HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/26/1998 AGENDA
MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
May 26, 1998
6:00 P.M.
City Council Chambers
Maplewood City Hall
1830 East County Road B
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Approval of Minutes - May 12, 1997
4. Approval of Agenda
5. Unfinished Business
a. Billboard Request, 1255 E. Highway 36 (Metcalf Mayflower) - Universal
Outdoor, Inc. and Alan Metcalf
6. Design Review
a. First Financial Office Building - East of 2025 E. County Road D, Tony Sampair
7. Visitor Presentations
8. Board Presentations
9. Staff Presentations
a. CDRB Representative for Council Meetings:
Monday, June 8-Ananth Shankar
Monday, June 22-Volunteer Needed
b. Next CDRB Meeting is June 9
10. Adjourn
p:com-dvpt\cdrb,agd
MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA
MAY 26, 1998
CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Erickson called the meeting to order at 6 p.m.
II. ROLL CALL
Marvin Erickson Present
Marie Robinson Present
Ananth Shankar Present
Tim Johnson Present
Matt Ledvina Present
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
May12,1998
Boardmember Shankar moved approval of the minutes of May 12, 1998, as submitted.
Boardmember Robinson seconded.
Ayes--all
The motion passed.
IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Boardmember Johnson moved approval of the agenda as submitted.
Boardmember Shankar seconded.
Ayes--all
The motion passed.
V. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A. Billboard Request, 1255 E. Highway 36 (Metcalf Mayflower) - Universal Outdoor, Inc.
and Alan Metcalf
Alan Metcalf, owner of Metcalf Mayflower, was present. Mr. Metcalf said that there
was 9-1/2 years left on the lease they have with the Universal Sign Company and that
Universal Sign Company has no intention of removing the sign. Mr. Metcalf said they
may not be able to go through with the building project because their bank has told
them they have to get a release from Universal Sign Company saying that they either
would remove the sign or that the sign would be moved to another location. Mr.
Metcalf said that if the sign were permitted to be moved they would guarantee that
after the 9-1/2 year lease expired the sign would be removed and that there would be
no other sign on their property by an outdoor sign company, such as, Universal.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes of 05-26-98
-2-
Staff said they had approached Mr. Metcalf with the idea of an alternative location but
Mr. Metcalf said that the sign company would not go with that location, it would be
either as they proposed it or it stays where it is and then that conflicts with their
building proposal. Staff recommended denial of the conditional use permit. Mr.
Metcalf said the reason the sign company won't take the alternate location is because
they feel it sets it back off the highway too far for visibility.
Boardmember Robinson said that this issue came up a couple of months ago and she
wanted to know why nothing was brought up at that time. Mr. Metcalf said that, at the
time, the Universal Sign Company said that they saw no problem with it and they
would apply for the permits. Metcalf didn't get involved until they found out the
movement of the sign was not approved and that is when Universal said they were
not going to move the sign.
Boardmember Shankar asked how the existing location conflicts with the building
proposal. Mr. Metcalf said that the present location of the sign, they feel, would
detract from the appearance of their building.
Boardmember Erickson asked if the new building could be moved back a little. Mr.
Metcalf said if they moved the building back then they would cut down on the rentable
space. Staff said the sign, if it were left where it is, would be right in the middle of the
proposed parking lot.
Boardmember Ledvina moved that the Community Design Review Board deny the
conditional use permit for the relocation of the billboard on the Metcalf Mayflower
property, 1255 E. Highway 36. Denial was based on the following reasons:
The proposed billboard would not be located to be in conformity with the city
code of ordinances because of its substantially reduced setback from the Metcalf
Mayflower building. The applicant proposed an 11-foot setback--the code
requires 100 feet.
The proposed billboard would appear to crowd the building and, therefore, give a
cluttered appearance.
The city previously denied a conditional use permit for a billboard that would
have had less aesthetic impact along Highway 36 than the proposed billboard.
Boardmember Johnson seconded.
Ayes--all
The motion passed.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes of 05-26-98
-3-
VI. DESIGN REVIEW
A. Side Yard Setback Variance and Design Review- First Financial Center
Tony Sampair, the applicant, was present. Mr. Sampair said that he could meet all of
the recommendations in the staff report.
Boardmember Ledvina asked if the driveway, that is blocked by the rock berm, would
be eliminated. Mr. Sampair said they would be eliminating the driveway.
Boardmember Erickson asked where the trash dumpster would be located. Staff said
it would be located in the northeast corner and would have an opaque gate on the
front of it.
