan showing the following changes: 1) Each retail tenant is allowed two signs (one to be installed on the front of the tenant space and one to be installed on the monument sign). The proposed 5,000 square foot bank is allowed three signs including two wall signs (one to be installed on the front of the bank and one to be installed on the drive-through canopy), and one on the monument sign. 2) Maximum height of individual letters on wall signs not to exceed 36 inches. 3) No signage allowed on awnings. 4) Applicant must submit revised freestanding sign elevations showing the removal of the proposed electronic reader board and the location of five sign panel spaces. In addition, the elevation must show the maximum height of the sign to be 18 feet and the proposed sign materials which must be compatible to the building. h. Watershed district approval. I. A cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit for all required exterior improvements. The amount shall be 150 percent of the cost of the work. Community Design Review Board Minutes 6-14-2005 9 3. The applicant shall complete the following before occupying the building: a. Replace any property irons removed because of this construction. b. Provide continuous concrete curb and gutter around the parking lot and driveways. c. Install all required landscaping and an in-ground lawn irrigation system for all landscaped areas. d. Screen or paint the rooftop mechanical equipment to match the building color and buildinq materials. e. Install all required outdoor lighting. 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. b. The above-required letter of credit or cash escrow is held by the City of Maplewood for all required exterior improvements. The owner or contractor shall complete any unfinished exterior improvements by June 1 if occupancy of the building is in the fall or winter, or within six weeks of occupancy of the building if occupancy is in the spring or summer. 5. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. Board member Olson added a friendly amendment to incorporate the engineering plan review memo dated June 9, 2005, which includes a six-foot wide sidewalk along County Road D for the 7 foot wide boulevard. Chairperson Longrie added a friendly amendment that the freestanding sign shall be no more than 18-feet in height. Board member Olson seconded. Ayes - Hinzman, Ledvina, Longrie, Olson The motion passed. Chairperson Lonqrie recommended to the city council that based upon the retail use of this buildinq and the anticipated tenants and usaqe the CDRB feels a variance would be recommended to revise the site plan to show the parkinq spaces be 9 feet wide bv 20 feet deep and as the applicant has reauested. Board member Ledvina seconded. Ayes - Hinzman, Ledvina, Longrie, Olson This item goes to the city council on July 11, 2005. Community Design Review Board Minutes 6-14-2005 10 Chairperson Longrie said the CDRB recommends approval based on the findings in Section 2- 290 that the design and location of the proposed development and its relationship to neighboring, existing or proposed developments, and traffic is such that it will not impair the desirability of investment or occupation in the neighborhood; that it will not unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring, existing or proposed developments; and that it will not create traffic hazards or congestion. Chairperson Longrie said the design and location of the proposed development is in keeping with the character of the surrounding neighborhood and is not detrimental to the harmonious, orderly and attractive development contemplated by this article and the city's comprehensive municipal plan. The design and location of the proposed development would provide a desirable environment for its occupants, as well as for its neighbors, and that it is aesthetically of good composition, materials, textures and colors. b. Pondview Townhomes - Northwest Corner of Larpenteur Avenue & Adolphus Street (7:18 - 8:13 p.m.) Ms. Finwall said in 2002, the city acquired five single-family houses located on the northwest corner of Larpenteur Avenue and Adolphus Street with the city's Housing Replacement Program funds. The city originally purchased three of these houses after they were flooded during a rainstorm in April 2001. The two adjacent older houses, which were not flooded, were purchased by the city in order to combine them with the three previously purchased lots to create a larger building site to allow the development of up to eleven town house units on the site. Jack Krongard of Krongard Builders, Inc., has purchased the properties from the city and is now proposing to develop the 1.92-acre site with eleven town house units. The town houses will be constructed within two separate buildings - one with five units and the other with six units. Board member Olson did not agree with staff's recommendation to put landscaping in between the driveways because it has been noted that landscaping in between the driveways is very hard to maintain particularly because of the snow, salt, and sand that ends up on the planting areas which makes it near impossible to keep the plantings alive. Board member Hinzman wanted to ensure that the large oak tree on the site is preserved and protected during the construction on this site. As far as the pine trees along the west end of the site, he asked if these pine trees would be planted on the base of the hill or more toward the upper portion of the hill, closer to the residential homes? The reason he asks is the residential home would benefit more having the trees higher on the hill rather than at the base of the hill. Ms. Finwall said staff does not have a recommendation regarding the pine tree locations but perhaps the board could request that be clarified in the conditions. Chairperson Longrie asked the applicant to address the board. Community Design Review Board Minutes 6-14-2005 11 Mr. Jack Krongard, Krongard Builders, Inc. 14791-60th Street North Stillwater, addressed the board. He put in a request for this project and he was lucky enough to be the only one who responded to the project request. He received the building footprint from the City of Maplewood and built the plan around the building footprint and that is how this design came about. He has put many windows on the rear of