Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/12/2007 AGENDA CITY OF MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD Tuesday, June 12,2007 6:00 P.M. Council Chambers - Maplewood City Hall 1830 County Road BEast 1 . Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Agenda 4. Approval of Minutes: May 22, 2007 5. Unfinished Business: a. Cosleo - North of Beam, South of New County Road D, West of Highway 61, East of Vento Trail 6. Design Review: a. Comforts of Home Design Review Amendment - 2300/2310 Hazelwood Street b. Pond Overlook Town Houses - 2161 County Road D c. Rolling Hills Manufactured Home Park Sales Office - 1316 Pearson Drive 7. Visitor Presentations: 8. Board Presentations: 9. Staff Presentations: a. Representation at the June 25, 2007, City Council Meeting - Items to be discussed include Comforts of Home and Pond Overlook 10. Adjourn MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD 1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, JUNE 12, 2007 I. CALL TO ORDER Vice-Chairperson Olson called the meeting to order at 6:06 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Board member John Demko Vice-Chairperson Matt Ledvina Chairperson Linda Olson Board member Ananth Shankar Board member Matt Wise Present Present until 7:21 p.m. Present at 6:09 p.m. Present Present Staff Present: Shann Finwall, Planner Lisa Kroll, Recording Secretary III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Board member Shankar moved to approve the agenda. Board member Wise seconded. Ayes - Demko, Ledvina, Shankar, Wise The motion passed. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of the CDRB minutes for May 22, 2007. Board member Wise had a correction to the minutes on page 14, item J., fifth line, after the word side-loaded insert the word garage. Board member Shankar moved approval of the minutes of May 22,2007, as amended. Board member Wise seconded. Ayes ---Demko, Ledvina, Shankar, Wise The motion passed. V. UNFINISHED BUSINESS a. Costco - North of Beam, South of New County Road D, West of Highway 61, East of Vento Trail Ms. Finwall said on May 8, 2007, the community design review board (CDRB) reviewed the plans for the proposed Costco store on Beam Avenue. The board tabled this proposal in order for the applicant to provide revised architectural plans and additional data to support the request for taller light poles in the parking lot. In summary, the CDRB gave the applicant the following direction: Community Design Review Board Minutes 06-12-2007 3 Ms. Finwall said thought the Carmax building would be all brick and the brick colors were in red tones. Board member Ledvina asked if it was staff's intention that Costco try to match the color of the Carmax building? Ms. Finwall said that since this is in a PUD the board should consider that. Chairperson Olson said this would set a precedence for any other building built in this area? Ms. Finwall nodded yes. Chairperson Olson asked how Costco's light fixtures would blend in with Carmax's light fixtu res? Ms. Finwall said she is not certain what style of light is being constructed for Carmax. Carmax maintained the 25 foot light pole height standard and did not receive a light pole waiver from the city. It should be noted the Costco building is much larger than the Carmax building. Chairperson Olson said she thought the light poles at Carmax wouldn't be installed in landscape islands; they are installed in the parking lot in between vehicles. Chairperson Olson asked the applicant to address the board. Mr. Ted Johnson, 2311 West 22nd Street, Oak Brook, Illinois, addressed the board. Regarding the staff recommendation to switch the split-face CMU to a face brick or smooth face CMU, Costco agrees to that. He would like to check with the local suppliers to see if jumbo brick is available in the colors Costco is proposing. Costco will work with staff to make that substitution as long as there is some leeway with the size of the brick. He isn't sure there needs to be any consistency between Carmax and Costco. Yes, this is in a PUD but it's not a unified retail center. Carmax is at the corner of Beam Avenue and Highway 61. Between Carmax and Costco there is a large wetland area, then there is the new road (Country View Drive) and then there is the Costco development. With respect to the light fixtures, he's sure Carmax would have their lights on most of the time to showcase their vehicles. Costco shuts their lights off one hour after closing. These are separate commercial users. Costco added 64 additional trees to the landscape islands to bring the plan up to their standards on two trees per island. He presented a building materials board to show the board members. The Costco signs will be wall mounted with the exception of some directional signs. Board member Wise asked if Costco has evening employees that stock the store and will there be any security lighting? Mr. Johnson