Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/25/2003AGENDA MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD Tuesday, November 25, 2003 6:00 P.M. Council Chambers - Maplewood City Hall 1830 County Road B East 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 10. Call to Order Roll Call Approval of Agenda Approval of the October 14, 2003, Minutes Unfinished Business: U.S. Bank Driveway Curbing Waiver- 1760 Beam Avenue Design Review: a. Metro Transit Station - 1793 Beam Avenue (Old Maplewood Movie II Site) b. Mapleleaf Center Comprehensive Sign Plan Amendment - 2251 Larpenteur Avenue c. Ashley Furniture - Legacy Village d. Heritage Square Townhouses - Legacy Village Visitor Presentations: None Scheduled Board Presentations Staff Presentations: a. Community Design Review Board Vacancy Update b. Community Design Review Board Representation at the December 8, 2003, City Council Meeting Adjourn II. III. IV. MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 25, 2003 CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Ledvina called the meeting to order at 6:03 p.m. ROLL CALL Matt Ledvina Diana Longrie-Kline Linda Olson Ananth Shankar Present Present Present at 6:03 p.m. Absent Staff Present: Tom Ekstrand, Assistant Community Development Director Chris Cavett, Assistant City Engineer, present at 6:30 p.m. Lisa Kroll, Recording Secretary APPROVAL OFAGENDA Mr. Ekstrand added item 9. c., under staff presentations for the Resolution of Appreciation for Matt Ledvina for time served on the planning commission. Board member Olson moved to approve the agenda with the addition. Board member Longrie-Kline seconded. Ayes - Ledvina, Longrie-Kline, Olson The motion passed. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of the CDRB minutes for October 14, 2003. Board member Longrie-Kline moved approval of the minutes of October 14, 2003, as amended. Board member Olson seconded. Ayes ---Ledvina, Longrie-Kline, Olson The motion passed. UNFINISHED BUSINESS U.S. Bank Driveway Curbing Waiver- 1760 Beam Avenue Mr. Ekstrand said Mr. Richard Schreier, owner of the U.S. Bank property, is requesting a one- year time extension to postpone the installation of curbing along the driveway to Beam Avenue for U.S. Bank. Mr. Ekstrand said three years ago, the applicant installed posts as required. They are no longer in place. Consequently, drivers have cut the inside curve short and have damaged the grass. The purpose of the posts was to prevent this in lieu of a six-inch upright curb. Community Design Review Board Minutes 11-25-2003 2 Mr. Ekstrand said as was the case three years ago, the applicant is requesting that the CDRB again waive the curbing requirement since he is in negotiations with an office building and a restaurant to occupy the property west of U.S. Bank. Mr. Ekstrand said staff agrees that it is wasteful to install curbing if it would be removed with the development of the adjacent property. The problem, though, is when would this development happen? Staff recommends that the CDRB grant a one-year time extension. If the city does not see any evidence of the pending development of this lot by next year, the city should consider not extending this waiver again and require that Mr. Schreier install the curbing. The applicant should be required now, however, to reinstall the reflectorized posts in the placement previously agreed upon and to repair the grass. Mr. Chris Cavett, the Assistant City Engineer for Maplewood, suggested that this area be seeded and covered by a straw or wood-fiber blanket to prevent erosion and washout. Chairperson Ledvina asked the applicant to come forward and address the board. Mr. Tom Schuette, with Azure Properties representing the applicant, addressed the board. The applicant intends to further develop that site. Beam Avenue is a good strong location and they are negotiating having a 12,000 square foot office building on the west end of the site, however, nothing has been finalized. This site will have two right-in and right-out driveways onto Beam Avenue, all of which will exit going east on Beam Avenue or coming out of Southlawn Drive, so eventually it will be a shared lot. Chairperson Ledvina asked if the applicant had any questions or concerns regarding the conditions listed in the staff report? Mr. Schuette said no. He said they have until December 10, 2003, to follow the suggested staff recommendations. He asked the maintenance people to seed the area but he did not receive confirmation if it was seeded or not.. Board member Longrie-Kline said it states in the staff report that the posts with reflectors were present and are gone now. She asked Mr. Schuette if he knew how long the reflectorized posts had been missing? Mr. Schuette said they lasted a year or two. Board member Longrie-Kline asked if the applicant had a cost estimate for the installation of the curbing? Mr. Schuette said no he does not have the dollar estimate but said it would be expensive. He said the curbing would be difficult to do as the weather gets colder. Board member Longrie-Kline said she would like to offer a suggestion. She understands the reason to delay the installation of the curbing if a development would be put in and then they would have to tear it up to complete the development only to put the curbing in once again. She would like to recommend as a condition for the one-year waiver that the money that would have been spent for the curbing is placed in an escrow account as a condition of the one-year waiver since it has been three years since the initial waiver was granted. Community Design Review Board Minutes 11-25-2003 Chairperson Ledvina asked staff if they had any comments regarding that statement? Mr. Ekstrand said that makes sense from the standpoint of getting the assurance that the city could have the curbing installed. On the other hand, the city has the assurance from a review such as tonight and if it is not done a year from now, the city staff can make the requirement that the applicant must install it according to the ordinance. If the applicant does not install the curbing it will be a matter of enforcement. Staff suggests waiting to see how things go for a year with the development on this site. Board member Longrie-Kline said that was part of the reason she wanted to know the cost of installing the curbing. For example, if the escrow would be for $5,000 then it would not be worth the trouble of setting up an escrow account. But if the cost were more then it would be worthwhile to retain an escrow account. She said this is the second request for this waiver. She thinks the city should ask for some kind of consideration for giving another waiver. In her opinion there are rules and requirements and the city should get something in return for a second request. Mr. Ekstrand said he would defer further discussion to the Maplewood Assistant City Engineer, Chris Cavett, however, he is not yet present to answer curbing and escrow account questions. Chairperson Ledvina said if he were to take a guess, he would estimate the installation of the curbing to be less than $10,000 but somewhere between $3,000 and $8,000. Board member Longrie-Kline said in her opinion that is a small expense with regard to the overall expense of the future development. She said if the curbing was required because of environmental reasons such as for the storm water then the city should require the curbing be installed. She asked for clarification regarding what the purpose of the curbing was? Mr. Ekstrand said the purpose of the overall parking lot curbing is two-fold, one is for drainage control and the other is aesthetics. In the past Mr. Cavett said he didn't think there would be a real drainage issue. However, Mr. Ekstrand said he went out to the site tonight before the meeting and with the new snowfall he saw that a vehicle cut the corner and drove over the property. This is another reason staff feels the curbing is needed to keep vehicles on the driveway and another reason is for the installation of the reflectorized posts. Board member Olson asked if the posts were