Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/27/2001BOOK 2. 3. 4. 5. a. 7. 8. 9. 10. AGENDA MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD March 27, 2001 6:00 P.M. City Council Chambers Maplewood City Hall 1830 East County Road B Call to Order Roll Call Approval of Minutes: March 13, 2001 Approval of Agenda Unfinished Business Gander Mountain Building Elevation Revisions - North of Bennigan's at Birch Run Station Design Review Menard's Building Elevation Revisions - 2280 Maplewood Drive Visitor Presentations Board Presentations Staff Presentations a. CDRB representation needed for the April 23 city council meetings. b.~ Reminder: Tim Johnson is the CDRB representative for the April 9 city council meeting. Adjourn p:com-dvpt~cdrb.agd WELCOME TO THIS MEETING OF THE COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD This outline has been prepared to explain the review process of this meeting. The review of an item usually follows this format. 1. The chairperson of the meeting will announce the item to be reviewed. 2. The chairperson will ask the applicant or developer of the project up to the podium to respond to the staff's recommendation regarding the proposal. The Community Design Review Board will then discuss the proposed project with the applicant. 3. The chairperson will then ask the audience if there is anyone present who wishes to comment on the proposal. After everyone is the audience wishing to speak has given his or her comments, the chairperson will close the public discussion portion of the meeting. The Board will then discuss the proposal. No further public comments are allowed. The Board will then make its recommendations or decision. Most decisions by the Board are final, unless appealed to the City Council. You must notify the City staff in writing within 15 days to register an appeal. jw\forrns\cdrb.agd Revised: 11-09-94 MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, MARCH 13, 2001 II. Ill. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Ledvina called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Matt Ledvina Ananth Shankar Tim Johnson Jon LaCasse Craig Jorgenson Staff Present: Present Present Present Present Present Tom Ekstrand, Assistant Director of Community Development Recording Secretary: Lori Hansen APPROVAL OF MINUTES February 21,2001 Chairperson Ledvina noted that in his comment regarding the boilards on page nine, "efficient" should be replaced with "sufficient". Board member Johnson moved approval of the minutes of February 21,2001, as amended. Board member Jorgenson seconded the motion. Ayes-All The motion passed. IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Board member Shankar moved approval of the agenda, as submitted. Board member LaCasse seconded. Ayes-All The motion passed. UNFINISHED BUSINESS There was no unfinished business. Community Design Review Board -2- Minutes of 03-13-2001 VI. DESIGN REVIEW A. AT & T Cellular Communications Tower-(1681 Cope Avenue.). Mr. Tom Ekstrand gave the staff report for the city. AT & T is proposing to install a 125-foot tall monopole and telecommunications building. This will be located at the Sheet Metal Workers building at 1681 Cope Avenue. The planning commission will be reviewing the conditional use permit regarding this proposal on March 19. The proposal is for a rectangular shaped building with an aggregate finish. The color is to match the existing surrounding buildings. Staff has suggested that the building have a hip roof with a brick exterior and additional landscaping be added along the south side. Staff is recommending approval of this proposal with the conditions listed in the recommendation. Ms. Julie Townsend was present from AT & T Wireless Services, 5201 E. River Road. Ms. Townsend stated that the applicant takes exception to the requirement requiring a brick building with a pitched roof. They are proposing an aggregate finish building with a fiat roof. The finish will be an earth tone in color, and will resemble small colored pebbles. Ms. Townsend did not view the need for additional landscaping on the south side of the building as a problem. Mr. Shankar commented that the dark colored light standards in the neighborhood and light colored monopole did not seem to match. Mr. Ledvina explained monopoles are generally of a bare galvanized steel or painted a light grey or blue to match the skyline. Mr. Shankar questioned why AT & T is choosing to build a 125-foot tower, not 150 feet or 175 feet. "Will they come back three months from now and request a taller tower?" Ms. Townsend explained AT & T determines the height of the tower according to the need defined by their radio frequency engineer. If all he need is 125 feet to meet frequency needs, that is what they build. This tower provides frequency for an 850-megahertz analog system and can hold two other providers. Mr. LaCasse moved the board approve the site and design plans for up to a 125-foot-tall telecommunications monopole and equipment building on the property at 1681 Cope Avenue. Approval is based on the findings required by code and subject to the applicant doing the following: 1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued permits for this project. 