said there will be shoe box fixtures which are the wall pack lights that down light the building. There will be minimal lighting at the gas canopy so the cameras can pick up any motion near the gas pumps. Board member Shankar asked if they would be replacing all the split-face CMU? Community Design Review Board 5 Minutes 06-12-2007 Chairperson Olson said she's in favor of the taller light pole standards because of the discussion the board had with the applicant during the last review in regard to allowing for additional landscaping and turning the lights off when the store is closed. Board member Shankar said there should be no split-faced CMU at all. Now the applicant is showing a wainscot of a lighter color split-faced CMU and that is going to be the jumbo brick which is fine, but in addition to that, at the corners they show a darker color of split-faced CMU and he feels that should be replaced with prairie stone. The prairie stone is already used at the entrance and this would make a nice anchor at the four corners of the building. Chairperson Olson said she likes the prairie stone, on the columns and under the canopy at the gas station. Mr. Johnson said if you want to see what additional prairie stone looks like the Costco building in Eden Prairie has too much prairie stone in his opinion.. He said the board won't be happy with that in Maplewood. Prairie stone needs to be used at appropriate locations and he thinks that is already being done at the entrance and at the fuel canopy. Board member Shankar said prairie stone is a great material. Maybe he hasn't seen prairie stone used in a large area. He hasn't seen the Eden Prairie building, so he can't respond to that common. Board member Ledvina said these are substantial areas where the prairie stone would be used. Board member Shankar said if they don't use prairie stone on the corners he asked what the applicant would want to use? Mr. Johnson said he would like to use split-face CMU compared to face brick. He would work with Tom Ekstrand to come up with a type of material that the city would appreciate. The prairie stone is way too much of one material to use for a building of this mass. Board member Shankar said in that case, his opinion is that it should be two different types of brick rather than using split-faced CMU. The applicant can show the two different colors of brick and work with staff on that. Board member Wise said he doesn't have a problem with staff reviewing this, he thinks it would be nice to use comparable building colors if possible but if it's going to compromise Costco's project he doesn't want them to do this. He would leave it up to staff. Chairperson Olson said perhaps the CMU could be replaced with brick that is similar in color. Board member Shankar said if they are going to have two different colors of brick on this building maybe one of those brick colors could match the color of the Carmax building. Board member Wise said he thinks it would be a mistake if the board doesn't consider having some common elements or colors when future developments go in so as you drive through the area it all blends in nicely. Community Design Review Board 7 Minutes 06-12-2007 10. The comprehensive signage plan is approved as proposed. Staff can approve changes to this sign plan as long as they comply with the sign ordinance. The applicant must apply for sign permits. 11. The applicant may install site-light poles that are 35 feet in height as requested. 12. All roof-top mechanical equipment shall be painted to match the building unless the equipment is screened from view. 13. All work shall follow the approved plans. Staff may approve minor changes. 14. The applicant shall work with staff to coordinate similar color usaqe with other buildinqs in the PUD namely Carmax. 15. The applicant shall work with staff to coordinate the liqht pole colors and standards should be coordinated with the Carmax liqht fixtures if at all possible to be worked with staff. Chairperson Olson seconded. Ayes - Demko, Ledvina, Olson, Shankar, Wise Board member Demko asked what the status was with the Carmax site? Ms. Finwall said Carmax has received approval but staff didn't know what the status was with their building permit. Chairperson Olson asked Bruce Mogren to address the board regarding this question. Bruce Mogren, 1801 Gervais Avenue, Maplewood, addressed the board. Mr. Mogren said he closed the transaction with Carmax so Carmax owns the property now. Carmax doesn't plan on building until next year or the summer of 2008. Carmax is trying to find another site so they can build two sites at the same time. VI. DESIGN REVIEW a. Comforts of Home Design Review Amendment - 2300/2310 Hazelwood Street Ms. Finwall said the Comforts of Home development is proposed for the southeast corner of Highway 36 and Hazelwood Street (the location of the vacant Auto Glass store and an electrical contractor's office). The