removed? Mr. Ekstrand said yes. Board member Olson said she has no problem with the curbing not being installed but she would like to make sure the posts are installed for snow removal and for safety. She sees no need for the escrow to be retained and is fine waiting a year. Chairperson Ledvina said the administrative efforts of setting the escrow up are significant and doesn't think an escrow is warranted. In his opinion it is apparent that this issue will resolve itself within the next year. Board member Longrie-Kline asked staff if in one year this development doesn't go forward would the applicant come back and ask for another waiver from the board? Community Design Review Board Minutes 11-25-2003 4 Mr. Ekstrand said yes, he knows the applicant is actively trying to close the deal and the applicant may have an agreement negotiated within the next month. Board member Longrie-Kline said she would recommend that at that time either curbing be put in or that escrow is withheld from the applicant. Otherwise, there could be a third waiver requested for an order to extend the curbing. Board member Longrie-Kline recommended to extend the curbing waiver for the U.S. Bank driveway to Beam Avenue for one year, subject to Mr. Schreier doing the following: (additions to the original conditions are in bold). Reinstalling posts with reflectors to mark the driveway curb cut and driveway curvature to help keep vehicles on the pavement and prevent damage to the grass. The applicant shall install these posts by December 10, 2003. Placement of these posts shall be in accordance with the plan approved by staff dated November 15, 2000. 2. Seeding and applying a straw or wood-fiber blanket to prevent erosion and washout to the damaged grass in the inside curve of the driveway also by December 10, 2003. If in one year the development has not been completed and the curbing installation is not installed and the applicant is requesting another waiver to install the curbing either the applicant must install a curb or the city shall set up an escrow account. Board member Olson seconded. Ayes - Ledvina, Longrie-Kline, Olson Mr. Ekstrand said the applicant may appeal the community design review board's decision to the city council within 15 days of their action. To appeal the board's decision, the applicant must submit a letter to staff by December 10, 2003. Staff will then schedule this item for council review. VI. DESIGN REVIEW a. Metro Transit Station - 1793 Beam Avenue (Old Maplewood Movie II Site) Mr. Ekstrand said Mr. Chris Weyer, of Metro Transit, is requesting approval of plans for a proposed transit center and park/ride lot on the former Maplewood II Movie Theatre property southwest of the Maplewood Mall. Metro Transit has purchased this property and removed the theatre for the proposed transit center. In short, the transit center would have 426 parking stalls, ten of which would be handicap accessible. There would be four motorcycle stalls as well. The center would also serve bus traffic and serve as a hub for up to 12 bus routes. The site would be upgraded with landscaping, new lights and security cameras. The proposed transit-center building would be brick and glass. Chairperson Ledvina asked the applicant address the board. Mr. Steve Aim, with Bonestroo & Associates addressed the board. Mr. Aim was away from the microphone but showed some color renditions to the board of the layout of the building and where the restrooms would be located. Community Design Review Board Minutes 11-25-2003 Board member Longrie-Kline asked if this Metro Transit site would be in addition to the other park and ride at the old Maplewood I Movie Theatre site off County Road D and White Bear Avenue? Mr. Aim said he would have to defer that question to Chris Weyer with Metro Transit. Mr. Chris Weyer, with Metro Transit said at this time the plan is to relocate the original park and ride over to this new location. Board member Longrie-Kline said she noticed there is going to be marked crosswalks for pedestrians. Her concern is there are a lot of senior citizens that live near the mall and as people age they become unable to drive and tend to use the bus more. Mr. Weyer said yes there will be a crosswalk and a flashing signal. Board member Olson asked if this transit station would be replacing the bus that stops in front of Maplewood Mall by Applebee's Restaurant? Mr. Weyer said yes that stop would be moved over to the new transit station. Board member Olson asked if this transit station would replace the park and ride on Highway 61 and County Road C? Mr. Weyer said no, this park and ride is in addition to that location. Board member Olson asked the applicant where the trash receptacles would be located and if they would be maintained on site? Mr. Weyer said the trash receptacles would be located in between the benches but he' not sure how often the receptacles would be maintained. Chairperson Ledvina asked if there are any other freestanding signs on the site? Mr. Weyer said there are freestanding access signs showing where the transit station is, there are bus-loading signs identifying the bay, and typical traffic signs preventing vehicles from entering the area. Chairperson Ledvina said he meant more like identification signs with Metro Transit on the sign. Mr. Weyer said there would be a pedestal type sign. Board member Longrie-Kline asked once the landscaping is in place how would it be maintained and watered? Mr. Weyer said there will be no grass in the area, only plantings and they would be watered and maintained when the rest of the shelter is maintained. Board member Olson asked how often there would be maintenance done at the site? Community Design Review Board Minutes 11-25-2003 Mr. Weyer said he doesn't know the maintenance schedule. He said there is a similar sized building at the site in the Sun Ray shopping center, which has been there for 2 years and as far as he knows they have not had any problems or complaints with the facility not being maintained. Board member Olson asked if they had any samples of building materials to show the board? Mr. Weyer said no, they have not decided on any materials yet, the pictures shown in the report are typically what the shelters look like. Chairperson Ledvina said typically the board looks at the materials and color schemes and in the past the board has left that up to staff to work with the applicant on, however, that could be an added condition. Board member Longrie-Kline said she is fine with staff making the final decision on the building materials. Board member Olson moved to approve the plans date-stamped October 20, 2003, for the Maplewood Mall Transit Center and Park/Ride at the northeast corner of Beam Avenue and Southlawn Drive. (Additions to the original motion are in bold). Building materials and colors samples should be shown to staff for final approval prior to issuance of a building permit, Board member Longrie-Kline seconded. Ayes - Ledvina, Longrie-Kline, Olson The motion passed. b. Mapleleaf Center Comprehensive Sign Plan Amendment - 2251 Larpenteur Avenue Mr. Ekstrand said the CDRB approved a comprehensive sign plan for the Mapleleaf Center at 2251 Larpenteur Avenue on February 15, 1978. The plan allows each tenant one wall sign to be placed above their tenant space facing Larpenteur Avenue. The Mapleleaf Center tenants are requesting an amendment to their comprehensive sign plan in order to allow additional wall signage on the east side of the building, toward McKnight Road. Chairperson Ledvina asked the applicant to address the board. Mr. Stefan Jones, owner of Twin City Scoops, 2251 Larpenteur Avenue, addressed the board. He said they want to make the signs blend in with the building. They also thought the lighting was a nice aesthetic touch. Chairperson Ledvina asked if there would be removal of any vegetation on the site so the sign would be more visible? Mr. Jones said there is only one bush on the site and the sign would be above it. Basically, the bush is masking a utility box he said. Chairperson Ledvina asked if the applicant considered