2. Before the city issues a building permit, city staff must approve the following: (a) A certificate of survey for the project area that shows the proposed new construction, the location of the property lines and existing site features around the proposed lease area. The proposed monopole and equipment building shall be at least five feet from the property lines. The site plan shall be subject to city staff approval. (b) The applicant shall prepare a landscape and screening plan that would help to hide the base area of the proposed facility. (c) A grading and drainage plan for the project site. (d) The plans for the equipment building. AT&T may use their standard aggregate finish building but the color shall closely match the color of the Sheet Metal Workers building. Community Design Review Board -3- Minutes of 03-13-2001 3. The color of the proposed equipment building shall be submitted to city staff for approval. 4. The monopole shall be light gray. Before final inspection of and use of this facility, the applicant shall install the required landscaping following the approved plan. If the required landscaping or trees are not installed by the completion of the tower, the city shall require the applicant to provide a cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit for the required work. The amount shall be 200 percent of the cost of the unfinished work. Any unfinished landscaping shall be completed within six weeks of occupancy. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. Mr. Jorgenson seconded. Ayes-All Motion carries. B. ~-(North of Bennigan's at Birch Run Station). Mr. Ekstrand gave the staff report for the city. Oppidan Investment Company is proposing to build a one story 28,344 square foot Gander Mountain store at Birch Run Station. This would be located north of Bennigan's Restaurant. The exterior would be of rock face concrete block and E.I.F.S. (Exterior Insulation Finish System), a stucco look material. The applicant is also requesting that the design review board approve their signage plans. Staff is suggesting that since the building will be highly visible, all four sides of the building should be treated in a decorative fashion. Staff is recommending that the exterior materials used on the outside of the building wrap around to all four sides. Suggestions from the staff include decorative brick matching other buildings in the area and column detailing to break up the long expanses of building. The applicant is meeting (actually exceeding) the parking requirement. The proposed landscaping appears attractive and compatible with other sites in the area. Staff would like to see the two existing trees removed and moved to another location on the site. The applicant is proposing three wall signs and one free standing sign. Staff would like to see the pylon sign proposed for the northeast corner of the site eliminated. With a building this large, the signs could break up the large expansive walls, and could be use as decorative element. Ms. Claudia Ryan with Oppidan Investment Company, was present for the applicant. To create a more decorative facade, the applicant has broken up the extended facade with four courses of rockfaced block. The color of the brick would match the Birch Run Shopping Center. The top level of brick would have soldier coursing which also would be similar to other surrounding buildings. Similar treatment would be applied to all four sides of the building. The mountains on the sides of the building protrude from the building at two inch intervals. There is a space between each layer which results in a shadowing effect. The dumpster enclosure will be of the same material used on the building and will include a chain link fence with slats. Ms. Ryan stated the applicant feels the staff recommendation for signage is ideal and one they would prefer to go with. All four exterior walls will display signage. They feel this would be a better use of their elevations and provide more visibility than a pylon sign. "This is Gander Mountain's first entrance into the Twin Cities area" stated Ms. Ryan. "The applicant sees this project as their new signature building". Community Design Review Board Minutes of 03-13-2001 Mr. Ledvina felt the bollard in the front of the building could match one of the three mountain colors as opposed to the bright green proposed color. He felt the color was garish in comparison to the proposed building color. Staff was not opposed to the bright green, nor was Mr. Lacasse, but did understand how it could