Loading...
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.