a backlit sign? Community Design Review Board Minutes 11-25-2003 Mr. Jones said they considered a backlit sign, but personally he thought this was a nicer look with the decorative cowls used to illuminate the sign. Board member Olson asked if there would be a consistent color scheme for the lettering of the sign for the other tenants? Mr. Jones said the landlord is in charge of getting in touch with the other tenants to ask about their participation in the sign and he said some of the tenants may want to use different color lettering on their individual signs. Board member Longrie-Kline said she likes the look of the sign. With regard to color, she thinks the black lettering looks nice and she assumes State Farm Insurance may want to have red lettering. She said if the other tenants want to have different color lettering it could look too busy. Maybe there could be a limit of black and two other colors to compliment the black color. Mr. Jones said each tenant has been given the opportunity to participate in advertising their name on the sign if they elect not to use it, some of the other tenants may want to have their name on the sign twice. The dental office and the jewelry store have already said they don't want to participate in advertising on the sign. Board member Longrie-Kline said her experience has been if an occupant doesn't want to participate in advertising on the sign the space is left blank. He said if one tenant has two spots on the sign it doesn't look right. Board member Olson said another reason you don't want to have tenants with two spaces advertised on the sign is because of turnover in the complex. Board member Olson asked if Mr. Jones is taking the responsibility of the sign installation and maintenance? Mr. Jones said the sign is on his wall and he is responsible for making sure the installation is done and will probably take on the responsibility of maintaining the appearance of it. Board member Longrie-Kline asked if the property owner is responsible for the exterior of the building or is each tenant responsible for each section of the building under the lease? Mr. Jones said the property owner is responsible for the exterior of the building but if each tenant wanted to change their sign on the building then each tenant would be responsible for changing their sign. Board member Olson asked if he was going to each tenant and asking them to help pay for their own section of the sign? Mr. Jones said the property owner is going to get in touch with each tenant and he would work with the tenant to get them to pay for their portion of the sign. He as the tenant with the most square footage of the building will be responsible for paying for most of the sign. Board member Longrie-Kline asked who is responsible for maintaining the freestanding sign? Mr. Jones said he is. Community Design Review Board Minutes 11-25-2003 Mr. Ekstrand said he would agree with the comments made by board member Longrie-Kline regarding the tenants using two advertising spaces. He would also conclude that other tenants in the city may have a problem with tenants being able to advertise twice as much on their sign. This could disrupt the comprehensive sign plan that has already been established at another complex as well. Board member Longrie-Kline moved to approve Mapleleaf Center's comprehensive sign plan amendment subject to the following conditions (changes from the original 7/16/78 sign plan conditions are indicated and additions are in bold): The freestanding sign is approved but shall be limited to 20 feet in height displaying the "Mapleleaf Center" and tenant names. "7-Eleven" logo. The works "open 24 hours" shall be omitted. The reader board shall also be omitted. The sign shall observe a 10- foot minimum setback from property lines. Additional security lighting shall be installed on top of the 20-foot freestanding sign and shall not shine onto adjacent properties or roadways. The existing 4 by 12 foot "7 Eleven" mansard sign shall remain. 2. ,3. Each tenant shall be limited to the followinq wall siqns: Individual tenant identification signs located on the mansard roof shall be limited to a height of 18 inches· Content of mansard signs shall include the name of the individual establishment, such as "Daisy Realtors". Mansard letters shall not be applied more than two high and shall not extend closer than two feet on either side to the border of each tenant's rental area. This mansard signage shall be individual letters, internally illuminated, of a single color, and mounted directly to the building by concealed fasteners 1-~.,. ,;,.,~.,~,.,-, ,-,~ ,~. ......... ~ o~ .... ~.~,~ One 16-foot-wide by 4.5-foot-tall (72 square foot) wall sign displaying all seven tenants to be located on the east side of the building. Sign to be illuminated by five decorative cowl lights installed above the sign. Surface material shall be repaired followinq removal of siqn. Lettering on the siqn shall be black with up to two other colors. If a panel on the siqn is not used due to a tenant choosinq not to participate in the use of the siqn the panel shall remain vacant. A tenant shall only have the use of one panel on the sian Der occupant. 3_ ~ All signage below the mansard roof shall be located on the doors. 4_& All illuminated signs shall be extinguished no later than 11 p.m. or when the business is closed. There shall be provided additional exterior lighting consisting of a 10-foot high decorative light standard installed on each side of the entrance drives. Exterior lights, except for security lighting to be extinguished after business hours. The city shall retain the right to review and to require modification of any exterior lighting, which causes any undue glare and/or reflection. Community Design Review Board Minutes 11-25-2003 6.:;z. Owner and applicant agree to the above conditions in writing. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. Board member Olson seconded. Ayes- Ledvina, Longrie-Kline, Olson The motion passed. c. Ashley Furniture - Legacy Village Mr. Ekstrand said Mr. David Baillie, of Furniture Outlets USA, Inc., is requesting approval of design plans for an Ashley Furniture store at the southwest corner of Southlawn Drive and County Road D. The city council conceptually approved a furniture store in this location when the council approved the Legacy Village planned unit development last July. The proposed store would be a two-story brick and E.I.F.S. (exterior insulation finish system) structure. It would have 48,558 square feet of foundation area. The proposed building would be situated close to the County Road D and Southlawn Drive right-of-way lines in keeping with the reduced-setbacks envisioned for this site and for Legacy Village overall. It would have a 15-foot setback from each street right-of-way line. The council required a front setback for this building of up to 15 feet. Mr. Ekstrand said the applicant brought in revised plans, which he will date-stamp November 25, 2003. The applicant has added two additional signs to the plan. Board member Olson said the plan shows future buildings and in her opinion having the front door and the loading dock in that location seems odd. She assumes the dock door is so customers can load their furniture up? Mr. Ekstrand said the applicant would have to address that. Board member Olson asked if the southwest corner where the unloading and loading of furniture would take place impact the future residential units? Mr. Ekstrand said staff has approved that area for 50 future residential units, however, there are no proposals in the works at this time. Board member Olson said she has a concern with how the illuminated sign will impact the development to the west? Mr. Ekstrand said the development to the west will be multi-use retail. He would like to see a thicker buffer area of evergreens from the parking area. Board member Longrie-Kline asked staff if it was possible to move the loading dock to the other side of the building? From her experience working with Target you will get a lot of telephone calls complaining of the