Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/09/2005 AGENDA CITY OF MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD Wednesday, November 9, 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: October 25, 2005 5. Unfinished Business: 6. Design Review: a. 3M Building 231 (Utility Plant) and Building 246 (Cooling Towers) - 3M Campus (South of Conway Avenue) b. CVS Pharmacy Comprehensive Sign Plan - 2180 White Bear Avenue c. Maple Leaf Ridge Business Center - 2483 and 2497 Maplewood Drive 7. Visitor Presentations: 8. Board Presentations: 9. Staff Presentations: a. Community Design Review Board Representation at the November 28. 2005. City Council Meeting 10. Adjourn MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD 1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 9,2005 I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Longrie called the meeting to order at 6:00 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 Absent Present until 6:50 p.m. Present Present until 7:20 p.m. Staff Present: Shann Finwall, Planner Lisa Kroll, Recording Secretary III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Ms. Finwall requested the addition of item 9. b. Gladstone Concept Plan Review under Staff Presentations. Board member Olson moved to approve the agenda as amended. Board member Hinzman seconded. Ayes - Hinzman, Longrie, Olson, Shankar The motion passed. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of the CDRB minutes for October 25, 2005. Board member Hinzman moved approval of the minutes of October 25, 2005. Board member Olson seconded. Ayes ---Hinzman, Longrie, Olson, Shankar The motion passed. V. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. VI. DESIGN REVIEW a. 3M Building 231 (Utility Plant) and Building 246 (Cooling Towers) - 3M Campus (South of Conway Avenue) Ms. Finwall said 3M Company is proposing to construct two buildings on their campus on the south side of Conway Avenue. Community Design Review Board Minutes 11-09-2005 2 The first of these, Building 231, would be adjacent to Building 210 and would measure 105 by 105-feet in size. 3M would use this space as part of their utility (chilled water and steam) operations. The exterior materials proposed for the elevations of Building 231 include orange-tan brick, pre-finished almond-colored metal panels, bronze-colored trim and windows. The second project is the expansion of Building 246 (which is now west of Building 213). 3M uses this building as a cooling tower and they are proposing to build two additional cooling towers next to the existing tower. The cooling towers are, essentially more "equipment" than building. 3M needs these cooling towers as part of their water- cooling operations. The water that is cooled in the towers is the "heated" water 3M uses in their campus building-heating operations. Building 246 (the cooling towers) would match the grey/green color of the adjacent cooling tower to the east and have metal louvers and openings to facilitate its water-cooling function. Board member Shankar asked if the existing cooling tower will match the height of the new cooling tower? Ms. Finwall said she would refer that question to the applicant. Chairperson Longrie asked the applicant to address the board. Mr. Michael Scanlon, who spoke on behalf of 3M, addressed the board. Mr. Scanlon brought building samples that would be used on the cooling tower and described how the materials would match the existing building. Mr. Scanlon also stated that the new cooling tower would be the same height as the existing towers. Chairperson Longrie asked how they feel about the staff recommendation to add more landscaping between Conway Avenue and 3M Building 246? Mr. Scanlon said the purpose of the cooling tower is to have an open area around the cooling tower to allow the air to flow through to make it an efficient unit. When you plant large vegetation around the cooling tower you start hampering the air flow. Chairperson Longrie asked how far away the trees would have to be planted away from the cooling tower so there wouldn't be any interference with the air flow? Mr. Scanlon said he wasn't sure but they are limited to the amount of space because of the street, the cooling tower, the fire access lane and a small strip of landscaping that exists, and then there is the sidewalk and street. Board member Shankar asked where the dark bronze building material would be used, would it be on the coping or on the window frames? Mr. Scanlon said the coping or parapet along the roof would be medium bronze and the doors and louvers on the elevations that are against the brick would also be medium bronze. They are coloring the doors to match the metal panel and the windows are a clear anodized aluminum color. Community Design Review Board Minutes 11-09-2005 3 Board member Shankar asked if this proposal would require any additional parking? Ms. Finwall said no. Board member Olson moved to approve the plans date-stamped October 27, 2005, for the following 3M building projects on the south side of Conway Avenue: 1. Building 231 (adjacent to Building 210). 