be viewed as too bright in contrast to the rest of the building. Mr. Ledvina stated although the applicant has committed to some changes, he is supportive of the staff recommendation for changes to be made to the plan and revisions submitted to the design review board for reviewal. Mr. Shankar moved the board to table the plans as submitted date stamped February 2, 2001, for Gander Mountain for the Birch Run Station Shopping Center. Mr. Johnson seconded. Mr. Larry Barrett, an associate of Ms. Ryans, did not feel adding columns matching Birch Run Station would be a problem. He also recommended adding the mountain detailing on the other three corners of the building. They asked that the proposal be approved with the condition that the applicant work with staff on the elevation plans until all of the recommendations are met. Mr. LaCasse asked if the board could approve the grading and foundation while elevations are continuing to be reviewed. Staff explained the board could recommend approval with the stipulation that the elevations come back to the board prior to the building permit being issued. Mr. Ledvina asked for a vote on the tabling of the proposal. Nays-All Mr. LaCasse moved the board to approve the site, landscaping and sign plans, date-stamped February 22, 2001, for the proposed Gander Mountain store at the Birch Run Station Shopping Center. Approval is based on the findings required by the code and subject to the following conditions: Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. Before getting a building permit, the applicant shall: a. Submit grading, drainage, utility and erosion control plans to the city engineer for approval. b. Obtain council approval of the utility easement vacation. Revise the design of the trash enclosure for staff approval to match the material and color of the building. The gate shall be chain link with screening slats. The enclosure shall be large enough to accommodate all of the owners needs for trash and recyclable-materials storage. Revise the landscape plan for staff approval showing the relocation of the two mature trees on the site. Revise the building elevations for CDRB approval showing an improved design that dresses up the building, especially the two "back" elevations. The applicant should propose an exterior material that utilizes brick for compatibility with nearby buildings and architectural design elements to break up the large exterior walls. The applicant should consider using columns and materials that break up the large exterior elevations. All mountain detailing should be EIFS rather than paint as shown in some of the areas to depict the mountain silhouettes. Community Design Review Board -5- Minutes of 03-13-2001 3. The applicant shall complete the following before occupying the building: a. Paint the rooftop mechanical equipment, if visible, to match the building color. b. Install an in-ground lawn irrigation system for all landscaped areas. Provide site security lighting that is aimed or shielded so not to shine into drivers' eyes. The site lights shall match the design of the light poles on the abutting properties as closely as possible. 4. If any required work is not done, the city may allow temporary occupancy if: The city determines that the work is not essential to the public health, safety or welfare. The city receives a cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit for the required work. The amount shall be one and a half times (150 percent) of the cost of the unfinished work. Any unfinished landscaping shall be completed by June 1 if the building is occupied in the winter or within six weeks if the building is occupied in the spring and summer. The city receives an agreement that will allow the city to complete any unfinished work. The Gander Mountain wall signs are approved as shown on the plans. In any case, no more than four store identification signs may be used. A pylon sign will not be allowed. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. Mr. Johnson seconded. Ayes-All Motion carries. C. Maplewood Imports Addition-(2780 Maplewood Drive). Mr. Ekstrand gave the staff report for the city. Mr. Brian Teeters, of Ryan Companies, is proposing to build a 2600 addition onto the east elevation of Maplewood Imports. This project would add four repair bays and a tool room to the existing building. The exterior of the proposed addition would be fiat concrete block with an upper fascia of rough textured breakoff block. The proposed addition would be painted beige and these materials and colors would match the existing building. The planning commission reviewed the conditional use permit revision for this proposal on March 5. From a design standpoint, the addition will blend in well with the existing building and staff is recommending approval. Brian Teeters, of Ryan Companies, was present for the applicant. Mr. Teeters