HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/27/2004AGENDA
MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
Tuesday, April 27, 2004
6:00 P.M.
Council Chambers - Maplewood City Hall
1830 County Road B East
2.
3.
4.
5.
Call to Order
Roll Call
Approval of Agenda
Approval of the March 29, 2004, Minutes
Design Review:
a. Edina Realty - 2966 White Bear Avenue
b. Van Dyke Village - 2191,2201,2211,2231 Van Dyke Street North
(Requested Amendment to May 27, 2003, Community Design Review
Board Conditions)
Visitor Presentations: None Scheduled
Board Presentations
Staff Presentations: Update on the City Council's Community Design Review
Board Candidate Interviews
9. Adjourn
II.
III.
IV.
MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA
TUESDAY, APRIL 27, 2004
CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Longrie-Kline called the meeting to order at 6:03 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Chairperson Diana Longrie-Kline
Vice-Chairperson Ledvina
Board member Linda Olson
Board member Ananth Shankar
Present
Present
Present
Present
Staff Present:
Shann Finwall, Planner
Lisa Kroll, Recording Secretary
APPROVALOFAGENDA
Board member Ledvina moved to approve the agenda.
Board member Olson seconded.
Ayes - Ledvina, Longrie-Kline, Olson, Shankar
The motion passed.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Approval of the CDRB minutes for March 29, 2004.
Board member Ledvina would like to better clarify his intentions to the discussion on page 5,
paragraph 5, after the third line it should state: The customer service portion of the building
has a lower roof elevation than the rest of the building and is de-emphasized. This area
should have a higher roof elevation in comparison to the rest of the building and this
area should be the design focal point of the site.
Board member Ledvina had another change on page 7 in the third bulleted motion. The
strikes that are in bold should be removed from the sentences. The sentence should read:
The applicant shaft submit revised building elevations showing a different banding
scheme on the south side of the building. This should be inserted on page 8 after the
second paragraph before the motion was seconded.
Board member Ledvina moved approval of the minutes of March 29, 2004, as amended.
Board member Olson seconded.
Ayes --- Ledvina, Olson, Shankar
Abstention - Longrie-Kline
The motion passed.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 4-27-2004
V. DESIGN REVIEW
2
a. Edina Realty - 2966 White Bear Avenue
Ms. Finwall said Edina Realty is proposing to build a new 15,718-square-foot one-story office
building to replace their existing office building for their business at 2966 White Bear Avenue.
If approved the applicant would construct the new building in the parking lot east of their
existing building and then tear down the existing office building to construct new parking.
During the construction of the new building, Edina Realty will not have enough parking on their
site. To ensure that they have parking, Edina Realty has arranged with Premier Bank at 2866
White Bear Avenue to use their parking lot. Once the contractor has finished the new office
building, Edina Realty will move in, the contractor will demolish the existing building and then
finish the new parking lot.
Board member Ledvina asked if the planning commission would be reviewing this item?
Ms. Finwall said this item requires only design review approval.
Board member Olson asked if the proposed light poles are in excess of 25 feet?
Ms. Finwall said the lighting plan specifies a light pole height of 25 feet and the intent is that
the light pole plus the base meets that 25-foot height maximum.
Board member Shankar asked if there was a curb cut on White Bear Avenue to make a left
turn onto the property for southbound traffic?
Ms. Finwall said the applicant is relocating the curb cut from the north portion of the property to
the south. The Ramsey County Public Works Department has reviewed this and they indicate
the new curb cut will not change the use of the site and is not anticipated to create operational
problems on White Bear Avenue.
Chairperson Longrie-Kline said she noticed in the letter from Premier Bank that the parking
agreement they have worked out is on a month-to-month basis due to the fact that the bank
may have a project underway as well. She asked staff if they know when the Premier Bank
project may start?
Ms. Finwall said the city has received an application for a new Walgreen's to be located on that
site which has to go through the city process and could take up to 60 days for approval.
Chairperson Longrie-Kline asked if staff saw an issue with the two projects being so close
together and trying to share some of the same parking areas?
Ms. Finwall said perhaps the applicant could answer that question.
Board member Olson asked if there would be a retaining wall constructed as part of this
project?
Community Design Review Board 3
Minutes 4-27-2004
Ms. Finwall said the engineering report specifies a retaining wall and the need for additional
plans for the retaining wall. If the retaining wall is higher than 4 feet it requires a separate
building permit.
Chairperson Longrie-Kline asked the applicant to address the board.
Scott Wiestling, Architect with Finn Daniels Architects, 2145 Ford Parkway, Suite 201, St. Paul,
addressed the board. He said there is a new driveway proposed off of White Bear Avenue. It
will be a right in and right out for northbound traffic only. He said there is a retaining wall
proposed at the north end of the site and the maximum height at any given point is 3Y2 feet.