the buildings to take advantage of the view. He plans on using some of the extra dirt on the site to build berms which will help protect the units from the busy street frontage and add visual interest to the site as well. Mr. Krongard said he would prefer to enhance the front of the units as staff recommended with brick and vinyl siding and shakes rather than on the rear or on the sides of the units where nobody really sees those areas. Mr. Krongard said he would prefer to not put additional parking stalls between the buildings. He doesn't think that would look very nice and he already meets the parking requirements and believes there is plenty of parking on site. He has no problem with the recommendation to plant pine trees for additional screening to the residential property. Board member Hinzman asked about putting a board band along the side elevation to break up the wall mass. He recommended using the fish scale pattern of the vinyl shakes on the side elevation as shown on the front building elevation to add more visual impact. Mr. Krongard wasn't opposed to doing that. Chairperson Longrie asked Mr. Krongard if he had a building materials board to show the CDRB? Mr. Krongard showed the building materials samples to the board members. He would be using two building colors so each group of buildings would not look identical. Chairperson Longrie said she would really prefer using even more than two colors on this development. Staff recommended adding brick to the front entries and she asked how Mr. Krongard felt about that. Mr. Krongard said he has no problem adding more brick to the front entries but does not feel it's necessary to add a brick wainscot to the side or rear of the buildings since the buildings are mostly visible from Larpenteur Avenue. Chairperson Longrie said she isn't completely sold on not putting brick along the east side like staff recommended. The board has recommended adding additional brick elements to other developments and it does add interest to the buildings. Mr. Krongard said that was fine. He hasn't decided if the wainscot will be ledgestone or brick, but whichever product he decides it would be in complementary colors. If it's okay with the board he would prefer to use a stone material rather than brick. Board members agreed that the look of the stone with the surroundings on this site. Community Design Review Board Minutes 6-14-2005 12 Chairperson Longrie said this is a premier housing site located right off the freeway when people are coming into Maplewood and it's one of the city's gateways. People visiting Champp's Restaurant will see these homes and it's important for this site to look its best. Chairperson Longrie asked how much visitor parking would be required. Ms. Finwall said there is no additional parking required for this site because the parking requirements have already been met by the two car garages. Board member Ledvina asked if the applicant considered raising the floor elevation of the westerly building to give the buildings a step up appearance to add more interest to the site? Mr. Krongard said he asked the engineers if he could raise the buildings four inches but because of the slopes of the driveways and the drainage in the area they said it's better to leave it this way and add berming and landscaping. Board member Olson asked if these buildings would be slab on grade with no basements? Mr. Krongard said correct. Board member Ledvina asked if Mr. Krongard had built this particular plan anywhere else? Mr. Krongard said he has not built this particular plan. They designed this plan about five years ago. He builds about 85 townhouses a year but mostly concentrates on back to back units. Board member Ledvina said he is concerned about the shared front entry with the doors right next door to each other and the exposed roofline. Mr. Krongard said there are other builders that have built plans similar to this with the front doors right next door to each other and the plan seems to work. Board member Ledvina said in his opinion this plan looks like a long tunnel going to the front door area. Mr. Krongard said the entrances to these units are tunnellike but with a site like this you don't have many designs you can build. Board member Olson asked if there was a roof overhang to protect people from the weather elements at the entrance of these units? Mr. Krongard said there is no roof overhang to the front entryways of these town home units. Chairperson Longrie asked if these units would be run by a townhome association? Community Design Review Board Minutes 6-14-2005 13 Mr. Krongard said yes there would be an association which would take care of things like snow removal and lawn care for the units. Chairperson Longrie said she likes the idea of adding berming to add interest to the site, the money that is being saved by not putting additional parking could go into landscaping. Mr. Krongard said that would be fine with him. He said he not only has to build these units but he has to sell these units as well and he wants to make the site look as appealing as possible for potential buyers. Board member Olson said she has mixed feelings regarding the parking spaces on the west end. She is fine eliminating one or two spaces but would like to keep at least three spaces because there needs to be some guest parking and there should be a turn around there for cars. She wondered if a fire truck could maneuver around on the site? Ms. Finwall said the fire marshal indicated no concerns with the existing plan provided. Chairperson Longrie said she believed the fire marshal had no concerns but that was with the western parking area in place. Ms. Finwall said correct. Board member Ledvina said he likes the elevations but he still has concerns about the entryways to the units and he understands the limitations of the site plan. He would like to see the landscaping done around the drive aisles as recommended by staff. He has seen it work and he believes the developer should do what he can to make it work. Chairperson Longrie said the association would be responsible for making the landscaping work and keeping it looking nice. Mr. Krongard said they have tried to put the landscaping in many times before and it doesn't work. After he's done with the building site and winter has come and gone, the landscaping dies from