Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/25/2005 AGENDA CITY OF MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD Tuesday, October 25,2005 6:00 P.M. Council Chambers - Maplewood City Hall 1830 County Road BEast 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Agenda 4. Approval of Minutes: September 27,2005 5. Unfinished Business: Ashley Furniture Neon Lighting 6. Design Review: Edgerton Manor - 2021 Edgerton Street 7. Visitor Presentations: 8. Board Presentations: 9. Staff Presentations: a. Sign Code Revision Update b. World Town Planning Day - November 8, 2005 c. Reminder - November 8 CDRB Meeting Rescheduled to November 9 Due to Elections d. Community Design Review Board Representation at the November 14, 2005, City Council Meeting 10. Adjourn DRAFT MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD 1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 27,2005 I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Longrie called the meeting to order at 6:01 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Board member John Hinzman Board member Matt Ledvina Chairperson Diana Longrie Vice chairperson Linda Olson Board member Ananth Shankar Present at 6:03 p.m. Present Present from 6:00-6:30 p.m. and from 7:30-7:45 p.m. Present Present Staff Present: Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner Lisa Kroll, Recording Secretary III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Chairperson Longrie announced she had to attend another city meeting at 6:30 p.m. and would be absent as the chairperson for 1 hour. Vice chairperson Linda Olson will act as chairperson while Chairperson Longrie is absent. Board member Ledvina moved to approve the agenda. Board member Shankar seconded. Ayes - Hinzman, Ledvina, Longrie, Olson, Shankar The motion passed. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of the CDRB minutes for Auqust 23, 2005. Board member Shankar moved approval of the minutes of August 23, 2005. Board member Olson seconded. Ayes ---Ledvina, Longrie, Shankar, Olson Abstentions - Hinzman The motion passed. Approval of the CDRB minutes for September 14, 2005. Board member Olson moved approval of the minutes of September 14, 2005. Board member Hinzman seconded. Ayes - Hinzman, Longrie, Olson Abstentions - Ledvina, Shankar Community Design Review Board Minutes 9-27-2005 2 The motion passed. v. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. VI. DESIGN REVIEW a. Maplewood Imports Auto Center Comprehensive Sign Plan - 2450 Maplewood Drive Mr. Ekstrand said LeJeune Investments, Inc. is proposing a comprehensive sign plan for the Maplewood Imports Auto Center. The plan will cover all freestanding and wall signs for four automotive dealers and an automotive service center which will be located at 2450 Maplewood Drive. Mr. Ekstrand recommended the maximum sign height be changed to 15 feet high from the 14 feet in height that is currently in the sign code. The applicants sign is 14 feet 9 inches in height and changing the code to reflect 15 feet would allow the applicant to have this sign. Mr. Ekstrand also recommended that condition 4. e. be changed due to the fact that it is unknown at this time what type of landscaping would be appropriate under the various freestanding signs. The condition reads A landscape plan showing low maintenance shrubs and perennial plants around the base of each freestanding sign. The applicant asked if the city could allow them the flexibility to provide appropriate landscaping rather than specifically stating perennial plants and shrubs. Staff recommends approval of this proposal for the Maplewood Auto Center at 2450 Maplewood Drive subject to the conditions stated by city staff and as the conditions listed in the staff report. Board member Shankar asked if the comprehensive sign plan was only for the two dealerships along Maplewood Drive or for all of the dealerships? Mr. Ekstrand said this would be for all the dealerships. Chairperson Longrie asked the applicant to address the board. Mr. Wayne Kozinski, Vice President of Operations, representing LeJeune Investments, 9393 Wayzata Boulevard, Golden Valley, addressed the board. He presented photographs of the signs they have at their Golden Valley location. The new Maplewood Auto Center signs would look just like the signs he showed except the wording would be changed to Maplewood Auto Center. His understanding was each dealership would have to come before the board for approval of the signage for each building for this auto center. The freestanding signs are to be approved by the CDRB tonight. Chairperson Longrie suggested in the future it would be helpful for the applicant to color code or mark on the plan where each sign would be to show what "was" approved so when the CDRB looks at the plan they can differentiate what was approved and what the CDRB needs to review or approve. Community Design Review Board Minutes 9-27-2005 3 Chairperson Longrie asked what the rational was for requesting a change to the landscaping condition in the staff report to not be required to plant perennial plants and shrubs? Mr. Kozinski said many of the manufacturers use a different approach to how their main sign looks and he is concerned if the city states they are required to use perennial plants and shrubs that it would not look appropriate with "all" signage. He would like some leeway and would like to determine what landscaping would be appropriate with each of the freestanding signs. For example, the Audi freestanding sign is very close to the raingarden and not all landscaping works so close to a rain garden. He would like to determine the appropriate landscaping to be planted around all of their signs rather than being required to plant perennial plants and shrubs around the sign. Board member Hinzman recommended the condition say A landscape plan such as low maintenance shrubs and plants around the base of each freestanding sign. Mr. Kozinski said that would be appropriate. Their Carousel store in Golden Valley had grass right up to the freestanding sign and when the lawnmower came so close to the sign they put a dent in the sign. For the future they would prefer to use landscaping around the sign to keep the lawnmower farther away to eliminate the chance of denting anymore signs. Board member Ledvina moved to approve LeJeune Investment's comprehensive sign plan date stamped August 12, 2005, for the Maplewood Auto Center located at 2450 Maplewood Drive subject to the following conditions: (changes to the motion are underlined and deletions are stricken.) 