HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/23/1999AGENDA
MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
November 23, 1999
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:
4. Approval of Agenda
5. Unfinished Business
6. Design Review
a.
b.
C.
September 21, 1999
U.S. Bank- Beam Avenue
Ordinance Review - Dollar Limits Which Determine Staff Review of Plans
New Member Orientation
Visitor Presentations
Board Presentations
Staff Presentations
a. CDRB Volunteers for December 13 and 27 City Council Meetings
10. Adjourn
p:com-dvpt~cdrb, agd
MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA
NOVEMBER 23, 1999
CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Ledvina called the meeting to order at 6:07 p.m.
II. ROLL CALL
Matt Ledvina Present
Ananth Shankar Present
Tim Johnson Present
Jon LaCasse Present
Craig Jorgenson Present
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
September 21, 1999
Boardmember Johnson moved approval of the minutes of September 21, 1999, as submitted.
Boardmember Shankar seconded.
Ayes--all
The motion passed.
IV. APPROVAL OFAGENDA
Commissioner Shankar moved approval of the agenda, amended to add the exterior color
selection for Ray Muckala's Maplewood Auto Service at 743 Century Avenue North as Item 6.b.
and move the existing b. and c. to c. and d.
Commissioner LaCasse seconded.
Ayes--all
The motion passed.
V. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
There was no unfinished business.
VI. DESIGN REVIEW
A. U.S. Bank-- Beam Avenue
Secretary Tom Ekstrand presented the staff report. He confirmed that this would be the final
action on the request if the applicant is satisfied with the board's decision. Any neighbor can
appeal the design board's decision within fifteen days. Mr. Ekstrand said that Jon Brandt, the
owner of the two double-dwellings on Southlawn, also owns the R3C property that is located
behind these homes and the proposed bank. This lot is zoned for multiple-dwelling
townhouses and is large enough for approximately six townhomes. Mr. Brandt has recently
expressed an interest in developing this property. The adjacent city-owned property is
wetland.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes of 11-23-99
-2-
Mr. Ekstrand said the city has stopped requiring cross-easements between adjoining
properties for parking. This is now an issue for the property owners to work out.
Jeff Sandborg, of U.S. Bank, had no issues with the staff report. Jim Grover of HTG
Architects, the project architect, said the exterior material would be two different colors of
brick-one darker and one lighter. He stated that the rooftop equipment will be hidden from all
four sides.
Mr. Grover described the sign as a single pedestal pylon that would be lit. There would be no
flashing or running lights on the red, white and blue sign. Chairperson Ledvina clarified that
the sign was not part of the board's review and that it would be done by staff at some time in
the future. Mr. Grover said the frame would be dark brown anodized and the glass would be
light gray tint.
The board thought the proposed building was very attractive. Chairperson Ledvina was
concerned about the effectiveness of the screening in the southwest corner where the
elevation has a substantial dropoff. Secretary Ekstrand agreed that the slope would diminish
the height of the plantings. Because there is nothing in the area at this time, Mr. Ekstrand
was not "terribly concerned at this point" and just wanted "to accommodate the start of
something back there." Chairperson Ledvina thought there was about a ten foot dropoff from
the back of the curb to the existing grade. Mr. Ekstrand suggested a tighter, straight row of
trees lined up closer to the curb, instead of a staggered row, for this area. Mr. Ledvina had
some concerns because the property behind is residential. He said the board tries to be "very
sensitive" to the potential effects of headlights, etc. Mr. Ekstrand pointed out that the
steepest part of the slope would affect city property.
Chairperson Ledvina proposed adding a condition that would have the applicant "reevaluate
the grade to enhance the effect of the screening." He thought it might work to flatten this out
for about 10 feet at their parking lot elevation and then go at a 2:1 slope. Mr. Ledvina did not
want to require a retaining wall but "was concerned about the screening to this future
residential land use." Secretary Ekstrand suggested expanding Requirement 2.b. (submittal
of a grading plan to the city engineer) to include some type of flag to call the city engineer's
attention to this potential problem.
