Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/12/2002AGENDA MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD February 12, 2002 6:00 P.M. Maplewood City Hall Council Chambers 1830 County Road B East 2. 3. 4. 5. 10. Call to Order Roll Call Approval of Agenda Approval of the December 11, 2001 Minutes Unfinished Business a. Outdoor Lighting Ordinance Design Review a. Maplewood Toyota Addition - 2873 Highway 61 b. Carriage Homes of Maple Hills - Parkway Drive (Maple Hills Golf Course) Visitor Presentations Board Presentations a. Election of Chair and Vice Chair for 2002 Staff Presentations a. 2001 Community Design Review Board Annual Report b. Community Design Review Board Representation for February 25, 2002 c. Schedule Interviews for Community Design Review Board Vacancy Adjourn MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA FEBRUARY 12, 2002 I1. III. IV. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Ledvina called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Matt Ledvina Craig Jorgenson Linda Olson Ananth Shankar Staff Present: Recording Secretary: APPROVAL OF AGENDA Present Present Present Absent Shann Finwall, Associate Planner Lisa Kroll Chairperson Ledvina suggested moving Unfinished Business after the Design Review items. Board member Olson moved to approve the agenda with changes. Board member Jorgenson seconded. Ayes- Jorgenson, Ledvina, Olson The motion passed. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of the December 11, 2001, minutes. Chairperson Ledvina said to change the word plans to panels on page 8 in the first paragraph. Board member Olson moved to approve the minutes with changes. Board member Jorgenson seconded. Ayes- Jorgenson, Ledvina, Olson The motion passed. Community Design Review Board Minutes 02-12-2002 2 V. DESIGN REVIEW a= Maplewood Toyota Addition 2873 Highway 61 Steve McDaniel's is proposing to build a 4,972-square-foot addition onto the south side of Maplewood Toyota. This additional space would be used to enlarge the service garage. The exterior of the proposed addition would be rock face concrete block like the existing building and painted to match. The applicant is also proposing to replace concrete curbing on the south and southeast sides of the lot, remove a curbed parking island south of the building and patch the asphalt at this island area. He would also install a new bituminous overlay on the south parking lot. On October 8, 2001, the city council approved Mr. McDaniel's plans to expand Maplewood Toyota. In addition to a new parking lot north of Beam Avenue, the council approved a conditional use permit (CUP) revision for three small additions on the dealership building. One was a 375-square-foot lunchroom addition on the northwest corner of the building (the applicant no longer proposes to build this addition), a 1,144-square-foot service-write-up area on the north side of the building and a 3,040-square-foot showroom addition on the southeast corner of the building. These additions will be constructed at the same time as the applicant's current proposal for a seven-bay auto service addition to be constructed to the west of the new showroom. Mr. McDaniers is requesting: A conditional use permit (CUP) revision. The code requires a CUP revision to enlarge the service area and to enlarge a nonconforming use. The use is nonconforming because service garages must now be at least 350 feet from a residential lot line. The proposed addition would be 211 feet from the property line of the home to the west, the same as the existing building. 2. Approval of plans. There are two sheds in the northwest corner of the site with miscellaneous materials outside the sheds. The northerly shed also has a broken/splintered fascia board facing the street. The chain link fence on the west and south sides of the site has also been damaged from the plowing of the applicant's parking lot. As a condition of this approval, the applicant should remove the debris and stored materials near the sheds, repair the northerly shed and repair all damaged fence sections. Community Design Review Board Minutes 02-12-2002 The current Maplewood Toyota site does not meet the water runoff standards for quantity or quality control within the shoreland boundary of Kohlman Lake. The submitted site proposal makes no effort to begin moving toward meeting these standards. For this reason, the city engineer, Chuck Ahl has proposed that a new grading and engineering plan be submitted that shows the proposed new curbing, the removal of curb islands, added green areas, infiltration areas, and rainwater gardens, etc. The city engineer does believe that the submittal of these plans will help bring this facility up to a better standard but would not meet the current requirements at this time. The planning commission will review this conditional use permit on February 20, 2002. Staff is recommending that the board approve item 2. on pages 4 and 5 with the condition of signed customer parking as well as a revised grading and drainage plan be submitted to the city engineer. Board member Olson asked staff if there is an existing fence between the site and Kohlman Lake? Ms. Finwall stated there is a chain-linked fence on the west property line. Snow has been plowed into the chain-linked fence causing it to collapse. Staff does propose this fence be repaired or taken out completely. Chairperson Ledvina said considering the approvals that were given in October of 