project includes 42 assisted living, senior housing units. On June 12, 2006, the city council approved several land use requests for this development including a comprehensive land use plan change from business commercial to high density residential, a conditional use permit for a planned unit development, and design review. The Comforts of Homes development will have 42 private suites, a large kitchen, group dining/living/activity areas, and a beauty shop. Each suite has a private bathroom and a separate bedroom/living area. Some of the units would have kitchenettes. The facility will have 24-hour, on-site home care and nursing staff. Community Design Review Board Minutes 06-12-2007 9 Board member Demko asked if the windows and doors were maintenance free? Mr. Paschke said yes. Board member Wise said he would like to hear the applicant's response to staff's recommendation to use the hardi product rather than using the vinyl product. He said he tends to rely on city staff regarding the products being used and how they blend or not blend together. Mr. Paschke said staff's comments were directed toward durability and aesthetics of the two building products. He believes they have a building design that would be complimentary using either the vinyl or the hardi product. Board member Demko asked what the life span would be for the vinyl siding versus the hardi product? Mr. Paschke said he would defer that question to the siding professional. Terry Gansmer, 9655 Newton Avenue South, Bloomington, representing the manufacturer of the vinyl siding product, addressed the board. Regarding durability, their company carries a lifetime warranty on the vinyl product. The vinyl siding is a heavy gauge (44 mill). Both the vinyl and hardi product are very durable and the vinyl siding has been proven to be a very good product. Chairperson Olson asked what color would be used on the building? Mr. Paschke said the color selection has not been made yet. Board member Ledvina asked if they propose to keep the cultured stone wainscoting on the lower half of the building? Mr. Paschke said yes. They would use the hardi product on the first floor elevation and then use the vinyl siding product on the second floor. The difference between the two building materials is, vinyl siding is maintenance free and the hardi product will need to be primed and refinished every 10 to 15 years. Board member Shankar asked what mill thickness they propose to use? Mr. Gansmer said the Great Barrier siding which is the horizontal siding, is 0.44 mill thickness, the vinyl shingle product is .050 mill thickness, and the board and baton product is .046 mill thickness. Board member Shankar asked what mill thickness they are seeing used in new construction these days? Mr. Gansmer said they see vinyl siding with a mill thickness from 0.42 to 0.44. One of the issues with the vinyl siding product is the way the vinyl product is attached to the wall. When you use a thicker vinyl product it attaches to the wall better. Community Design Review Board Minutes 06-12-2007 11 Board member Shankar moved to approve the plans date-stamped March 27, 2006, the April 25, 2006, revised grading and drainage plans, tree preservation and landscape plans, and the revised May 30,2007. buildinq elevations and the revised floor plans submitted at the June 12. 2007, community desiqn review board meetinq for the 42-unit, two-story, assisted living facility (Comforts of Home) to be located at the southeast corner of Highway 36 and Hazelwood Street (currently 2300/2310 Hazelwood Street). (Chanqes to the oriqinal conditions are underlined if added and stricken if deleted.) Approval is subject to the applicant doing the following: 1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. 2. Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit, the applicant must submit to staff for approval the following items: a. Revised plans which meet all requirements as spelled out in the May 11, 2006, engineer review including, but not limited to, entering into a development agreement with the city to ensure all construction activities conform to Maplewood's standards and to ensure an escrow is taken by the city for the cost of a 6-foot-wide sidewalk to be constructed along the entire Hazelwood Street frontage during future Hazelwood Street construction. b. Revised landscape plan showing the following: 1) The Colorado blue spruce should be changed to Black Hills spruce. 2) Plantings should be shown in the infiltration pond and rainwater garden. The plantings should include pre-approved native seed mixtures. 3) The landscape area called out on the main floor plan in front of the entry canopies (sheet A2) should be reflected on the landscape plan. 4) A planting bed should be included in the interior of the loop driveway (in between the driveway and the road). 5) Two additional sugar maple trees should be planted along Hazelwood Street. 