headlights and the noise from the trucks loading and unloading so close to the residential area. Community Design Review Board Minutes 11-25-2003 l0 Board member Olson said she would agree and is concerned that nobody will want to live in the units closest to the loading dock area. Mr. Ekstrand said he had the same concern but felt the applicant could better address the issues related to the positioning of the loading dock. Chairperson Ledvina asked staff if the board is approving signs with this recommendation? Mr. Ekstrand said yes. Mr. Ekstrand said he thinks the signs are attractive, however, the monument signs are loaded up in the corner of the property. Board member Olson asked if there is a retaining wall in the northwest corner and the trees are removed, and the applicant is putting in shrubs, is the drainage going to be a problem or will the drainage sheet down to the pond to the south? Mr. Cavett said the way the drainage is designed would act as a French drain. It will soak in and anything else will go into the drain tile system, into the storm system and eventually into the pond to the south. He will be having some discussions with the applicant because he is not fond of the initial proposal, nor is he fond of the revised plans and he wonders if there isn't a better option. Chairperson Ledvina asked the applicant to address the board. Mr. David Baillie, of Furniture Outlets USA, Inc., addressed the board. Mr. Baillie said regarding the building location on County Road D, they moved the building location in July of 2003. Mr. Ekstrand said that is correct. The city council's recommendation was to flip flop the building, which was on the south side of the lot and the parking lot was on the north side of the lot. Featuring reduced setbacks and prominent street fronts with the buildings closer to the roadways. The recommendation was to move the building from a zero lot line to a 15-foot setback. This building is shown at 15 feet off the right-of-way lines. Mr. Michael Dean, Architect at Schoell & Madson, Inc., addressed the board. Mr. Dean said when they first did the lay out for this parking lot it was on the north and the city council explained this area is a smart growth project area and the plan is to create a street presence. They struggled with the layout but came to an agreement with the city council. The actual placement of the loading dock was dictated to them by the city council. The loading dock is not used like at the Target Stores. Mr. Dean said Ashley furniture is working on a distribution center in Fridley and this building will not be a distribution center so the loading dock is not used in the same manner. The loading dock is to initially furnish the store as a show floor so there will not be delivery trucks coming and going at various times of the day or night. The customers will select their furniture from the store and pick it up at the distribution center in Fridley. Occasionally the furniture warehouse will transfer a piece of furniture from the warehouse to the store for a customer to pick up but mainly the Fridley distribution center will be used. Community Design Review Board Minutes 11-25-2003 Mr. Ekstrand said when he first met with the architect the feeling was that the parking was excessive and they didn't need the first two rows. However, if the applicant feels they now have a need for the two rows, staff doesn't object. Mr. Lee Koppy, Civil Engineer for Schoell & Madson, Inc., addressed the board. He said the proof of parking along the south part of the parking lot they don't object to having. The client expects this store to be one of the highest selling stores in the metro area with it's location and the client is not certain that he would not need or want to add parking in the future. For that reason, with the proposed easement, they would like the trail way to go along the southside of the pond. According to the Hartford Group this appears to work better with the trail layout. Mr. Koppy said if they moved the trail further south then the proof of parking area does not allow enough room. They are already having a difficult time meeting the infiltration requirements on this site with the property size for the size of a complex. Mr. Ekstrand said the trail going straight across would be a more logical alignment for foot - traffic purposes. Mr. Cavett said right now the city is in the preliminary stage of planning Legacy Parkway. The preliminary grades show a pathway or a sidewalk along the north edge of the roadway and right now that looks like that won't be feasible. The most restrictive thing is the power line tower because you can't grade near it. He said the trail is supposed to run up Southlawn Drive and then go east on County Road D. These are details that can be worked out as planning takes place for Legacy Parkway. Board member Olson asked if the trails would be hard surfaced or a combination of bituminous and rock? Mr. Cavett said the trail would be bituminous and on the frontage area of Southlawn Drive and County Road D the trail would be concrete. Board member Olson asked if it was practical to run the trail through the parking lot itself? Mr. Cavett, said no probably not and he is not aware of a past situation where that had been done. Chairperson Ledvina asked if you could make modifications to the pond in terms of the area footprint to allow more room in that area? Mr. Cavett said that is a possibility. Another idea is to lose 7 parking spaces and slip the trail slightly north and that could accommodate enough space. This would be for proof of parking if it is never used that would be an ideal situation as well for the trail system. Board member Longrie-Kline said her concern is that two different uses are competing for the same space. If the property owner is looking toward the future and the future needs of his company and is unable to expand the parking because that space is already used for something else then it really isn't "proof of parking" anymore. She thinks it's a good idea to have the proof of parking sodded. She said looking to the future of the applicant he needs to count on the proof of parking as additional space to grow. Community Design Review Board Minutes 11-25-2003 Mr. Ekstrand said he would agree with board member Longrie-Kline's comments. Board member Olson asked if the applicant could maintain the parking ratio of 1-to-400 with the loss of the seven parking spaces? Mr. Koppy said most retail space is a ratio of 5 per 1,000 for large retail such as Target. Mr. Baillie asked who maintains the trails? Chairperson Ledvina said the city maintains the trails. Mr. Baillie asked if the trails get plowed? Mr. Cavett said the streets are plowed on a first priority and the trails are maintained on a second day priority just like the sidewalks. Mr. Baillie said when this proposal was first approved there was no mention of a trail way. Recently in a memo dated November 18, 2003, they received notice that they needed to provide a trail in the area. Board member Longrie-Kline asked if this proposal should be delayed or could Mr. Ekstrand show how this proof of parking and trail way system would work? Her concern is that there is a double commitment for property with two different uses. Board member Olson said the trail issue needs to be resolved before the board can approve any plans. Board member Longrie-Kline said her concern is how does the parking fit for a furniture store? She said commercial property has a long life and this furniture store may be here for 20 years, but what if the applicant decides to sell the property for a different retail use and then the parking is not sufficient for that use. The proof of parking, which could have been used for the new owner as part of the marketing of the property has been used for a trail way instead. The city has to look to the future for the property use being used to the fullest. She said parking is the life-blood of any retail and without the additional property to expand future parking this could limit its future use if the building were sold down the road. Mr. Baillie