HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/27/2005
AGENDA
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
Tuesday, September 27, 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:
a. August 23, 2005 Minutes
b. September 14, 2005 Minutes
5. Unfinished Business: None Scheduled
6. Design Review:
a. Maplewood Imports Auto Center Comprehensive Sign Plan - 2450 Maplewood
Drive
b. Legacy Shoppes (Legacy Village) - south side of County Road D, across from
Slumberland and west of Ashley Furniture
c. Kennard Professional Building (Legacy Village) - northeast corner of Kennard
Street and Legacy Parkway
7. Visitor Presentations:
8. Board Presentations:
9. Staff Presentations:
10. Adjourn
MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 27,2005
I. CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Longrie called the meeting to order at 6:01 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 at 6:03 p.m.
Present
Present from 6:00-6:30 p.m. and from 7:30-7:45 p.m.
Present
Present
Staff Present:
Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner
Lisa Kroll, Recording Secretary
III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Chairperson Longrie announced she had to attend another city meeting at 6:30 p.m. and would
be absent as the chairperson for 1 hour. Vice chairperson Linda Olson will act as chairperson
while Chairperson Longrie is absent.
Board member Ledvina moved to approve the agenda.
Board member Shankar seconded.
Ayes - Hinzman, Ledvina, Longrie,
Olson, Shankar
The motion passed.
IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Approval of the CDRB minutes for Auoust 23. 2005.
Board member Shankar moved approval of the minutes of August 23, 2005.
Board member Olson seconded.
Ayes ---Ledvina, Longrie, Shankar, Olson
Abstentions - Hinzman
The motion passed.
Approval of the CDRB minutes for September 14. 2005.
Board member Olson moved approval of the minutes of September 14, 2005.
Board member Hinzman seconded.
Ayes - Hinzman, Longrie, Olson
Abstentions - Ledvina, Shankar
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 9-27-2005
2
The motion passed.
V. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
None.
VI. DESIGN REVIEW
a. Maplewood Imports Auto Center Comprehensive Sign Plan - 2450 Maplewood
Drive
Mr. Ekstrand said LeJeune Investments, Inc. is proposing a comprehensive sign plan
for the Maplewood Imports Auto Center. The plan will cover all freestanding and wall
signs for four automotive dealers and an automotive service center which will be located
at 2450 Maplewood Drive. Mr. Ekstrand recommended the maximum sign height be
changed to 15 feet high from the 14 feet in height that is currently in the sign code. The
applicants sign is 14 feet 9 inches in height and changing the code to reflect 15 feet
would allow the applicant to have this sign.
Mr. Ekstrand also recommended that condition 4. e. be changed due to the fact that it is
unknown at this time what type of landscaping would be appropriate under the various
freestanding signs. The condition reads A landscape plan showing low maintenance
shrubs and perennial plants around the base of each freestanding sign. The applicant
asked if the city could allow them the flexibility to provide appropriate landscaping rather
than specifically stating perennial plants and shrubs. Staff recommends approval of this
proposal for the Maplewood Auto Center at 2450 Maplewood Drive subject to the
conditions stated by city staff and as the conditions listed in the staff report.
Board member Shankar asked if the comprehensive sign plan was only for the two
dealerships along Maplewood Drive or for all of the dealerships?
Mr. Ekstrand said this would be for all the dealerships.
Chairperson Longrie asked the applicant to address the board.
Mr. Wayne Kozinski, Vice President of Operations, representing LeJeune Investments,
9393 Wayzata Boulevard, Golden Valley, addressed the board. He presented
photographs of the signs they have at their Golden Valley location. The new Maplewood
Auto Center signs would look just like the signs he showed except the wording would be
changed to Maplewood Auto Center. His understanding was each dealership would
have to come before the board for approval of the signage for each building for this auto
center. The freestanding signs are to be approved by the CDRB tonight.