They are improving the quality of the storm water on the site that is being released into the
local pond. They have some underground piping storage that is being proposed. There is an
ecostorm septor, which is the structure underground that treats water before it is released into
the pond.
Eric Sjowall, Edina Realty, 2966 White Bear Avenue, St. Paul, addressed the board. He has
been in touch with Premier Bank and they are setting up the parking on a month-to-month
basis. He said Premier Bank would also accommodate parking for Edina Realty to the east of
their bank once construction of the new Walgreen's begins.
Chairperson Longrie-Kline asked what parking needs Edina Realty has and whom will the
parking be used by?
Mr. Sjowall said the parking is needed for the real estate agents and the full-time staff. He said
Edina Realty has closings at this location and the 22 parking spots in the front of their existing
building will accommodate the public for those closings.
Chairperson Longrie-Kline asked if the applicant had any samples of building products to show
the board?
Mr. Wiestling said he brought building samples for the board to review. He said the darker
color of brick is for the main part of the building and the lighter brick is the accent band that
scores under and above the windows. The sample of metal is the proposed color of metal
mansard for the majority of the window and the tower element by the entryway.
Chairperson Longrie-Kline said the board appreciates it when applicants bring building
samples to the meeting to better visualize what the building would look like in the future.
Board member Shankar asked what color the window frames and glass color would be?
Mr. Wiestling said the glass color is a tinted bronze and the window frames are a dark bronze.
Board member Olson asked what the tiny red band was on the color illustration of the building.
Mr. Wiestling said that red band on the building is Edina Realty's trademark that is used on
their newer buildings throughout the Twin Cities.
Board member Olson asked why Edina Realty is reducing the square footage of their new
building?
Community Design Review Board 4
Minutes 4-27-2004
Mr. Sjowall said the Maplewood Edina Realty office was originally constructed as the main
building for St. Paul before other offices in surrounding cities opened like White Bear and
Woodbury. As real estate and the agent count has changed, there are more real estate offices
out there and the amount of space that is needed has become smaller, therefore, less square
footage is needed.
Chairperson Longrie-Kline said this proposal does not include approval of signage for the
building. Any proposed signs would require a separate permit. She asked if they have any
idea what the signs would look like?
Mr. Wiestling said the intent is to relocate the existing monument sign along White Bear
Avenue to the south side and the building would also have signage on the front facade of the
building on the west elevation that fronts White Bear Avenue. He presented the board with a
photo of the signage at their Stillwater location to represent how the signage would appear.
Ms. Finwall said because of the way this property is zoned Edina Realty is limited to a
freestanding sign of 80 square feet in size and one wall sign.
Board member Olson asked what the reason was behind moving the curb entrance from the
north end of White Bear Avenue to the south end?
Mr. Wiestling said it just worked better for the layout of the new site design since the building
was nestled into the northeast corner of the site; the main drive lane needed to be fronting that.
They are also trying to orientate most of the entrances to the south instead of the north facade.
Another reason is because of the Minnesota winter conditions and having sunshine at the
entrance.
Board member Olson asked if the city engineer was okay with this? It seemed White Bear
Avenue is narrower at that point.
Mr. Wiestling said that point has never come up in discussion with the city or in the staff report.
Board member Ledvina asked if the applicant could relate the position of the proposed building
to the neighboring properties to the north and south?
Mr. Wiestling said the site plan that was submitted in the staff report shows the relationship of
the two adjacent buildings with this proposed building.
Board member Ledvina asked if the lot would have been vacant would they have done things
differently?
Mr. Wiestling said they did explore the possibility of tearing down the current building and
shutting operations down for the summer but that wasn't feasible so they decided to keep their
existing building in operation while constructing the new building. He said in a perfect world
they would have put the building more towards the street.
Board member Olson asked if the city engineer was okay with relocating the parking entrance
from the northern part to the southern part of the property?
Community Design Review Board 5
Minutes 4-27-2004
Ms. Finwall said she could only refer to the engineering report, which does not reflect any
comment or concerns on that driveway access. The county engineering report reflects the
location of the driveway as being acceptable.
Board member Olson said she would like the city engineer to review the driveway access. The
Great Moon Restaurant is to the south and is very busy and the traffic is heavy there. She is
concerned about the two entrances being so close together and thinks it could be a potential
safety issue.
Board member Ledvina said he could see the functionality of a one-story building as it fits
more in the character of the surrounding buildings. Overall he thinks the layout is good. His
preference would be to bring the entrance right up to the southwest corner, although he
respects Edina Realty's desire to have the entrance where it is shown on the plans. He would
like to see additional landscaping added around the dumpster area to improve the look.