2001, for the additions to the building, would the board have looked at this proposal any differently if those two proposals were combined? Ms. Finwall said currently the area where the new addition is proposed is a paved area so they are taking an impervious surface and putting another impervious surface on top of that. However, because of the removal and replacement of curbing, the city engineer recommends that improvements be made to the quality of the water runoff. Board member Olson said it is her understanding that the improvements that were approved in October included two additions to the north and now they are only going to do one addition? Ms. Finwall said correct. Chairperson Ledvina said the staff report indicates that there are two sheds in the northwest corner of the site. He also noted that there is a third shed very near the addition, are there any issues with these sheds? He understands that one is in need of repair and that there is an assortment of materials stored around the sheds. Community Design Review Board Minutes 02-12-2002 Ms. Finwall said there does seem to be an excessive amount of sheds. Perhaps with the additions there may be room interior to store some of the materials. Chairperson Ledvina said he will ask the applicant about that possibility. Chairperson Ledvina said he understands the parking ordinance is not a topic of discussion for the CDRB. The applicant is opening up their (CUP). Is it correct that they are not allowed to park vehicles on grassed areas on the site? Ms. Finwall said that is correct. She asked Mr. Ledvina if he has found that to be an ongoing problem? Chairperson Ledvina said in October when the applicant had a proposal before the board they had a vehicle parked in the northeast corner of the site on the grass. He mentioned it then, and again he drove by to look at the site before the meeting and he noticed another vehicle parked there again. It seemed to him if an applicant is coming before the board to request approvals that they would take the city ordinances seriously. He will make a note for staff to perhaps check into that situation. Ms. Finwall stated that indeed it is against city ordinance to park on the grass. Staff will look into the parking situation. Chairperson Ledvina said he understands that it is a very tight site and the applicant wants to maximize all the space they have and they want to sell vehicles. He thinks this applicant's situation deserves a little more attention given the fact that they are within shoreland district and there are strict requirements for impervious surface. It is an important site and an important issue that they maintain compliance. Board member Olson had a question on the drainage. It seems to her that the site slopes southwest, and in looking at the grading plan, she is not seeing where that water is going to go if the curb and gutter are installed? Ms. Finwall stated the city engineer has required a revised grading and drainage plan that should address that issue. Board member Olson said she is not seeing any catch basins and she is concerned where that water is going to go. Board member Olson said when the board approved expanded parking on the north side of Beam, it was her understanding that it was going to address the employee parking and overflow customer-parking issues. She has seen it used, but it was not at full capacity. Is the applicant intending to allow employees to park on the south side or are they going to ask the employees to park on the north side of Beam Avenue? Community Design Review Board Minutes 02-12-2002 Chairperson Ledvina asked staff if the lighting ordinance applies in this instance? Should the board require a photometric plan for compliance with the lighting code given the proximity to the residential property? Ms. Finwall said the current lighting ordinance would require that no light exceed a .4-foot candle at that residential property line. Chairperson Ledvina said in the staff report it mentions the directional details on the lighting, but is the applicant obligated by code to provide a photometric lighting plan? Ms. Finwall stated two wall-pack lights are proposed on the west side of the addition. These lights must comply with the city's lighting ordinance and should therefore have a photometric plan prior to issuance of a building permit. The condition should be changed to reflect this. Fred Richter of Steiner Development, architect and builder representing Maplewood Toyota, addressed the board. Mr. Richter said this project is a sequel to the October 8, 2001, approval. This addition extends the facade of the building to the southwest corner of the building. In terms of drainage, this is exactly what was approved before, so the water runoff issue was looked at. The drainage basically drains into a rural section along Highway 61. There are no catch basins in the existing project. Mr. McDaniel's wants to remove the fence on the west because it is dysfunctional for snow removal off the property. Mr. Richter believes the employees will be parking across the street in the overflow parking lot. Chairperson Ledvina asked Mr. Richter if he had any specific problems with the conditions outlined in the staff report? Mr. Richter said the only issue is that they are not expecting to do a storm sewer redo, although they will work With staff. Board member Olson asked Mr. Richter if the two new additions to the south are going to replace parking of vehicles? Mr. Richter said