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.