Board member Olson asked if they chose that block for the retaining wall so it matches
Michael's retaining wall and if it would be the same size?
Mr. Wiestling said they chose the retaining wall block because it would match the colors of the
banding for the building they are proposing and the block size will be the same size.
Board member Shankar said the illustration shows some red used in some of the window
frames. He wondered if they ever considered using forest green like the roof color for the
window frame color?
Mr. Wiestling said they considered using the forest green but decided to use the dark bronze
window frame because it is a better accent color next to the red and it blends together better.
Chairperson Longrie-Kline said she thinks this is a nice looking building and she likes the fact
that it has a lot of windows. She's glad they have the parking issues worked out which is
important when you are working around an existing building. She agrees having additional
plantings around the dumpster area is a good idea. When the rest of the property is going to
look so nice it would be a shame to have the dumpster be such an eyesore.
Board member Shankar asked if you would be able to see the downspout from the street?
Mr. Wiestling said no but you may see it from the parking lot at Michael's depending on how
tall the trees are.
Board member Olson asked if the storm water would be routed into the pond?
Mr. Wiestling said yes. They applied for a permit at the Watershed District and received
approval at their April 7, 2004, meeting with four conditions.
Mr. Wiestling said the largest condition was to increase the piping size underground to retain
more water on site and slow the discharge rate down. The plans have already been revised to
reflect that change.
Community Design Review Board 6
Minutes 4-27-2004
Board member Ledvina moved to approve the plans date-stamped March 10, 2004, for the
proposed Edina Realty building at 2966 White Bear Avenue. This approval is subject to the
applicant doing the following: (additions to the motion are in bold)
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 grading permit or a building permit:
Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These
plans shall include: grading, utility, drainage, erosion control, retaining wall, tree,
and driveway and parking lot plans. The plans shall meet the following
conditions:
(1) The erosion control plan shall be consistent with city code.
(2) The grading plan shall:
(a)
Include building, floor elevation, water elevation and contour
information. These shall include the normal water elevation and 100-
year high water elevation.
(b) Include contour information for the land that the construction will
disturb.
(c)
Show sedimentation basins or ponds as required by the watershed
board or by the city engineer. The ponds or basins shall meet the
city's design standards and shall include best management practices
and rainwater gardens wherever practical.
(d)
Show all proposed slopes steeper than 3:1 on the proposed
construction plans. The city engineer shall approve the plans,
specifications and management practices for any slopes steeper than
3:1. This shall include covering these slopes with wood-fiber
blankets and seeding them with a "no mow" native vegetation rather
than using sod or grass.
(e) Show all retaining walls on the plans. Any retaining walls more than
four feet tall require a building permit from the city.
(f)
Show as little disturbance as possible on the north, south and east
sides of the site to minimize the loss or removal of the trees. This is
to keep and protect as many of the trees along the north, south and
east property lines as possible.
(3)
All the parking areas and driveways shall have continuous concrete curb
and gutter.
(4) The driveways shall meet the following standards:
Community Design Review Board 7
Minutes 4-27-2004
(a) 24-foot width--no parking on either side and 28-foot width--parking
on one side.
The developer or contractor shall post the driveways with no parking signs
to meet the above-listed standards.
(5)
The developer shall disturb as little as possible of the area along the
north, south and east property lines. Change the grading plan for this
part of the site as recommended by the city engineer.
(6) A storm water management plan including drainage and ponding
calculations, for the proposal.
(7)
Make all the changes and meet all the conditions noted by Erin Laberee
in the memo dated March 30, 2004.
bo
Submit a landscape irrigation plan to staff showing the location of sprinkler
heads.
c. Submit a certificate of survey for all new construction.
d. Submit a revised landscape plan for city staff approval showing:
(1)
As much of the existing vegetation (including large trees) remaining
along the northern, southern and eastern property lines as possible.
(2)
The manicured or mowed areas from the natural areas. The native
grasses and flowering plants shall be those needing little or no
maintenance. Specifically, the developer or contractor shall have the
natural areas seeded with an upland mixture and lowland mixtures as
appropriate.
(3) The location of all large trees on the site.
(4) In-ground landscape irrigation system for all new landscaping.
(5)
The applicant shall increase the landscaping in the vicinity of the
trash enclosure.
e. Get the necessary approvals and permits from the watershed district.
The fire chief shall approve the access to the back (north side) of the building for
firefighting needs.
g. Get the necessary approvals and permits from Ramsey County.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 4-27-2004
h.
ko
Submit elevations and plans for city staff approval for the outdoor trash or
recycling containers and enclosures. The enclosure shall have materials that are
compatible with the building, and it shall have gates that are 100 percent opaque.