asked staff if the trail has to be 15 feet wide? Mr. Cavett said the easement is 15 feet wide and the trail is 8 feet wide. He asked could the easement be less than 15 feet wide? Yes, maybe it could be reduced to 12 feet wide. He said there may be a possibility of adjusting the edge of the pond or the infiltration basin and getting the easement to fit outside the parking area. The worse case scenario would be the loss of 7 parking spaces, which shift the parking up then the easement would work outside the proof of parking area. Mr. Koppy said he and Mr. Cavett are confident they can work something out. Board member Olson asked if this could be tabled or postponed and ask the applicant for a complete set of comprehensive plans to be resubmitted? Community Design Review Board Minutes 11-25-2003 Mr. Ekstrand said his understanding was that the applicant is in a rush to move forward with this proposal. Board member Longrie-Kline asked if you move the 7 parking spaces up would that effect the line up of the drive aisles? Mr. Ekstrand said nothing has been approved yet for the west side of the driveway. Board member Olson asked what the colors of the logo for Ashley Furniture were going to be? Mr. Baillie said the logo would be orange and yellow. Board member Olson asked the applicant if the reason they would like two Ashley Furniture signs on each corner is because of the sight line from Highway 694 East bound? Mr. Dean said yes, store identification is very important to the applicant and he is hoping customers would see a peak of the building as they are driving down the highway. Board member Olson asked where the other Ashley Furniture locations are? Mr. Dean said they have stores in Albertviile, North Branch, Rochester, and Medford, Minnesota. Chairperson Ledvina asked if the entrance on the northeast corner is a functional entrance? Mr. Dean said because of the street presence requirement the entrance is a functional entrance, however, they are hoping customers would use the other entrance. Board member Olson asked if the green awnings shown on the plan would be used over the windows? Mr. Dean said yes. Board member Olson asked if the applicant has any exterior light fixtures proposed? Mr. Dean said they are not showing any exterior light fixtures to be installed but they do think a few wall sconces would look nice to accent the building especially along County Road D. Mr. Baillie said just so the building and the parking lot are not lit too much. Mr. Dean said he agrees with Mr. Baillie that the building and parking lot are properly lit however, it would be a nice accent feature. The glass block in the entry way is backlit as well. Mr. Dean said they are proposing to put two identification monument signs in to facilitate the traffic and he understood that the comprehensive sign ordinance for a monument sign is separate from the wall signage. Mr. Ekstrand said if the signs are identification signs larger than four feet they count towards the signs in the comprehensive sign plan. If you have four signs on the building and two ground mounted signs that is excessive of what is permitted by code. Community Design Review Board Minutes 11-25-2003 14 Mr. Dean asked if the comprehensive sign ordinance for monument signs is separate from wall signs? Mr. Ekstrand said no, it all counts towards the allowed signage, you are allowed four signs total. Mr. Dean said so we would either have to lose the monument signs or lose two wall signs, or lose one wall sign and one monument sign? Mr. Ekstrand said correct. Board member Olson asked staff if the number of signs is based on the square footage of the building? Mr. Ekstrand said the size of the sign is based on the square footage of the building. Chairperson Ledvina asked the applicant what they propose to do with the signage? Mr. Dean asked if it would be okay if they said they would come back to the board with a decision as to which of the signs they would keep and which they would remove from the plans? The board agreed that the applicant should come back with the final sign plan for approval. Chairperson Ledvina asked the applicant if they had any other issues or concerns with the conditions listed in the staff report? Mr. Baillie said no they discussed the concerns they had already this evening. Board member Longrie-Kline moved to approve the plans date-stamped ~"*"'~'"" 8, ~'~'~'~ November 20, 2003, November 24, 2003, and plans received at the November 25, 2003, CDFI8 meeting for the proposed Ashley Furniture store at the southwest corner of Southlawn Drive and County Road D. Approval is subject to the applicant doing the following: (deletions are stricken and additions are in bold). Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. Before getting a building permit, the applicant shall submit the following to staff for approval. A revised grading, drainage and erosion-control plan addressing the issues in Mr. Cavett's memo dated October 20, 2003. The details of sidewalk, driveway, private roadway and parking-lot improvements shall be subject to the requirements of the city engineer. The dedication of an east-west, 15-foot-wide pedestrian easement between the parking lot and the holding pond. The applicant shall grade this site and prepare it for trail installation. The city will build the trail. Community Design Review Board Minutes 11-25-2003 c. A revised landscape plan that: Provides additional screening along the west side of the parking lot and the west side of the trash/dock area. This screening plan shall provide an 80 percent visual screen and must be a year-round screen using evergreens. Relocates trees from the boulevard to the site. Provides in-ground irrigation for all landscaped areas (code requirement). Adds foundation plantings to the west side of the building to soften the appearance of this faCade. Includes a detailed turf establishment plan for the ponding and infiltration areas. This plan shall include revegetation with native grasses and forbs. Provides sod for all turf areas and boulevards, except for the revegetation of the pond area. Approval of the landscaping plan date-stamped November 20, 2003, along County Road D. A revised photometric plan that meets the city's outdoor-lighting criteria giving strict attention to eliminating potential light-glare for the future residents to the west. The maximum light reading at lot lines shall not exceed .4 foot-candles. A revised sidewalk plan providing for the extension of the sidewalk along the Southlawn Drive frontage to the south lot line. A revised site plan that eliminates the south end west row of parking and designates these this area as proof-of-parking. These areas shall be curbed with continuous concrete curb and gutter. The proof-of-parking areas shall be sodded. The revised site plan shall provide for a 12- foot trail easement along side the proof of parking between the storm water retention area and the designated proof of parking. g. A revised architectural plan that: Community Design Review Board Minutes 11-25-2003 o · Treats the dock and trash area with the same building materials as proposed on the west and south sides of the building. · Shows the design and materials of the trash enclosure. The trash enclosure shall be 100 percent opaque with a closeable gate. · Shows that the roof-mounted equipment will be screened from the view of the future multi-family development either by the parapet or by another screening method. · Use of green awnings as depicted in the color renderings shown at the CDRB meeting November 25, 2003. h. Cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit to cover the installation of landscaping and the completion of other outside site improvements. The applicant shall do the following: · Restore and sod damaged boulevards. · Install the sidewalks along County Road D and Southlawn Drive. · Construct the entire private-access roadway, with curb and gutter on both sides, on the west side of the site. This private roadway shall extend from County Road D to the future Legacy Parkway right-of-way. This private driveway shall