the snow plow and chemicals and never gets replaced and the association puts sod there because it's easier to maintain. Landscaping looks nice but it's not practical in that location. He doesn't have a problem with the additional cost to install the wainscoting or to add the berms. Board member Olson wanted assurance the builder would make sure construction would not kill the large oak tree. She especially wanted to make sure no trucks would drive over the root system of the tree. It's such a large tree with a large presence and she would hate to lose the tree because of the construction on the site. Mr. Krongard said he would make sure the tree was taken care of. Community Design Review Board Minutes 6-14-2005 14 Board member Hinzman moved to approve the plans date-stamped April 18 and May 9, 2005, for the Pondview Townhomes to be located on the northwest corner of Larpenteur Avenue and Adolphus Street. Approval is subject to the applicant doing the following: (Changes made by the CDRB to the conditions are underlined if added and stricken if deleted.) 1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. 2. Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit, the applicant must submit to staff for approval the following items: a. Revised grading/drainage/utility plans which comply with all city engineering department requirements as specified in Erin Laberee's June 7, 2005, engineering plan review, including, but not limited to, the developer entering into a developer's agreement with the city to ensure the sidewalk, easements, right-of-way and other items are provided for. b. Revised site plan showing the following: 1) Relocation of the guest parking areas to ensure a 15-foot setback to the right-of-way. One wav of accomplishinq this is bv reconfiqurinq the westerlv 90 deqree 5 parkinq stalls as 3 parallel parkinq stalls. 2) The location of a 20-foot-wide wetland buffer easement (20 feet from the ordinary high water mark of the wetland). c. Revised landscape plan showing the following: 1) A row of black hills spruce or Austrian pine trees (at least 8 feet in height) to be installed along the western property line, running from the front of the town house to the back of the town house. 2) Landscaped planting beds to include low maintenance shrubs and perennials to be located in the following areas: a) In between the driveways, half way down the drive; ndiacent to tho buildinqs; in front of tho doors; b) Along the end unit sidewalks; c) Along the back of the buildings, on the sides of the patios. d) Landscaping to be located on the berms along Adolphus Street and Larpenteur Avenue. Landscaping to include low maintenance perennial shrubs, flowers, evergreen and deciduous trees. Community Design Review Board Minutes 6-14-2005 15 3) An underground irrigation plan to ensure all landscaping on the site is watered as required by city code. d. Submit a lighting plan that shows the location and style of all proposed exterior lights. e. Revised elevations as follows: 1) Extend the brick or ledqestone wainscot along the entire east side of the easterly building. This extension of brick or ledqestone wainscot should include along the east side of the attached garage and the east side of the town house. 2) Adding a more prominent front entry for each unit by adding brick or ledqestone to the front wall of the entries. 3) Addition of decorative vinvl shakes within the qables of the east elevation on the east buildinq. 4) Addition of a contrastinq color bellv board alonq the middle of the east elevation on the east buildinq. 5) The staff shall approve the final buildinq products. f. A cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit for all required exterior improvements. The amount shall be 150 percent of the cost of the work. 3. The applicant shall complete the following before occupying the buildings: a. Replace any property irons removed because of this construction. b. Provide continuous concrete curb and gutter around the parking lot and driveways. c. Install all required landscaping and an in-ground lawn irrigation system for all landscaped areas. d. Install all required outdoor lighting. e. Install the required six-foot-wide sidewalk along Larpenteur Avenue. f. Install wetland buffer signs that prohibit any building, mowing, cutting, filling, or dumping with the wetland buffer. g. Remove all unneeded silt fence 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. Community Design Review Board Minutes 6-14-2005 16 b. The above-required letter of credit or cash escrow is held by the City of Maplewood for all required exterior improvements. The owner or contractor shall complete any unfinished exterior improvements by June 1 if occupancy of the building is in the fall or winter, or within six weeks of occupancy of the building if occupancy is in the spring or summer. 5. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. Board member Ledvina seconded. Ayes - Hinzman, Ledvina, Longrie, Olson The motion passed. This item goes to the city council on June 27,2005. VII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS No visitors present. VIII. BOARD PRESENTATIONS a. Board member Olson represented the CDRB at the June 13, 2005, city council meeting. The only CDRB item was the Lexus Auto Service Center at the Northwest corner of County Road D and Highway 61 which was approved by the city council. The Public Works building addition was approved but for the purpose of saving money the life-time roof was changed to a 10 year roof. IX. STAFF PRESENTATIONS a. Annual Tour Update The annual city tour is scheduled for Thursday, July 28, 2005, 5:30 - 8:30 p.m. at city hall, so mark your calendars. Please RSVP to Community Development at 651-249- 2300 or contact Ken Roberts at 651-249-2303. b. Reschedule the CDRB meetings for Tuesday, September 13, and Tuesday, November 8, 2005, due to elections. Proposed dates are Wednesday, September 14, and Wednesday, November 9,2005. These dates will be discussed at the next board meeting so bring your calendars to finalize the rescheduled dates. c. Diana Longrie will be the CDRB representative at the June 27, 2005, city council meeting. Items to discuss include the Pondview Townhomes - Northwest corner of Larpenteur Avenue and Adolphus Street. X. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:22 p.m.