fully agrees with all of the staff recommendations. Mr. Johnson moved approval of the plans date-stamped February 20, 2001 for the building expansion at Maplewood Imports, 2780 North Highway 61. Approval is subject to the property owner doing the following: Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. Community Design Review Board -6- Minutes of 03-13-2001 VII. VIII. The applicant shall submit the following to staff for approval before obtaining a building permit: a. Grading, drainage, erosion control and utility plans. b. A photometric-lighting plan if there would be any new site lights installed. This plan shall comply with city lighting code. c. A screening plan for any new roof-top equipment that would be installed that would be visible to residential neighbors. The applicant shall complete the following before occupying the building: a. Paint any new roof-top mechanical equipment that may be placed on the proposed addition. Paint must match the color of the building. Any new roof- mounted equipment visible to adjacent residential property shall be screened. b. Aim or shield any new site lights so they are not a nuisance to neighbors. c. The exterior materials and color of the addition shall match the existing building. Keep the trash storage and dumpster areas clean and picked up. If a problem develops, the city may require additional dumpster space and/or an enclosure at the time of future conditional use permit reviews. If any required work is not done, the city may allow temporary occupancy if: a. The city determines that the work is not essential to the public health, safety or welfare. b. The city receives a cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit for the required work. The amount shall be 150% of the cost of the unfinished work. The director of community development may All work shall follow the approved plans. approve minor changes. Board member Jorgenson seconded. Motion carries. VISITOR PRESENTATION No visitor presentations. BOARD PRESENTATIONS A. Design Review Board Membership Interviews Ayes-All Five applicants were present to apply for the one vacancy on the design review board. Richard Currie: 1937 West Kenwood Drive Mr. Currie has been a resident of Maplewood for 48 years. He currently works for Twin City Nursery. His background is in building maintenance, and was a member of the fire department for 13 years. Issues Mr. Currie feels Maplewood needs to address are maintaining buildings once they are built and "thinking ahead" prior to building. Community Design Review Board -7- Minutes of 03-13-2001 IX. Xo Diana Longrie-Kline: 1778 Desoto Street Ms. Kline has been a resident of Maplewood for 16 years. She is an attorney who has been working in the property administration department of a large corporation for the last six years reviewing architectural plans and designs for buildings going in to shopping centers. An issue she feels Maplewood needs to address is ensuring planners don't place too much focus on making a building so "artistically" designed that cost prohibits the development of the property. Michelene R. Miner: 2382 Gall Avenue E Ms. Miner has been a resident of Maplewood for 7 years. Ms. Miner and her husband operate a small consulting service. Ms. Miner is working on developing her own consulting service in the area of kitchen and bath design and interior design. An issue she feels needs addressing is County Road D and feels Maplewood is a "gem in the rough". Richard Oie: 1937 Cope Avenue Mr. Oie has been a resident of Maplewood for 15 years. He is a computer technician who travels all over the state of Minnesota. He also designs and builds homes on the side, and is in the process of completing his contractors license process. An issue he feels needs addressing in Maplewood is the increase and need for multi-family dwellings. Linda Mae Olson: 205 East County Road C Ms. Olson has been a resident of Maplewood for 41 years. She is employed as a civil cad drafter who works with landscape architects, planners and designers. An issue she would like to see addressed is balancing and managing the development of open space in the city. The board was very pleased with the qualifications of the applicants they interviewed. After ranking the applicants on a scale of one to five (five being their first choice), Ms. Diana Longrie- Kline was the Design Review Boards choice to forward to the city council for recommendation. Mr. Ledvina attended the city council meeting on Monday, March 12th. The Gladstone Street Improvement Project was discussed in length. The Beaver Lake Townhome development was tabled. The applicant for Auto Zone did not show, therefore their proposal was tabled. STAFF PRESENTATIONS Mendard's Building Addition Update: Menards did not follow the building plans submitted and approved by the board. The building addition is five feet taller than what was approved. Also the finish should have been a brick embossed exterior but they installed plain concrete walls. Mr. Ekstrand has not been able to touch base with Gary Colby from Mendards. He did send him a fax saying they are not following the plans and they will now have to come back before the board to ask for a revision. A certificate of occupancy will not be issued until it is all straightened out. Mr. Shankar will be attending the March 26 city council meeting. Mr. Johnson will attend the April 9 city council meeting. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 8:34 p.m. TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: DATE: MEMORANDUM City Manager Thomas Ekstrand, Assistant Community Development Director Building-Design Revisions - Gander Mountain Beam Avenue, north of Bennigan's March 20, 2001 INTRODUCTION On March 13, 2001, the community design review board (CDRB) approved the site and landscaping plans for the proposed Gander Mountain store at Birch Run Station. Refer to the drawings on pages 4-8 and the CDRB minutes on pages 11-12. The CDRB tabled action on the building design to have the applicant revise the building elevations. The CDRB motion read as follows: Revise the bu#ding elevations for CDRB approval showing an improved design that dresses up the building, especially the two "back elevations.' The applicant should propose an exterior material that utilizes brick for compatibility with nearby buildings and architectural design elements to break up the large extedor walls. The applicant should consider using columns and materials that break up the large exterior elevations. All mountain detailing should be EIFS rather than paint as shown in some of the areas to depict the mountain silhouettes. DISCUSSION Building Exterior The applicant has improved the building design. The columns would create attractive details and relief to the flat walls of the building. Staff's only comment is that north and west elevations would benefit from two more columns on each side to help break up the long expanse of flat wall surface. Refer to staff's suggestions on pages 9-10. Landscaping The plantings shown on the revised elevations do not match those shown on the landscape plan. The east, west and south elevations, which offer planting opportunities next to the building, could be enhanced as shown. The applicant's illustration showing the use of shrubs, in addition to trees, would be an attractive enhancement to all grass areas next to the building. Staff recommends that the CDRB require the addition of shrub groupings as shown on the revised east, west and south elevations. The landscape plan should be revised accordingly. RECOMMENDATION Approve the revised architectural plans date-stamped March 19, 2001, for the proposed Gander Mountain store at the Birch Run Station Shopping Center. Approval is subject to the developer complying with the following conditions: 1. Adding two more columns on the west and north building elevations as illustrated by staff in the March 20, 2001 staff report. Adding groupings of shrubbery in the grass areas as shown on the revised building elevations. These shrubs shall be in addition to the trees proposed on the previously approved landscape plan. The applicant shall revise the landscape plan for staff approval showing the shrub placement. 3. Compliance with the March 13, 2001 community design review board motion, except as noted above. Appeals The applicant, staff or any affected party may appeal the CDRB motion. Appeals of a CDRB decision are reviewed by the city council. Appeals of a CDRB motion shall be made in writing within 15 days of the board's decision. Once a written appeal is received, staff would schedule this item for review by the city council. REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Site size: 2.84 acres Existing land use: Undeveloped SURROUNDING LAND USES North: Birch Run Station South: Bennigan's Irish American Grill and Tavern West: Birch Run Station East: McDonald's PLANNING Land Use Plan designation: BC (business commercial) Zoning: BC Application Date We received this application on February 22, 2001. State law requires that the city council decide on this project within 60 days. City council action is required by April 22, 2001. p:sec3~gandermt.2 Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Site Plan 3. Site/Landscape Plan 4. Birch Run Station Site Plan 5. Odginal Building Elevations 6. Staff's Revised West Elevation 7. Staff's Revised North Elevation 8. March 17, 2001 CDRB Minutes 9. Revised Building Elevations date-stamped March 19, 2001 (separate attachment) Attachment 1 ~S HEIGHTS COUNTY ROAD D )GE CT. 1, SUMMIT CT. 2. COUNTRYV1EW CIR. 3. DULUTH CT. B~ (~) KOHLMAN; ROAD COPE SHERREN AVE, AVE. AVE. JOHN'S BLVD. WHITE PROPOSED GANDER MOUNTAIN DEMONI' Lake ~ AVE. BEAR LAKE COUNTY ROAD D EHILL RD. RAMSEY COUNTY COURT KOHLMAN COPE WOODLYNN RD. LOCATION 4 MAP Attachment 2 2.00 'PROPOSED "- GANDER '-. MOUNTAIN .J , 299.z~8 Attachment 3 SITE / LANDSCAPE PLAN Attachment 4 PROPOSED EASEMENT VACATII PTION PROPOSED :GANDER MOUNTAIN BIRCH RUN STATION SITE PLAN Attachment 5 7--' '-------- ~ , I I I I "~~" I I ~.