Provide design details (height, depth and materials) and the proposed retaining
wall.
Submit material samples and color schemes for the building to city staff for
approval.
A letter of credit or cash escrow for all required exterior improvements and for the
removal of the existing office building. The amount of the escrow shall be 150
percent of the cost of the work.
The applicant shall complete the following before occupying the new building:
eo
Replace any property irons removed because of this construction.
Restore and sod damaged boulevards.
Install a handicap-parking sign for each handicap-parking space and an address
on the building. In addition, the applicant shall install "no parking" signs within
the site, as required by staff.
Construct the trash enclosure to meet code requirements, unless the trash is
stored indoors. The enclosure must match the materials and colors of the
building and shall have a 100 percent opaque gate.
Install continuous concrete curb and gutter around the parking lot and driveways.
Install and maintain an in-ground lawn irrigation system for all new landscaped
areas.
Paint any rooftop mechanical equipment to match the uppermost part of the
building. (code requirement)
Install on-site lighting for security and visibility that follows the approved site
lighting plan. All exterior lighting shall follow the approved lighting plan that
shows the light spread and fixture design. The light fixtures must have
concealed lenses and bulbs to properly shield glare from the adjacent street
right-of-ways and from adjacent properties.
The developer or contractor shall:
(1)
(2)
(3)
Complete all grading for the site drainage, complete all public
improvements and meet all city requirements.
Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits.
Remove any debris or junk and the existing office building from the site.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 4-27-2004
(4)
Install the curb and gutter, parking lot and retaining wall as shown on the
project plans.
4. Remove the existing office building within 30 days of occupying the new office building.
5. 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 above-required letter of credit or cash escrow is held by the city for all
required exterior improvements. The owner or contractor shall complete any
unfinished landscaping by June 1 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.
This approval does not include signage. All proposed signs must comply with the city's
sign ordinance and the applicant must obtain all required sign permits before the
installation or relocation of signs.
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, Shankar
The motion passed.
bm
Van Dyke Village - 2191, 2201, 2211, 2231 Van Dyke Street North (Requested
Amendment to May 27, 2003, Community Design Review Board Conditions)
Ms. Finwall said Mr. Bruce Mogren is requesting that the community design review board
(CDRB) reconsider the condition to add brick wainscoting on the east elevations of the Van
Dyke Village Town Houses located at 2191,2201,2211, and 2231 Van Dyke Street North.
During the May 27, 2003, CDRB meeting, the board felt that brick wainscoting would
accentuate the architecture of the town houses. The board determined that the best location
for the brick would be on the east elevations, toward Van Dyke Street. A condition was added
to the design review approval which states that brick wainscoting will be installed from the
ground grade to the bottom of the windows on the entire east elevations and in front of
bedroom number two in all unit A style town houses (end units) starting from the porch railings
to the end of the building.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 4-27-2004
Because of budget constraints Mr. Mogren requests the exclusion of the brick wainscot in
order to help finance upgrades he is planning on making and to keep the rent of the units at an
affordable workforce rate. In place of the brick wainscot, Mr. Mogren is proposing to add
shrubs along the east elevation, which would grow to the height of the proposed wainscoting.
Board member Ledvina asked if staff had calculated the actual amount of square feet of brick
the board has requested?
Ms. Finwall said no.
Board member Shankar asked if these are market rate town houses or subsidized town
houses?
Ms. Finwall said perhaps the applicant could explain the type of housing and the percentage of
subsidized housing.
Chairperson Longrie-Kline asked the applicant to address the board.
Mr. Bruce Mogren, 1801 Gervais Avenue, Maplewood, addressed the board. He said this is
workforce housing where the income level is restricted and the rent he can charge is restricted.
The break down is 75% of the units or 15 of the units are workforce housing and 5 of the units
are market rate.
Chairperson Longrie-Kline asked Mr. Mogren if he knew how much the brick was going to cost
to add to the buildings?
Mr. Mogren said he estimates the cost to be about $11,000-$12,000. Typically he would not
be too concerned about the additional cost of the brick but as he is learning more about this
type of housing and the constraints, he understands how tight the budget is for workforce
housing. He said he is already working on adding the items shown in the staff report
regardless of the board's decision to eliminate the brick or not. Eliminating the brick would
give him additional money to use on different areas for this project.
Chairperson Longrie-Kline said as Mr. Mogren is learning more about building this type of
project and the constraints, she asked if this was his first experience with workforce housing?
Mr. Mogren said yes. He said he has done close to 300 units for senior housing and the needs
are very different. He said along the way he has been receiving tips on what to do for the
project.