2. Building 246 (the two proposed chillers). Approval is subject to the following conditions: a. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. b. Before the city issues a grading or building permit, the applicant must: 1) Meet all the requirements of the city engineering department. If the city engineering department requires, the applicant or project manager shall submit to city engineering staff for revised engineering and grading plans. The revised plans shall meet all the requirements of the city engineering department. 2) Work with city staff to determine the feasibility of additional landscaping between the cooling towers at Conway Avenue. c. The applicant or contractor shall complete the following before occupying the buildings: 1) Replace any property irons removed because of this construction. 2) If changed or disturbed, provide continuous concrete curb and gutter around the parking lots and driveways. 3) Install all required outdoor lighting. 4) Restore any disturbed turf areas and landscaping. d. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. Board member Hinzman seconded. Ayes -Hinzman, Longrie, Olson, Shankar The motion passed. b. CVS Pharmacy Comprehensive Sign Plan - 2180 White Bear Avenue Ms. Finwall said Crosstown Sign, Inc. is proposing to install signage at the new CVS Pharmacy located at 2180 White Bear Avenue. Community Design Review Board Minutes 11-09-2005 4 Ms. Finwall said a condition of design review approval of the new pharmacy was that all signs be approved by the community design review board (CDRB). The city's sign code specifies that all multi-tenant buildings (buildings with five or more tenants) must be reviewed by the CDRB for approval of a comprehensive sign plan. All other signs are approved administratively and must comply with the sign requirements of each specified zoning district. In this case however, the CDRB conditioned the design approval on the building on the condition that all signs are approved by the CDRB. The CDRB made this condition due to the visible location of the pharmacy on two major roads and near city hall. The CDRB should reference the board's recently adopted draft sign code when reviewing this proposal. The draft sign code, when approved by the city council, would allow one wall sign for each street upon which the property has frontage, plus one wall sign for each clearly differentiated department. The size of wall signage is determined by the gross square footage of the principal structure on the property. The size of wall signage is determined by the gross square footage of the principal structure on the property. CVS Pharmacy is 13,013 square feet in area and would be limited to wall signage of 100 square feet or less for each sign. One freestanding sign is permitted for each street upon which the property has frontage. The total size and maximum height of the freestanding sign is determined by the street classification of the closest street to which each freestanding sign is located. CVS Pharmacy is located on a minor arterial (White Bear Avenue) and a collector (County Road B) and would be allowed a freestanding sign which is 140 square feet in area and 20 feet in height. Changeable copy message boards are permitted as part of a permanent freestanding sign but are limited to comprising no more than 70 percent of the total square footage of the sign. On-site directional signs of six square feet or less which are designed to help facilitate the movement of pedestrians and vehicles within the site and identify the location and nature of a building not readily visible from the street are permitted. There is no maximum number of on-site directional signs specified in the draft sign code. Crosstown Sign is proposing four wall signs (two CVS signs and two drive-thru pharmacy signs), one freestanding sign, and seventeen on-site directional signs for the CVS Pharmacy. In order to comply with the draft sign code, one drive-thru pharmacy sign would need to be removed. Board member Olson asked if CVS Pharmacy was proposing to have directional signs on site? Ms. Finwall said yes they are proposing 17 directional signs which would be under the six square feet in area allowance as speCified in the new draft sign code. In the new draft sign code it does not specify an overall number of directional signs. Board member Olson said that is something she feels the board should address. Community Design Review Board Minutes 11-09-2005 5 Board member Shankar said CVS Pharmacy doesn't address the color of the directional signs. Ms. Finwall said CVS Pharmacy didn't specify the color of the directional signs but that is something the board could address tonight with the comprehensive sign code but in the actual proposed draft ordinance colors of directional signs are not discussed. Board member Olson asked about the manual reader