~ ' 8 Z LLI iii Attachment 6 Attachment 7 10 Community Design Review Board Minutes of 03-13-2001 -4- Attachment 8 Mr. Ledvina felt the bollard in the front of the building could match one of the three mountain colors as opposed to the bright green proposed color. He felt the color was garish in comparison to the proposed building color. Staff was not opposed to the bright green, nor was Mr. Lacasse, but did understand how it could be viewed as too bright in contrast to the rest of the building. Mr. Ledvina stated although the applicant has committed to some changes, he is supportive of the staff recommendation for changes to be made to the plan and revisions submitted to the design review board for reviewal. Mr. Shankar moved the board to table the plans as submitted date stamped February 2, 2001, for Gander Mountain for the Birch Run Station Shopping Center. Mr. Johnson seconded. Mr. Larry Barrett, an associate of Ms. Ryans, did not feel adding columns matching Birch Run Station would be a problem. He also recommended adding the mountain detailing on the other three corners of the building. They asked that the proposal be approved with the condition that the applicant work with staff on the elevation plans until all of the recommendations are met. Mr. LaCasse asked if the board could approve the grading and foundation while elevations are continuing to be reviewed. Staff explained the board could recommend approval with the stipulation that the elevations come back to the board prior to the building permit being issued. Mr. Ledvina asked for a vote on the tabling of the proposal. Nays-All Mr. LaCasse moved the board to approve the site, landscaping and sign plans, date-stamped February 22, 2001, for the proposed Gander Mountain store at the Birch Run Station Shopping Center. Approval is based on the findings required by the code and subject to the following conditions: Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. Before getting a building permit, the applicant shall: a. Submit grading, drainage, utility and erosion control plans to the city engineer for approval. b. Obtain council approval of the utility easement vacation. Revise the design of the trash enclosure for staff approval to match the material and color of the building. The gate shall be chain link with screening slats. The enclosure shall be large enough to accommodate all of the owners needs for trash and recyclable-materials storage. Revise the landscape plan for staff approval showing the relocation of the two mature trees on the site. eo Revise the building elevations for CDRB approval showing an improved design that dresses up the building, especially the two "back" elevations. The applicant should propose an exterior material that utilizes brick for compatibility with nearby buildings and architectural design elements to break up the large exterior walls. The applicant should consider using columns and materials that break up the large exterior elevations. All mountain detailing should be EIFS rather than paint as shown in some of the areas to depict the mountain silhouettes. ll Community Design Review Board Minutes of 03-13-2001 -5- The applicant shall complete the following before occupying the building: a. Paint the rooftop mechanical equipment, if visible, to match the building color. b. Install an in-ground lawn irrigation system for all landscaped areas. Provide site security lighting that is aimed or shielded so not to shine into drivers' eyes. The site lights shall match the design of the light poles on the abutting properties as closely as possible. If any required work is not done, the city may allow temporary occupancy if: a. The city determines that the work is not essential to the public health, safety or welfare. The city receives a cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit for the required work. The amount shall be one and a half times (150 percent) of the cost of the unfinished work. Any unfinished landscaping shall be completed by June 1 if the building is occupied in the winter or within six weeks if the building is occupied in the spring and summer. Co The city receives an agreement that will allow the city to complete any unfinished work. ° The Gander Mountain wall signs are approved as shown on the plans. In any case, no more than four store identification signs may be used. A pylon sign will not be allowed. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. Mr. Johnson seconded. Ayes-All Motion carries. TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: DATE: MEMORANDUM City Manager Thomas Ekstrand - Assistant Community Development Director Building Design and Landscape Plan Revisions-Menard's 2280 Maplewood Drive March 20, 2001 INTRODUCTION Background and Construction Status On October 25, 1999 the city council approved the plans for the Menard's building addition at 2280 Maplewood Drive. Refer to pages 3-5. The city council required that all sides of the addition have an exterior of precast concrete panels with brick-pattern imprinting. Refer to Condition 2.b. in the council motion on page 8. This addition is under construction. Instead of the brick-pattern panels, the applicant has installed a precast-panel with an aggregate finish. The pea-gravel-size aggregate is visible when viewed close to the wall. The wall surface has little or no texture from the street. Request Gary Colby of Menard's is requesting that the city approve the building exterior as it has been installed. Mr. Colby is proposing to enhance the building exterior by increasing the amount of landscaping previously approved for this site. Previously, the plan showed eight trees on the north side of the building. Refer to the previously approved landscape plan on page 5 and the revised proposal on page 6. The revised plan would include a two-tiered planter bed on the north side of the building and a single-level planter on the west side. Another change the applicant is proposing is to paint the existing wooden fascia over the front entrance hunter green. They would also apply this dark green coloration on the building flashing. The council required that the applicant paint or stain the addition with a color complementary to the brick on the existing building. The applicant feels that after they pressure wash the concrete panels on the addition, the walls will exhibit the tan tone of the underlying aggregate. He feels that the wall panels are holding a residue of cement causing the grey color. Mr. Colby said they have scheduled to pressure wash the exterior of the addition on March 21. DISCUSSION Building Design Change The applicant is proposing a substantial amount of landscaping to enhance the building facade. The hunter green flashing would provide some coloration on this tall building exterior. Staff feels to further break up the large expanse of wall surface, the applicant should paint or stain a hunter green accent stripe to match the flashing color. This could be a colored band the width of the sign which would extend along the west (front), north and east sides of the addition. Staff is skeptical that simply washing the addition will bring out the tan color tones of the precast panels. Mr. Colby stated that if washing does not do so, they would stain the extedor to get the desired color. The previous condition required that the color of the addition be "complementary to the brick." My recollection is that "complementary" was intended to mean a reasonably close match. Staff suggests that this phrase be revised to require a "match." Phasing The revised plans label the proposed landscaping as Phase 2. The applicant said that they are not intending to phase the landscaping installation, if the city approves the proposed changes, it should be conditioned upon all landscaping on the site being installed with the completion of the addition. RECOMMENDATION Approve the plans date-stamped March 19, 2001 for the building design and landscaping changes for the Menard's store addition at 2280 Maplewood Drive. Approval is subject to the property owner doing the following: Painting or staining all sides of the addition to match the color of the existing building. If a match is attained by pressure washing the wall panels, the applicant would not have to paint or stain the addition. 2. Painting all flashing and building fascias hunter green. Painting or staining an accent stripe on the west, north and east sides of the addition. This stripe shall be hunter green to match the fascia and flashing. The width of this stdpe shall be as wide as the Menard's wall sign on the north side of the building addition. 4. Installing all landscaping on the site by the time of the occupancy of the addition or the applicant shall provide escrow as required previously by the city council. 5. Installing the retaining wall planters with a brown-tone color as a contrast to the building color and a rock-face front. 6. Compliance with the October 25, 1999 city council conditions except as stated above. p:sec9~enards.301 Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Property Line/Zoning Map 3. Previously Approved Site/Landscape Plan 4. Proposed Site/Landscape Plan Revisions date-stamped March 19, 2001 5. Revised Building Elevations 6. City Council Minutes dated October 25, 1999 7. Revised Plans date-stamped March 19, 2001 (separate attachment) Attachment 1 2880N 2640N 2 C 2400N Gaevis' .~ L~J Lake "~:. 2 ALWd~O D~ ~£LLECR~'T OR ¢ DC,~JVILL[ D~ i-* WKING DR. BURKE AV. COUNTY 1. 