6) All landscaping (excluding landscaping within the infiltration basin and rainwater garden) must be irrigated. The landscape plan must reflect the location of all required underground irrigation sprinkler heads. 7) All disturbed areas must be established with turf. 8) The applicant should attempt to save the large oak tree located on the southeast side of the building (Tree #573-30" oak) and must take all means necessary to protect all other large trees scheduled to be preserved on the property during construction of the facility. Community Design Review Board 13 Minutes 06-12-2007 4. If any required work is not done, the city may allow temporary occupancy if: a. The city determines that the work is not essential to the public health, safety or welfare. b. The above-required letter of credit or cash escrow is held by the City of Maplewood for all required exterior improvements. The owner or contractor shall complete any unfinished exterior improvements by June 1 of the following year if occupancy of the building is in the fall or winter or within six weeks of occupancy of the building if occupancy is in the spring or summer. 5. Signs are not approved with this design review approval. All signs must be approved by the community design review board before installation. 6. All work shall follow the approved plans. City staff may approve minor changes. Board member Demko seconded. Ayes - Demko, Ledvina, Olson, Shankar, Wise b. Pond Overlook Town Houses - 2161 County Road D Ms. Finwall said Mr. Doug Andrus, representing Andrus Homes, is proposing to develop 10 town houses on a new cul-de-sac between County Road D and 1-694 in a development called Pond Overlook. It would be on a 1.9-acre site on the property now known as 2161 County Road D. A homeowners' association would own and maintain the common areas. Each building would have horizontal-lap vinyl siding, aluminum soffits and fascia and a stone veneer on the front. In addition, each unit would have a two-car garage. Board member Shankar asked if staff had an opinion regarding the townhomes being the same color or should there be a variety of color schemes? Ms. Finwall said according to the elevations, it appears the applicant plans to use a variety of color schemes for the units. Board member Wise asked staff about the comment in the staff report regarding extending the wainscoting. He asked if staff meant extending the wainscoting on the front elevation or all four sides of each building? Ms. Finwall said staff was recommending the wainscoting continue along the front of the units. The board may also want to consider additional treatments to dress up units 1, 9 and 10, considering the rear and sides of those units face County Road D. Chairperson Olson said the rear of units 5 and 6 open to the new retention pond and it seems that the grading is steep there, she asked if there was enough space for the backyards to be used or would the units back up to the grade? Ms. Finwall said appears to be 10 to 20 feet before the grade drops. She said this is also a walkout unit. Perhaps the applicant could answer that question better. Chairperson Olson asked if Highway 694 is higher or lower than this development? Community Design Review Board 15 Minutes 06-12-2007 Mr. Andrus said he planned to put the pond higher on the site but the Watershed District didn't like the location and they requested that the pond be in the corner of the site so he had to take the trees out. He said he is following the Watershed Districts directions. Many trees to be removed from the site are "junk" trees such as boxelder and cottonwood trees. If you don't count them then he actually has more than enough trees to meet the code. There are many trees in poor condition and if you take the "poor condition" trees out then he has more than enough trees to replace with the tree ordinance. He said he is willing to work with city staff to get this plan to work. Virginia Gaynor feels there are as many trees on the plan that will fit on the site without overdoing it. These are town homes so you don't want to have too much tree maintenance on the site by having trees everywhere. There are thin spots between the buildings and that is why Virginia recommended more bushes in the tree allotment. Mr. Andrus said if he has to he will pay the city to have trees planted elsewhere in the city as opposed to overcrowding the site. Chairperson Olson asked about the color scheme of the units. Mr. Andrus said he plans to have each building a different color. One will be a lighter tan, one will be gray, and one may be green. The cultured stone wainscoting will coordinate with each of the units. All the garage doors and trim will be white. He wants this development to look more like a housing development and not like a town home development. Chairperson Olson asked if the applicant could respond to staff's recommendation to extend the wainscoting around the front of