the additions would require the removal of 24 spaces. Ms. Finwall said that Chuck Ahl, city engineer, has reviewed the plan and he stated that the applicant should work toward improving the shoreland requirements. Other than that Mr. Ahl did not get into specifics. Apparently the city engineer has not had the opportunity to discuss this with the developer. Although item 2. b. states that it would be a revised grading and erosion control Community Design Review Board Minutes 02-12-2002 plan and would be required prior to issuing a building permit subject to city engineer approval. Chairperson Ledvina said it is an item that is going to have to be worked out between the city engineer and the applicant, and he would hope that the applicant is willing to take these additional steps as suggested by the city engineer. Mr. Richter said without having Mr. Ahl at this meeting and getting into a detailed discussion, he was able to comment on the city requirement for a revised grading and drainage plan. However, it is his understanding that his civil engineer said the rainwater garden is not a huge area of concern and can be worked out. He d doesn't see that the applicant and the city are too far apart in an agreement. He does want to speak on behalf of the applicant, and that this was passed in October of 2001 and is basically what they had planned on doing other than a few modifications. But a major redo of catch basins and storm water management is not what they had anticipated. Chairperson Ledvina said at that time the board was focusing on the issues with the northern piece of property and the ponding required there. The applicant did work with the city in obtaining the additional parcels of land to meet the requirements for impervious surface. Now focusing on the southern part again, whether Mr. Richter thinks it is unfair or not, this is where the board and the city are at. Perhaps if this proposal had been incorporated into the approvals that had been given in October of 2001, the board may not have required that. Mr. Richter said for clarity, this proposal had the 3,200-square foot showroom addition, the northern addition, changed the parking lot, and everything else is the same. Chairperson Ledvina said but the applicant is asking for an additional 5,000 square feet of impervious surface. Mr. Richter said 5,000 square feet of the same surface that is there. So in principal it is the same storm water loads to runoff and so on. He is not saying they will not work with staff, but he is pointing out that this is not anything different than before. Board member Olson said she believes it is a small flag waving that the applicant is putting a vehicle automotive service center over an impervious surface that is going to drain right into the Kohlman collection area. It does not take much antifreeze to cause problems. She realizes that these are new cars and they don't leak or drip or anything but it is a potential happening. This is just something that has her concerned. Community Design Review Board Minutes 02-12-2002 Board member Olson asked Mr. Richter if both of the southern additions are going to be maintenance facilities? Mr. Richter said the addition to the southeast is showroom, the addition to the north is the entrance into the service aisle for writing tickets up and the new addition to the southwest is a maintenance facility. Chairperson Ledvina asked if the applicant is going to eliminate any of the storage sheds? Mr. Richter said he cannot say for sure what Maplewood Toyota's plans are. Chairperson Ledvina said he has no problem with the building design, the materials and the elevation. Board member Olson said she agrees, the signage looks good, and the architectural design looks pleasing. She particularly likes the small windows on the south side, and overall she has no objections to this plan. Board member Jorgenson said this plan is an extension of what was looked at in October 2001 and he was fine with the design then. Chairperson Ledvina stated just to point out that the board is not approving any signage at this time. Ms. Finwall said that is correct. Any proposed signage must comply with the city's sign code and would require a sign permit. Board member Jorgenson moved to approve the plans date-stamped January 23, 2002, for a 4,972-square-foot service area addition on the south side of Maplewood Toyota. This approval is based on the findings required by the city code. The approval shall be subject to the applicant or owner meeting the following conditions (CDRB's changes underlined): Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. bo Before the city issues a building permit, the applicant shall submit a grading, drainage, utility and erosion control plan to the city engineer for approval. All curb removal, curb replacement and paving overlay shall be subject to the requirements of the city engineer. Before the city issues a building permit, the applicant shall submit a revised site plan for staff approval showing enough customer parking spaces on the main Toyota Dealership site north of the building. This parking shall be signed for "customer parking." The applicant shall provide written justification for staff verifying that there will be sufficient Community Design Review Board Minutes 02-12-2002 customer parking provided. The revised site plan shall provide for all of the handicap parking spaces to be placed adjacent to the building. There shall be enough spaces to meet ADA (Americans with Disability Act) requirements. These spaces shall be striped according to ADA requirements. Before the city issues a building permit, the applicant shall submit a photometric plan for all new exterior lighting proposed on the site. Before the city issues a building permit, the applicant shall submit a photometric plan for the new exterior lighting proposed on the site. f. Complete the following before occupying the addition: 1) Any new roof-mounted mechanical equipment on the addition shall be painted to match the building. Any roof top equipment visible from nearby homes must be screened according to ordinance. 