HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/26/2004
AGENDA
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
Tuesday, October 26, 2004
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 the October 12, 2004, Minutes
5. Design Review:
a. CVS Drugstore, 2168 and 2180 White Bear Avenue (Existing Oasis Market and
Fina Lube Building on the Corner of County Road B and White Bear Avenue)
b. Olivia Gardens Townhomes, 2329 and 2335 Stillwater Road
c. University Auto, 1145 Highway 36
d. Wyngate Townhomes, 1750 and 1752 Village Trail (Legacy Village Rental
Townhomes)
6. Visitor Presentations: None Scheduled
7. Board Presentations:
8. Staff Presentations:
a. Sign Code Survey Results
b. Community Design Review Board Representation at the November 8,2004, City
Council Meeting
9. Adjourn
MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 26,2004
I. CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Longrie-K1ine called the meeting to order at 6:04 p.m.
II. ROLL CALL
Chairperson Diana Longrie-Kline
Board member Matt Ledvina
Board member Judy Driscoll
Board member Linda Olson
Board member Ananth Shankar
Present
Present
Present
Present
Absent
Staff Present:
Shann Finwall, Planner
Lisa Kroll, Recording Secretary
Rose Lorsunq, Planning Intern
III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Chairperson Longrie-K1ine moved to approve the agenda.
Board member Driscoll seconded.
Ayes - Longrie-K1ine, Driscoll, Ledvina, Olson
The motion passed.
IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Approval of the CDRB minutes for October 12, 2004.
Chairperson Longrie-Kline requested additional wording be added to page 2, first paragraph,
last sentence. The sentence should now read Mr. David Gageby of ERS Development, LLC
spoke as well as some of the Gladstone neighbors regarding the process of developing the
Gladstone area and the future of the neighborhood.
Board member Olson moved approval of the minutes of October 12, 2004, as amended.
Board member Longrie-K1ine seconded.
Ayes ---Longrie-Kline, Driscoll, Olson
Abstention - Ledvina
The motion passed.
V. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
None.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 10-26-2004
2
VI. DESIGN REVIEW
a. CVS Drugstore, 2168 and 2180 White Bear Avenue (Existing Oasis Market and Fina Lube
Building on the corner of County Road B and White Bear Avenue) (6:10 p.m. -7:25 p.m.)
Ms. Finwall said Velmeir is proposing to redevelop the Oasis Market and Fina Lube site
located on the northeast corner of County Road B and White Bear Avenue. The
redevelopment will include the construction of a 13,013-square-foot CVS Drugstore.
Staff recommends approval of the plans date-stamped September 22, 2004, for the CVS
Pharmacy located at 2168 and 2180 White Bear Avenue. Approval is subject to the conditions
listed in the staff report.
Board member Olson said the illuminated pylon sign is shown at 24 feet high and 15 feet 8
inches wide. She asked if this was the maximum size the city allows under the current sign
code?
Ms. Finwall said the city's height requirement for a freestanding sign in a business commercial
zoning district is 25 feet high, which could be increased as the setback of the sign increases.
Since this is not a multi-tenant building these signs will have to meet city code requirements
but the signs are not under design approval tonight.
Board member Olson asked if the dumpster could be relocated to the east side of the building?
Ms. Finwall said with the County Road B drive aisle and the drive-thru it may impede the traffic
movement and difficulty in the trash pick up
Chairperson Longrie-K1ine asked the applicant to address the board.
Mr. Jim Lavalle, Velmier Companies, 7900 International Drive, Bloomington, addressed the
board. Mr. Lavalle said the CVS pylon sign should be perpendicular to White Bear Avenue
and County Road B facing east west. He said they have provided a revised site plan showing
the relocation of the trash dumpster to the east side of the building.
Chairperson Longrie-K1ine asked what hours the trash would be picked up?
Mr. Lavalle said typically the trash would be picked up between 6:00 a.m. and 8:00 a.m.
Chairperson Longrie-K1ine asked what hours the drive-thru pharmacy would be open?
Mr. Lavalle said the drive-thru pharmacy hours would be from 8:00 a.m. until 10:00 p.m. He
said they are willing to work with the city staff on the conditions listed in the staff report. They
provided a revised building elevation plan incorporating the same design elements as the front
two sides for the east and north side of the building.
Board member Olson asked if the revised building elevation showed the reduction of brick and
the increased EIFS product? She asked if the applicant had building samples to show the
board?
Community Design Review Board 3
Minutes 10-26-2004
Mr. Lavalle presented the board with the building materials board.
Board member Ledvina asked if the glass shown on the building elevations was tinted and
what color the window mullions would be?
Mr. Lavalle said the glass is clear and the window mullions would be fire engine red.
Board member Olson asked what type of traffic volume they expected for this store?
Mr. Lavalle said they did a traffic study for another project in this market and a typical store
would generate about 75 vehicles a day during normal sales periods. They haven't done a
traffic study for this area so he cannot more accurately answer that question.
Board member Ledvina said the number of parking spaces required by the city is 65 yet the
application shows 77 parking spaces on the site plan. He wondered if the additional 12
parking spaces were really necessary. In his opinion instead of the additional 12 parking
spaces the applicants should consider green space with additional landscaping rather than the
additional impervious surface.
Mr. Lavalle said they feel they have met the green space and setback requirements and have
provided convenient parking for their customers and employees. They feel it's necessary to
have the ability to have as much convenient parking as possible to best service the customers.
Chairperson Longrie-K1ine asked on a typical day how many drive-thru trips they would have?
Mr. Lavalle said the traffic study that was done for a different project showed approximately
seven vehicles a day.
Chairperson Longrie-K1ine said she noticed on the site plan the drive-thru window would be on
the east side of the building and close to the residential neighborhood. She asked if they had
thought of having a security camera on that side of the building.