the building? Mr. Andrus said that would be fine. He handed another building elevation drawing out to the board that has another view of the units to be shown on the screen. Chairperson Olson said the board looks at and discourages cookie cutter design developments because it takes the personality out of a neighborhood. Mr. Andrus said it's often less expensive to buy all the products in bulk which is why other developments have done that. Chairperson Olson asked if he could put carriage lighting by the garage doors? Mr. Andrus said they will have lighting on the garages; it just isn't drawn on the plan. Mr. Andrus said he thinks the garages look nice. If you look at the front steps and the roof overhang, the garage only stands out by about 8 feet. Chairperson Olson asked where he proposed to put the house numbers? Mr. Andrus said the house numbers would go on the portion of the garage closest to the front door. Chairperson Olson asked where the meters would be located? Mr. Andrus said the meters would be located on the side of the units, not on the garage side. Community Design Review Board 17 Minutes 06-12-2007 Board member Demko said the staff report says the city allows parking on one side of the road for 28-foot wide streets. Ms. Finwall said Mr. Roberts was recommending that the road be 28-feet wide for parking on one side of the street. Mr. Andrus said Mr. Roberts was just reiterating that the road should remain 28-feet wide in order to allow for additional parking on one side of the street. Chairperson Olson asked how staff felt about the revised tree plan? Ms. Finwall said staff received a voice mail from Ms. Gaynor prior to the meeting who said that Mr. Andrus has been working closely with city staff regarding the tree plantings. Staff feels Ms. Gaynor will ensure the tree ordinance meets the intent with additional shrubs included in the tree count so staff is comfortable with this fact. Chairperson Olson said she finds it interesting that Virginia Gaynor agrees with the applicant that there isn't enough space on the site to plant additional trees and that she recommended shrubs be planted instead. She said she is concerned that this is the third proposal the board has heard an applicant comment on the hardship that the new tree ordinance has put on a development and that the tree ordinance is over and above what was normally expected. She asked if this concern should be addressed and asked if the tree ordinance needed some tweaking? In her opinion, this should raise a red flag with the city. This same concern has been raised with three developments now, Carmax, Integra Homes, and now with the Pond Overlook Townhome development. Ms. Finwall said the tree ordinance was drafted by the Environmental and Natural Resources Commission and was approved by the city council last September. With any new ordinance, after working with it you often times find some tweaking needs to be done. Ms. Finwall said she worked with the Environmental and Natural Resources Commission on this and one intent of the ordinance is to get the developers to look at a site and not entirely grade the site but to save the mature trees that are there. By saving trees the developer obviously would not have to replace them. Chairperson Olson said the applicant made some valid points. If you are removing junk trees and scrub trees perhaps that should be taken into consideration. Ms. Finwall said staff will forward those comments onto the environmental manager. Board member Wise said when the board looked at the Integra Homes development the board discussed adding shutters to windows on the building elevations. The trees on County Road D should be sufficient for the units along County Road D but after the emphasis the board put on dressing up the side of the town home units he thought this was something the board should discuss. Chairperson Olson said she agreed and she also wondered if we should recommend extending the cultured stone wainscoting around the sides of the town home units but she also wasn't sure how practical it would be. Community Design Review Board 19 Minutes 06-12-2007 Board member Wise asked if staff had plans showing units 9 & 10 without the exposed basement? Ms. Finwall said no, but on page 36 of the staff report it shows walkout basements and if you cover the lower level on the building plan that would give the board an idea of what those units would look like from County Road D. Mr. Andrus said basically the lower level is in the ground. Board member Wise said he wanted to make sure that when the board makes the motion, staff would have the information they need. Ms. Finwall said she wasn't sure staff had plans representing that. Board member Shankar said even if you only see the top floor of units 9 & 10 from County Road D, if you put shutters on the two windows in the middle of the units for units 9 & 10 plus the window on the side elevation that would