2) Install fire protection and alarm systems as required by the fire marshal. 3) Repair all damaged sections of the chain link fence, repaidreplace the broken fascia on the northerly shed and remove any debris and stored materials that are in the open. At the applicant's discretion, instead of repairing or replacin.q the dama.qed sections of chain link fence, the chain link fence located on the west side of the lot can be removed entirely. 4) Patch the parking lot not planned for bituminous overlay, restripe all customer-parking areas, overlay the south parking lot and install all proposed new curbing. 5) Redirect the two wall-mounted lights on the west side of the building to face directly downward as well as any new west-facing lights on the addition. The applicant shall comply with the city's lighting ordinance. 6) The replacement curb shall be continuous concrete curbing, subject to the design requirements of the city engineer. go If any required work is not done, the city may allow temporary occupancy if: 1) The city determines that the work is not essential to the public health, safety or welfare. Community Design Review Board Minutes 02-12-2002 2) The city receives cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit for the required work. The amount shall be 150 percent of the cost of the unfinished work. Any unfinished landscaping shall be completed by June 1 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. 3) The city receives an agreement that will allow the city to complete any unfinished work. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. The city encourages the applicant to remove one or more of the three sheds on the property. Board member Olson seconded. Ayes-Jorgenson, Ledvina, Olson The motion is passed. b. Carriage Homes of Maple Hills Parkway Drive (Maple Hills Golf Course) Mr. Steve Nelson, representing Bridgeland Development Company and Centex Homes, is proposing to develop a 100-unit planned unit development (PUD) called the Carriage Homes of Maple Hills. It will be located on a 20.5-acre site on the north side of Parkway Drive, on the site of Maple Hills Golf Course. To build this project, Mr. Nelson is requesting several city approvals including: A conditional use permit (CUP) for a planned unit development (PUD) for a 100-unit housing development. The applicant is requesting the CUP because Section 36- 566(a) of the city code (the shoreland district regulations) requires a PUD for developments with buildings with more than four units when the site is in the shoreland district of a lake. In this case, the site is in the shoreland zone of Round Lake and would have 100 for-sale townhouse units in 12 buildings. The 12 buildings would have a mix of four units, eight units and 10 units. In addition, having a PUD gives the city and developer a chance to be more flexible with site design and development details (such as setbacks and street right-of-way and pavement widths) than the standard city requirements would normally allow. A variation from the city code to reduce the required street right-of-way width. The developer is asking to reduce the width of the public street right-of-way from 60 feet to 50 feet. Community Design Review Board Minutes 02-12-2002 l0 A variation from the city code to reduce the required street pavement width. The developer is asking to reduce the width of the street from 32 feet to 24 feet from gutter to gutter. A preliminary plat to create the lots in the development. (See the enclosed maps from the Carriage Homes of Maple Hills application materials and the enclosed project plans.) 5. Design approval of the project plans, including architectural and landscape plans. The planning commission did recommend approval of the first four items at the February 4, 2002, planning commission meeting with added conditions. The community design review board will be looking at item 5 of these conditions for approval. The proposed development will have a two-way public road that will wrap around the existing wetland. The developer is proposing an 8-foot wide trail from the north end of the new street up to the Gateway Trail. In addition there will be a 6- foot wide concrete sidewalk that will be located between the wetland and the new street. All units will have two-car garages with a small private 10 X 12 foot patio and entrance. The parking on the site meets the city's parking code with a total 224 parking spaces that includes a two-car garage for each unit. The driveways will be a minimum of 24 feet in length. The exterior materials used in these town homes include horizontal vinyl siding with a wood-grain finish. There will be four to five different colors for the 12 buildings all in neutral tones. It will also include vinyl trim and shutters, brick wainscot on all elevations and asphalt shingle roofs. The