5UUMrT CT. ,~. COLH~IEW CIR. · DULUTH CT. KOHLMANU j ROAD C ?, : NOR ~ ' · cOUrSe- I~ ~,£ LL,~.R G0~' SKILL GER'¢AJS AV~.. BELLWOOD NTOt~ AVE. ,',, ~, .z. .,K~, ~ ~. n~sm[ ,,,~. LOCATION MAP TB ROOKS. U I ¢~/IE'W, A SHERREN AV~. N Attachment 2 "1071~ %° 1143 '-' MENARDS .,o.-.~,,~ ,,, 2255 ~ ""V,','' , ' J~ -L-~ I -COUNTY ROAD B. 1.4~,6c I ~.,~ ' ' [,G', 113G ~ 71~0 I~ 1174 ,~. L.] PROPERTY LINE / ZONING MAP 4 N Attachment 3 PROPOSED ADDITION B//////t/////// ~ MENARD'S PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SITE I LANDSCAPE PLAN tS E C E I V E D MAR I 9 2001 Attachment SEEn ALL ~)ISTUR~[n -' HASE 2 ~ ' 5' W)DE SID~ ./ 355 EXZSTIN6 P~KI~ 439 ~V TOTAL P~I~ -4-~ ~-t-/-4-~-~ EXIS'I'ING MENARD$ 123,136 80. FT. ELEV.= 876.9 EXISTING BUILDING AREA 132.860 SO. FT. NEW BUILDING AREA 165.177 SQ. FT. I[ 'I3NVd '0'1 q3NYd .0-,0£ ~' '13NWcl 'O'J. · ] ~ ,0-,0£ Z Attachment 6 12. The perimeter of the bUilding must be kept accessible for fire emergencies. The applicant shall arrange ~vith the fire marshal for access through the gate behind the building in the case of emergencies. The Maplewood City Council approved this resolution on October 25, 1999. Seconded by Councilmember Koppen Ayes - all Councilmember Carlson moved to approve the plans date-stamped May 5, 1999, and the parking-lot curbing addendum date-stamped May 14, 1999, fOr the 33,769-square-I0ot addition to Menard's, 2280 Maplewood Drive. Approval is SubJect to the 1011owlng conditions: 1. Repeat this reviexv in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. Before getting a building pem~it, the applicant shall: a. Submit grading, drainage, utility and erosion control plans to the city engineer for approval. bo Revise the building elevations for staff approval to extend the front (westerly) elevation of the proposed addition two feet to the west of the existing wall. The applicant shall use brick-imprinted, precast concrete panels, as proposed, on all sides of the proposed addition. The color shall be complementary to the brick color of the existing building. The applicant shall also revise the Revise the site and landscape plans for staff approval as follows: (1) Provide enough handicap-accessible parking spaces to comply with ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) requirements. (2) Increase the tree sizes to six-feet-tall for the spruce trees and 2 '/2 inches in caliper for the deciduous trees. (3) Delete the curb cut labeled as "existing access" leading into the proposed 149-car parking lot. Parking stripes shall be added in the area of this curb cut. do Submit a site-lighting plan for staff approval for the new parking lot. The light source, including the lens covering the bulb, shall be concealed so not to cause any nuisance to drivers or neighbors. The applicant shall complete the following before occupying the building: a. Close the existing curb cut north of the building with continuous concrete curbing, remove the asphalt and landscape according to the approved plan. The proposed access driveway and curb cut shall meet all requirements of the city engineer. b. Menard's shall provide a gate and clear access to the sanitary sewer manhole on the site as part of this request. c. Provide continuous concrete curb and gutter all around the new parking lot west of the outside- storage yard. The applicant shall also provide the curbed medians as shoxvn on the addendum and repave this entire area. d. Paint new rooftop mechanical equipment to match the building color if the units are visible. (code requirement) 10-25-99 8 o The trash-dumpster screening requirement is ~vaived unless the dumpsters would be visible to the public. In which case, an enclosure shall be provided using the same materials and color as the building. An in ground laxvn-irrigation system shall not be required for the landscaped area in the southwest comer of the site. The applicant shall install an in-ground lawn irrigation system for the landscaped area north of the building. Provide site-security lighting as required by the code. The light source, including the lens covering the bulb, shall be concealed so not to cause any nuisance to drivers or neighbors. If any required work is not done, the city may allow temporary occupancy if: a. The city determines that the work is not essential to the public health, safety or welfare. bo The city receives a cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit for the required work. The amount shall be 200 percent of the cost of the unfinished work. Any unfinished landscaping shall be completed by June 1 if the building is occupied in the fall or winter or within six weeks if the building is occupied in the spring or summer. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. Signs are not part of this approval. Staffwill review sign permit requests. Seconded by Councilmember Koppen Ayes - all 10-25-99