provide the necessary openings on both sides as well as for the pedestrian trail on the north side of the applicant's pond. · Comply with the requirements in Chris Cavett's memo dated October 20, 2003. The applicant's comprehensive sign plan is approved as shown on the building elevations date-stamped October 8, 2003, consisting of two wall-mounted signs. The community design review board shall review ~,qy future changes to this comprehensive sign plan when the applicant has decided on their additional signage. Ground signs if chosen by the applicant shall comply with the city council's criteria. The applicant shall secure perpetual cross access easements with the Hartford Group, the developer of Legacy Village, to assure access between their site and adjacent properties and to assure the maintenance of these shared drives. The cross access easements shall be recorded in Ramsey County. The applicant shall provide the city with evidence that this has taken place. All shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. Comply with the requirements of the fire marshal as noted in the report. Community Design Review Board Minutes 11-25-2003 The applicant shall adjust the step up architeCtural enhancements for the north elevation as needed to accommodate the grading/berming as suggested by Chris Cavett. Board member Olson seconded. Ayes - Ledvina, Longrie-Kline, Olson The motion passed. d. Heritage Square Townhouses - Legacy Village Mr. Ekstrand said Town & Country Homes proposes to develop Outlot H of Legacy Village with 221 townhomes in 39 buildings on 19.78 acres, or about 11.2 units/acre. The previous approval for the overall Legacy Village PUD assumed 250 units on Outlot H, so this proposal is a reduction of about 10% from the approved density on that parcel. With this project as proposed, the entire Legacy Village PUD is now anticipated to include 589 units of housing, down from the 618 units approved in the PUD, and down over 30% from the 880 units analyzed and approved in the AUAR. Mr. Ekstrand said Heritage Square involves two building types: the Hometown units, which are back-to-front units with an entry at the front and garage/driveway in the rear, in 4-, 5-, and 6- unit buildings, labeled Building Type A on the site plan; and Chateau units, which are back-to- back units in 8-unit buildings, four on a side, labeled Building Type B on the site plan. Chairperson Ledvina asked the applicant to address the board. Ms. Krista Fleming, Project Manager of Land Development for Town & Country Homes, 7615 Smetana Lane, Suite 180, Eden Prairie, addressed the board. Ms. Fleming said the end building on Kennard Street started out being a 6-unit building and then was reduced to a 5-unit building shifting the building north creating a space of 50 feet. However, staff has recommended that Town & Country reduce the units down to a 4-unit building which would add an additional 22 feet of green space through the corridor. Ms. Fleming said Town & Country Homes is not in agreement with staff regarding the reduction of one more unit and she would like to get some feedback from the board regarding that recommendation. Town & Country Homes feels that the 50 feet they have already provided by eliminating another unit for the connection to the corridor is ample enough. Chairperson Ledvina asked if details regarding the building variation and which color scheme will be going where is in the packet the board received? Mr. Ekstrand said no it is not. He was not sure if the board wanted to see those details. The applicant gave staff 81/2 X 11 print outs of the color renderings to be used in this development and staff felt that was sufficient. Chairperson Ledvina said the reason he asked was that he wanted to ensure that someone had provided those details and he feels comfortable knowing staff has been provided with that information. Community Design Review Board Minutes 11-25-2003 Board member Olson said the issue of color palettes is a very sensitive issue with the board. The issue of using different building materials and color palettes is very important so that each unit has a completely different feel. So far the footprints are looking very identical at this point she said. The board would like to see different exterior treatments used on each of the buildings. She would like to see texture, color, and variation in architectural details, to make these units dissimilar from each other and not just different using different shades of tan and gray. Ms. Fleming said she respects those comments. One thing the architect can elaborate further on is the renderings the board is seeing are for the 6-unit buildings. Essentially what happens when you take the middle unit out and close the gap, the units will have a different appearance. When the homeowner looks out their window they will not see another unit that looks just like theirs. They have looked at different types of stone and brick to have the variation of building exteriors. Ms. Fleming said in the past the staff has been supportive of the color palettes and building materials that have been discussed so she would like to get definitive recommendations from the board as to what they would like to see as far as building exterior changes. Board member Olson asked if Ms. Fleming brought any samples or building materials with. Ms. Fleming said no. Mr. Ekstrand said staff was only concerned that the applicant had a variety of colors to use for the building exterior. He said he has seen developments in other city's that have used only one color scheme and he would not want to see that in any development in Maplewood. Chairperson Ledvina asked the next applicant to address the board. Mr. Tim Johnson, Director of Architecture for Town & Country Homes, 7615 Smetana Lane, Suite 180, Eden Prairie, addressed the board. Mr. Johnson said depending on whom they buy the building products from would depend on the exact appearance of the colors and materials chosen. The prints with the color scheme given to staff may differ by the product, manufacturer, and color so the prints are only a reference. The Chateau units are a different style and those color palettes given to staff were generated from actual samples of the products they will be using so those examples will be very close. He said they have built similar units and used similar techniques in other communities with a lot of success. Chairperson Ledvina asked if they had considered using a wainscoting on the garage side of the Hometown collection? Mr. Johnson said that question has come up in other municipalities while going through a similar process. Putting brick on the units in that location complicates things because of where the utilities are coming in. He said then there is the affordability issue. They have to be careful about using certain products on the exteriors of the buildings to keep the cost down so the price doesn't push the units out of the affordability category. Chairperson Ledvina asked where the utilities would be located on these buildings and he asked if Mr. Johnson could provide more detail on how the utilities would be handled in this development? Community Design Review Board Minutes 11-25-2003 Mr. Johnson said the buildings would be sprinklered so the water service is going to be on the end of each of the buildings depending on where the water access will be. It has not been determined where the gas and electric meters will go. They are in the process of meeting with the utility companies to determine the exact locations. Chairperson Ledvina asked if there would be individual electric and gas meters for each unit? Mr. Johnson said the water service comes from the St. Paul water department who has said there will be one water meter for each building, which the homeowner's association would pay for. Chairperson Ledvina asked if Mr. Johnson knew where on the plans the meters would go on? Mr. Johnson said typically the electric meters would be going on the ends of the buildings which are adjacent to the structure that would house the sprinkler service so that would provide more of