Mr. Lavalle said a typical store does not have a security camera in that area. They address
those security concerns by location and could implement that if it is necessary. He said to
clarify, the outside lane is for prescription drop offs and the inside lane is for prescription pick
up.
Chairperson Longrie-K1ine said her concern was that the drive-thru was at the back of the store
and there is residential next to that.
Board member Olson said staff recommended extra screening between the drive-thru area
and Emma's Place and she asked what type of screening the applicant was proposing. She
asked if they had proposed using landscaping that would absorb the sound of the vehicles
idling, mufflers, and the intercom?
Mr. Lavalle said they just received the staff report yesterday October 25, 2004. The
landscaping revision city staff recommended seemed to be a good measure to buffer things
like that, but, they are open to other measures that the board may feel would help, such as a
fence.
Community Design Review Board 4
Minutes 10-26-2004
Chairperson Longrie-K1ine asked what hours the CVS pharmacy would be open?
Mr. Lavalle said these stores are open 24-hours-a-day, but, based on sales that could change.
Chairperson Longrie-K1ine said based on the information that the stores are open 24-hours-a-
day she wondered if the lighting could be dimmed after a certain hour so they don't shine into
people's windows.
Mr. Lavalle said they would work with staff. They can look at different lighting options as well
as the control of the energy management system to ensure the adjacent residential property is
not negatively impacted by the light.
Chairperson Longrie-K1ine said she noticed this building elevation is very similar to the CVS
pharmacy being built at Arcade Street and Maryland Avenue.
Mr. Lavalle said the building size is the same and the front architecture elements are the same
except the Arcade and Maryland location has more brick and additional design elements on it.
Mr. Lavalle said there are other representatives in the audience that could come forward and
answer any engineering or architecture questions.
Board member Olson asked about the tank removal process.
Mr. Lavalle said the site is undergoing remediation and has for a number of years. The
environmental consultants have reviewed the remediation that has been completed and are
working with the MPCA on a construction contingency plan. They are in discussion with the
MPCA as to how they can address concerns if additional things are found during construction.
Board member Olson asked if the process was going to end at some point and were they
going to remove the tanks before construction began?
Mr. Lavalle said yes the tanks would be removed and the impacted soils would have to be
removed and disposed at an accepted landfill. There would also be monitoring after
construction is complete to ensure remediation is complete.
Board member Olson said in her opinion the CVS building is plain. She is concerned about
the security, the fact that this is going to be a 24-hour pharmacy and how Emma's Place and
CVS Pharmacy would interact as neighbors especially with the drive-thru behind their
buildings. She said she doesn't want to see the lighting dimmed too much, she wants people
to feel safe but doesn't want to bother the neighbors either.
Board member Olson said the landscape screening may serve some purpose for noise
deadening depending on the vegetation but the board may want to recommend a fence for
screening. She likes what CVS pharmacy represents and thinks this would be a good addition
to the city; however, it needs some additional architectural elements. She also believes there
will be a lot of pharmacies on White Bear Avenue.
Board member Ledvina said this is an important area for redevelopment in Maplewood. This
location is prominent relative to the Maplewood Community Center and the City Hall campus
on County Road B and White Bear Avenue. The design is "okay" but he thinks there should be
Community Design Review Board 5
Minutes 10-26-2004
additional architectural elements to the building elevations. He gave a building elevation to
Ms. Finwall for a CVS pharmacy development proposed in the midway area that he found on
the internet and he asked staff to display it on the monitor. This building design has much
more architectural detail and he would view that building a higher quality design and would
hope that for this prominent site in Maplewood they would have a similar design. With the
redevelopment of White Bear Avenue in the Hillcrest area he would suggest the board reflect
the same type of concepts with this development. Because of the prominence of the location
he believes a better design could be used which would lead to a better fit for the community.
Board member Driscoll said after comparing the two building elevations she would agree with
Board member Ledvina. The plan shown for the midway area has much more architectural
elements in comparison to this design proposal. She noticed the signs on the midway building
elevation show exterior wall signs with one-hour photo and drive-thru pharmacy and those
words appear quite a bit smaller than the signs shown on the Maplewood plans, and that
makes a difference visually.
Board member Ledvina said he would agree, but as the sign code currently stands the CDRB
doesn't have control to change the signs. He feels the pylon sign is oversized for this size of
building. This is 30-foot tall building and a 24-foot high sign is too large and inappropriate for a
building of this size in his opinion.
Board member Olson agreed with the comments made. She would also like to see trim
around the windows and other architectural elements added to the building to make this
building neighborhood friendly.
Chairperson Longrie-Kline said when she sees the Maplewood Community Center, the
Maplewood City Hall, and the newly proposed Ramsey County Courthouse building design she
sees this building fitting in as far as building size, the look and feel of the building and design
features. However, she agrees the building elevation could be dressed up a bit. She would
rather see more color banding, color trim around the windows and less like a big box building.
The proposed entry way plan is more consistent with the community center than with the tower
as shown on the midway design plan. The CVS pharmacy would be a good addition to the
city. She would like to ensure, however, a happy medium between lights being bright enough
for security reasons and lights which do not cause a negative impact on the adjacent
residential property. She likes the new location for the trash dumpster on the updated plan
dated October 26, 2004.
Board member Olson asked if CVS pharmacy hoped to gain business from the new
Walgreen's in the Hillcrest area on White Bear Avenue or from the Walgreen's by Rainbow
Foods?
Mr. Lavalle said they hope to be a strong competitor from all of the surrounding pharmacies.
Board member Olson said the Walgreen's in the Hillcrest area has a tower and stronger
presence; she asked if they felt they could compete with the newly built Walgreen's?
Mr. Lavalle said yes. The building Mr. Ledvina gave to staff to show on the monitor was
designed because of input from the community they had received regarding the redevelopment
of that site. They would be willing to discuss some different architectural elements for the
proposed Maplewood building facade. Elements such as additional windows and changing
Community Design Review Board 6
Minutes 10-26-2004
exterior elevations would be a nice addition. But he would need to get approval from CVS to
have any towers or the look of a two-story building.