1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a sign permit for this project. 2. The sign criteria for each automotive dealership within the Maplewood Auto Center includes the allowance of one automotive dealership freestanding sign (maximum height of 44 .1.Q feet), one pre-owned freestanding sign (maximum height of 44 15 feet), wall signage which does not exceed 150 square feet. All signs must be designed to be architecturally compatible with the building or project, with the base of freestanding signs, including pylon sign poles, consisting of materials and colors compatible to the building or project. The area around the base of all freestanding signs must be landscaped. 3. The sign criteria for the automotive service center within the Maplewood Auto Center include the allowance of wall signage which does not exceed 150 square feet. 4. The applicant must submit the following prior to issuance of a sign permit: a. A revised site plan showing the location of the four proposed freestanding signs along the frontage road and the four proposed freestanding signs within the interior of the site. Community Design Review Board Minutes 9-27-2005 4 (cont. ) The location must ensure that there is a distance of at least 150 feet between any of the four freestanding signs located along the frontage road. In addition, the location must ensure that the freestanding signs maintain at least a 10-foot setback to any property line. b. A survey showing the location of the eight proposed freestanding signs. The survey must reflect that the signs are located within a sign easement and must describe the legal description of each easement. c. An easement agreement for the installation and maintenance of all freestanding signs. These agreements must be recorded with the county. d. A revised freestanding sign elevation showing that the pre-owned Audi dealership sign does not exceed 44-.1.Q feet in height. e. A landscape plan showing with appropriate landscapinq such as low maintenance shrubs and perennial plants shall be submitted for staff approval around the base of each freestanding sign. 5. Each additional automotive dealership and/or automotive service center must comply with the above-mentioned sign criteria and must obtain community design review board approval for all new signs. After the board's initial approval, city staff may approve all future signs as long as they meet the approved criteria. 6. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. Board member Hinzman seconded. Ayes - Hinzman, Ledvina, Longrie, Shankar, Olson The motion passed. This item does not need to go to the city council for approval. b. Legacy Shoppes (Legacy Village) - south side of County Road D, across from Slumberland and west of Ashley Furniture Mr. Ekstrand said Scott Schmitt, of the Hartford Group, is requesting approval of design plans for the Legacy Shoppes, an 18,912-square-foot retail center at Legacy Village. (The applicant's letter says 20,000 square feet, but the building foot print has since been revised to make the parking counts comply with the code.) The applicant is proposing to build Legacy Shoppes in two phases. If the first phase fills quickly, the applicant would follow rapidly with the second phase. The total building would accommodate seven to twelve tenants. The building would be constructed of stucco with a foundation of rock-face concrete block. There would be three colors of stucco in the color scheme. The colors would be a range of cream and brown tones. The rock-face concrete base would be reddish brown. There would only be customer entrances on the south side of the building. Community Design Review Board Minutes 9-27-2005 5 Mr. Ekstrand reported the north (County Road D side) and the end elevations would have no doors. While staff likes this plan staff suggests approximately 30% brick be added to the building elevations. Chairperson Longrie excused herself for 1 hour to attend another city meeting. Board member Shankar asked if staff was recommending leaving the rock-face concrete block and add the 30% brick and have both materials or delete the rock-face concrete block and substitute it with brick? Mr. Ekstrand said it could be compatible to have the rock-face concrete block with the addition of brick or the applicant could remove the rock-face concrete block and just use the brick elements. Staff doesn't want to design the building exterior for the applicant but is recommending that the applicant add brick elements to the building elevation so the building is more compatible with the surrounding businesses. Acting chairperson Olson asked the applicant to address the board. Mr. Scott Schmitt, Director of Retail Development, representing the Hartford Group, 12100 Singletree Lane, Suite 100, Eden Prairie, addressed the board. They plan on building both phases. Leasing of the first phase building is going very well for and he anticipates the second phase of the building to go just as well. He understands staff's recommendation for 30% brick elements to be added to the building, however that adds quite a bit of cost onto the building. The rock-face concrete block provides a sturdy base from the visual prospective and they would like to keep that in place. They could add brick onto the columns of the building and brick elements to other areas of the building to add more architectural interest. They do not want brick elements along the top front of the building because of the tenant signage. If brick elements are on the front of the building and the tenants change, it makes it difficult to patch the brick on the building when the tenant moves out and the signage is changed. Board member Shankar asked how many roof-top units they would have on this building and if they would be visible from the highway? Mr. Schmitt said the roof-top units would not be visible from the highway. There will be two small roof-top units for every 2,500 square feet of tenant space. A parapet wall would be three to five feet in height going from one end of the