Board member Ledvina asked if Mr. Mogren had calculated the total square feet of brick to be
added to the buildings?
Mr. Mogren said no he had not. He is basically trying to redirect the dollars used on this
project the best way he can.
Board member Ledvina asked what the total dollar amount of the project was?
Mr. Mogren said this project was going to cost about $2.5 million dollars.
Community Design Review Board ! !
Minutes 4-27-2004
Board member Olson said she remembered Mr. Mogren had objected to the board's request to
add brick to the buildings the last time this project was reviewed. One of the concerns the
board had was when you have kids living in these buildings the exterior is going to take abuse
which was one of the purposes to require the brick. She asked if the siding had a resistance
strength rating?
Mr. Mogren said he did not know the resistance strength rating but this product was a
significant upgrade from other projects. He said originally they looked at using steel siding but
decided against it because steel dents. His intention has always been to use the best products
for the long run. According to the rules he has to own this building for a minimum of 15 years
so he wants the building to look nice and have Iow maintenance. But because it's workforce
housing he can't charge over a certain amount of rent and he's trying to do the best he can
with the project and the money he has to work with.
Board member Olson said in Mr. Mogren's letter he talked about replacing the cost of the brick
with landscaping and the addition of security lights and front security doors. She thought
things like bedroom ceiling lights; security lighting and doors would have already been built in
as part of this project?
Mr. Mogren said they had planned on using sliding doors but now they are going to use a solid
core door for safety reasons.
Chairperson Longrie-Kline said the board had concerns at the previous meeting regarding the
children living in these buildings and the durability of the siding. That is the reason they
recommended putting brick on the building exterior to begin with. A brick exterior will help with
the longevity of the exterior appearance from the impact of children living there and it will also
have a better impact on the surrounding neighborhood. She is having a difficult time trying to
imagine how landscaping would help the appearance of the exterior in place of using brick.
Landscaping is also a maintenance issue with the wear and tear from children playing.
Bushes and landscaping can also become a trash collector.
Mr. Mogren said he has a real pride of ownership at his properties. With his six maintenance
people that take care of his other properties he assured the board that trash would not be an
issue. Basically he said he was appealing to the board because he was looking for a financial
break. He said it did not appear to him that using landscaping instead of adding the brick on
the building would be that significant to the board. But if the board feels it is necessary then he
will end up doing whatever they direct him to do in the end. Either way he believes this
development will turn out nice and will be just as nice as any of the homes in the
neighborhood.
Board member Olson asked if she heard correctly that the brick ledges were already built into
the building?
Mr. Mogren said correct, just in case the board said he had to put the brick on the building he
made sure the brick ledge was built. Otherwise it would have been to late to go back and add
the brick to the exterior.
Community Design Review Board 12
Minutes 4-27-2004
Board member Shankar said to clarify that means the foundation had to be built out an
additional four inches to accommodate the brick addition. In his opinion the project is half way
there so he may as well go forward with installing the brick.
Mr. Mogren said he has been working with the builder and the city as a team and the board will
decide what he has to do with this project.
Board member Olson said she wasn't aware there wouldn't be any shrubs in this location if the
brick was put on the exterior.
Board member Ledvina said the board had a significant discussion about this project and felt it
was important to improve the building exterior appearance from Van Dyke Street. The homes
across the street are brick homes and that was another reason the board thought the building
would fit in better. To add the brick onto the building exterior is less than a half a percent of
the total building cost and he believes the brick needs to be put on the exterior.
Chairperson Longrie-Kline said she remembers the discussion about why it was important to
have the brick on the building exterior and she believes the board should stick with their
original motion to keep the brick. The board put a lot of thought and discussion into this issue
and in the long run it will be better for the appearance and longevity of the building.
Board member Ledvina moved to make no revisions to the May 27, 2003, community
design review board conditions as follows:
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:
ao
Have the city engineer approve the final construction and engineering plans.
These plans shall include grading, drainage, sidewalk, utility, driveway, parking
lot and erosion control plans. These plans shall meet the following conditions:
(1) The erosion control plan shall be consistent with the city code.
(2) The grading plan shall:
(a)
Include building, floor elevation, water elevation and contour
information. These shall include the normal water elevation and 100-
year high water elevation.
(b) Include contour information for the land that the construction will
disturb.
(c) Show sedimentation basins or ponds as required by the watershed
board or by the city engineer.
(d) Show all proposed slopes steeper than 3:1 on the proposed
construction plans. The city engineer shall approve the plans,
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 4-27-2004
specifications and management practices for any slopes steeper than
3:1.
This shall include covering these slopes with wood-fiber blankets and
seeding them with a "no mow" vegetation rather than using sod or
grass.