Chairperson Longrie suggested in the future it would be helpful for the applicant to color
code or mark on the plan where each sign would be to show what "was" approved so
when the CDRB looks at the plan they can differentiate what was approved and what
the CDRB needs to review or approve.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 9-27-2005
3
Chairperson Longrie asked what the rational was for requesting a change to the
landscaping condition in the staff report to not be required to plant perennial plants and
shrubs?
Mr. Kozinski said many of the manufacturers use a different approach to how their main
sign looks and he is concerned if the city states they are required to use perennial
plants and shrubs that it would not look appropriate with "all" signage. He would like
some leeway and would like to determine what landscaping would be appropriate with
each of the freestanding signs. For example, the Audi freestanding sign is very close to
the raingarden and not all landscaping works so close to a rain garden. He would like to
determine the appropriate landscaping to be planted around all of their signs rather than
being required to plant perennial plants and shrubs around the sign.
Board member Hinzman recommended the condition say A landscape plan such as low
maintenance shrubs and plants around the base of each freestanding sign.
Mr. Kozinski said that would be appropriate. Their Carousel store in Golden Valley had
grass right up to the freestanding sign and when the lawn mower came so close to the
sign they put a dent in the sign. For the future they would prefer to use landscaping
around the sign to keep the lawn mower farther away to eliminate the chance of denting
anymore signs.
Board member Ledvina moved to approve Lejeune Investment's comprehensive sign
plan date stamped August 12, 2005, for the Maplewood Auto Center located at 2450
Maplewood Drive subject to the following conditions: (changes to the motion are
underlined and deletions are stricken.)
1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a sign permit for this
project.
2. The sign criteria for each automotive dealership within the Maplewood Auto
Center includes the allowance of one automotive dealership freestanding sign
(maximum height of 44 15 feet), one pre-owned freestanding sign (maximum
height of 44 15 feet), wall signage which does not exceed 150 square feet. All
signs must be designed to be architecturally compatible with the building or
project, with the base of freestanding signs, including pylon sign poles, consisting
of materials and colors compatible to the building or project. The area around
the base of all freestanding signs must be landscaped.
3. The sign criteria for the automotive service center within the Maplewood Auto
Center include the allowance of wall signage which does not exceed 150 square
feet.
4. The applicant must submit the following prior to issuance of a sign permit:
a. A revised site plan showing the location of the four proposed freestanding
signs along the frontage road and the four proposed freestanding signs
within the interior of the site.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 9-27-2005
4
(cont.)
The location must ensure that there is a distance of at least 150 feet
between any of the four freestanding signs located along the frontage
road. In addition, the location must ensure that the freestanding signs
maintain at least a 10-foot setback to any property line.
b. A survey showing the location of the eight proposed freestanding signs.
The survey must reflect that the signs are located within a sign easement
and must describe the legal description of each easement.
c. An easement agreement for the installation and maintenance of all
freestanding signs. These agreements must be recorded with the county.
d. A revised freestanding sign elevation showing that the pre-owned Audi
dealership sign does not exceed 44--15 feet in height.
e. A landscape plan showing with appropriate landscapinQ such as low
maintenance shrubs and perennial plants shall be submitted for staff
approval around the base of each freestanding sign.
5. Each additional automotive dealership and/or automotive service center must
comply with the above-mentioned sign criteria and must obtain community
design review board approval for all new signs. After the board's initial approval,
city staff may approve all future signs as long as they meet the approved criteria.
6. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development
may approve minor changes.
Board member Hinzman seconded.
Ayes - Hinzman, Ledvina, Longrie,
Shankar, Olson
The motion passed.
This item does not need to go to the city council for approval.
b. Legacy Shoppes (Legacy Village) - south side of County Road 0, across from
Slumberland and west of Ashley Furniture
Mr. Ekstrand said Scott Schmitt, of the Hartford Group, is requesting approval of design
plans for the Legacy Shoppes, an 18,912-square-foot retail center at Legacy Village.
(The applicant's letter says 20,000 square feet, but the building foot print has since
been revised to make the parking counts comply with the code.) The applicant is
proposing to build Legacy Shoppes in two phases. If the first phase fills quickly, the
applicant would follow rapidly with the second phase. The total building would
accommodate seven to twelve tenants.