building to the other which will screen those roof-top units. The reason for the three to five feet height change is because of the grade of the property and because the roofline graduates to allow for ceiling height of the tenant spaces. Board member Hinzman asked if the brick elements would go all the way to the roofline of the building? Mr. Schmitt said he didn't know for sure because he wasn't the architect but it would make sense to him to have the brick elements go to the roofline. Board member Hinzman said the applicant said there may be a restaurant tenant here and he asked how parking is configured for restaurants? Community Design Review Board Minutes 9-27-2005 6 Mr. Schmitt said that's correct and he wasn't sure if Maplewood configures the parking based on the number of seats in the restaurant or by square footage. Mr. Ekstrand said Maplewood configures parking based on the number of square footage of patron area which is every area the patron has access to in the restaurant. This is a problem that occurs with strip malls like this. Generally restaurants require more parking. Mr. Ekstrand said the city calculates parking on a retail basis not knowing if there would be a restaurant in this retail center or not. An example of parking problems is at The Corner Shops which has Chipotle and Quizno's restaurants. That parking lot can get overcrowded and very busy at lunch. Acting chairperson Olson asked if the applicant had any problems with the requirement to install a sidewalk? Mr. Schmitt said they have no problem with installing the sidewalk in fact they will probably install more sidewalk for this development than what was required by the city. Board member Shankar asked if this proposal should be brought back to the CDRB because there are so many conditions for the applicant to revise such as the building elevations adding 30% brick, a revised photometric plan, a revised landscaping plan, and to revise the sidewalk plan. Board member Hinzman said when you list all of the items out it seems like a lot to revise but he is comfortable with the city staff working with the applicant to work the details out. Board member Ledvina agreed with Board member Hinzman. Although there are issues he believes the issues can be worked out. He is happy with the design and the site plan as it stands. Acting chairperson Olson agreed. Mr. Ekstrand said staff's recommendation to add 30% brick to the building design was simply a random percentage. There are ways to add visual interest to the building with brick but he feels comfortable having the board decide the percentage of brick to be added. The brick can be placed on the building where it fits in with the building design, just so brick is an added building element to the site to be compatible with the area businesses. Especially when the Ashley Furniture's building has 50% brick. Board member Shankar said he would be comfortable requesting the applicant to have 25% to 35% brick but to include the rock-face concrete block in the percentage requirement. Board member Ledvina agreed. The 30% recommendation seems a bit high and he thinks the applicant should get credit for all the window glazing on the building. Board member Hinzman said he likes the north and south elevations and the street fayade of this proposal. Community Design Review Board Minutes 9-27-2005 7 Board member Shankar said in his opinion the amount of EIFS on this building will look good for five years or so but after that the appearance of the building will start going down hill. Brick on the fa<;ade will help give the building a longer lasting appeal as well as add visual interest. Acting chairperson Olson said she really likes signs on the front of building as opposed to adding a monument sign on the property. She likes the design of the building and thinks it will be a nice addition to the area. Board member Shankar moved to approve the site/building design plans and the comprehensive sign plan date-stamped September 6, 2005, for proposed Legacy Shops retail center at Legacy Village. Approval is subject to the applicant doing the following: (changes to the motion are underlined and deletions are stricken.) 1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project: 2. Before getting a building permit, the applicant shall do the following: . Revise the building elevations for staff approval adding brick on all elevations. The area of brick and rock-face concrete block on each wall surface when added toqether should be between 25% and 35% of the wall surface. to cover approximately 30 percent of each wall surface. . Provide an elevation design for the temporary side elevation of Phase I in the event that Phase II is not built right away. This design shall be subject to staff approval. . If any neon accent lighting is proposed, it shall be subject to the approval of the community design review board. . Plans for the trash enclosure shall be presented to staff for approval. The materials and colors of the enclosure shall match the building. The gate shall be 100 percent opaque and shall be large enough for removal of the trash containers. The enclosure shall be protected by steel/concrete bollards as required by code. The enclosure shall also be large enough to hold recycling containers. . A revised photometric plan shall be submitted for staff approval showing the reduction of light spillover not to exceed .4 foot candles on the east and west sides of the site. The street lights on the south side of the site shall be equipped with the lowest wattage bulb that yet provides adequate street lighting. This is to limit excess light spillover onto the Wyngate town homes site. Community Design Review Board Minutes 9-27-2005 8 . Provide a revised landscape plan for staff approval that incorporates more trees on the County Road D side of the building and meets the guidelines of the approved PUD for Legacy Village. This would require overstory trees along the Village Trail East frontage placed at an average of 30 or 40 feet on center. The landscaping plan shall in general provide buffering and screening for the multi family developments to the west and south. Merely the use of overstory trees will not provide this. . Provide a roof-equipment screening plan showing how roof-mounted equipment will be screened from the residential views. The applicant shall comply with the city code in this respect. . Provide a revised site plan showing a five-foot-wide concrete sidewalk on the east and west sides of the building connecting the County Road D sidewalk to the sidewalk in front of the building. . Provide a screening plan for any exterior utility meters for staff approval. . Provide verification of recorded cross easements between this site and the surrounding properties where access is shared. . Provide cash escrow in the amount of 150 percent of the cost of completing the site improvements. 