(e) Show all retaining walls on the plans. Any retaining walls more than
four feet tall require a building permit from the city.
(f)
Show as little disturbance and tree removal as possible on the north,
west and south sides of the site (near the businesses and the
daycare center).
(3) The tree plan shall:
(a) Be approved by the city engineer before site grading or tree removal.
(b)
Show where the developer will remove, save or replace large trees.
This plan shall include an inventory of all existing large trees on the
site. In addition, this plan shall show the planting of at least 15
replacement trees on the site.
(c) Show no tree removal beyond the approved grading and tree limits.
(d) Be consistent with the approved grading and landscape plans.
(4)
The design of the rainwater gardens shall be subject to the approval of
the city engineer. The developer shall be responsible for getting any
needed off-site grading or drainage easements and for recording all
necessary easements.
(5)
All the parking areas and driveways shall have continuous concrete curb
and gutter.
(6)
The driveways shall meet the following standards: 24-foot width--no
parking on either side and 28-foot width--parking on one side; the
developer or contractor shall post the driveways with no parking signs to
meet the above-listed standards.
(7)
The developer shall disturb as little as possible of the area along the
north, west and south property lines near the daycare center and
businesses and the applicant shall change the grading plan for this part
of the site as recommended by the city engineer.
bo
Submit an in-ground lawn-irrigation plan to staff showing the location of sprinkler
heads.
c. Submit a certificate of survey for all new construction.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 4-27-2004
]4
d. Submit a revised landscape plan for city approval showing:
(1)
As much of the existing vegetation (including the trees) remaining along
the northern, westerly and southerly property lines as possible.
(2)
The manicured or mowed areas from the natural areas. This shall
include planting (instead of sodding) the disturbed areas around the
rainwater gardens with native grasses and native flowering plants. The
native grasses and flowering plants shall be those needing little or no
maintenance. This is to reduce maintenance costs and to reduce the
temptation of mowers to encroach into the gardens. Specifically, the
developer shall have the natural areas seeded with an upland mixture
and lowland mixtures as appropriate.
(3)
Foundation plantings near and around the buildings and additional
landscaping (with trees and other materials) between the proposed
buildings and Van Dyke Street.
(4) The in-ground lawn-irrigation system.
e. Get the necessary approvals and permits from the watershed district.
Submit a revised site lighting plan for city approval. This plan shall show how the
lighting on the buildings would add to the site lighting, and the plan should have
additional lighting near the tot lot and driveways, where they intersect the public
street, so the driveways are adequately lit. This plan also shall show details
about the proposed light fixtures to ensure they are a design that hides the bulb
and lens from view to avoid nuisances. The light fixtures must have concealed
lenses and bulbs to property shield glare from the adjacent street right-of-ways
and from adjacent residential properties.
g. The developer shall record the following with Ramsey County:
(1)
10-foot-wide drainage and utility easements for the areas along the east
and west property lines and five-foot-wide drainage and utility easements
for the areas along the north and south property lines.
(2)
The documentation to combine the properties into one property for tax and
identification purposes.
Have the Saint Paul Regional Water Services (SPRWS) approve the proposed
utility plans.
The fire chief shall approve the access to the back (north and south side) of the
buildings for firefighting needs.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 4-27-2004
j.
Submit plans for city staff approval for any outdoor trash or recycling containers
and enclosures. If the developer wants to build such facilities, the enclosure
shall have materials that are compatible with the buildings, and they shall have
gates that are 100 percent opaque.
A letter of credit or cash escrow for all required exterior improvements. The
amount shall be 150 percent of the cost of the work.
Submit for city approval revised building plans and elevations that include brick
wainscoting to be installed from the ground grade to the bottom of the windows
on the following locations of all town house buildings: Entire east elevations and
in front of bedroom #2 in all unit A style town houses (end units) starting from the
porch railings to the end of the building. In addition, the revised plans should
show an alternate porch railing material than the proposed natural cedar (i.e.,
cedar painted white to match the window trim or white aluminum railings).
Submit for city staff approval building elevations and plans for the
maintenance/caretaker building. This building shall have materials and colors
consistent with the main buildings on the site.
The developer shall close on the purchase of the property with the city before the
city will issue a grading or a building permit for the project.
3. Complete the following before occupying the buildings:
a. Replace property irons that are removed because of this construction.
b. Restore and sod damaged boulevards.
Install reflectorized stop signs at each exit, a handicap-parking sign for each
handicap-parking space and an address on each building. In addition, the
applicant shall install "no parking" signs within the site, as required by staff.
do
Paint any rooftop mechanical equipment to match the uppermost part of the
building. Screen all roof-mounted equipment visible from streets or adjacent
property. (code requirement)
Construct trash dumpster and recycling enclosures as city code requires for any
dumpsters or storage containers that the owner or building manager would keep
outside the building. Any such enclosures must match the materials and colors
of the building.
fo
Install and taper the concrete sidewalk along Van Dyke Street to match the
driveways.