Board member Ledvina said he is not in favor of substituting brick with EIFS. He thinks
additional architectural elements can be added to the elevations. He likes the glass on the
midway building, the vertical variation in the fayade is a positive thing, and the tower element is
a nice addition and he would hope to see better plans as reflected on the midway building
plan. He also thinks the drive-thru pharmacy would reduce the amount of parking spaces
needed and that the applicant should look at less impervious and more environmentally
friendly green space with additional landscaping.
Chairperson Longrie-K1ine said the CDRB has approved other plans where the applicant had
shown proof of parking so that could be a possibility. She asked the applicant how they felt
about the fence idea at the rear of the property?
Mr. Lavalle said they are not opposed to the fence idea.
Ms. Finwall said Emma's Place already has a 6-foot high black vinyl coated chain linked fence
that runs along the entire length of the property. That is not a screening fence and would not
buffer noise but it would be unattractive to have a second screening fence constructed next to
it, that is the reason staff is recommending the landscaping. Now that she is aware this would
be a 24-hour operation the recommendation to have additional landscaping and the lighting
concerns are even more of an issue.
Board member Olson asked the applicant if they would be agreeable to maintain the brick on
the north and east side of the building at a minimum of three or four feet in height, particularly
because of the drive-thru. It occurred to her if the brick was reduced to a foot off of the curb
and replaced with the EIFS material the wall would be subject to a lot of damage. The brick
fayade would offer a more substantial product and may sustain less damage over time.
Mr. Lavalle said he would agree that a brick wainscot of three or four feet high could be
incorporated.
Board member Olson asked if the architect wanted to address the question of how they could
architecturally enhance the building elevations?
Ms. Kim Larsen, Architect with RSP Architects, 1220 Marshall Street NE, Minneapolis,
addressed the board. She said on the revised site plan the wainscot is already shown at 3
feet, 4 inches high. She discussed some of the alternatives that could be done with EIFS and
brick.
Board member Olson asked if it would be possible to have a frame around the windows?
Ms. Larsen said that is possible.
Board member Ledvina said he doesn't see how the banded windows fit into the design.
Ms. Larsen said the windows are such that the tenant can stock merchandise below and the
windows above can let natural light in.
Community Design Review Board 7
Minutes 10-26-2004
Mr. Lavalle said the arch is really a canopy that gives the look that the windows are arched
when they aren't. He said any ideas or recommendations the board could give them would be
appreciated and they would go back and check into incorporating them. He also said the
windows could be enlarged slightly.
Board member Olson said maybe there could be a wider banding around the windows to make
them stand out more.
Ms. Larsen said the light tan color used on the cornice could be used around the framing of the
windows.
Board member Olsen said she would be happy with that.
Board member Ledvina said he is uncomfortable trying to describe additional architectural
elements to the applicant and would suggest that this item be tabled and ask the applicant to
come back with a different plan.
Ms. Finwall said the next CDRB meeting is November 9, 2004, and staff would need the
revisions by November 3, 2004, for the CDRB packet.
Mr. Lavalle said they are agreeable to tabling this proposal and will take the comments offered
by the board and city staff and come back November 9, 2004.
Board member Olson asked if they would be amenable to reducing the amount of signage for
this proposal?
Mr. Lavalle said he would bring that information to the appropriate people.
Board member Ledvina moved to table the plans date-stamped September 22, 2004, for the
CVS Pharmacy located at 2168 and 2180 White Bear Avenue. The board has asked the
applicant to revise the plans and bring the item back to the CDRB meeting November 9, 2004.
Board member Olson seconded. Ayes - Driscoll, Ledvina, Longrie-Kline, Olson
The motion to table passed.
Board member Olson said some items the CDRB would like to see revised are additional
architectural elements, window enhancement, enhanced landscaping, relocation of the
dumpster, the size of the impervious surface, and reduced signage.
b. Olivia Gardens Townhomes, 2329 and 2335 Stillwater Road (7:25 p.m.-8:20 p.m.)
Ms. Finwall said Mr. Jeff Matthews, representing Matthews Construction, is proposing to build
14 townhouses (in seven twinhomes) in a development called Olivia Gardens. It would be on
a 2.79-acre site on the west side of Stillwater Road, north of Bush Avenue. The design of the
buildings includes horizontal-lap vinyl siding, aluminum soffits and fascia and brick veneer or
stone on the fronts. In addition, each unit would have a two-car garage. Ms. Finwall said staff
recommends approval of the site plan, grading and drainage plans, landscaping, lighting, and
building elevations for Olivia Gardens Townhomes on the west side of Stillwater Road, north of
Bush Avenue.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 10-26-2004
8
Board member Ledvina asked if building 1,6, and 7 would be walkouts.
Ms. Finwall said the applicant could answer that when he addresses the board.
Board member Olson said unfortunately she didn't have an opportunity to visit the site, but
according to the plans there appears to be no landscaping around the back of the building and
she wondered if any was proposed?
Board member Ledvina said when he went out to the site he noticed open space located to the
north with low wetland areas. While at the site he also noticed there had been grading work
done. He asked why grading had been done without the building permit? He thought the
correct protocol was to have the board review the proposal, then to city council, and then a
grading and building permit could be applied for.
Ms. Finwall said this application was already approved by the city council and city staff
approved the grading plan with the condition that the CDRB process take place before any
building permits were issued.
Chairperson Longrie-K1ine asked the applicant to address the board.
Mr. Jeff Matthews, Matthews Construction, residing at 10650 Brookview Road, Woodbury,
addressed the board.
Board member Ledvina asked why a fence was that was being proposed on the south side of
the property. He also asked which town home buildings would be walkouts?