Boardmember Johnson moved the Community Design Review Board approve the plans,
date-stamped November 5, 1999, for the proposed U.S. Bank west of 1770 Beam Avenue,
based on the findings required by the code. Approval is 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. Revise the plans for staff approval showing:
(1)
The front (northerly) east-west drive aisle shall line up with the Outback
Steakhouse's drive aisle. In essence, the proposed northernmost curb must line
up with the end of the parking stripes on the Outback site. The large islands
proposed on the bank site must also line up with the three smaller islands on the
Outback site to define this drive aisle.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes of 11-23-99
-3-
(2) The proposed trees near the street shall be placed to line up with the Outback's
trees.
(3) The landscape plan shall provide for the restoration of the ground on the west
side of the parking lot curb.
(4) All green areas shall be shown as sod on the landscape plan.
(5) The applicant shall extend the sidewalk that is in front of the Outback to the
westerly edge of their site.
(6)
The proposed evergreen screening on the south side of the site shall be
increased to match that south of the Outback steakhouse. The applicant shall
plant a staggered row of 12 six-foot-tall spruce trees placed 12 feet apart.
(7) The applicant must submit a site-lighting plan as required by the code which gives
special attention to the residential side of the property.
(8) Roof-equipment screening if there would be any roof-top equipment visible from
the residential sides of the property.
Submit grading, drainage, utility and erosion control plans to the city engineer for
approval. The applicant shall reevaluate the grading plan along the south property line
to enchance the effectiveness of the proposed screening and shall be subject to staff
approval.
3. In addition to completion of the items listed above, the applicant shall also do the following
before occupying the building:
a. Install a handicap parking sign for each handicap parking space. One space must be
van accessible.
b. Paint the roof-top mechanical equipment to match the color of the upper part of the
building unless the units are hidden or screened by enclosures.
Construct a brick trash dumpster enclosure to match the building with a 100 percent
opaque gate if trash is stored outside. The trash dumpster is subject to staff review
and approval.
d. Install an in-ground lawn irrigation system for all landscaped areas. (code
requirement)
e. Install "no parking" signs west and south of the building along the drive aisles. The
number and placement of these signs shall be subject to the fire marshal's approval.
4. 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
Community Design Review Board
Minutes of 11-23-99
-4-
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.
5. This approval does not include the signs. Signage will be reviewed by staff through the
sign permit process.
6. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may
approve minor changes.
Commissioner Shankar seconded.
Ayes--all
The motion passed.
B. Maplewood Auto Service, 743 Century Avenue North--Building Color Scheme
Discussion/Approval
Secretary Tom Ekstrand presented the staff report. Ray Muckala, the applicant and owner of
the building, was present. He showed pictures of the building, one taken in December of
1998 and the other taken on November 23, 1999. The first picture showed a faded red on
the building with a yellow stripe. Mr. Muckala said Holiday had changed their colors. The
recent picture showed the red repainted and the yellow stripe changed to white. He
described the additions as a bronze that would be painted "to be as unobtrusive as possible."
Mr. Muckala had a third picture that was taken from the roof and showed where the new
office and storeroom would be. These would also be the dark bronze color.
Secretary Ekstrand thought, after visiting the site and looking at the pictures, that the building
does look "a lot better" without the yellow stripe. Mr. Ekstrand said he was satisfied with the
colors of the building and would recommend stating that the board approves the colors as
submitted. Mr. Muckala requested that he be able to do the sides that are facing the
neighbors with the same materials so that it is consistent. This would mean that he would put
board and batten on the west and north side to match the rest of the building.
Boardmember LaCasse suggested that the Alucabond (a flat-finished metal panel with
narrow joints that is proposed for the front of the addition) be wrapped around the corner of
the west elevation about five feet before the board and batten is started. Mr. Muckala agreed.
Boardmember Shankar thought the Alucabond should be returned at least ten feet from the
south on the west elevation. Mr. Muckala agreed but felt it should be returned the same
amount as the west end of the building so it matches. The east and south side will be
Alucabond.