The building would be constructed of stucco with a foundation of rock-face concrete
block. There would be three colors of stucco in the color scheme. The colors would be
a range of cream and brown tones. The rock-face concrete base would be reddish
brown. There would only be customer entrances on the south side of the building.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 9-27-2005
5
Mr. Ekstrand reported the north (County Road D side) and the end elevations would
have no doors. While staff likes this plan staff suggests approximately 30% brick be
added to the building elevations.
Chairperson Longrie excused herself for 1 hour to attend another city meeting.
Board member Shankar asked if staff was recommending leaving the rock-face
concrete block and add the 30% brick and have both materials or delete the rock-face
concrete block and substitute it with brick?
Mr. Ekstrand said it could be compatible to have the rock-face concrete block with the
addition of brick or the applicant could remove the rock-face concrete block and just use
the brick elements. Staff doesn't want to design the building exterior for the applicant
but is recommending that the applicant add brick elements to the building elevation so
the building is more compatible with the surrounding businesses.
Acting chairperson Olson asked the applicant to address the board.
Mr. Scott Schmitt, Director of Retail Development, representing the Hartford Group,
12100 Singletree Lane, Suite 100, Eden Prairie, addressed the board. They plan on
building both phases. Leasing of the first phase building is going very well for and he
anticipates the second phase of the building to go just as well. He understands staff's
recommendation for 30% brick elements to be added to the building, however that adds
quite a bit of cost onto the building. The rock-face concrete block provides a sturdy base
from the visual prospective and they would like to keep that in place. They could add
brick onto the columns of the building and brick elements to other areas of the building
to add more architectural interest. They do not want brick elements along the top front
of the building because of the tenant signage. If brick elements are on the front of the
building and the tenants change, it makes it difficult to patch the brick on the building
when the tenant moves out and the signage is changed.
Board member Shankar asked how many roof-top units they would have on this building
and if they would be visible from the highway?
Mr. Schmitt said the roof-top units would not be visible from the highway. There will be
two small roof-top units for every 2,500 square feet of tenant space. A parapet wall
would be three to five feet in height going from one end of the building to the other
which will screen those roof-top units. The reason for the three to five feet height
change is because of the grade of the property and because the roofline graduates to
allow for ceiling height of the tenant spaces.
Board member Hinzman asked if the brick elements would go all the way to the roofline
of the building?
Mr. Schmitt said he didn't know for sure because he wasn't the architect but it would
make sense to him to have the brick elements go to the roofline.
Board member Hinzman said the applicant said there may be a restaurant tenant here
and he asked how parking is configured for restaurants?
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 9-27-2005
6
Mr. Schmitt said that's correct and he wasn't sure if Maplewood configures the parking
based on the number of seats in the restaurant or by square footage.
Mr. Ekstrand said Maplewood configures parking based on the number of square
footage of patron area which is every area the patron has access to in the restaurant.
This is a problem that occurs with strip malls like this. Generally restaurants require
more parking. Mr. Ekstrand said the city calculates parking on a retail basis not knowing
if there would be a restaurant in this retail center or not. An example of parking
problems is at The Corner Shops which has Chipotle and Quizno's restaurants. That
parking lot can get overcrowded and very busy at lunch.
Acting chairperson Olson asked if the applicant had any problems with the requirement
to install a sidewalk?
Mr. Schmitt said they have no problem with installing the sidewalk in fact they will
probably install more sidewalk for this development than what was required by the city.
Board member Shankar asked if this proposal should be brought back to the CDRB
because there are so many conditions for the applicant to revise such as the building
elevations adding 30% brick, a revised photometric plan, a revised landscaping plan,
and to revise the sidewalk plan.
Board member Hinzman said when you list all of the items out it seems like a lot to
revise but he is comfortable with the city staff working with the applicant to work the
details out.
Board member Ledvina agreed with Board member Hinzman. Although there are issues
he believes the issues can be worked out. He is happy with the design and the site plan
as it stands.