Mr. Matthews said this is the first he had heard of any requirement for a fence. He said Unit 1
is a lookout unit, unit 7 would be built as slab on grade, and units 2-6 are walkouts. Mr.
Matthews said the reason there is no landscaping to the north is because those units have a
very nice view looking out onto the wetland area and into the trees, so he didn't see a need to
have landscaping in the back of the town homes.
Board member Olson asked if he would sod that area?
Mr. Matthews said yes. Mr. Matthews showed color samples to the board. His concept for this
development is to have a different color for each unit to make this development look unique
and like a single family neighborhood. He said he is using premium building products as well
for this development. There will be three different colors on each of these units for the shakes,
fascia, and siding products and he will use rock, cultured stone and brick products as well. He
builds custom homes so he has a lot of experience using different building products and
various colors together and has a feel for what sells and what doesn't.
Chairperson Longrie-Kline said she is fine with the variety of colors being used but was
concerned what colors would be used next door to each other.
Mr. Matthews said he doesn't have the colors he would use on which units mapped out yet but
he could do that if the board requested it.
Community Design Review Board 9
Minutes 10-26-2004
Board member Ledvina said maybe it would be appropriate for the applicant to work with staff
on those decisions.
Chairperson Longrie-K1ine said she was fine with that if it was agreeable with the other board
members.
The other board members were agreeable to that as long as the colors would be compatible.
Mr. Matthews agreed.
Board member Ledvina said the position of building number 7 is strange, but seems to work in
that location. He wondered if the applicant could continue the wainscoting along the north side
of townhome number 7 since that side is visible by units 5 and 6 and if the building would be
slab on grade that shouldn't be too difficult?
Mr. Matthews said that is a unit where the All Side product is used and the entire unit would be
the same color.
Board member Ledvina said the reason he brought the fence issue up was because it was
shown on the plans. Perhaps the engineer had responded to staff comments but he is strongly
questioning the value of having the fence.
Mr. Matthews said he prefers not to have the fence and would like to keep the area as natural
as possible by planting trees and maybe a berm along the east side of the property. He said
he met with the owner to the south and the neighbor is enthusiastic about the development,
he has no children so it is not a safety concern on the neighbor's part. If everyone could come
to some agreement without the fence he would be happier about that.
Board member Olson asked how deep the pond would be?
Mr. Matthews said he believed the pond would be three-to-four feet deep.
Chairperson Longrie-K1ine asked what type of light fixture the applicant was considering?
Mr. Matthews said the outside lighting would be recessed lighting and would direct light
downward. He was told by city staff that two light poles would be sufficient for this
development. He said he is going to put a small shed on the property to house the sprinkler
system and he thinks the best location would be on the west side at the end of the road.
Board member Olson asked if he could fit that sprinkler house in between the easement and
the end of the road and still allow for turn around space for unit 6?
Mr. Matthews said the building would be built at the end of the road where it dead ends.
Board member Olson asked iflhere would be any retaining walls on this site?
Mr. Matthews said no.
Board member Ledvina said he is fine with the lighting.
Community Design Review Board 10
Minutes 10-26-2004
Board member Driscoll said she thought the lighting and the buildings are very nice and said
it's nice to see a shingle-style architectural series of homes in the Midwest. She asked about
the garage detailing.
Mr. Matthews said the garage detail shown on the plans is a mistake on the plans. To achieve
the look of the garage door shown he would have to use a wood garage door and he proposes
to use steel doors with windows.
Board member Ledvina asked where the utility meters would be located?
Mr. Matthews said the utility meters would be five or six feet from the entrance off to the side of
the units.
The board members said they like the expansive color choices, the uniqueness of the
development, and the proposed building materials.
Board member Olson asked where the mailboxes and house numbers would be placed?
Mr. Matthews said he received a plan from the post office and he believed the mailboxes
would be posted on the south and north side of Olivia Court along Stillwater Road. The house
numbers are going to be on the garage as a monument in the stone or brick.
Board member Olson said she recommends he works those details out with staff.
Board member Ledvina moved to approve the plans date-stamped October 4, 2004, (site plan,
grading and drainage plans, landscape, lighting and building elevations) for the Olivia Gardens
Townhomes on the west side of Stillwater Road, north of Bush Avenue. The city bases this
approval on the findings required by the code. The developer or contractor shall do the
following (changes made by the community design review board during the October 26,
2004, meeting 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. Complete the following before the city issues a building permit:
a. Have the city engineer approval final construction and engineering plans. These
plans shall include: grading, utility, drainage, erosion control, tree, sidewalk and
driveway plans. The plans shall meet the following conditions and shall meet all
the conditions and changes noted in Erin Laberee's memo dated October 11,
2004.
(1) The erosion control plan shall be consistent with city code.
(2) The grading plan shall:
(a) Include building, floor elevation and contour information for each
home site. The lot lines on this plan shall follow the approved
preliminary plat.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 10-26-2004
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
w
11
Include contour information for the land that the construction will
disturb.
Show sedimentation basins or ponds as may be required by the
watershed board or by the city engineer.
Show all proposed slopes steeper than 3:1 on the proposed
construction plans. The city engineer shall approve the plans,
specifications and management practices for any slopes steeper
than 3:1. This shall include covering these slopes with wood-fiber
blankets and seeding them with a "no mow" vegetation rather than
using sod or grass.
Show all retaining walls on the plans. Any retaining walls more
than four feet tall require a building permit from the city.
Show the proposed street and driveway grades as allowed by the
city engineer.
Show drainage areas and the developer's engineer shall provide
the city engineer with the drainage calculations. The drainage
design shall accommodate the runoff from the surrounding areas.