board and how the messages would be attached? Ms. Finwall said perhaps the applicant could address the question. Chairperson Longrie asked when the draft sign code would be adopted by the city council? Ms. Finwall said staff hopes to have public feedback by the end of November with the information compiled and brought back to the CDRB sometime in December or January so the city council would see the draft sign code sometime in February. Chairperson Longrie asked when the CVS Pharmacy signage would be constructed? Ms. Finwall said CVS proposes to construct the signs immediately. Chairperson Longrie asked the applicant to address the board. Mr. Brian Alton, Lawyer representing CVS Pharmacy, 951 Grand Avenue, St. Paul, addressed the board. He said there are 10 directional signs, not 17 as stated by staff. These directional signs are to direct traffic through the drive-thru pharmacy window. Regarding the manual reader board it will be a zip track which is a track to slide the words or letters into so it is easily changeable. There were two pylon signs on this property before it was redeveloped for CVS Pharmacy. They originally anticipated putting a monument sign on the northwest corner of the property in addition to the freestanding sign but decided not to do that because they do not want to clutter the property at the intersection up with too many signs. Now they will have one pylon sign 15 feet tall, which is shorter than the two pylon signs that were on the site before, and this sign will be 5 feet shorter than what is allowed in the proposed draft sign code. Therefore, they feel this sign plan is appropriate and should be approved as shown. The staff recommendation is to have all brick piers for the pylon signs which would be cost prohibitive and would require reengineering the sign which could take many weeks to put a new plan together and would add $8,000 to $10,000 to the cost of the sign. They propose to have brick piers that are two feet in height which they feel is adequate and should provide a strong base for the sign. The rest of the sign is designed to match the building. The building has the brick base and stucco above which will match the proposed sign. They feel the staff recommendation to have full brick piers should be eliminated. Community Design Review Board Minutes 11-09-2005 6 Mr. Alton said regarding the square footage of the wall signs, when Icon Identity Solutions read the current sign code and designed the signs for CVS Pharmacy they realized they could have 500 square feet of signs on one of the smaller sides of the building and they are not proposing anywhere near that square footage for signs. They proposed to have two wall signs on each side of the building and to have additional signage but have since dropped that request and are now requesting only two signs per elevation. Mr. Alton said they have proposed to have the CVS Pharmacy sign at 132 square feet which allows CVS to have 48 inch high lettering and the word pharmacy would be in lower case letters which they think is reasonable. For one thing they are talking about the "draft" sign code. There may be changes to the draft sign code and what if the city decides to change things; they don't feel they should be held to the standard of the draft sign code, however, they are willing to come pretty close to the city's sign code. Mr. Alton said they agreed to delete additional signage that they had planned to have on the building. Icon Identity Solutions is the company that designs the signage for CVS Pharmacy. The landscape plan was submitted with the original plan for CVS Pharmacy and the landscape plan may need to be modified because the location of the pylon sign has changed and they are happy to comply with that. Board member Hinzman said staff recommended the brick extend up the pillars of the sign, but was the recommendation for the brick to extend to the top of the si9n? Ms. Finwall said staff was recommending the brick extend to the sign board. Board member Hinzman said Mr. Alton said the sign was not engineered to extend the brick that high and that the sign would require a new engineering plan which could delay the CVS Pharmacy freestanding sign for weeks. Mr. Alton said he isn't an engineer but that's what he understood. Board member Shankar said staff recommended materials be used that would be compatible to the building so they could use something other than brick on the sign. Ms. Finwall said staff was recommending this additional brick design element because with the comprehensive sign plan the board has the ability to add additional design standards over and above what the sign code requires. Board member Hinzman asked if the 100 square foot sign provision for wall signs was under the draft sign code? Ms. Finwall said correct. Chairperson Lon9rie asked if the plans date-stamped September 7, 2005, was for the 132 square foot wall sign versus the staff recommendation for a wall sign at 100 square feet? Mr. Alton said