Boardmember LaCasse moved that the Community Design Review Board approve the plans
date-stamped November 23, 1999, allowing the charcoal or dark-bronze to match the existing
upper portions of the building and giving the owner the option of changing the west and north
elevations of the office to board and batten provided that there be a five foot + return of
Alucabond on the west end at the south corner.
Boardmember Jorgenson seconded.
Chairperson Ledvina made a friendly amendment to approve the building color scheme as
presented at the November 23, 1999, Community Design Review Board meeting.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes of 11-23-99
-5-
Ayes--all
The motion passed.
C. Ordinance Review--Dollar Limits Which Determine Staff Review of Plans
Secretary Tom Ekstrand summarized the staff report. Boardmember Shankar said he did not
have a problem with increasing the amount to $20,000 for the older developments that were
not previously reviewed by the community design review board. He thought it was possible to
"do a lot of stuff with $200,000" and would "feel more comfortable" with leaving the $150,000
for renovations to developments previously approved by the board.
Chairperson Ledvina said that, looking at these dollar amounts from the standpoint of
inflation, a $150,000 project eight years ago would be $200,000 now. Mr. Shankar asked for
recent examples of any $150,000 projects that have substantially altered the appearance of a
building. Mr. Ekstrand said he could put together a list of examples from the last year or two.
He felt the $200,000 limit was reasonable based on inflation. Mr. Ledvina said he was
comfortable with the $200,000 recommendation. Mr. Ekstrand reminded the board that they
have an opportunity to challenge staff's decision when they receive the report of the action
taken that is mailed to each board member. At this time, the board can let staff know of any
changes they would like and this will be relayed to the applicant.
Boardmember Shankar moved the Community Design Review Board approve the plan review
procedure for minor construction projects as stated in the staff memorandum dated October
4, 1999.
Boardmember Johnson seconded.
Ayes--all
The motion passed.
D. New Member Orientation
Secretary Tom Ekstrand highlighted some points of his staff report.
Jon Brandt, the owner of property adjacent to the proposed U.S. Bank, arrived at the meeting. Mr.
Brandt asked if he could express some concerns he had about the project. Chairperson Ledvina said
the proposal had already been considered and approved. Secretary Ekstrand invited Mr. Brandt to call
him the next day to discuss these issues.
Chairperson Ledvina had a question about who could appeal the board's decision. He
thought it had to be a member of city staff, someone with an affiliation with the city, the
applicant, or an adjacent property owner. Secretary Ekstrand felt an item should be tabled by
the board if they had questions and the applicant was not present at the meeting.
Chairperson Ledvina mentioned a section of the city code that listed encouraging the physical
development of the city as intended by the city comprehensive plan as an objective of the
review board. He thought of this as a land use issue and didn't "realize there were other ties
here." Mr. Ledvina asked if there were any elements of the comprehensive plan which
specifically refer to preservation and enhancement. Secretary Ekstrand didn't know but said
he would check into it further. He thought, based on conversations with the city attorney on
Community Design Review Board
Minutes of 11-23-99
-6-
other cases, that the comprehensive plan is the city's guiding document and should be the
basis for everything that is done.
Mr. Ledvina asked if the review board had ever established a special area where a uniform
design criteria, i.e. color or style, were established. Mr. Ekstrand said this had not been done
to his knowledge. He talked about study areas, such as the White Bear Avenue corridor
study now being done, where the city council is looking at a particular piece of commercial
property and trying to do some planning as to what should be done with that land. Mr.
Ekstrand thought this study might relate more to land use but there might be an opportunity to
apply this special development criteria.
Secretary Ekstrand presented architect and engineer rulers to the members of the board.
VII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS
There were no visitor presentations.
VIII. BOARD PRESENTATIONS
Chairperson Ledvina summarized the action taken by the city council on several projects that had
been reviewed by the board.
IX. STAFF PRESENTATIONS
A. CDRB Volunteer for December 13 Council Meeting: Mr. Ledvina will attend this meeting.
B. CDRB Volunteer for December 27 Council Meeting: Mr. Johnson will attend this meeting.
Since there are no applications for the December 14, 1999, meeting and also a reception for
board/commission members has been scheduled for that evening, the next board meeting will be
canceled.
X. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m.