The city enqineerinq department and the applicant shall review the
need for the 4-foot-hiqh fence located around the proposed NURP
pond, and remove the fence from the plans if not needed. If
needed. the applicant shall show the details of the proposed fence
includinq the materials. heiqht and color. to be approved bv city
staff. Show detailc about the propoced fence by the pond including
the materialc, height and color. The contractor chall extend the
fence along the east side of the pond, near the existing trail along
Stillwater Road.
(3) The tree plan shall:
(a) Be approved by the city engineer.
(b) Include an inventory of all existing large trees on the site and shall
show where the developer will remove, save or replace large trees.
(c) Show the size, species and location of the replacement trees. The
coniferous trees shall be at least eight feet tall and shall be a mix of
black hills spruce and Austrian pine (not Colorado blue spruce).
(d) Be consistent with the approved grading and landscape plans and
shall show no tree removal beyond the approved grading and tree
limits.
(4) The street, driveway and utility plans shall show:
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 10-26-2004
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(h)
12
A water service to each lot and unit.
The repair and restoration of Stillwater Road (including curbing,
street, trail and boulevard) after the contractor removes the existing
driveways, connects to the public utilities and builds the new private
driveway (Olivia Court).
The driveway in front of Lots 1 and 2, Block 6, as wide as possible
while still accommodating the necessary screening and trees.
All driveways at least 20 feet wide. If the developer wants to have
parking on one side of the main drive (Olivia Court), then it must be
at least 28 feet wide.
All the parking areas and driveways shall have continuous concrete
curb and gutter except where the city engineer decides that it is not
needed.
The developer or contractor shall post one side of the driveway
(Olivia Court) with no parking signs to meet the above-listed
standards.
The private driveway labeled as Olivia Court and Stillwater Road
labeled on all plans.
The common area labeled as Outlot A on all plans.
(5) The design of the ponding area and the rainwater garden(s) shall be
subject to the approval of the city engineer. The developer shall be
responsible for getting any needed off-site utility, grading or drainage
easements and for recording all necessary easements.
b. Submit a certificate of survey for all new construction and have each building
staked by a registered land surveyor.
c. Submit revised landscape and tree plans to city staff for approval that
incorporates the following details and that meet the following requirements:
(1) All trees would be consistent with city standards for size, location and
species.
(2) The plan shall show the size, species and proposed location of all trees.
The maple trees must be at least 2% inches in caliper, balled and
burlapped.
(3) The manicured or mowed areas from the natural areas. This shall
include planting (instead of sodding) the disturbed areas around the
ponding area and the rainwater gardens with native grasses and native
flowering plants. The native grasses and flowering plants shall be those
needing little or no maintenance and shall extend at least four feet from
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 10-26-2004
13
the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) of the pond. This is to reduce
maintenance costs and to reduce the temptation of mowers to encroach
into the gardens. Specifically, the developer shall have the natural areas
seeded with an upland mixture and lowland mixtures as appropriate.
(4) The plantings proposed around the front of the units shown on the
landscape plan date-stamped October 4,2004, shall remain on the plan.
(5) In addition to the above, the contractor shall sod all front, side and rear
yard areas (except for mulched and edged planting beds and the area
within the ponding area).
(6) The contractor shall restore the Stillwater Road boulevard with sod.
(7) Adding at least 12 more evergreen trees (Black Hills spruce or Austrian
pines) along the south property line of the site. These trees are to be at
least eight feet tall and the contractor shall plant these trees in staggered
rows to provide screening for the houses to the south.
(8) Adding at least nine more trees along the north property line of the site
and on the northeast corner of the site (near Lot 1, Block 1).
(9) Shows the in-ground lawn-irrigation system, including the location of the
sprinkler heads.
(10) Shall be approved by the city engineer before site grading and shall be
consistent with the approved grading and landscape plans.
b. Get the necessary approvals and permits from the watershed district.
c. Submit a revised site lighting plan for city approval. This plan shall show
how the lighting on the buildings would add to the site lighting, and the
plan should have additional lighting along the main driveway (Olivia
Court), so it is adequately lit. These plan also shall show details about the
proposed light fixtures to ensure they are a design that hides the bulb and
lens from view to avoid nuisances. The light fixtures must have concealed
lenses and bulbs to properly shield glare from the adjacent street right-of-
ways from adjacent residential properties.
d. Have the Saint Paul Regional Water Services (SPRWS) approve the
proposed utility plans.
e. Submit for city staff approval revised building plans and elevations that
show the followinq: 1) specific colors for each buildinq usinq the palette of
7 color combinations shown to the CDRB October 26. 2004; 2) north
elevation of buildinq number seven to include a brick or stone wainscot to
match the front of the buildinq; 3) steel qaraqe doors with decorative
windows for all units; 4) or include (but are not limited to) the colore of all
materials, white shutters, ~ white window grids; Ql white balcony railings;
Zl and that provide more detail about the brick or stone accents.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 10-26-2004
14
f. Present to staff for approval color building elevations or building material
camplec of all elentionc of the townhoucec. Thece elevationc chould
chow that the townhoucec will have two tonec or beige colored vinyl ciding
and either bricl{ or clone accentc on the front elevation. Thece elevationc
alco chould chow that the front elevationc would have a wainccot of bricl{
or stone.
f. The placement of utilitv meters. mailboxes and unit numbers on the
buildinq to be approved bv city staff.
g. The developer or builder will pay the Park Access Charges (PAC fees) for
each housing unit at the time of the building permit for each housing unit.
h. Submit the homeowners' association bylaws and rules to the city for
approval by the city staff. These are to assure that there will be one
responsible party for the care and maintenance of the common areas, the
publicly-owned parcel to the north, the private utilities, landscaping and
any retaining walls.
i. Obtain the necessary approvals and permits from MnDot.
j. Provide the city with a letter of credit or cash escrow for all required
exterior improvements. The amount shall be 150 percent of the cost of
the work.