Acting chairperson Olson agreed.
Mr. Ekstrand said staffs recommendation to add 30% brick to the building design was
simply a random percentage. There are ways to add visual interest to the building with
brick but he feels comfortable having the board decide the percentage of brick to be
added. The brick can be placed on the building where it fits in with the building design,
just so brick is an added building element to the site to be compatible with the area
businesses. Especially when the Ashley Furniture's building has 50% brick.
Board member Shankar said he would be comfortable requesting the applicant to have
25% to 35% brick but to include the rock-face concrete block in the percentage
requirement.
Board member Ledvina agreed. The 30% recommendation seems a bit high and he
thinks the applicant should get credit for all the window glazing on the building.
Board member Hinzman said he likes the north and south elevations and the street
fayade of this proposal.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 9-27-2005
7
Board member Shankar said in his opinion the amount of EIFS on this building will look
good for five years or so but after that the appearance of the building will start going
down hill. Brick on the fayade will help give the building a longer lasting appeal as well
as add visual interest.
Acting chairperson Olson said she really likes signs on the front of building as opposed
to adding a monument sign on the property. She likes the design of the building and
thinks it will be a nice addition to the area.
Board member Shankar moved to approve the site/building design plans and the
comprehensive sign plan date-stamped September 6, 2005, for proposed Legacy
Shops retail center at Legacy Village. Approval is subject to the applicant doing the
following: (changes to the motion are underlined and deletions are stricken.)
1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this
project:
2. Before getting a building permit, the applicant shall do the following:
. Revise the building elevations for staff approval adding brick on all
elevations. The area of brick and rock-face concrete block on each wall
surface when added tooether should be between 25% and 35% of the wall
surface. to CO'ler approximaloly ao filercent of each wall surface.
. Provide an elevation design for the temporary side elevation of Phase I in
the event that Phase II is not built right away. This design shall be subject
to staff approval.
. If any neon accent lighting is proposed, it shall be subject to the approval
of the community design review board.
. Plans for the trash enclosure shall be presented to staff for approval. The
materials and colors of the enclosure shall match the building. The gate
shall be 100 percent opaque and shall be large enough for removal of the
trash containers. The enclosure shall be protected by steel/concrete
bollards as required by code. The enclosure shall also be large enough to
hold recycling containers.
. A revised photometric plan shall be submitted for staff approval showing
the reduction of light spillover not to exceed .4 foot candles on the east
and west sides of the site. The street lights on the south side of the site
shall be equipped with the lowest wattage bulb that yet provides adequate
street lighting. This is to limit excess light spillover onto the Wyngate
town homes site.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 9-27-2005
8
. Provide a revised landscape plan for staff approval that incorporates more
trees on the County Road D side of the building and meets the guidelines
of the approved PUD for Legacy Village. This would require overstory
trees along the Village Trail East frontage placed at an average of 30 or
40 feet on center. The landscaping plan shall in general provide buffering
and screening for the multi family developments to the west and south.
Merely the use of overstory trees will not provide this.
. Provide a roof-equipment screening plan showing how roof-mounted
equipment will be screened from the residential views. The applicant shall
comply with the city code in this respect.
. Provide a revised site plan showing a five-foot-wide concrete sidewalk on
the east and west sides of the building connecting the County Road D
sidewalk to the sidewalk in front of the building.
. Provide a screening plan for any exterior utility meters for staff approval.
. Provide verification of recorded cross easements between this site and the
surrounding properties where access is shared.
. Provide cash escrow in the amount of 150 percent of the cost of
completing the site improvements.
3. Before getting a certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall:
. Comply with or complete all aspects of these plans or any required
revisions.
. Provide roof-equipment screening as required by code.
. Provide in-ground lawn irrigation as shown on the plans.
. Comply with all requirements of the fire marshal, building official and
police departments as noted in the staff report.