add quite a bit of detail. Mr. Andrus said he could do that. If you are going to put shutters on the side window elevation he would do the same thing for all the units to make it uniform. Chairperson Olson said the applicant can work out the details of the shutters with staff. Board member Shankar said the front garage elevation is showing dormers or something at the peaks of the garages but that isn't shown on the renderings. Mr. Andrus said the square dormers were drawn on the plans but he didn't like the look of them so he isn't putting those on and he thinks it looks better without dormers. Board member Shankar said the staff recommended that perhaps the applicant could dress the front elevation with dormers. Chairperson Olson said personally she thinks dormers are not very attractive. She asked where the vents would be located? Mr. Andrus said it would be a ridge vent and not visible. Chairperson Olson asked if the applicant could add some type of detail at the peak above the garages to dress the area up as staff suggested? Mr. Andrus said he could put triangle dormers at the peak. He isn't fond of the appearance of the square dormers. Community Design Review Board Minutes 06-12-2007 21 (3) The tree plan shall: (a) Be approved by the city engineer or by the city environmental manager before site grading or final plat approval. The developer and city staff will need to negotiate and agree on a final tree planting and preservation plan. This may include adding more trees to the site, increasing the size of the trees that the developer plants on the site, having the developer plant trees else where in the city or having the developer pay into a city-tree planting fund. (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. (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: (a) A water service to each lot and unit. (b) All private driveways to the units at least 20 feet wide. (0) If the devoloper 'A'antE: to have parking on one E:ide of the now E:treet, then it must be at least 28 feet wide. (d) The developer or contractor shall post one side of the street with "no parking" signs to meet the above-listed standards. (e) The new street labeled as Furness Place and County Road D labeled on all plans. (5) The design of the ponding area 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 a revised landscape plan to staff for approval that incorporates the following details: Community Design Review Board Minutes 06-12-2007 23 g. Present to staff for approval, colored building elevations and building material samples of all elevations of the town houses. These plans and elevations shall show or include (but are not limited to) that the colors of the town houses will be tones of brown, gray, ivory and beige-colored vinyl siding, any shutters, window grids, decorative lighting for the front elevations and the style and materials of deck or balcony railings. These elevations also shall show details for the enhancement of the rear elevations for Units 9 and 10 and the south elevation of unit 1 (that face County Road D) and either brick or stono aooents on tho ontiro front elevation. All units shall show cultured stone wainscotino on the entire front elevation per the revised sketch submitted by the applicant. The applicant should add shutters to all side window elevations and on the rear window elevations of units 9 and 10 (that face County Road D), subiect to staff approval. The city must approve these plans before the city will issue a building permit. h. The developer or builder will pay the city Park Availability Charges (PAC fees) for each housing unit when they get the building permit for each unit. i. 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 private utilities, water services, landscaping and any retaining walls. J. Obtain the necessary approvals and permits from MnDOT. k. 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 and sod all turf areas. c. Complete all landscaping and turf irrigation for that building. d. Install the paved driveway for each unit. e. Install a reflectorized stop sign at the exit onto County Road D and addresses on each building for each unit. In addition, the applicant shall install "no parking" signs within the site, as required by staff. f. 