3. Before getting a certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall: . Comply with or complete all aspects of these plans or any required revisions. . Provide roof-equipment screening as required by code. . Provide in-ground lawn irrigation as shown on the plans. . Comply with all requirements of the fire marshal, building official and police departments as noted in the staff report. 4. The comprehensive sign plan is approved as noted in the written criteria date- stamped August 2, 2005. The only exceptions are that tenant wall signs may be allowed on the County Road D side to identify tenants. These signs would be subject to the size limitation noted in the sign criteria for store-front signs. Signs are not allowed on the end elevations and no ground signs are allowed without review board approval. 5. Tenant deliveries must be within the site and not via County Road D or the side roads. 6. The community design review board shall review any major changes to these plans. Minor changes may be approved by staff. Community Design Review Board Minutes 9-27-2005 9 Board member Ledvina seconded. Ayes - Hinzman, Ledvina, Longrie, Olson, Shankar The motion passed. This item does not need to go to the city council meeting for approval. c. Kennard Professional Building (Legacy Village) - northeast corner of Kennard Street and Legacy Parkway. Mr. Ekstrand said Alex Young, of MSP Commercial, is requesting approval of design plans for the Kennard Professional Building, a 45,732-square-foot, two-story medical- office building. The proposed building would be located in Legacy Village at the northeast corner of the Kennard Street and Legacy Parkway roundabout. The proposed building would have an exterior primarily of brick with Dryvit or EIFS (Exterior Insulation Finish system - a stucco-type product) as an accent at the top and rock-face concrete block at the base of the building. All sides of the building would be treated the same with the same finishes all around. Mr. Ekstrand said there is a need for screening on the north side of the parking lot. There may be an issue here with Xcel Energy and British Petroleum (BP). Xcel energy may prohibit the planting of trees under their power lines as may British Petroleum (BP) with their buried pipeline along the north line of the site. The applicant is supportive of screening, but perhaps a screening fence would be a better option due to the utility easements in place on this site. BP had refused to allow Ashley Furniture to plant shrubs in their petroleum-pipeline easement. Board member Hinzman said on the Kennard Street entrance he assumed there is a prohibition against taking the roadway north of the tower to create a traffic way that would be more east west or parallel to the entrance of Kennard Street. Mr. Ekstrand said he didn't know if there was such a prohibition but the applicant could possibly answer that question or give the reason why it was designed this way. Acting chairperson Olson said this is a steep site and it is heavily wooded, there is going to be a lot of excavation done on this site too. Mr. Ekstrand said correct. Throughout the Hajicek property and the development of this site a lot of beautiful trees have had to be cut down and it's sad to see them go but it's necessary for the development of this site. There are some high retaining walls and the city staff hasn't always required protection on top of the retaining walls. There has been a condition added that any retaining wall over four feet tall should have a protective fence or guardrail on top. The applicant is concerned that this fence or guardrail may not fit in with the look of this site and the applicant has asked for some flexibility with this condition. Landscaping could be used in place of the fence or guardrail. Community Design Review Board Minutes 9-27-2005 10 Board member Ledvina asked what the distance was from the north property line to the town homes? Mr. Ekstrand said it's about 80 to 90 feet from the north lot line to the town homes. Board member Ledvina said he is concerned about the headlights from the cars in the parking lot shining into the townhomes. Mr. Ekstrand said he's also concerned about the headlights shining into the upper stories of the townhomes. The grade of the site is considerably lower than this site. If this was a level site and much closer in proximity he would be more inclined to insist on screening but in this case British Petroleum (BP) may prohibit anything from being placed on the site. Acting chairperson Olson asked the applicant to address the board. Mr. Alex Young, Vice President of MSP Commercial, 350 St. Peter St., Suite 200, St. Paul, addressed the board. This building will be a very large health clinic through Healtheast. This plan has been in the works for over a year now and they would like to start construction this fall and obtain occupancy by July 1, 2006. Regarding the drive lane that runs across the site, they are dealing with some major grade challenges. The curb cut is a fixed point for them. They have the tower for the electric line working against them. Xcel Energy and British Petroleum (BP) are very sensitive about how much dirt gets cut around those areas and how that area is built up and structured. They are working with the Hartford Group regarding cross access easements where they would be able to share in this access. They had to eliminate the curb cut on Legacy Parkway which would have been good if they did underground parking because the parking lot is 10 feet over the top of the curb cut. Board member Hinzman asked so it wasn't possible to bring the roadway directly to this area? Mr. Young said no. Actually it was a real challenge