3. Complete the following before occupying each building:
a. Replace property irons that are removed because of this construction.
b. Restore and sod damaged boulevards. Sod all landscaped areas, except
for the ponding area, which the contractor should seed and landscape.
c. Install continuous concrete curb and gutter along all interior driveways and
around all open parking stalls.
d. Install a reflectorized stop sign at the exit onto Stillwater Road and
address on each building for each unit. In addition, the applicant shall
install "no parking" signs within the site, as required by staff.
e. Install and maintain all required landscaping (including the plantings
around each unit and around the pond) and an in-ground sprinkler system
for all landscaped areas (code requirement).
f. Install on-site lighting for security and visibility that follows the approved
site lighting plan. All exterior lighting shall follow the approved lighting
plan that shows the light spread and fixture design. The light fixtures must
have concealed lenses and bulbs to properly shield glare from the
adjacent street right-of-ways and the nearby homes and residential
properties.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 10-26-2004
15
g. Install a six-foot-high solid screening fence or additional landscaping along
the west and south property lines of the site where the vegetation does not
adequately screen the town houses and the parking areas from the
existing dwellings. These additional materials are to ensure there is at
least a six-foot-tall, 80 percent opaque screen on these sides of the site.
The location, design and materials of the fence or the additional
landscaping shall be subject to city staff approval.
h. The developer or contractor shall:
(1) Complete all grading for the site drainage, complete all public
improvements and meet all city requirements.
(2) Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading
limits.
(3) Remove any debris or junk from the site.
4. If any required work is not done, the city may allow temporary occupancy if:
a. The city determines that the work is not essential to the public health,
safety or welfare.
b. The above-required letter of credit or cash escrow is held by the city for all
required exterior improvements. The owner or contractor shall complete
any unfinished landscaping by June 1 of the next year if the building is
occupied in the fall or winter, or within six weeks of occupancy if the
building is occupied in the spring or summer.
c. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community
development may approve minor changes.
Board member Olson offered a friendly amendment to have the condition for a retaining wall
removed because the applicant said there would be no retaining walls.
Chairperson Longrie-Kline offered a friendly amendment to show the use of steel garage doors
with windows used and that the placement of the utility meters, mailboxes, and house numbers
be approved by staff.
Board member Olson seconded.
Ayes - Driscoll, Ledvina, Longrie-Kline, Olson
The motion passed.
Chairperson Longrie-K1ine said the CDRB bases their decision because:
1. 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
Community Design Review Board 16
Minutes 10-26-2004
unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring, existing or proposed
developments; and that it will not create traffic hazards or congestion.
2. That 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.
3. That the design and location of the proposed development would provide a desirable
environment for its occupants, as well as its neighbors, and that it is aesthetically of
good composition, materials, textures and colors.
c. University Auto, 1145 Highway 36 (8:20 p.m. - 8:45 p.m.)
Ms. Finwall said Mr. Hossein Aghamirzai of University Auto Sales and Leasing is proposing to
expand University Auto's motor vehicle sales lot at 1145 Highway 36 East. Staff recommends
approval of the design review of the expanded motor vehicle sales lot with several conditions.
Board member Olson asked Ms. Finwall if she read correctly that the applicant had already
begun the grading work on this project and would be double fined for a grading permit?
Ms. Finwall said correct the applicant began grading the site without the appropriate grading
permit.
Board member Olson said it appears every inch of this site will impervious surface. She said
she was unhappy with the landscaping plan that was submitted.
Ms. Finwall said the applicant is proposing a 15-foot setback from the right-of-way for the new
parking lot which will provide green space. This property is zoned M-1 which is light
manufacturing and is not located in any shoreland overlay district so city code does not have
specific impervious surface requirements on this site.
Chairperson Longrie-K1ine asked the applicant to address the board.
Mr. Mohsen Aghamirzai, General Manager of University Auto, 1145 Highway 36, Maplewood,
addressed the board. He said they agree with staffs recommendation for additional
landscaping and would submit a new landscaping plan.
Board member Ledvina asked when the paving of the parking lot would take place?
Mr. Aghamirzai said weather permitting they hope to get the paving done yet this year. If they
are unable to pave this year they would have to wait until Mayor June.
Board member Ledvina said if the paving was not done this year he asked if they would install
a silt fence. When he visited the site he noticed some erosion control problems already.
Mr. Aghamirzai said when the demolition took place they did the grading. This was the wrong
thing to do without a grading permit. There was a misunderstanding and they have spoken to
the city engineer Chuck Vermeersch and agreed everything would be done correctly.
Community Design Review Board 17
Minutes 10-26-2004
Chairperson Longrie-Kline said one of the staff recommendations is to waive the requirement
for an underground irrigation system. If the board waives that requirement she asked how the
landscaping would be maintained?
Mr. Aghamirzai said they have maintained the grass for the past 4 years as well as the planter
box so they don't see any issue with continuing to care for the landscaping.
Board member Olson asked if there was access to the Second Harvest parking lot located to
the north of their site and have they been using that to move cars around within the site?
Mr. Aghamirzai said prior to construction commencing there was no driving between the
properties. Now that the property has been graded there has been, but only for the
contractors, they do not drive or move any vehicles through the access.
Mr. Aghamirzai said the required five-foot setback requirement for the survey was an omission
by the surveyors. That area will be maintained. They would either fence it or create some type
of a barrier to ensure his customers do not drive through there. However, he is not ready to
commit to any agreement at this time.
Board member Ledvina said just for the record he remembers the last time University Auto
Sales came through for approval by the CDRB last year. One comment he had made and
recommended was to have the light posts painted because they were very unsightly and they
remain unpainted.