Boardmember Erickson asked if there would be a problem with cars coming into the
parking lot at night and the lights shining across to the Emerald Inn. Mr. Sampair said
they don't operate at night, their business hours are 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., so this
shouldn't be a problem.
Boardmember Erickson asked about signage. Mr. Sampair said that in the front of
the building there would be a pedestal sign with the name of the financial center and
names of the tenants on it. The sign facing the freeway would say Remax. The sign
on the building would say ReMax First on the side towards the freeway, lit up like the
sign at the Emerald Inn but not as large. Staff stated that signage could be handled
at staff level if there were no more than four businesses in the building. If there are
five or more businesses it would have to come before the board.
Boardmembers asked about the materials and colors of the building. Mr. Sampair
said he didn't have samples with him but he could get them and give them to staff.
Mr. Sampair said there would be no brick on the second level which was not shown
on the plans date-stamped May 13th. They have decided to go with stucco on the
second level because it would be more cost effective and it would not affect the
appeal of the structure. Boardmember Robinson asked if anything else had changed
on the plans. Mr. Sampair said there was nothing else.
Boardmember Ledvina had concerns about the screening on the east side of the site.
Staff said there was sufficient screening, in that, the dwelling on the east side was
225 feet away from the lot line and there are a lot of trees in between. Boardmember
Ledvina would like to see conifer trees planted in this area. Mr. Sampair suggested
that he could put in a three foot high berm and have the trees at the lower spots of the
berm. The board decided to leave this open and suggested the applicant do what
would be best to avoid problems down the road.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes of 05-26-98
-4-
Boardmember Robinson moved the Community Design Review Board:
Adopt a resolution approving a 20-foot side yard building setback variance and a
five-foot parking side yard setback parking lot variance for the proposed office
building project east of 2025 E. County Road D. Approval is based on the
following reasons:
Requiring side yard parking and building setbacks to meet code would result
in an unattractive and ill-conceived site plan because the building would be
crowded toward the west lot line.
The adjacent lot to the east is planned for BC (business commercial) and will
be considered for a land use plan change to BC in the near future by the city
staff.
Complying with the code would cause the applicant undue hardship because
of the inconsistency of the zoning and land use designation for the lot to the
east.
The proposed variances would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the
ordinance because the house on the abutting lot is 225 feet away and is
screened by mature trees.
Approve the plans date-stamped May 13, 1998, for the proposed First Financial
building east of 2025 E. County Road D. Approval is based on the findings
required by the code and subject to the following conditions:
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:
a. Submit grading, drainage, utility and erosion control plans for city
engineer approval.
b. Revise the site plan for staff approval by:
(1) Omitting the driveway connection to the adjacent lot.
(2) Adding one more handicap-accessible parking space for a total of
58 parking spaces.
(3) Providing a 15-foot parking-lot setback from the north lot line.
3. The applicant shall complete the following before occupying the building:
Install a handicap parking sign for each handicap parking space.
Handicap spaces must comply with ADA requirements. One space
must be van accessible.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes of 05-26-98
-5-
Boardmember Ledvina seconded.
The motion passed.
b. Paint any rooftop mechanical equipment to match the color of the upper
part of the building. (code requirement)
c. Construct a trash dumpster enclosure to match the building with a 100
percent opaque gate. (code requirement)
d. Install an in-ground lawn irrigation system for all landscaped areas.
(code requirement)
e. Direct or shield the site lights so they do not shine in driver's eyes.
f. Provide continuous concrete curbing around all parking lots and drives.
g. Post the nine-foot-wide parking spaces for employees only. (code
requirement) Parking spaces for visitors or customers must be at least
9 ~ feet wide.
h. Sod all turf areas, including the boulevard, except planting beds if a
different ground cover or mulch is to be used.
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 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.
c. The city receives an agreement that will allow the city to complete any
unfinished work.
Signs are not approved in this review. The applicant must submit the sign
plans to staff for approval and obtain the necessary sign permits.
All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community
development may approve minor changes.
Plans shown with brick on the second story, at the applicant's request, we
are approving no brick but stucco on the second story exterior.
Ayes--all
Community Design Review Board
Minutes of 05-26-98
-6-
VII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS
There were no visitor presentations.
VIII. BOARD PRESENTATIONS
There were no board presentations.
Xl. STAFF PRESENTATIONS
A. Representative for June 22 City Council Meeting: Ms. Robinson will attend this
meeting.
B. The next Community Design Review Board meeting will be on June 9.
X. ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 6:55.
p:com-dvpt\cdrb.min