correct. Community Design Review Board Minutes 11-09-2005 7 Board member Shankar asked if all CVS Pharmacy signs in the Twin Cities are the same square footage? Mr. Alton said that's probably not true and he doesn't want to mislead the board. He doesn't usually get involved in these proposals but he believes the 48 inch high lettering is the standard height for CVS Pharmacy locations. Ms. Finwall said just to clarify, staff has indicated this property could have four signs which includes wall and freestanding signs. Staff is recommending CVS Pharmacy remove one of the drive-thru pharmacy signs. The sign over the drive thru itself would be considered a directional sign as that is under the allowable six square foot size for directional signs. Ms. Finwall said in order to comply with the 100 square foot height CVS Pharmacy would have to drop the size of the CVS letters from 48 inches high to 32 inches high. Chairperson Longrie asked if the applicant is asking to keep the drive-thru pharmacy sign that staff recommended be eliminated? Mr. Alton said they could eliminate one of the drive-thru pharmacy signs on the shorter of the building elevations. Chairperson Longrie said she wanted to be clear on the plan. The applicant is voluntarily deciding whether or not they want to use this as their standard. The ordinance the city has in place is the ordinance the city has in place. Even though the CDRB may recommend something different the city council may have a different opinion. The city doesn't want to force a company to do something they don't have a legal obligation to do and put the city in a position where they have to defend against that. She appreciates the applicant is willing to do some give and take here so that the CDRB can work with this plan and it sounds like the applicant is willing to drop one of the drive-thru pharmacy signs. Board member Shankar asked what color the individual letters would be backlit at night? Mr. Alton said the letters would be backlit with red as shown on the drawings. Board member Shankar said some colors tend to accentuate the 48 inch tall letters and make the letters look five feet tall and some colors tend to make the 48 inch tall letters look smaller. Chairperson Longrie asked the sign company to address the board. Mr. Ryan Shaw, Icon Identity Solutions, 1418 Elmhurst Road, Elk Grove Village, Illinois, addressed the board. The 48 inch tall letters for the CVS Pharmacy sign are internally illuminated and are self contained. Chairperson Longrie asked if anyone in the audience wanted to speak regarding this proposal. Community Design Review Board Minutes 11-09-2005 8 Nobody came forward. Board member Olson said she understands the city doesn't allow electronic message boards because of the flashing, blinking and scrolling but she asked if there could be a non-scrolling electronic message board? Ms. Finwall said staff has had several requests from sign companies and businesses for electronic message boards but the problem is these signs can be programmed to flash, blink etc. which would be a real code enforcement problem. Ms. Finwall said if the city were to approve electronic message board signs on the condition that the sign does not flash, blink or scroll the city would open itself up to the problem of enforcing that rule in the future. That's the reason the City of Maplewood hasn't allowed electronic message boards. Board member Olson said she brings that up because Mr. Alton said the message board sign would have a zip track where you slide the words or letters in and she feels the words or letters could easily come out or blow away which could be a maintenance issue. She personally thinks an electronic message board projects a cleaner message compared to the zip track style of wording. She said she understands staffs concern to make sure businesses keep the electronic reader board message sign static so it doesn't flash, blink or scroll. Ms. Finwall said there is a way to program the electronic message board sign so it doesn't flash, scroll or blink. The problem is maybe a new manager gets hired who isn't aware of the city's sign code and they decide to go into the computer and change the electronic message to flash, blink or scroll. It then becomes a problem for the city to deal with to enforce these rules. Board member Olson said she thinks enforcement shouldn't be an issue and managers should be made aware when the sign is installed that if they do not follow the rules of the city the sign could be disabled. Board member Olson said personally she has an objection to the zip track style signs and requested it be noted for the record. Board member Shankar asked how the area of the sign is calculated so that it equals 1 DO-square feet? Ms. Finwall said staff calculates the square footage by drawing an outline of the letters themselves boxing the area in. Board member Hinzman moved to approve the plans date-stamped October 3, 2005, for a comprehensive sign plan for CVS Pharmacy located at 2180 White Bear Avenue. Approval is subject to the following conditions: (changes made by the CORB if added are underlined and stricken if deleted.) 