Install and maintain all required landscaping and an in-ground sprinkler system
for all landscaped areas. (code requirement)
Community Design Review Board t6
Minutes 4-27-2004
h. Install continuous concrete curb and gutter along all interior driveways and
around all open parking stalls.
Install on-site lighting for security and visibility that follows the approved site
lighting plan. All exterior lighting shall follow the approved lighting plan that
shows the light spread and fixture design. The light fixtures must have
concealed lenses and bulbs to property shield glare from the adjacent street
right-of-ways and the nearby homes and residential properties.
Install a six-foot-high solid screening fence or additional landscaping along the
entire south property line and on a portion of the west property line starting from
the tree line (i.e., preserved trees) to the north property line. Install additional
landscaping along the north property line. These additional materials are to
ensure there is at least six-foot-tall, 80 percent opaque screen on these sides of
the site. The location, design and materials of the fence or the additional
landscaping shall be subject to city staff approval.
k. The developer or contractor shall:
(1) Complete all grading for the site drainage, complete all public
improvements and meet all city requirements.
(2) Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits.
(3) Remove any debris or junk from the site.
4. If any required work is not done, the city may allow temporary occupancy if:
ao
The city determines that the work is not essential to the public health, safety or
welfare.
The above-required letter of credit or cash escrow is held by the city for all
required exterior improvements. The owner or contractor shall complete any
unfinished landscaping by June 1 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. This approval does not include the signs.
All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may
approve minor changes.
Board member Shankar seconded. Ayes - Ledvina, Longrie-Kline, Olson, Shankar
The motion passed.
VI. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 4-27-2004
1'7
Councilmember Will Rossbach said the city council meeting April 26, 2004. Because the city
council assigned contact people for the various commissions so he thought this would be a
good opportunity to stop by and introduce him as their contact. If the board has any questions
he is here to answer questions if he can. The things the city council has tried to do will supply
more people to serve on the boards and commissions. This will provide better
communications between the city council and the commissions, therefore, the commissions
will have a better understanding of what the city council is trying to accomplish.
Board member Olson said she would like to thank Councilmember Rossbach for coming to the
meeting tonight. In the three years she has been on the board there have been no other city
councilmember that has come to a board meeting. She is curious about the change in
procedure for appointing members for the committees. She just received her letter in the mail
today and she is confused about the fact that the board has been removed from the process of
selecting or recommending a member to serve on a board or commission and wondered if
Councilmember Rossbach could explain the reason for the change.
Councilmember Rossbach said the city did a survey of surrounding cities and found out that
Maplewood is the only city where the commissions and boards appoint their own members.
The process to have current board or commission members reapply is to ensure they're still
interested. It also gives applicants the perception that there is a possibility they could be
appointed. Many of the commissions are currently looking for new members but in the past it
had been years before there was an opening for new members. It wasn't the council's intent to
set up any type of rotation to take place but they did want everybody to think and reflect if
indeed they want to remain on the commission or board or are they interested in either moving
on or doing something else and step aside for others to take their place. The city expects they
will receive more applicants because they will feel there will be a greater opportunity for an
opening on the board or commission. Basically it is better for recruiting applicants. This is the
format the city council wants to pursue at this time. If this process doesn't work then they will
make changes. In the past the board or commission voted for the applicants during the
interview process and their score and who voted for which applicant was very public. It wasn't
uncommon for the applicant with the lower scores to drop out of the interview with the city
council.
Councilmember Rossbach said the city council may also want to recommend an applicant for a
different commission or board that may better fit their qualifications where there is an opening.
The new process is not to force a commissioner or board member to leave, in fact the city
wants more people on the commissions and boards and wants to attract applicants.
Chairperson Longrie-Kline said the question many of the board members have is why do they
have to reapply every year? That means you are having to review each application for current
commission and board members every year. What if there is a board or commission member
and a new applicant applying for the same position? She asked what criteria had been
established and in place to decide whom the city council would select so it is an objective
standard and not subjective. She asked if a current member has the experience that is
needed but there is an applicant from the outside that the city council wants on the commission
or board how is that decision going to be made?
Councilmember Rossbach said he is not sure how that would be decided.
Community Design Review Board t8
Minutes 4-27-2004
Chairperson Longrie-Kline asked Mr. Rossbach if he understood the legal ramifications of
that?
Councilmember Rossbach said no he did not.