4. The comprehensive sign plan is approved as noted in the written criteria date-
stamped August 2, 2005. The only exceptions are that tenant wall signs may be
allowed on the County Road D side to identify tenants. These signs would be
subject to the size limitation noted in the sign criteria for store-front signs. Signs
are not allowed on the end elevations and no ground signs are allowed without
review board approval.
5. Tenant deliveries must be within the site and not via County Road D or the side
roads.
6. The community design review board shall review any major changes to these
plans. Minor changes may be approved by staff.
Community Design Review Board 9
Minutes 9-27-2005
Board member Ledvina seconded. Ayes - Hinzman, Ledvina, Longrie,
Olson, Shankar
The motion passed.
This item does not need to go to the city council meeting for approval.
c. Kennard Professional Building (Legacy Village) - northeast corner of Kennard
Street and Legacy Parkway.
Mr. Ekstrand said Alex Young, of MSP Commercial, is requesting approval of design
plans for the Kennard Professional Building, a 45,732-square-foot, two-story medical-
office building. The proposed building would be located in Legacy Village at the
northeast corner of the Kennard Street and Legacy Parkway roundabout.
The proposed building would have an exterior primarily of brick with Dryvit or EIFS
(Exterior Insulation Finish system - a stucco-type product) as an accent at the top and
rock-face concrete block at the base of the building. All sides of the building would be
treated the same with the same finishes all around.
Mr. Ekstrand said t.here is a need for screening on the north side of the parking lot.
There may be an issue here with Xcel Energy and British Petroleum (BP). Xcel energy
may prohibit the planting of trees under their power lines as may British Petroleum (BP)
with their buried pipeline along the north line of the site. The applicant is supportive of
screening, but perhaps a screening fence would be a better option due to the utility
easements in place on this site. BP had refused to allow Ashley Furniture to plant
shrubs in their petroleum-pipeline easement.
Board member Hinzman said on the Kennard Street entrance he assumed there is a
prohibition against taking the roadway north of the tower to create a traffic way that
would be more east west or parallel to the entrance of Kennard Street.
Mr. Ekstrand said he didn't know if there was such a prohibition but the applicant could
possibly answer that question or give the reason why it was designed this way.
Acting chairperson Olson said this is a steep site and it is heavily wooded, there is going
to be a lot of excavation done on this site too.
Mr. Ekstrand said correct. Throughout the Hajicek property and the development of this
site a lot of beautiful trees have had to be cut down and it's sad to see them go but it's
necessary for the development of this site. There are some high retaining walls and the
city staff hasn't always required protection on top of the retaining walls. There has been
a condition added that any retaining wall over four feet tall should have a protective
fence or guardrail on top. The applicant is concerned that this fence or guardrail may
not fit in with the look of this site and the applicant has asked for some flexibility with this
condition. Landscaping could be used in place of the fence or guardrail.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 9-27-2005
10
Board member Ledvina asked what the distance was from the north property line to the
town homes?
Mr. Ekstrand said it's about 80 to 90 feet from the north lot line to the town homes.
Board member Ledvina said he is concerned about the headlights from the cars in the
parking lot shining into the townhomes.
Mr. Ekstrand said he's also concerned about the headlights shining into the upper
stories of the town homes. The grade of the site is considerably lower than this site. If
this was a level site and much closer in proximity he would be more inclined to insist on
screening but in this case British Petroleum (BP) may prohibit anything from being
placed on the site.
Acting chairperson Olson asked the applicant to address the board.
Mr. Alex Young, Vice President of MSP Commercial, 350 St. Peter St., Suite 200, St.
Paul, addressed the board. This building will be a very large health clinic through
Healtheast. This plan has been in the works for over a year now and they would like to
start construction this fall and obtain occupancy by July 1, 2006. Regarding the drive
lane that runs across the site, they are dealing with some major grade challenges. The
curb cut is a fixed point for them. They have the tower for the electric line working
against them. Xcel Energy and British Petroleum (BP) are very sensitive about how
much dirt gets cut around those areas and how that area is built up and structured.