Board member Olson moved to approve the site plan date-stamped September 17, 2004, for
the expansion of a motor vehicle sales lot at 1145 Highway 36 East. Approval is subject to the
applicant complying with the following conditions: (changes made by the community design
review board during the October 26, 2004, meeting are underlined if added and stricken
if deleted):
a. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this
project.
b. Prior to issuance of a grading permit for the expanded used motor vehicle sales lot, the
applicants must submit the following to staff for approval:
1) A grading and drainage plan which addresses all conditions required in Chuck
Vermeersch's memorandum dated October 18, 2004.
2) Revised site plan showing the expanded motor vehicle sales lot maintaining a 5-
foot setback to the rear property line.
3) Landscape plan showing the planting of at least 7 deciduous trees (one tree per
30 feet) or 14 ornamental trees (one tree per 15 feet), 30 shrubs, and several
perennial plants to be planted along the front of the expanded motor vehicle
sales lot, and shrubs within the existing planting bed along the west side of the
building. All other areas must be sodded or seeded with grass. The CDRB
waives the city code requirement for underground irrigation.
Community Design Review Board 18
Minutes 10-26-2004
4) Trash dumpster enclosure plans for the outside trash containers if used (code
requirement). This plan must show the placement and design of the enclosure.
Trash enclosures must have a 100 percent opaque closeable gate. Enclosures
must be of a material that matches or is compatible with the building.
5) Photometrics plans for any new outdoor lighting. The plan must include the light
illumination at all property lines not exceeding A-foot-candles and all
freestanding lights maintaining a height of 25 feet or less.
6) 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.
c. Complete the following prior to the city conducting a final grading inspection on the site,
unless the city holds the above-mentioned cash escrow or letter of credit to ensure
completion of the work:
1) Painting all new and existing parking space stripes.
2) Construction of a trash dumpster enclosure for any outside trash containers if
used.
3) Repainting of all existing light poles white to ensure no chipped or peeling paint.
4) Installation of all required landscaping.
d. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may
approve minor changes.
e. If pavinq of the expanded motor vehicle sales lot does not occur in 2004. the applicant
shall review the need for silt fence and erosion control with the city enqineerinq
department.
Board member Ledvina offered a friendly amendment regarding the need for erosion control if
paving was not complete this season.
Board member Ledvina seconded.
Ayes - Driscoll, Ledvina, Longrie-Kline, Olson
The motion passed.
Chairperson Longrie-K1ine said the CDRB bases their decision because:
1. 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.
2. That 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,
Community Design Review Board 19
Minutes 10-26-2004
orderly and attractive development contemplated by this article and the city's
comprehensive municipal plan.
4. That the design and location of the proposed development would provide a desirable
environment for its occupants, as well as its neighbors, and that it is aesthetically of
good composition, materials, textures and colors.
This item goes to the city council on November 8, 2004.
d. Wyngate Townhomes, 1750 and 1752 Village Trail (Legacy Village Rental
Townhomes) (8:45 p.m. - 9:20 p.m.)
Ms. Finwall said Mr. Patrick Sarver, of the Hartford Group, is requesting approval of design
plans for the Wyngate Town Homes. Wyngate is a 50-unit rental, affordable-housing project
previously approved as part of the Legacy Village PUD (planned unit development). Wyngate
will be located between Ashley Furniture and the recently approved town homes of the
Heritage Square Second Addition. The proposed complex would consist of two, two-story
buildings. The proposed buildings would be sided with stucco and have asphalt shingles.
Each building will have 25 units. There will be 48 underground parking spaces in each building
for 24 of the units. Each building will also have a handicap-accessible unit with its own two car
garage for a total of two garage spaces per unit as code requires. There will also be 31
surface parking spaces for visitors in parking lots on the east and west sides of the site plus 10
parallel-parking spaces along the east-west roadway to the north. Staff recommends approval
of the plans dated October 1, 2004, for the proposed Wyngate Townhomes in the Legacy
Village PUD.
Board member Olson said the 2003 approved Legacy Village concept plan shown on page 9 of
the staff report is very old. There are things on the map that are no longer going to be built
and it bothers her that this map is not currently representing what will be developed.
Board member Olson said this map shows a corporate commercial site, playground, picnic
area, soccer field, executive office suite and clubhouse with pool, water park, and picnic area
in which none of that is going to be built. Ashley Furniture is shown in the wrong location
according to the way it was approved. Having outdated information makes it hard to imagine
how this development would be built around the trails and other buildings. She would've liked
to have seen a current overall plan to envision how this would all be developed.
Chairperson Longrie-K1ine asked the applicant to address the board.
Mr. Patrick Sarver, Director of Land Planning for the Hartford Group, 12100 Singletree Lane,
Eden Prairie, addressed the board. He thought an updated overall site plan was included for
the packet and apologized for not including it. He has site plans available but not with him
tonight. There is one available on the internet site and the information is updated constantly.
The web site is www.Hartfordgrp.com listed under projects and click Maplewood and it should
come up for viewing. He presented a color elevation for staff to put on the monitor.
Board member Ledvina asked what product was being used for the exterior of the
underground parking entrance?
Mr. Sarver said exposed rock face block.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 10-26-2004
20
Mr. Hal Pierce, Director of Architecture for the Hartford Group, 12100 Singletree Lane, Eden
Prairie, explained the exterior materials to the board.
Board member Olson asked how they planned to vary the units throughout the development?
Mr. Pierce said they would use three color palettes with one roof color and one window color.
The eaves would be white, shutters would be brown and the metal railings would be black.
Mr. Sarver said the units are all handicapped accessible so anyone that has a handicap visitor
would be able to visit any of the units.
Board member Olson asked if there were stairs or an elevator in the units?
Mr. Pierce said the rambler units on the end will be individual units that will have an attached
garage which are van accessible, each other unit will be two stories with a ground floor
bedroom and bathroom and two, three or four bedrooms upstairs. There are no elevators.
They will have indoor trash and recycling containers that would be moved out on trash day.
Board member Olson asked where the utility meters would be located?
Mr. Sarver said there is a bank of utility meters located inside the garage.