price range for this development ranges from $130,000 to $190,000. It will also preserve many of the natural features on the site. For these reasons staff is recommending approval of this project. Board member Olson said she has questions about the traffic flow. Cars are going to come in and drive around this ponding area and access the garages from the center radiating out. Is that correct? Ms. Finwall said that is correct. Chairperson Ledvina asked if staff had seen the elevation drawings for the various 4,8, and lO-unit buildings? Ms. Finwall said staff has not seen all building elevations. Chairperson Ledvina said they have not been submitted up to this point? Ms. Finwall said no. Community Design Review Board Minutes 02-12-2002 Chairperson Ledvina said staff mentioned brick wainscoting on all four elevations of each of the buildings completely around the building is that correct? Ms. Finwall said perhaps the applicant could answer that question. She was under the impression it was proposed on all four sides of the buildings. Chairperson Ledvina clarified that the board is looking at item E. on page 13 through 16 for approval? Ms. Finwall said correct. Peter Knable of Terra Engineering, 6001 Glenwood Avenue, Minneapolis, is representing the developer and the builders. Mr. Knable stated the pond is an open man-made pond. In addition, as part of the landscape revisions it was recommended to incorporate rainwater gardens that they will do. They will be added between the buildings and the street and additional areas that the topography will allow them. Those will be incorporated before the city council meeting. The proposed Carriage Homes development is at about half the density of the Bennington Woods. Carriage homes will be 5-units-per acre verses Bennington Woods 10-units-per acre. The impervious surface comparison is at 31% for Carriage Homes and 56% for Bennington Woods. Mr. Knable said they are proposing narrower streets, minimizing the impervious area and will have closer setbacks to shorten the driveways. Board member Olson said she did notice a comment regarding off street parking. Has the applicant addressed that issue? Mr. Knable said they tried to minimize the number of spots based on Centex's experience with similar developments and the number of guest parking stalls. However, there are some guest spaces shown on the site plan with additional spaces shown as proof of parking. Steve Volbrecht with Centex homes at 12400 Whitewater Drive, Hopkins, MN 55343 addressed the commission. Mr. Volbrecht showed the board photo boards of the proposed development. The board discussed the proposed elevations with Mr. Knable. Mr. Knable said the development is zoned for high density residential and the applicant is proposing medium density residential. The largest 10-unit building is 10,000-square feet in footprint. The units in Bennington Woods are about 8,000- square feet in footprint. Community Design Review Board Minutes 02-12-2002 Chairperson Ledvina said he noticed there are meters on the front of the proposed buildings. He knows that this is a concern because the meters become unsightly and they tend to stick out. Mr. Volbrecht said typical construction for these units is the electrical meter bank is on one end in between the two patios. That is also the entrance point for the cable TV. and telephone. The opposite end is where the water and sewer come in. The individual gas meters are located in front where the garages are. Board member Jorgenson said he likes the look of the development and he is glad they kept the ponding area. He also likes the path connecting to the Gateway Trail and the benches. His only concern is the traffic and the access to the development. He drives that area every day and he is aware of the congestion and traffic situation. Board member Olson asked if a fire truck could get into the development? It looks very tight. Chairperson Ledvina said for the benefit of the board members that item was discussed at the planning commission meeting regarding emergency vehicles access to the property. The city's fire marshal has reviewed the development and approved the plans. Chairperson Ledvina said he thinks the units will look nice. They are one of the nicer elevations for a development the board has seen in a while. In terms of building design he likes the building colors, and that they are neutral colors. He also likes that there will be some variation in colors amongst the proposed development as opposed to having all one color in the whole development. Chairperson Ledvina asked staff if there was an opinion regarding the monument design that was presented. From what he saw, he liked the design, it has some limestone and masonry and he doesn't have any issues. He is not sure if they would approve signage with this proposal. Ms. Finwall said the sign code would allow one freestanding sign. Therefore, the monuments should be included in the planned unit development (PUD). Her only concern would be the traffic visibility, sign easement and maintenance of these monuments. Board member Olson commented that the stone monuments, with the printed panel, and the stone cap would be keeping with the look of the parkway area. It will be a very attractive feature. Chairperson Ledvina said he would like to see brick wainscoting on all four elevations. He thinks that is appropriate for this especially as it relates to the elevations along Maple Hills Drive. For appearance and