Chairperson Longrie-Kline said there should be some kind of objective standard of which the
council judges the applicants then because each board member and commission member has
to reapply each year and there are new applicants wing for the opening.
Councilmember Rossbach said he didn't think it was the intention of the city council to create
new openings each year.
Chairperson Longrie-Kline said that is what would happen though.
Councilmember Rossbach said he didn't think so. He said that may be Ms. Longrie-Kline's
interpretation but that was not the intention of the city council.
Board member Ledvina said he believed the board had two-year terms.
Chairperson Longrie-Kline said with the new policy a person would have to reapply each year.
Ms. Finwall said the time line to be on a board or commission is two years with staggered
terms.
Chairperson Longrie-Kline said the policy on the website stated you had to reapply each year.
Councilmember Rossbach said that was the last version but has been revised to require
commission or board members to reapply when their term expired.
Chairperson Longrie-Kline said she doesn't have a current copy of the policy with her and
perhaps it was a misunderstanding but last week Karen Guilfoile from the city clerk's office told
her to look on the website for the new policy, which she did.
Board member Olson said today she received in the mail the new policy and it does not state
anywhere in the letter that you have to reapply each year.
Chairperson Longrie-Kline said she had not read her mail yet today but when she got home
she would look for the letter.
Board member Olson read from the letter "Chair appointments would be made every 2 years
starting in 2005 by the city council. The city council would not impose term limits, however,
they will make annual appointments or reappointments through an open or community wide
process and each year every commissioner seeking reappointment will reapply."
Chairperson Longrie-Kline said it should not say "annual" in the policy then.
Board member Olson said annually the city council would make appointments to fill vacancies.
Community Design Review Board tP
Minutes 4-27-2004
Councilmember Rossbach said he did not come to make this into a debate. He said it is not
the intention of the city council to force anybody off the commission or board it is an effort to
recruit more applicants and to have better communication with the commissions. The term
"liaison" was going to be used and that did not sit well with people so the name was changed
to "contact person." The city council wants the boards and commissions to know if there is
something you want to get to the city council you may contact their council representative and
bring the item up so it could possibly be brought up for discussion at the council meeting. That
is what the contact person is for, sort of the middle person.
Chairperson Longrie-Kline said she thinks she speaks for all the board members when she
says they are all pleased to have Councilmember Rossbach as their contact person.
Board member Olson said the board serves at the pleasure of the city council and the board
members are appointed. She appreciates that and feels honored to be on the CDRB. She
asked Councilmember Rossbach if he had any comments on how the board is serving as a
committee or regarding any decisions the board made tonight?
Mr. Rossbach said he would not be able to comment on how the board is doing as a
committee because he doesn't have enough information. However, he thinks the city looks
nice and that is a good reflection on the board. The board makes recommendations to the city
council, which the council listens to and decides to vote on for their final decision.
Chairperson Longrie-Kline thanked Councilmember Rossbach for coming to the board meeting
and welcomed him to attend more board meetings.
Councilmember Rossbach welcomed any board member to e-mail him at home because his e-
mail is now working.
Chairperson Longrie-Kline said she encourages the word to be spread that if people are
interested in landscape and building design elements to read the packets on the internet and
are welcome to attend board meetings to see how the CDRB works.
VII. BOARD PRESENTATIONS
Board member OIson was at the last city council meeting where they discussed Venburg Tire,
and the city council took the board's recommendation and the item passed. After the city
council meeting the Venburg applicants came and personally thanked her for taking a stance
on their development and the financial situation they are under having to move across the
highway. The issue of financial consideration is a concern of hers and she hopes she did not
start something after her stance with Venburg Tire. That was an individual case where
Venburg Tire is not getting any additional funding or subsidies.
VIII. STAFF PRESENTATIONS
Update on the City Council's Community Design Review board Candidate Interviews
Ms. Finwall said there were 3 candidates that were interviewed at the April 26, 2004, city
council meeting. Ms. Longrie-Kline attended that meeting and Ms. Finwall said she would turn
the discussion over to her for further information.
Community Design Review Board 20
Minutes 4-27-2004
Ms. Longrie-Kline said prior to the workshop she had suggested about eight different questions
to be asked of the applicants. During the interview process six of her questions were used
along with two other questions. Each candidate was asked the same questions in the same
order so their answers could be compared as well as their background. The city council
selected Judy Driscoll to serve on the board. She is from the Gladstone area and she has a
good background in design review, landscaping, and interior background. She is also familiar
with site plans and reading elevations. The second runner up was Richard Currie.
Ms. Finwall said she would contact Ms. Dris¢oll and congratulate her and find out when she
would be coming to her first board meeting. The next board meeting is Tuesday, May 11,
2004.
IX. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 7:48 p.m.