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.