to get the road set up the way they have it. There will be a lot of dirt work on this site. They're working on getting a balanced site and getting the drainage to the pond on the neighboring site. They have also changed the parking stall widths to 9% feet wide but didn't have time to resubmit the changes. Acting chairperson Olson asked if the monument sign would be lit? Mr. Young said the monument sign would be ground lit but not be back lit and be a one- sided sign. Board member Hinzman asked what the retaining wall would be built of? Mr. Young asked the architect to speak regarding the retaining wall. Community Design Review Board Minutes 9-27-2005 11 Mr. Lynn Sloat, Architect with Genesis Architecture, 7807 Creekridge Circle, Minneapolis, addressed the board. The retaining wall will be made of an anchor block material. The retaining wall will be engineered and the color will match the building color. He presented a color materials board for the CDRB to review and went through the building material and colors as they would be used on the building design. He said the building was designed with a prairie or arts-and-craft style building in mind. Acting chairperson Olson asked if they had other exterior lighting proposed for the building? Mr. Sloat said for the most part the lighting will come from the pilasters and the building will be lit from the parking lot. There will not be lighting under the canopies and no flood lights on the building, the light will be minimal coming from this building. Board member Ledvina asked what color the window tinting would be? Mr. Sloat said the tinting would either be a gray tint or a bronze tint with dark bronze anodized aluminum frames. Mr. Young said regarding the screening on the north end of the parking lot, they have been trying to get in touch with British Petroleum (BP) regarding what they are allowed to do on the property but so far have been unsuccessful. As it stands today that area has very tall native grasses and remains untouched. They would like to leave that area untouched. If for whatever reason British Petroleum (BP) does not allow them to plant anything or put a fence in they would like to leave the prairie grasses wild. Board member Hinzman asked if British Petroleum (BP) was vigilant in keeping the grass mowed in that area or do they leave it grow wild? Mr. Ekstrand said they let the prairie grass grow wild. Mr. Young said British Petroleum (BP) leaves the grass long because it helps with erosion control. Board member Ledvina asked if there was a possibility of building a soil berm? Mr. Young said with the 3-to-1grade and the setback there they may be able to have a berm a few feet tall. They would like to leave that area as untouched as possible and not have to have irrigation. If the CDRB wants them to do that they could but they have to get permission from Xcel Energy and British Petroleum (BP). Board member Ledvina said snow will matt the grass down in the winter and he is afraid the headlights will cause a problem without a berm. Mr. Young said this building would only be open until 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday so hopefully that will eliminate headlight issues too. Board member Hinzman asked if they could eliminate the 14 extra parking spaces and have that area as proof of parking along the back row and berm that area instead. Community Design Review Board Minutes 9-27-2005 12 Mr. Young said that's a good question, however, it's a requirement of Healtheast that they have a certain number of parking spaces per square feet and they are already at that number with the 14 additional parking spaces. He's not sure all that parking will get used but Healtheast reaches that 5 per 1,000 square feet mark and they are required to provide that level of parking with this lease. Chairperson Longrie returned at 7:30 p.m. Board member Shankar asked about the roof-top units on the building. Mr. Young said they spoke with city staff about roof-top units and screening before. There is a parapet wall that runs all along the top all around the building and the roof- top units will sit in the middle of the roof and be well below the parapet wall. Board member Ledvina thinks the building design is very nice, he likes how it's laid out and it should present itself very well with the round-a-bout, and he likes the use of the different building materials. Board member Olson agreed. This will be a very attractive building, she likes the idea of retaining the native grasses, and she is leaning towards native grasses rather than a berm. She would prefer to see landscaping on top of the retaining wall rather than a fence or guardrail. The only issue she has is how to maintain the landscaping on top of the retaining wall. Board member Hinzman said this building will be a nice asset to the city. He is contemplating the distance from the edge of the parking lot to the structures and the headlights. The areas along the back of the parking lot will be the least desirable and the least used so the headlights may not be an issue. The hours of operation will be only open until 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday so there will not be much traffic at this building at night. Board member Shankar would suggest that the face of the up/down light be opaque so that the light shines up and comes down. Board member Ledvina moved to approve the site/building design plans and the comprehensive sign plan date-stamped September 1, 2005, for proposed Kennard Professional Building at Legacy Village. Approval is subject to the applicant doing the following: (changes to the motion are underlined and deletions are stricken.) 1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. 