Board member Driscoll said there appears to be a vent or something shown on the plans
located on the side of the entrances and she asked what that was for?
Mr. Sarver said those are magic packs on the building exterior and would be color coated to
the exterior of the building. Mr. Sarver said it states in the conditions that they would have a
34-foot roadway to accommodate 10 feet for parallel parking and 24 feet for 2-way traffic. He
said they would propose matching the dimension that was provided for Heritage Square
Second Addition and that was a 25-foot-wide driveway with a 7-foot-wide parking aisle, which
would net 32 feet. They could work with city staff to see if that is acceptable. They understand
if this has already been approved for Heritage Square they would like to do the same. This is
a strong element to the village concept.
Board member Olson asked if Mr. Sarver could talk about the landscaping plan.
Mr. Sarver said they are going to have overstory trees that would provide some screening to
the upper level windows. They are limited to the type of tree they can plant because of the
power lines.
Chairperson Longrie-K1ine asked where the trail easement would be located.
Ms. Finwall said the trail would be located south of the proposal within the pipeline easement.
Board member Ledvina said this is a very nice site design and he likes the underground
parking that is going to be provided, the design is attractive, the developer is very thorough in
the design detail and he is pleased with the proposal.
Community Design Review Board 21
Minutes 10-26-2004
Chairperson Longrie-Kline said she likes the mix of materials and the way they have been put
together. She also likes the additional details that have been added to enhance the design.
Board member Olson said she would like to complement the architect on this project because
even in black and white it has interest, depth and substance and she likes the project.
Board member Driscoll said the presentation is wonderful and this would be a nice addition to
the development area.
Board member Driscoll moved to approve the plans date-stamped October 1, 2004, for the
proposed Wyngate Townhomes in the Legacy Village PUD. Approval is subject to the
applicant doing the following (changes made by the community design review board
during the October 26, 2004, meeting 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. Before getting a building permit, the applicant shall revise the plans or do the following
for staff approval.
. Provide a 15-foot-wide pedestrian trail easement over the power line trail to the
city for access and maintenance. The exact location of this trail shall be worked
out with staff to assure proper connection to the sections of this trail on the
Ashley Furniture and Heritage Square Second Addition properties. (The city will
construct this trail, but the applicant must prepare the trail base according to the
city engineer's requirements.)
. Provide the city with cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit for the exterior
landscaping and site improvements. Staff shall determine the dollar amount of
the escrow.
. Meet all requirements of the engineering report by Erin Laberee dated October
14, 2004.
. Revise the site plan to widen the northerly east-west shared private roadway to
J4 32 feet to accommodate 10 feet for the parallel parking and 21 feet for 2-way
traffic.
. Provide verification of recorded cross easements between this site and the
surrounding properties where access is shared.
. Provide a site-lighting plan in accordance with city ordinance.
. Provide engineered plans to the building official for all retaining walls that exceed
four feet in height as measured from the bottom of the footing.
. Provide shrubs on the top of all sections of retaining wall that are over four feet in
height.
Community Design Review Board 22
Minutes 10-26-2004
. Provide sod, not seed, with the exception that the site may be seeded from a line
25 feet south of the southerly building to the south property line.
. Provide evidence that the final plat for Heritage Square Second Addition is
recorded, thereby extending the Wyngate site 80 feet to the west as proposed.
. Provide a site and design plan for the screening of any trash and recycling
containers to be kept outside.
. Provide handicap-accessible parking according to the building official's
requirements (Chapter 41 of the State Building Code).
. Provide a screening plan for any exterior utility meters, subject to the
requirements of the community design review board.
5. Before getting a certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall:
. Comply with or complete all aspects of these plans or any required revisions.
. Provide in-ground lawn irrigation as shown on the plans.
. Install traffic and address signs, subject to staff approval.
. Construct the entire northerly east-west shared private roadway and the easterly
shared north-south private roadway if these have not been constructed prior to
occupancy. Construction shall be subject to the requirements of the city
engineer.
6. The community design review board shall review major changes to these plans. Minor
changes may be approved by staff.
Board member Ledvina offered a friendly amendment to change bullet number four to read 32
feet instead of 34 feet and strike the 10 feet and 24 feet. Also to strike the bullet for screening
of trash and recycling containers because the applicant said they would be housed inside the
garage.
Board member Ledvina seconded.
Ayes - Driscoll, Ledvina, Longrie-Kline, Olson
The motion passed.
VII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS
No visitors present.
VIII. BOARD PRESENTATIONS
None.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 10-26-2004
IX. STAFF PRESENTATIONS
23
a. Sign Code Survey Results
Ms. Rose Lorsung, Planning Intern, reviewed the sign code survey results. Ms. Lorsung
said on September 21, 2004, city staff attended a luncheon for the WBABA and
presented more information and surveys to business members as well as board and city
council member Marvin Koppen. In October 2004 the city received 50 surveys, 20 from
the website survey, and 30 from the 200 mailings. In order to interpret the responses,
they were coded and inputted into statistical software (SPSS) and the variables were
compared and analyzed. The city recently met with the Minnesota Chapter of the
National Sign Association to discuss their model sign ordinance. With the research,
marketing, and sign code survey responses, the city will begin revising the sign code of
ordinances. Ms. Lorsung stated staff would like to bring the sign code revisions back to
the CDRB on November 23, 2004.
The board offered some suggestions to city staff before returning with more information
on November 23, 2004.
b. Community Design Review Board Representation at the November 8, 2004, City
Council Meeting
Board member Ledvina will represent the CDRB at the November 8, 2004, city council
meeting. The only CDRB item to discuss will be University Auto at 1145 Highway 36.
c. Ms. Finwall said the city council passed the Summerhill Senior Cooperative
proposal at 935 Ferndale Street North. Ms. Finwall updated the board on
Gladstone
X. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 10:04 p.m.