a screen. They also provide fencing and/or landscaping to help screen those areas. Chairperson Ledvina asked where the gas meters would be located? Mr. Johnson said they would prefer to put them on the ends of the buildings as well but that has not been determined yet. Putting the gas meters on the ends of the units provides a safer environment because there isn't the issue of a homeowner possibly running into the meter with their vehicle or snow removal trucks damaging the meter when clearing snow. Board member Olson asked where the house numbers would be located? Mr. Johnson said on the Hometown unit the house numbers would be located on the on the front door and in the rear at the garage. On the Chateau units the house numbers would be located above the garage door nearest the entrance for that dwelling. There most likely would be another address on the building depending on how the city wants to address the buildings as far as a range of units or sub-numbers for each of the units within that dwelling, which can be determined by the police and fire department. Chairperson Ledvina said adding additional brick or stonework to the units is a nice detail to break up the look of these units and in terms of cost would not be that overbearing. Mr. Johnson said there are other costs and materials that go into putting masonry on a building other than just the masonry. There are foundations and substraits that would need to attach it to so cost is not just the only factor. Ms. Fleming said they also use a garage door with windows on it to break things up. On the site plan the alleyways are designed and laid out and are not conducive to having people be in those areas. Ms. Fleming said they want people to be in the front of the building so they have planned to have patios and the plan is to have people drive into the alleyways drive into their garage and park, close the door, and use the front of their buildings for socializing and enjoying Community Design Review Board Minutes 11-25-2003 20 Board member Longrie-Kline said her comments are similar to board member Olson's in that applicants typically bring the materials for the board to look at and approve. One of the main things the board approves are the color schemes and the building materials. With a development of this magnitude she would have expected to see those items. Ms. Fleming said they did not know that was customary and she apologies for not knowing that they should have provided that. She said they could come back after the city council approves this. Board member Olson said the board makes a recommendation to the city council and the city council depends on the board's expertise on these items of approval or recommendation. Mr. Ekstrand said generally the applicants are willing to bring samples with but he probably did not tell the applicant to bring the color schemes and samples of the building materials. Board member Longrie-Kline asked if there are other areas in the metro area that Town & Country has built developments of this type? Ms. Fleming said they have developed similar units to the Chateau and Hometown collection in Chaska and in Brooklyn Park and similar to the Hometown collection in Chaska and newly constructed units in Oakdale. Currently there are models open in Chaska and Brooklyn Park and the models in Oakdale won't be open until January in case the board would like to see any of the units. Board member Olson said when she looks at these plans all she sees are many housing units crammed in together. Board member Longrie-Kline said she would like to see the reduction from 5-units down to 4- units. She agrees with board member Olson's comments that the units look too similar and need more architectural elements added. She realizes that you can change a 6-unit to a 4-unit but that does not change the appearance of the units enough to her. She is not an architect by trade and she is not sure how to change the units with more detail. When you have high density housing such as this you need to be very cognizant of the need for more variety because otherwise it is all one of the same. She realizes the applicant is trying to change the appearance by using different colors and brick varieties but she would like to see more variety of stone materials used and something more than different shades of tans and grays. She also is concerned with location of the meters and how they will be screened. In the past the board has had problems with approving a development site plan and after the units were built the meters were a real eye sore and were not screened properly. To have a builder come back after the fact is very difficult because they have moved on to another project already. Chairperson Ledvina said he would agree with staff's recommendation to reduce the 5-unit down to 4-units. Regarding the setback on the west boundary he would think it would be reasonable to plan for a future use and look at alternate setback from 50 feet. Chairperson Ledvina asked staff if the board is also making a recommendation on setbacks? Mr. Ekstrand said yes. Community Design Review Board Minutes 11-25-2003 21 Chairperson Ledvina said he thinks it's not only a level of acceptability but also a "must" having the meters clustered at the ends of the units especially with a development of this size. He would also like to see more architectural design and building material elements added to these units. Chairperson Ledvina said the Chateau unit provides interest to the facade and is very nice. The Hometown unit has the dormers in the same place and he is not sure what can be done to change that because the board can't redesign the building. He would like to see some variation to break up the rooflines. There should be wainscoting used on the garage side of the Hometown units because that would be more attractive for the people that will live there as well as add to the quality of the structure. This is also a lower maintenance issue and adds practicality. Where the stone is used he would like to see a two-foot return on the adjacent elevation, to improve the look and feeling of the building and the architecture. Board member Olson said when she looks at the units she sees the shutter colors all the same. She asked if the shutter colors could be alternated for each unit to introduce some variety so they aren't black on every building? The columns on the entrances appear to be the same on these units. Perhaps they could vary the columns and give a slightly different treatment to the arch over the doorway as well as possibly using a different kind of trim? The main windows on the interior units appear to be squeezed in. She said maybe you could do something different with the main interior windows? Mr. Ekstrand asked board member Olson if she meant changing the shutter color unit-to-unit or building-to-building? Board member Olson said she meant unit to unit because the importance of identifying or giving character to each unit is critical when there are this many units. Mr. Johnson said each dwelling within the building has a different front elevation that identifies or separates them from the rest. He said when you change the building size from a 6-unit to a 4-unit the appearance of the front elevation changes. Board member Olson said when she looks at the buildings she doesn't see a difference. She sees the same horizontal lap siding going all the way across with the exception of the break of two different materials used. Board member Longrie-Kline said what board member Olson is saying is using shutters as a way to additionally give each unit character will make them look like individual fronts. Mr. Johnson said he understands the boards concerns and comments. However, a concern they have is some of the materials that they plan on using are very limited as to what colors they come in. When you have a particular color palette for a complete building there may not be a lot of colors available to compliment the palette for that building. Board member Olson said she would be happy with three different colors for the shutters. She had the