consistency it would be important to have that. He would make it a condition subject to staff approval and he Community Design Review Board Minutes 02-12-2002 doesn't think it would take too much to add that brick wainscoting to all four sides of the buildings. Board member Olson said she would agree that looking at the illustration it looks funny to her where the brick wainscoting doesn't make it around the corner. Chairperson Ledvina is concerned about the utilities, the gas meters, and the air conditioning units. You look at these elevations and they look great with the landscaping. Then the pipes and gray boxes are added, and it doesn't look very attractive. Then he would like the applicant to work with staff to reduce visual impact of such things as meters. Board member Olson moved to approve the development plans (date-stamped January 22 and January 23, 2002) for the Carriage Homes of Maple Hills. The city bases this approval on the findings required by the code. The developer or contractor shall do the following (CDRB changes are underlined): 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: Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall include the grading, utility, drainage, erosion control, tree, sidewalk and driveway and parking lot plans. The plans shall meet the following conditions and requirements of the assistant city engineer outlined in his memo dated 1-29-02 and the following: (1) There shall be no parking on either side of Maple Hills Drive or on the private driveways. The developer or contractor shall post the street and the driveways with no parking signs. (2) The tree plan shall: (a) Show where the developer or contractor will remove, save or replace large trees. (b) Show the size, species and location of the replacement and screening trees. The new screening trees shall be grouped together. These planting areas shall be along the south and east sides of the site to help screen the development from the existing properties to the south and east. The deciduous trees shall be at least two and one half (2 1/2) inches in diameter and shall be a mix of red and white oaks, ash, lindens, sugar maples or other native species. The coniferous trees shall be at least eight (8) Community Design Review Board Minutes 02-12-2002 14 feet tall and shall be a mix of Austrian Pine, Black Hills Spruce and other species. (c) Show the planting or transplanting of at least 74 trees after the site grading is done. (d) Show no tree removal beyond the approved grading and tree limits. (e) Include for city staff a detailed tree planting plan and material list. (f) Group the new trees together. These planting areas shall be: (1) near the ponding areas (2) on the slopes (3) along the trail (4) along the north and east sides of Maple Hills Drive to help screen the proposed buildings from the neighbors (5) along the south side of the site to screen the development from the existing town houses to the south (3) All the parking areas and driveways shall have continuous concrete curb and gutter. (4) The site, street, driveway, sidewalk and utility plans shall show: (a) A six-foot-wide concrete sidewalk between Maple Hills drive and the pond in the center of the site. The public works director shall approve the location and design of the sidewalk. (b) A water service to each unit. (c) The repair of Parkway Drive (street and boulevard) and the driveways in Bennington Woods after the developer connects to the public utilities and builds the private driveways and public street. (d) The coordination of the water main locations, alignments and sizing with the standards and requirements of the Saint Paul Regional Water Services (SPRWS). Fire-flow requirements and hydrant locations shall be verified with the Maplewood Fire Department. (e) The plan and profiles of the proposed utilities. Community Design Review Board Minutes 02-12-2002 15 (f) The entry road into the site (Maple Hills Drive where it meets Parkway Drive) as far south on Parkway Drive as possible with a left-turn and a right-turn exit lane. Submit a certificate of survey for all new construction and have each building staked by a registered land surveyor. c. Revise the landscape plan for city staff approval showing: (1) The planting of additional native evergreens and shrubbery on the site to provide additional screening and privacy between the proposed town houses and the existing single dwellings and town houses. The additional trees should include Austrian Pine, Black Hills Spruce, Eastern Red Cedar and Eastern Arborvitae. These additional trees should be located as follows: (a) (b) (c) Along the north property line of Bennington Woods. In Outlot D, on the north and east sides of Maple Hills Drive. Along the south side of Lot 12, east of the driveway to the new building. The trees in these locations shall be at least six feet tall, in staggered rows (if possible) and are to provide screening that is at least 80 percent opaque. (2) Also show the areas noted in (1) above planted with a variety of shrubs (including Alpine Current, Yew, Glossy Black Choke Berry, American Cranberry (short cultivar), Purple Leaf Sand Cherry and Dogwood) to provide a variety of colors and textures. (3) All lawn areas shall be sodded. The city engineer shall approve the vegetation within the ponding area and on the steep slopes. On slopes steeper than 3:1, the developer shall prepare and implement a stabilization and planting plan. These slopes shall be protected