1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a sign permit for this project. 2. Sign criteria for the site to include the following: Community Design Review Board Minutes 11-09-2005 9 a. Number of signs: One sign per street frontage. plus one wall sign for each separate occupant of the building. b. Wall signs: One wall sign per street frontage, plus one additional wall sign for each separate occupant of the building. The wall signs must be constructed of individual letters which are limited to 132 square feet in area. Wall signs can be installed on the south and west elevations only. c. Freestanding sign: One freestanding sign at the intersection of County Road B and White Bear Avenue. The freestanding sign is limited to 15 feet in height and 140 square feet in area, with only 70 percent of the overall sign allowed as a manual reader board. The freestanding sign must maintain a 10-foot setback to all property lines, must meet the visibility requirements for signage located at an intersection, must be constructed of materials which are compatible to the building, and must have landscaping around the base of the sign. d. Directional signs: Directional signs not exceeding six square feet in area are permitted. e. Window signs: Window signs (sign painted on a window or placed inside the building to be viewed through the glass by the public) are allowed for up to 60 total days per year and must not cover more than 25 percent of the total area of the window. 3. Prior to issuance of a sign permit, the applicant must submit the following to be approved by city staff. a. Revised wall sign elevations showing that the drive-thru pharmacy sign is removed from the south elevation. b. Revised site plan showing the location of the freestanding sign which maintains a 10-foot setback to all property lines and does not impede on the required 25-foot visibility triangle. c. Landscape plan showing landscaping around the base of the freestanding sign to include low-maintenance shrubs and perennials. 4. All work shallow follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. Board member Olson seconded. Ayes - Hinzman, Longrie, Olson, Shankar The motion passed. Chairperson Longrie excused herself from the CDRB meeting at 6:50 p.m. and Vice Chairperson Linda Olson took over for the remainder of the meeting. Community Design Review Board Minutes 11-09-2005 10 c. Maple Leaf Ridge Business Center - 2483 and 2497 Maplewood Drive Ms. Finwall said Jim Kellison, of Kelco Real Estate Development Services, is proposing to build an office/warehouse condominium development on the west side of Maplewood Drive (Highway 61), in between the Acorn Mini Storage and the Hmong American Alliance Church. Ms. Finwall said this project would consist of three buildings. Building #1, closest to Highway 61, would be a 9, 120-square-foot, two-story building, Building #2, the center building, would be a 13,440-square-foot, two-story building. The front of each building would have an office front. The rear elevations would be the dock door and delivery areas. Building #1, facing the highway, would have an office fa<;ade. The back side of Building #3, facing the residential neighbors, would have a service fa<;ade with overhead garage doors. The current plans are different from the original plans submitted by the applicant. The original plans were presented to the neighbors at a neighborhood meeting this summer. The original plans were for a four-building project of the same nature. The primary differences were that the west elevation facing the neighbors had an office fa<;ade (now overhead doors) and the proposed building setback was to have been 165 feet (now 250 feet). Some of the neighbor replies and the applicant's narrative speak to this four-building layout. The primary reason the applicant revised the plans was to address grading and drainage concerns by the city's engineering staff. Acting Chairperson Olson asked the applicant to address the board. Mr. Jim Kellison, President of Kelco Real Estate Development Services, 7300 Hudson Blvd, Suite 245, Oakdale, addressed the board. Mr. Kellison presented the board with some building materials to review and then gave a brief presentation. He said he didn't get the staff report in time for tonight's meeting and he was sure the city had received the lighting plan for this proposal. They will be using the shoe box type lighting and no matter what you do with the lighting there will be some light spill into the area. Board member Hinzman said he has some concerns about the way the buildings are configured on the site. He understands the neighbor's concerns regarding repositioning the buildings which would move the buildings closer to their homes but he believes the buildings should be reconfigured so the dock doors do not face the