understanding that the city wanted to go in the direction of this development being a European village but with character and flavor. Basically all she sees is stretched out fancy apartments. Community Design Review Board Minutes 11-25-2003 22 Mr. Johnson said he thinks the board would not have the same opinion if they saw some of the models. They could take photographs so the board could see what he is talking about rather than going by color renditions on paper he said. Mr. Ekstrand said if the board wants to have another look at this proposal maybe the applicant can come back with some of the questions and comments addressed with a different set of plans. He said the PUD and the plat could still be approved by the city council and they could bring the building exteriors with finished details back for review by the CDRB. Ms. Fleming said she agrees with the board that there are many other details that could be done to add to the architecture and interest of the units. However, the way these units have been designed and the products they would use set the price of these buildings at a certain price level. The city has indicated that affordability is critical but still need a home provided that is nice and has quality features. Sprucing up the building elevations also adds to the cost but they can go back and try to bring back some alternate shutter colors and other design elements for another review. They want a community that looks well and sells well. It is not an easy balance and they have to meet the affordability issue and yet provide quality housing with variety in this high profile area. Board member Olson moved to recommend approval of the site crchltcct'.-'ml and landscaping plans date-stamped October 15, 2003, for the Heritage Square Townhomes at Legacy Village, subject to the developer complying with the following conditions: (deletions are stricken and additions are in bold), 1) Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. 2) Comply with all requirements of the city engineer and his consultants relative to streets, sidewalks, grading, drainage, utilities and erosion control before getting a building permit. The applicant shall also provide any documents, easements and developers agreement that may be required by the city engineer. This approval shall be subject to the conditions outlined in the report from Jon Horn, of Kimley-Horn, dated October 13, 2003. This approval shall also be subject to the following requirements relative to the on-street parking along the west side of Kennard Street. The city will build on-street parking along the Town & Country frontage on Kennard. The on-street parking bays will be constructed of concrete. The Heritage Square plan shows 21 spaces; however, the length of the spaces need to be increased from 20 feet to 25 feet, resulting in a reduction in the number of spaces from 21 to 17. This would include 5 spaces north of Legacy Parkway, 9 spaces between Legacy Parkway and Street B, and 3 spaces south of Street B. Kennard Street will be widened by 8 feet in the area of the parking bays. We had previously requested that Town & Country dedicate 10 feet of additional right-of-way for the on-street parking. Our request for additional right-of-way can be reduced to 8 feet. Community Design Review Board Minutes 11-25-2003 23 Our typical section for the roadway will include that the parking areas will slope back to Kennard at a 4 percent grade, the 8 foot boulevard between the curb and sidewalk will slope to the street at a 5 percent grade and the 6 foot sidewalk will slope to the street at a 2 percent grade. The design considers Town & Country's concerns with the grades between the street and their buildings in this area. Any carriage walks between the sidewalk and parking bays will not be constructed as a part of the city contract. Town & Country will need to determine where they want carriage walks. Town & Country would need to construct any carriage walks as a part of the private development work. The city's landscaping plan for Kennard Street will need to consider the location of any carriage walks. Carriage walks and landscaping shall be subject to the city engineer approval. 3) Get the necessary approvals and permits from the watershed district. 4) The setbacks are approved as shown on the site plan. 5) Revise the site and landscaping plans as follows for staff approval: ao The southern unit of the Hometown (Type A) building, at the southwest corner of Kennard Street and Legacy Parkway, shall be eliminated reducing it from 5 to 4 units, thus continuing the internal linear green space out to Kennard Street at a width of at least 70 feet. The landscape treatment of this green space shall be continued into this new area in similar fashion to the rest of the linear green space. Within the linear green space, two north-south segments of sidewalk shall be added, one connecting Driveways K and U, and the other connecting Driveways G and W. The rain gardens and landscaping shall be revised to accommodate these sidewalks. The dead ends of all driveway behind the Chateau (Type B) buildings - Street B and drives G, I, K, M, O, Q, U, V and W -shall be designed, striped and signed to accommodate two common parking spaces each. The monument signs and associated landscaping at the corner of Legacy Parkway and Kennard Street shall be revised to place trees or other landscape features that are at least 25 feet in height and close to the right-of-way, while still maintaining safe sight distances that will create a significant tall edge mimicking the scale of the proposed senior building and future office building on the opposite corners of the intersection. The applicant shall return to the CDRB with a material board with samples of building materials and colors proposed for this development at the next CDRB meeting on December 9, 2003). Community Design Review Board Minutes 11-25-2003 24 6) Complete the following: b.~ c.~. d.e. Install and maintain an in-ground lawn irrigation system for all landscaped areas. Install all required trails, sidewalks and carriage walks. All curbing shall be continuous concrete curbing as proposed. Install any traffic signage within the site that may be required by staff. 7) The applicant shall provide the city with a cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit for the exterior landscaping and site improvements prior to getting a building permit for the development. Staff shall determine the dollar amount of the escrow as well as the portion of the project to be covered by the escrow. The escrow may cover the entire site or the site in phases of development. 8) All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 9) This development shall be signed with clear address signs for direction to the buildings and individual unit signage on the front and back, subject to approval by the police and fire departments of the city. 10) A temporary sales office shall be allowed until the time a model unit is available for use. Such temporary building shall be subject to the requirements of the building official as outlined in his report. 11) The applicant shall submit a lighting plan for staff approval prior to getting the first building permit. Board member Longrie-Kline seconded. Ayes - Ledvina, Longrie-Kline, Olson The motion passed. This item goes to the city council on December 8, 2003, and will come back to the CDRB on Tuesday, December 9, 2003. VII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS No visitors present. VIII. BOARD PRESENTATIONS Board member Shankar was at the last city council meeting but was not present to give a report. Community Design Review Board Minutes 11-25-2003 IX. 25 STAFF PRESENTATIONS Community Design Review Board Vacancy Update Mr. Ekstrand said the city council has not interviewed the applicants because of absent applicants at the last city council meeting. More information will follow. Review Board ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:52 p.m. Board member Olson will be the Community Design Representative at the December 8, 2003, city council meeting.