2. Before getting a building permit, the applicant shall do the following: . If any neon accent lighting is proposed, it shall be subject to the approval of the community design review board. Community Design Review Board Minutes 9-27-2005 13 . Plans for a trash enclosure (if used) shall be presented to staff for approval. The materials and colors of the enclosure shall match the building. The gate shall be 100 percent opaque and shall be large enough for removal of the trash containers. The enclosure shall be protected by steel/concrete bollards as required by code. The enclosure shall also be large enough to hold recycling containers. . Provide a revised landscaping plan for staff approval that adds 10, six- foot-tall (minimum) evergreen trees on the Kennard Street side of the parking lot. The applicant shall also provide a decorative screening fence or soil berm along the north side of the parking lot as a buffer for the town homes. The screening fence must be at least six feet tall and made of clear or no-maintenance plastic. This fence or soil berm may be omitted if British Petroleum prohibits a fence within their easement. . Provide a roof-equipment screening plan showing how roof-mounted equipment will be screened from the residential views if any equipment would be visible to neighboring town home residents. . Provide a revised site plan showing a five-foot-wide concrete sidewalk from the east side of the building to the Legacy Parkway sidewalk. . Provide a screening plan for any exterior utility meters that may be visible for staff approval. . Provide verification of recorded cross easements between this site and the abutting site to the east. . Provide cash escrow in the amount of 150 percent of the cost of completing the site improvements. . Comply with all requirements of the city's engineering department and those noted in the report by Erin Laberee dated September 19, 2005. . Provide a revised plan showing fencing or appropriate landscapinq on top of any retaining walls that would exceed four feet in height. Retaining walls that exceed four feet in height must also be designed by an engineer and have a building permit. 3. Before getting a certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall: . Comply with or complete all aspects of these plans or any required revisions. . Provide roof-top equipment screening as required by code. . Provide in-ground lawn irrigation for all sodded areas and all planting beds. Community Design Review Board Minutes 9-27-2005 14 . Comply with all requirements of the fire marshal, building official and police department staff. 4. The comprehensive sign plan is approved as noted in the applicant's letter dated September 13, 2005. Staff may approve changes to this sign plan as long as they comply with city code requirements. 5. The community design review board shall review any major changes to these plans. Minor changes may be approved by staff. Board member Olson seconded. Ayes - Hinzman, Ledvina, Longrie, Shankar, Olson The motion passed. This item does not need to go to the city council for approval. VII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS No visitors present. VIII. BOARD PRESENTATIONS Chairperson Longrie reported on the September 26, 2005, city council meeting. The only CDRB item was the K and W RolI-Offs, 1055 Gervais Avenue. The city council required the applicant to have a concrete floor in the storage building rather than the dirt floor they proposed to have, the applicant can have the slotted vinyl fence they requested as opposed to the wood fence recommended by the CDRB, and the proposal was approved without requiring the applicant to have an irrigation system. This proposal was passed by the city council and Mayor Cardinal abstained from voting due to his residence being so close to this proposal. There are no CDRB items that require CDRB representation at the upcoming city council meetings. IX. STAFF PRESENTATIONS None. X. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 7:45 p.m. MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: DATE: Richard Fursman, City Manager Shann Finwall, AICP, Planner Edgerton Manner 2021 Edgerton Street October 18, 2005 INTRODUCTION Project Description Alan Menning, manager of the Edgerton Manor at 2021 Edgerton Street, is proposing to redesign the existing front door along Edgerton Street in order to allow entry at grade level and provide a covered building entrance. Requests To build the covered building entrance the applicant is requesting the following city approvals: 1. A 20-foot, 4-inch front yard setback variance. City code requires a multi-tenant building to maintain a 30-foot setback to the right-of-way. The existing building maintains a 37-foot, 8-inch setback to the Edgerton Street right-of-way. The proposed covered building entrance will come within 9 feet, 8 inches of the right- of-way requiring a 20-foot, 4-inch front yard setback variance. 2. Design Review DISCUSSION The building was constructed in 1971, prior to state handicap accessibility requirements. The front entry along Edgerton Street currently consists of a looped driveway with a double stairwell leading up one flight of stairs to the uncovered front door. The existing stairway is in need of repair or replacement. The applicant proposes to remove the exterior stairway and front door and replace it with a small vestibule located on the ground level as well as a covered building entrance. Only the covered entrance will extend into the required 30-foot front yard setback by 20 feet, 4 inches. The exterior of the vestibule will be a white-colored stucco, and the covered entryway will have white columns with a brick base to match the building. In addition to the entryway, the applicant proposes landscaping improvements to include two small retaining walls constructed of brick to match the building. Within the retaining walls, the applicant proposes new plantings to include three ornamental trees, 12 evergreen bushes, 28 deciduous bushes, and 38 perennials. OTHER COMMENTS Chuck Vermeersch, Engineering Department: The setback variance for Edgerton Manor appears to be a reasonable request. It would improve access to the building for the residents and make it easier to maintain safe pedestrian access in the winter. For these reasons, the engineering department is not opposed to granting the variance. However, Edgerton Street is under county jurisdiction and this proposal should be reviewed by the county as well. Butch Gervais, Fire Marshal: 1) Need 20-foot emergency access road; 2) fire protection system per codes and monitored; 3) proper marking of door where fire protection system is located; 4) fire department lock box installed. (Fire Marshal has order form) David Fisher, Building Official: 1) Provide complete building code analysis when the contractor applies for the building permit; 2) Per the file, the Edgerton Manor Apartment was built in 1971. This is before the State Building Code was adopted. The 2000 International Building Code would require all openings within 5 to 30 feet to be protected with one-hour construction; 3) A Type II-A construction with a 9-foot, 8-inch setback would require one hour construction and the building to be 100% fire sprinklered using the 2000 IBC; 4) The project is required to have an accessible route to meet Minnesota State Building Code Chapter 1341 Accessibility. SUMMARY The proposed covered entryway will better serve the tenants and meet the Minnesota handicap accessibility requirements. The improvements are attractive and will match the existing building materials. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Adopt the front yard setback variance resolution attached. This resolution approves a 20-foot, 4-inch front yard setback variance for the construction of a covered entryway for Edgerton Manor located at 2021 Edgerton Street. Approval is based on the following findings: a. Strict enforcement of the code would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the property and not created by the current property owner. The building was constructed in 1971, prior to any handicap accessibility requirements. At that time the building was constructed 37 feet, 8 inches to the Edgerton Street right-of-way, limiting the buildable area for a handicap accessible entryway. b. Construction of the proposed handicap accessible entryway will better serve the tenants and meet the Minnesota Handicap Accessibility requirements. c. The right-of-way along Edgerton Street in this area is inconsistent and there is existing development on the west side of the street which is closer than that being requested for the handicap accessible entryway. 2 2. Approve the plans date-stamped September 20, 2005, for the proposed covered entryway at Edgerton Manor located at 2021 Edgerton Street. Approval is subject to the following conditions: a. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. b. Before getting a building permit, the applicant must submit to staff for approval the following: 1 ) A revised landscape plan showing all sizes of the proposed plant species. 2) Sample building materials to be approved by staff. c. The applicant shall complete the following before final inspection of the covered entryway: 1) Install all required landscaping. 2) Make all necessary repairs to the existing driveway due to damage by construction. d. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 3 CITIZEN COMMENTS Staff surveyed the 58 surrounding property owners within 500 feet of this site for their comments. Four comments were received as follows: 1. John Ahern, Edgerton School Principal: The proposal makes sense. 2. Denise Wold, 2010 Edgerton Street North: The plans look nice and would add a much needed new look! I would also like to see the elimination of on-street parking specific to the apartments. I believe it should be a requirement for all tenants and visitors to use designated parking in the parking areas. I am tired of the tenants and their visitors using part of my front yard (grass) to park. Edgerton has become busier over the past few years. When people use the street as parking it not only contributes to the congestion but also makes it extremely difficult to access my driveway or enter Edgerton from my driveway (very difficult to see). It also, without sidewalks, makes it difficult for everyone trying to walk including myself. I would like to see these issues addressed when the improvements to the building are made. 3. Debra Newman, 2050 Bradley Street North: It's fine with me. 4. Barbara Blakley, 573 Skillman Avenue: If this is better for the tenants and the handicap, then they should move forward. The design looks good. 4 REFERENCE SITE DESCRIPTION Site size: Existing Use: 1 .93 Acres Rental Apartments SURROUNDING LAND USES North: South: East: West: One Single Family House and Townhouses Edgerton Park Single Family Houses Apartments PLANNING Land Use Plan Designation: High Multiple Dwelling Residential (R-3H) Zoning: Multiple Dwelling Residential (R-3) Findings for Variance Approval State law requires that the city council make the following findings to approve a variance: 1. Strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the property under consideration. 2. The variance would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. Undue hardship, as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under the conditions allowed by the official controls. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property, not created by the landowner, and a variance if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance. Design Review Section 2-290 of the city code requires that the community design review board make the following findings to approve plans: 1. That the design and location of the proposed development and its relationship to neighboring, existing or proposed developments, and traffic is such that it will not impair the desirability of investment or occupation in the neighborhood; that it will not unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring, existing or proposed developments; and that it will not create traffic hazards or congestion. 2. That the design and location of the proposed development is in keeping with the character of the surrounding neighborhood and is not detrimental to the 5 harmonious, orderly and attractive development contemplated by this article and the city's comprehensive municipal plan. 3. That the design and location of the proposed development would provide a desirable environment for its occupants, as well as for its neighbors, and that it is aesthetically of good composition, materials, textures and colors. Application Date We received the complete application and plans for this proposal on September 20, 2005. State law requires that the city take action within 60 days of receiving complete applications for a proposal. City council action is required on this proposal by November 19, 2005, unless the applicant agrees to a time extension. P: Sec 17\Edgerton Manor\10-25-05 CDRB Memo Attachments: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Variance Statement Location Map Survey Landscape Plan