residential homes. He understands the problem if you shift the buildings around it moves the buildings 100 feet closer to the residential neighbors but he thinks the site would look nicer. He asked if the applicant could remove some of the parking, have proof of parking and move the pond back further to the berm on the west side. The parking count would be short but he asked if the city could make an exception. Mr. Kellison said he already had this discussion with the planning commission. Most cities' in the surrounding area use 9 feet wide parking spaces and that is what they drew the original plans from. He was informed that Maplewood has a 9.5 foot wide parking space requirement. When they reconfigure the parking at the correct 9.5 foot wide parking space width they will already be loosing parking spaces. If they eliminate some of the parking on the extreme west end and move the pond to the west there couldn't be proof of parking because of the pond so if they ever needed to use the proof of parking the pond would be a real issue for them. Community Design Review Board Minutes 11-09-2005 11 Mr. Kellison said if that could be worked out they could put a second row of buffering where the parking is now. These buildings are designed to be office/warehouse condominiums and based on history and experience there would be 30% office and 70% warehouse. If they end up with tenants who are 50% office and 50% warehouse the parking requirements may go up. Mr. Kellison said history tells them based on the size of the development with sales people out in the field, people ill or on vacation the parking should be adequate. However, the last thing you want to do is develop a property that doesn't have adequate parking because then people park on the drive and everybody knows we don't want that to happen. Acting Chairperson Olson asked what type of tenants they are marketing these condominium units to? Mr. Kellison said the following company types have reserved space on the site: a medical supply company, mortgage company, window and door company, and electrical contracting company. These companies would operate five days a week, 9:00-5:00 p.m. Loud businesses such as machine shops would not be in this space. Acting Chairperson Olson asked what types of trucks would be making deliveries to this site? Mr. Kellison said the site is designed for a full size 72-foot truck to make deliveries here. Its 40 feet in between the buildings so trucks can maneuver around. They are not encouraging that type of truck traffic where there are only over head doors, only where there are dock doors. Board member Shankar said if you have lighting on the west side the lighting would still be seen from the neighbors correct? Mr. Kellison said the lighting would come on at dusk and shut off at 10:00 p.m. as one of the conditions on the western part of the property. There is one light pole that would have two light heads that would shine back toward the building and provide parking lot lighting and near the overhead doors there will be 3 or 4 lighting fixtures that would shine down for safety and security. Anytime you put a light pole up you are going to see it. He said once he built a development in north Hudson Wisconsin on some open farmland and the people came from a half mile around and said they could see the light. There is nothing you can do to eliminate that from happening, lighting can be seen from quite a distance away. Acting Chairperson Olson asked if anyone in the audience wanted to speak regarding this proposal. Ms. Kathy O'Donnell, 2498 Adele St., Maplewood, addressed the board. She said she respects Mr. Kellison's right to develop this property but one of the options she has not heard is to "not" grant the conditional use permit. Ms. O'Donnell said none of the building options are good because moving the buildings around only puts the buildings closer to the residential homes. She asked if there was still an opportunity to look at redesigning the property without having to get the additional 1 OO-foot setback? Ms. Finwall said the planning commission recommended approval of the conditional use permit but the final decision is made by the city council which is scheduled for Monday, November 28, 2005, and she encouraged Ms. O'Donnell to attend the city council meeting. Community Design Review Board Minutes 11-09-2005 12 Ms. O'Donnell said she is concerned about what they will see from the back of their properties. These homes are walk-out lots and the top level is their main living quarters with their family room and kitchen which will look directly out onto these proposed buildings. Acting Chairperson Olson said she would encourage Ms. O'Donnell to attend the city council meeting as well to share her concerns. Board member Hinzman said he would agree with staff's opinion to move the dock doors to the opposite side of the building away from the homes and he would think that would be the best decision for the neighbors but he doesn't