They are working with the Hartford Group regarding cross access easements where
they would be able to share in this access. They had to eliminate the curb cut on
Legacy Parkway which would have been good if they did underground parking because
the parking lot is 10 feet over the top of the curb cut.
Board member Hinzman asked so it wasn't possible to bring the roadway directly to this
area?
Mr. Young said no. Actually it was a real challenge to get the road set up the way they
have it. There will be a lot of dirt work on this site. They're working on getting a
balanced site and getting the drainage to the pond on the neighboring site. They have
also changed the parking stall widths to 9'h feet wide but didn't have time to resubmit
the changes.
Acting chairperson Olson asked if the monument sign would be lit?
Mr. Young said the monument sign would be ground lit but not be back lit and be a one-
sided sign.
Board member Hinzman asked what the retaining wall would be built of?
Mr. Young asked the architect to speak regarding the retaining wall.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 9-27-2005
11
Mr. Lynn Sloat, Architect with Genesis Architecture, 7807 Creekridge Circle.
Minneapolis, addressed the board. The retaining wall will be made of an anchor block
material. The retaining wall will be engineered and the color will match the building
color. He presented a color materials board for the CDRB to review and went through
the building material and colors as they would be used on the building design. He said
the building was designed with a prairie or arts-and-craft style building in mind.
Acting chairperson Olson asked if they had other exterior lighting proposed for the
building?
Mr. Sloat said for the most part the lighting will come from the pilasters and the building
will be lit from the parking lot. There will not be lighting under the canopies and no flood
lights on the building, the light will be minimal coming from this building.
Board member Ledvina asked what color the window tinting would be?
Mr. Sloat said the tinting would either be a gray tint or a bronze tint with dark bronze
anodized aluminum frames.
Mr. Young said regarding the screening on the north end of the parking lot, they have
been trying to get in touch with British Petroleum (BP) regarding what they are allowed
to do on the property but so far have been unsuccessful. As it stands today that area
has very tall native grasses and remains untouched. They would like to leave that area
untouched. If for whatever reason British Petroleum (BP) does not allow them to plant
anything or put a fence in they would like to leave the prairie grasses wild.
Board member Hinzman asked if British Petroleum (BP) was vigilant in keeping the
grass mowed in that area or do they leave it grow wild?
Mr. Ekstrand said they let the prairie grass grow wild.
Mr. Young said British Petroleum (BP) leaves the grass long because it helps with
erosion control.
Board member Ledvina asked if there was a possibility of building a soil berm?
Mr. Young said with the 3-to-1grade and the setback there they may be able to have a
berm a few feet tall. They would like to leave that area as untouched as possible and
not have to have irrigation. If the CDRB wants them to do that they could but they have
to get permission from Xcel Energy and British Petroleum (BP).
Board member Ledvina said snow will matt the grass down in the winter and he is afraid
the headlights will cause a problem without a berm.
Mr. Young said this building would only be open until 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday
so hopefUlly that will eliminate headlight issues too.
Board member Hinzman asked if they could eliminate the 14 extra parking spaces and
have that area as proof of parking along the back row and berm that area instead.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 9-27-2005
12
Mr. Young said that's a good question, however, it's a requirement of Healtheast that
they have a certain number of parking spaces per square feet and they are already at
that number with the 14 additional parking spaces. He's not sure all that parking will get
used but Healtheast reaches that 5 per 1,000 square feet mark and they are required to
provide that level of parking with this lease.
Chairperson Longrie returned at 7:30 p.m.
Board member Shankar asked about the roof-top units on the building.
Mr. Young said they spoke with city staff about roof-top units and screening before.
There is a parapet wall that runs all along the top all around the building and the roof-
top units will sit in the middle of the roof and be well below the parapet wall.
Board member Ledvina thinks the building design is very nice, he likes how it's laid out
and it should present itself very well with the round-a-bout, and he likes the use of the
different building materials.
Board member Olson agreed. This will be a very attractive building, she likes the idea
of retaining the native grasses, and she is leaning towards native grasses rather than a
berm. She would prefer to see landscaping on top of the retaining wall rather than a
fence or guardrail. The only issue she has is how to maintain the landscaping on top of
the retaining wall.