with a wood fiber blanket, be seeded with a no-maintenance vegetation and be stabilized before the city approves the final plat. (4) Having in-ground irrigation for all landscape areas (code requirement). Show city staff that Ramsey County has recorded the deeds and all homeowner's association documents for this development before the city will issue a certificate of occupancy for the first town house unit. e. Submit a photometric plan for staff approval as required by the city code. f. Submit revised elevations for staff approval showinq the following: Community Design Review Board Minutes 02-12-2002 16 (1.) The brick wainscoting on all four elevations of each building. (2.) A screening plan for all mechanical units and meters on or near the buildings. The monument sign plans submitted by the developer at the February 12, 2002, CDRB meeting is conceptually approved. The applicant shall submit final sign plans, including the location, height, and materials for staff approval. h. Submit samples of all building materials and the color schemes for the buildings to the city for staff approval. 3. Complete the following before occupying the buildings: ao Replace property irons that are removed because of this construction and set new property irons for the new property corners. bo Restore and sod damaged boulevards and sod all turf areas outside of the ponding areas. Install a reflectorized stop sign at the Parkway Drive exit, no parking signs along both sides of Maple Hills Drive and the private driveways and addresses on each building for each unit. In addition, the applicant shall install stop signs and traffic directional signs within the site, as required by staff. Construct a six-foot-wide concrete public sidewalk between Maple Hills Drive and the pond in the center of the site. The Maplewood Public Works Director shall approve the location and design of the sidewalk. Install the trail between Maple Hills Drive and the DNR Gateway Trail. The Maplewood Public Works Director shall approve the location and design of the trail. fo Complete the site grading and install all required landscaping (including the foundation plantings), ponding areas and an in-ground lawn irrigation system for all landscaped areas (code requirement). Install continuous concrete curb and gutter along all interior driveways and around all open parking stalls. Install on-site lighting for security and visibility, subject to city staff approval. Community Design Review Board Minutes 02-12-2002 ]7 4. If any required work is not done, the city may allow temporary occupancy if: ao The city determines that the work is not essential to the public health, safety or welfare. The city receives cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit for the required work. The amount shall be 150 percent of the cost of the unfinished work. Any unfinished landscaping shall be completed by June 1 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. The city receives an agreement that will allow the city to complete any unfinished work. 5. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. Board member Jorgenson seconded. Ayes- Jorgenson, Ledvina, Olson The motion is passed. VI. UNFINISHED BUSINESS a. Outdoor Lighting Ordinance Ms. Finwall said the board has been working on the outdoor lighting ordinance for the past year or so. Mr. Ekstrand has outlined the final comments in the staff report. The largest change to the ordinance is the foot-candles cannot exceed .4 of light intensity at all property lines not just at residential property lines. The lighting ordinance also covers signs. Staff is looking for any additional comments and once that is received, staff can bring it to the city council for the first reading of this ordinance amendment. Chairperson Ledvina said overall he is fine with the outdoor lighting ordinance. Board member Jorgenson said there is room to grow with the ordinance but the city can't take giant steps to change the lighting ordinance. But it is a good start, Chairperson Ledvina said let's see how this ordinance works and the board will get feedback from staff and they can see if anything needs to be added or changed. Board member Olson said she would assume that there are no other metropolitan cities that have this type of lighting ordinance to compare to? Community Design Review Board Minutes 02-12-2002 ]8 Chairperson Ledvina said he would not go that far. Board member Olson said she would like to know if maybe Minneapolis or larger cities have anything similar to what the City of Maplewood has adopted. Tom Ekstrand found out about cities close to Maplewood but she would like to know about larger areas. She would also like to know if Maplewood is the first city to have this type of lighting ordinance. She doesn't want the city of Maplewood to have the heaviest hammer in the whole state for a lighting ordinance. Chairperson Ledvina said if the board approves this ordinance, he would like to have some background information for the city council in their staff report. The board did review other cities. Board member Jorgenson asked if it would be possible to have staff ask Tina if she would be available for a small discussion before the city council meeting as a workshop. This would give the council a background on this ordinance and maybe a packet as well. Board member Olson said she would agree that would be an excellent idea. Chairperson Ledvina said he would agree but he wonders if the council