want to beat the issue to death. It seems the planning commission and the neighbors would prefer the larger separation between the building and the homes. He appreciates the elevations that were submitted and the cross sections and he is curious if the trees that are back there now are on the business side of the property or on the residential side of the property. Mr. Kellison said the large trees are on the berm and they will keep most of the berm on the west side but they will have to disturb some of the berm on the east side. They plan to save as many trees as possible and may use a retaining wall for the trees. They have offered and continue to offer to put a six foot high fence in the back of the residential homes at no cost to the residents. Acting Chairperson Olson asked if these homes that will overlook this property will be looking down onto the roofs of the condominium buildings? Mr. Kellison said the properties to the west are lower than this property by four feet or so. The top of the buildings will be lined up with the upper story level of their homes and will be 25 feet above the bottom of their backyards. These are three-story homes so if they are on their second floor they will be looking into the top story of the condominium building. Board member Shankar asked if there would be any mechanical equipment on the roofs of the buildings? Mr. Kellison said they are required by code to screen the mechanical equipment and would screen the equipment according to the code. Board member Shankar asked if the units are close to the edge of the buildings? Mr. Kellison said there would be unit heaters that will have a single pipe or vent coming out of the roof of the buildings and the air conditioning units would be located towards the front of the building and would be screened. Board member Shankar asked what type of material they propose to use for screening the equipment? Mr. Kellison said they would use a pre-finished metal material that attaches to the unit. Acting Chairperson Olson asked Ms. O'Donnell if the fence Mr. Kellison spoke of would help screen the property? Community Design Review Board Minutes 11-09-2005 13 Ms. O'Donnell said the fence will help screen these buildings when you are in the backyard of the homes but not when you are in the house looking out your windows. Regarding turning the building so the dock doors are away from the residential homes she would agree the other side of the building would be nicer to look at but by doing that you put the building 100 feet away from the homes. Ms. O'Donnell said whatever you can do as far as the landscaping, keeping the berm and planting tall trees the better. Right now this plan is not in the best interest of this neighborhood in her opinion. Acting Chairperson Olson asked if this proposal could be tabled for further discussion due to the fact one of the board members has to leave and there would not be a quorum? Ms. Finwall said this proposal is scheduled to be heard by the city council on November 28, 2005, and she assumed the developer would be anxious to proceed. There is however, another CDRB meeting Tuesday, November 22, 2005, so that would not delay the city council meeting. Board member Shankar agreed he thinks this proposal should be tabled. He stated he appreciates that the applicant brought building material samples which is very helpful but looking at the elevation the color appears monotone and he requested the applicant come back with a color photo of what this building is going to look like. Mr. Kellison said he has a project that was built with these exact building materials and colors and he said he would take some photos of the development and bring the photos back to the CDRB so they can see what everything would look like. Board member Shankar moved to table this proposal until Tuesday, November 22, 2005. Board member Hinzman seconded. Ayes - Hinzman, Olson, Shankar The motion to table passed. Acting Chairperson Olson said the CDRB would like the applicant to return with revised landscape plan, lighting plan, photos of the color elevations, and additional information on the proposed fence for the neighbors and bring this back to the CDRB at the Tuesday, November 22, 2005, meeting. Board member Shankar excused himself from the meeting at 7:20 p.m. VII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS No visitors present. VIII. BOARD PRESENTATIONS None. Community Design Review Board Minutes 11-09-2005 14 IX. STAFF PRESENTATIONS a. Board member Shankar will be the CDRB representative at the November 28, 2005, city council meeting. So far the only CDRB item to discuss is the Maple Leaf Ridge Business Center - 2483 and 2497 Maplewood Drive. b. Gladstone Concept Plan Review Ms. Finwall said there will be a joint meeting between the CDRB and the HRA to discuss the Gladstone Concept Plan on Tuesdav. November 22. 2005, at 6:00 p.m. in the city council chambers. X. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 7:25 p.m.