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). Community Design Review Board Minutes 06-12-2007 25 The exterior materials proposed for the elevations include vinyl, horizontal lap siding (khaki color), gray shingles and white trim and windows. The owners of the park are proposing to convert the existing office into another residential living unit. Chairperson Olson asked the applicant to address the board. Pat McDevitt, Willow River Construction, 655 Gilbert Road, Hudson, Wisconsin, addressed the board. His only comment is in regards to page 2, item 2. c. which states Revised building elevations showing additional design elements on the east (back), south and norlh elevations. Such additional elements could include, but are not limited too, adding more windows and the addition of shutters around all the windows. Mr. McDevitt said this backs up to Century Avenue which becomes a security issue for the back of the building. Adding windows would make the building appear to look more residential but they will also be adding trees to the site there. Board member Shankar asked staff if that recommendation was based upon that side of the building being visible from Century Avenue and staff wanted to dress that side of the building up? Ms. Finwall said that area is heavily screened with evergreen trees and crab apple trees. Mr. McDevitt said that area is screened but the peak of the building would be the most visible from Century Avenue. Board member Shankar asked if he would be opposed to adding some trim pieces? Mr. McDevitt said he could discuss that with the owner but he thought would be fine. Board member Shankar said he would prefer trim pieces on each side of the door and maybe a horizontal trim piece at the height of the eave to break up the khaki siding. Mr. McDevitt said he wouldn't object to that. Board member Shankar said ideally he would like the door centered on that back wall but he understands that affects the workings of inside of the building. Board member Wise asked if they would be opposed to using two different siding colors? Mr. McDevitt said no, that would break things up a bit. Board member Wise asked how many employees they would have in this building? Mr. McDevitt said one. Board member Demko asked if they had submitted a lighting plan yet? Mr. McDevitt said no. As the storm shelter building sits there is no lighting there currently so the thought was to add security lighting to the storm shelter building and to this building. Community Design Review Board 27 Minutes 06-12-2007 Such additional elements could include, but are not limited to, adding morc windo'A's aR€I the addition of shutters around all the windows, addinq trim pieces around the back door and horizontal trim at the heioht of the eave and the use of two tone sidinq coloration on the east and west side of the buildinq. d. A landscape plan for the site that shows the addition of several evergreen trees (Black Hills spruce or Austrian pines) or arborvitaes along the north side of the office building. These trees are to be at least eight feet tall and are to provide screening between the office building and the home to the north. In addition, the landscape plan shall show the addition of a tree and a perennial garden between the porch and the new parking spaces. e. A cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit for all required exterior improvements. The amount shall be 150 percent of the cost of the work. 3. The applicant shall complete the following before occupying the building: a. Replace any property irons removed because of this construction. b. Provide continuous concrete curbing around the parking spaces. c. Install all required outdoor lighting. d. Restore or replace any disturbed turf areas and landscaping. e. Install the required trees and landscaping. 4. If any required work is not done, the city may allow temporary occupancy if: a. The city determines that the work is not essential to the public health, safety or welfare. b. The above-required letter of credit or cash escrow is held by the City of Maplewood for all required exterior improvements. The owner or contractor shall complete any unfinished exterior improvements by June 1 if occupancy of the building is in the fall or winter or within six weeks of occupancy of the building if occupancy is in the spring or summer. 5. All work shall follow the approved plans. City staff may approve minor changes. Board member Shankar seconded. Ayes - Demko, Olson, Shankar, Wise VII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS No visitors present. Community Design Review Board Minutes 06-12-2007 29 Ms. Finwall said in the CDRB annual report the board mentioned additional design standards and that is something the city will have to work on with the Gladstone redevelopment area. Currently, Maplewood doesn't have any design standards except in the Hillcrest Village area. Board member Wise said he grew up in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. In Brookfield, Wisconsin, you can tell that city has nice design standards are. It really makes a difference when a city has design standards and it would be nice to have in Maplewood as the city gets older and redevelopment occurs. IX. STAFF PRESENTATIONS a. CDRB representation at the June 25, 2007, city council meeting. Board member Demko volunteered to be the CDRB representative. Items to discuss include the Comforts of Home Design Review Amendment - 2300/2310 Hazelwood Street and the Pond Overlook Town Houses - 2161 County Road D. X. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:54 p.m.