will give Tina 15 or 20 minutes of council's time or not. Board member Olson said she is anticipating that somebody is going to say that here is another layer of government and more regulations. She wants to give the lighting ordinance some type of background or support ahead of time. Chairperson Ledvina said he anticipates that many of the city council members will say the city doesn't need it and it will cost money. He genuinely feels that the changes and additions to the lighting ordinance far outweigh the additional burden that it places on the development community and the people that bring proposals to the city. Ms. Finwall said she thinks the comments are good regarding the background and ensuring that the city council understands there are other cities out there doing similar things. She will revise the staff report and include background information. Perhaps inviting Tina to the actual public hearing and to give a few comments if she would like to. Board member Jorgenson moved to approve the changes to the outdoor lighting ordinance recommended by community design review board. Board member Olson seconded. Ayes- Jorgenson, Ledvina, Olson The motion is passed. Community Design Review Board Minutes 02-12-2002 VII. VIII. IX. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS No visitors present. BOARD PRESENTATIONS a. Election of Chair and Vice Chair for 2002 Board member Olson moved to elect for another term the Chair as Matt Ledvina and the Vice Chair as Ananth Shankar. This is conditional to Mr. Shankar accepting another term because he was absent to place a vote. Board member Jorgenson seconded. Ayes - Jorgenson, Ledvina, Olson The motion is passed. STAFF PRESENTATIONS a. 2001 Community Design Review Board Annual Report Ms. Finwall said the annual report is submitted to the city council as an informational report, letting the council know the past actions of the community design review board. Included in the report could be any areas of concern that the board would like to look at in 2002. Chairperson Ledvina said he doesn't have any issues with the report. He feels it is accurate. Under recommendations/areas of concern the Hillcrest Village overlay plan is mentioned in the report but he feels the city is not moving ahead with the Hillcrest Village plan. Ms. Finwall said as an update on the Hillcrest Village Plan, the Metropolitan Council would be presenting the finalized Hillcrest Village Plans at a public forum at the end of April. Prior to that staff will present to the community design review board, planning commission, and city council an update on the Hillcrest Village Plan. Included in that report will be design suggestions for development. Staff is proposing to wait for the Metropolitan Councils and consultant's report and work on an overlay district based on that report. Staff would like comments from the board as the overlay district is created. The moratorium on development within that area ends in November so this new ordinance will have to be completed by then. Chairperson Ledvina said that answered his question about the Hillcrest Village Plan and it sounds like it is in the works and there is a plan to develop an overlay district. He is excited about that and the possibility of providing input as it relates to design features. Community Design Review Board Minutes 02-12-2002 20 b= Ms. Finwall suggested that the board review the city's sign ordinance. Chairperson Ledvina said he would like to see that the sign ordinance gets updated as well. He feels many of the signs in Maplewood need to be changed, and are considered in his opinion, eye pollution. Board members Jorgenson and Olson agree. Chairperson Ledvina said he would be willing to modify a recommendation in areas of concern to review potential modifications and updates to the sign ordinance. If there is a 20 to 30 year old sign code than the city should be looking at modifying that, and it will be a huge undertaking. Board member Olson would like to know more about sidewalks. She asked staff if there is a comprehensive sidewalk plan? Ms. Finwall said as far as she is aware of there are no written procedures for a sidewalk plan but they are reviewed in developments and as part of the city's capital improvement plans. Chairperson Ledvina said he knows the planning commission is very concerned about sidewalks and how it relates to functionality of sites and land use. It is also on the minds of community design review board members and is something both commissions are interested in. Board member Olson said she liked the annual report that Ms. Finwall wrote and she wanted to know if staff could add something in the conclusion as follows: "In 2002, the CDRB will continue its dedication to quality design for buildings and developments and to the quality of life for the citizens in the City of Maplewood". Board member Jorgenson moved to approve the 2001 Community Design Review Board Annual Report with changes. Board member Olson seconded. Ayes -Jorgenson, Ledvina, Olson The motion is passed. Community Design Review Board Representation for February 25, 2002. Matt Ledvina will be the representative at the city council meeting on February 25, 2002. Community Design Review Board Minutes 02-12-2002 2] c. Schedule Interviews for Community Design Review Board Vacancy. The interviews for the community design review board vacancy will be held sometime in March. X. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:37 p.m.