Elevations Variance Resolution 6 Attachment 1 . /'...... /'..,.. /'..... David L. Harris Architect 17675 HOGAN AVE. HASTINGS, MN. 55033 / 651-480-2087 / DLH987@AOL.COM 20 SEPT. 2005 VARIANCE APPLICATION FOR: EDGERTON MANOR 2021 EDGERTON STREET MAPLEWOOD, MN. PROPOSAL TO ALLOW A PROPERTY LINE SETBACK @ EDGERTON OF APPROXIMATELY 9' WHERE 30' IS REQUIRED. JUSTIFICATION . THE EXISTING ENTRY IS IN NEED OF REPAIR OR REPLACEMENT. IT IS INCONVENIENT TO THE TENANTS AND UNSUITABLE TO MINNESOTA CLIMATE. THIS PROPOSAL WILL REDESIGN THE ENTRY TO ENTER AT GRADE AND PROVIDE A COVERED HANDI-CAP BUILDING ENTRANCE TO BETTER SERVE THE TENANTS & MEET THE MINNESOTA H.C. ACCESSIBLE REQUIREMENTS. . ACCORDING TO THE SURVEY THE DEVELOPED PAVEMENT FOR THIS PARCEL @ EDGERTON IS APPROXIMA TEL Y 33' EAST OF THE PROPERTY LINE. . THE RIGHT OF WAY ALONG EDGERTON IN THIS AREA IS INCONSISTENT AND THERE IS EXISTING DEVELOPMENT ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE STREET WHICH IS CLOSER. THAN THIS REQUEST. DAVID L. HARRIS, ARCHITECT N W+E S Attachment 2 Location Map m;~m J ,'gl h. Ha;~HII" tii!H!~ i r'~.! " };:.h jl'h'~ mllll . ~ ~ i I,~- , i.,-" Ii : i If .' , , v LL-- I' .l5.1. : ! : I , , f :1' ~ i i i i ~ i i I . - : i. ~: : I i 1 i : 1". A j J ': If I: i r 1\ j j: I Ii i l: I "-> 1: i ill', I ;; Ii i Ii i : I , , : I : i I I lln Attachment 3 ---~~----------------- .!~.[ iJ~' !m. H;f i~.h'i.. i:'l~ j .~i t 0 'l',t ,.~f W~ .~:~ ~ hI.' ~,~: ~ ~. f".~" id~ i.. ~ orrS .,~ t "", -" z III ~ II II !ll[i. ~. '" i ~! l ! "". n,d!l C E!*9 . . :1 00. I} I I I . <) . 0: n.~tP. ~ ~&.. ~ -..~ H 'II q.....-.-'- . .. 8 0--. ""'''l'> ~ li'i illll'lri;!1 - ~ t :ll f-r "1 ., CD M. lP' :T iJ' a. ~~ CD ii ., "" ~l> . ~r~ Cl ~~ :J .. -J a. ~~ )> (j) (j) 0 0 c' ri- CD YJ 5' !l ~.:mj' d~~ll ' a~~~i ~i"d~ . ~~~~H~ ~!1~~r~ l;;~~~i "'~~~~~i J :~I[!l W~! :~ ;;~li~ r~ !llill 1; m ~~" n'l. .. ,. ~. ~b'c: .H ~ m~ ~[;. ~ :::l~ i: ~I~~i~ 'l~ 11 "8~5':ll..1:f i~ t! mm ~~ ~~ ~~~fh '1;" :U. ~p.<Q&." M :"1 i'i:~l~ ~ ~t ,.,~\,- i!~ ~[ &]~;3~ ia 3g ~~~;,"'.~i ~_~ t~ "!l~' d -~ i~m~~; l,g ,~~ !I:~ .ag. :il" . . .. ..- ~l~f~~~~li~ ~~j ;ta ii1] : ~ ~ ~ go:r~8.1~.3~Q., ~;:! a.q ~ a:[....~ m~~ii;iH i ~.~: ~l~; ~ ;[J h-~~!~i ~;~ I "I~ !"~ H g ;1.;> ,.,~. Q a: t J ~i i;; '~: ~ . iH!f ~ " H f;;; ~~ ~~! Hi! !J!H1fH. ";". - "i_I.. ii~! I~~!ii~~ ! ~~ ~~ l~:~_i~3~ ~ F ~- . ~H ,~l ! 1i!5 'H~ l';?~'~~ ~ ~.,~ :i!:1;n. ~l ~ li~~ 11 ~:;>g. ~ :! t J~~-~~[f~~ ~i w~<:"~~~~!8 &0 1 "h'~~"~ :1 g ~H~~"; i ~Q., '< ;~~gQ!"~8 f, ;::i ~~~ ~ : lll~-~S-"'P: -z- [ :s; ."lQ. ~O' :3 ii~~ &"'0 ~~ f-8 ! ~ " ..::. ~ ~ " ~ ~ "' ~ I II +'1 II :1 II 1 i II III 1\ D \ I , 1\ \ \ 1\ ',I II f\ \ I II II I l~ 1-~- I ~ !?J~ ~!! ~ 1ii g ~ ~i~ ~ ~ ~ :lrO :a I _..@ " " " Ol LN N '---/ N '---/ '---/ < Ul )> 0 -1 --0 Z )> ;;0 Z ;;0 C )> -< Z Z CD -1 GJ I fTl )> 0 Ul ,- Z ,- ,- Z fTl 0 Ul 0 0 --0 ::2: I ;;0 -< 0 fTl 0 0 GJ )> ;;0 ;;0 ::2: 0 )> )> 0 Z CD Z 0 )> GJ 0 GJ --0 fTl -< --0 )> fTl ,- ::2: fTl ...-. e " " " " " " OJ Ol ill 0 '---/ '---/ N N '---/ '---/ '---/ '---/ --0 CD ;;0 GJ ,- ,- --0 )> C C )> C C ;;;: 0 ;;;: 0 ;;0 -1 ,- ^ --0 C CD 0 --0 I ,- ;;;: )> '1 ,- C fTl fTl Z ::2: )> 0 -< 0 fTl ;;;: 0 fTl C- O 0 0 GJ fTl Z Z -< fTl GJ Ul fTl ,- Ul C 0 )> u 0 Ul '1 ;;0 ;;0 0 ,- fTl ;;0 )> 0 Z )> z ::2: )> fTl ,- fTl 0 ;;0 Z CD fTl Ul ,- fTl ,- 0 C ;;;: ~~ ~~ 4 G GERTENS GREENHOUSES ALAN R. MENNING 5500 BLAINE A VENUE 2021 EDGERTON INVER GROVE HEIGHTS, MN 55076 (651)~239-1332 FAX (651)-239- 1398 WWW.GERTENS.COM DESIGN@GERTENS. OM DrOMlBy. GAllHA'o\JO( Dat,... 09/08~ - ~~ /' ~~ ~ ~ ~~ . . ~~ ~s~ . ;oz ~21 ~ 2 .. ii~ J ~2 I ~~~ ~~I I ~2~ I ~ I ~ , ~ I .. 1:,.:r 1 , I" I , , I I~ ~ 6 ~ I~ f '" i i i ~ f ,~ '. ~Jw~ Attachment 5 ;/ ~,_ J ~. as ;1 i~ s:: )> Z ." r- o o ;u .~ ,..~ ~ ENTRY REMODEL @ 2021 EDGERTON ST. N, TllIBIlIl.<OoWG._/IION8I'IUI8<TOFSEMIIU,ISIlI<<lI\tMWlSTH!; ~OFOIWJI)L_AlI01ITB:T ''-''tzlDW'YTItO.TlMlIPl.MWUlPllElWlEDBYMEORIMllBlIN ~tul'ElMIICN.oIIDTHlUINd"DJLYuaMllEDMOlIfK'fl,N[ER TlElAWROFlHEST"'TEOf'~'" ',-,]i' ~ \ David L. Harris \ " Architect '0/.. ..- Attachment 6 VARIANCE RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Alan Menning, manager of the Edgerton Manor, has applied for a variance from the city's zoning code. WHEREAS, this variance applies to 2021 Edgerton Street. The legal description is: Edgerton Highlands: E 288.17 FT OF LOT 2 & ALL OF LOT 1 BLK 4 WHEREAS, Section 44-20(c)(6) of the city's sign ordinance requires a 30-foot front yard set back from a right-of-way for all multi-family buildings. WHEREAS, the applicant proposes to construct a front entryway which will be setback 9 feet, 8 inches from the Edgerton Street right-of-way. WHEREAS, the city council approved a 20-foot, 4-inch setback variance in order to allow the applicant to construct the front entryway within 9 feet, 8 inches from the Edgerton Street right-of-way. WHEREAS, the history of this variance is as follows: 1. On October 11, 2005, the community design review board recommended that the city council approve this variance. 2. The city council held a public hearing on ,2005. City staff published a notice in the Maplewood Review and sent notices to the surrounding property owners as required by law. The council gave everyone at the hearing an opportunity to speak and present written statements. The council also considered reports and recommendations from the city staff and planning commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above- described variance for the following reasons: 1. Strict enforcement of the code would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the property and not created by the current property owner. The building was constructed in 1971, prior to any handicap accessibility requirements. At that time the building was constructed 37 feet, 8 inches to the Edgerton Street right-of-way, limiting the buildable area for a handicap accessible entryway. 2. Construction of the proposed handicap accessible entryway will better serve the tenants and meet the Minnesota Handicap Accessibility requirements. 3. The right-of-way along Edgerton Street in this area is inconsistent and there is existing development on the west side of the street which is closer than that being requested for the handicap accessible entryway. The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on