Board member Hinzman said this building will be a nice asset to the city. He is
contemplating the distance from the edge of the parking lot to the structures and the
headlights. The areas along the back of the parking lot will be the least desirable and
the least used so the headlights may not be an issue. The hours of operation will be
only open until 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday so there will not be much traffic at this
building at night.
Board member Shankar would suggest that the face of the up/down light be opaque so
that the light shines up and comes down.
Board member Ledvina moved to approve the site/building design plans and the
comprehensive sign plan date-stamped September 1, 2005, for proposed Kennard
Professional Building at Legacy Village. Approval is subject to the applicant doing the
following: (changes to the motion are underlined and deletions are stricken.)
1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this
project.
2. Before getting a building permit, the applicant shall do the following:
. If any neon accent lighting is proposed, it shall be subject to the approval
of the community design review board.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 9-27-2005
13
. Plans for a trash enclosure (if used) shall be presented to staff for
approval. The materials and colors of the enclosure shall match the
building. The gate shall be 100 percent opaque and shall be large enough
for removal of the trash containers. The enclosure shall be protected by
steel/concrete bollards as required by code. The enclosure shall also be
large enough to hold recycling containers.
. Provide a revised landscaping plan for staff approval that adds 10, six-
foot-tall (minimum) evergreen trees on the Kennard Street side of the
parking lot. The applicant shall also provide a decorative screening fence
or soil berm along the north side of the parking lot as a buffer for the
town homes. The screening fence must be at least six feet tall and made
of clear or no-maintenance plastic. This fence or soil berm may be omitted
if British Petroleum prohibits a fence within their easement.
. Provide a roof-equipment screening plan showing how roof-mounted
equipment will be screened from the residential views if any equipment
would be visible to neighboring townhome residents.
. Provide a revised site plan showing a five-foot-wide concrete sidewalk
from the east side of the building to the Legacy Parkway sidewalk.
. Provide a screening plan for any exterior utility meters that may be visible
for staff approval.
. Provide verification of recorded cross easements between this site and the
abutting site to the east.
. Provide cash escrow in the amount of 150 percent of the cost of
completing the site improvements.
. Comply with all requirements of the city's engineering department and
those noted in the report by Erin Laberee dated September 19, 2005.
. Provide a revised plan showing fencing or appropriate landscapino on top
of any retaining walls that would exceed four feet in height. Retaining
walls that exceed four feet in height must also be designed by an engineer
and have a building permit.
3. Before getting a certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall:
. Comply with or complete all aspects of these plans or any required
revisions.
. Provide roof-top equipment screening as required by code.
. Provide in-ground lawn irrigation for all sodded areas and all planting
beds.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 9-27-2005
14
. Comply with all requirements of the fire marshal, building official and
police department staff.
4. The comprehensive sign plan is approved as noted in the applicant's letter dated
September 13, 2005. Staff may approve changes to this sign plan as long as
they comply with city code requirements.
5. The community design review board shall review any major changes to these
plans. Minor changes may be approved by staff.
Board member Olson seconded.
Ayes - Hinzman, Ledvina, Longrie,
Shankar, Olson
The motion passed.
This item does not need to go to the city council for approval.
VII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS
No visitors present.
VIII. BOARD PRESENTATIONS
Chairperson Longrie reported on the September 26, 2005, city council meeting. The only
CDRB item was the K and W RoII-Offs, 1055 Gervais Avenue. The city council required the
applicant to have a concrete floor in the storage building rather than the dirt floor they
proposed to have, the applicant can have the slotted vinyl fence they requested as opposed to
the wood fence recommended by the CDRB, and the proposal was approved without requiring
the applicant to have an irrigation system. This proposal was passed by the city council and
Mayor Cardinal abstained from voting due to his residence being so close to this proposal.
There are no CDRB items that require CDRB representation at the upcoming city council
meetings.
IX. STAFF PRESENTATIONS
None.
X. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 7:45 p.m.